Kirby Explanation Blogs - Should Be Explanation Pages

[Agnaa]

A few years ago, this thread was made to move all explanation blogs which were accepted and in use, to being pages on the mainspace of the wiki. So that they can more clearly be monitored for changes, and so that people other than the blog's creator can edit them.

Kirby's explanation blogs largely aren't. Only one of those 18 is, and that's an old version which still has a template linking to the blogs.

With how linked to some of these are, and how some don't seem on-their-face to be too useful to profiles (specifically, the character analysis ones), discussion over how exactly to implement it, and help with doing that, would be much appreciated.

 

[Agnaa]

@Eficiente Given your heavy contribution to these blogs, I'll grant you the permission I can grant to respond (that being, three responses).

@Catzlaflame @IdiosyncraticLawyer

 

[Antvasima]

I give Eficiente free permission to respond here.

 

[Eficiente]

There are 18 blogs but not all of them are used in profiles, some are not finished (saying WIP) and so we don't link them. Those being the ones that say "Self-Resurrection explained," "Haltmann Works Company organization analysis," "Jambastion cult organization analysis" (Actually this one's finished, I'm just yet to propose it until the next Kirby revision), and "Void character analysis." The one saying "Glossary" is also mostly not used, but there are a couple of sections that we use in it because they used to be in other blogs, and were just moved into the "Glossary" blog.

Do you also want the 2 translation blogs as "Explanation Pages"? It's all fine by me. The blogs do have casual comments and such here and there that I would want removed as professionals pages. That's the only thing resembling an issue I have to point out.

So, what do we do?

• A. Turn them all into pages at once. Deal with the incomplete pages and occasional inappropriate writing later on.
• B. I turn the blogs fully into what they would look like as pages, then we turn them all as pages.

 

[Agnaa]

I think we should use your (or others') judgement on what is seeing use right now.

Turn everything that's being used into a proper page, and remove the others from the template until they're finalised.

Afterwards (or while doing the move, if there's time), inappropriate wording could be removed.

 

[Eficiente]

The "Articles about the Kirby series" template was tremendously useful to make these blogs, jumping around each other. The links in it should be changed into linking the page versions of the blogs, but once that's done, I will create a "Articles about Eficiente's blogs: Kirby series" template to keep on working on the blogs, if nobody minds.

Kirby: Canon & Scaling

vsbattles.fandom.com

I wanted to split this one into Canon and Scaling blogs separately in my next revision, so let's have a page for Canon, and another page for Scaling. That would take no effort to separate, the first half of the blog is all about canon, then everything below "Scaling Chain" is for scaling.

Of the other blogs finished, if a section starts by saying "WIP", that whole part needs to be omitted in a page version.

That's all one would need to keep in mind. Let's see if anyone's willing to do it. If it comes down to it, I can create the pages, but I definitely don't want to redirect links across pages again.

 

[Agnaa]

As long as the mainspace wiki pages don't have the template for the WIP pages within them, it should be fine.

 

[Antvasima]

I also think that only finished blogs that actually properly qualify for being explanation pages in terms of content, structure, and wording, should become regular wiki pages.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

For the record, I'll say that I think the original project, which I was part of, was handled rather poorly. Because the blogs were written as blogs, they often feature a lot of informal, first-person writing and non-standard styling, and when they were copied into mainspace pages, next to no editing took place on many of them, causing a lot of our current explanation pages to read rather poorly in encyclopedic terms.

For a good example of what I consider a decent quality page conversion, refer to the contrast between the Cthulhu Mythos's original explanation sandbox and its current cosmology page, which I spent a month rewriting into a formal overview a few years ago.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with IdiosyncraticLawyer's statements here.

 

[Eficiente]

For the record, I'll say that I think the original project, which I was part of, was handled rather poorly. Because the blogs were written as blogs, they often feature a lot of informal, first-person writing and non-standard styling, and when they were copied into mainspace pages, next to no editing took place on many of them, causing a lot of our current explanation pages to read rather poorly in encyclopedic terms.

For a good example of what I consider a decent quality page conversion, refer to the contrast between the Cthulhu Mythos's original explanation sandbox and its current cosmology page, which I spent a month rewriting into a formal overview a few years ago.

Off-topic for the thread, but maybe that should have its own wiki-wide revision; going over blogs-turned-pages, looking at their informal writing, and fixing it. On top of the value that has on its own, it should certainly send the messege to users of "Hey, you can't make anything informal on official pages."

I think that project had the effect of new pages being made over time with an informal way of presenting things? Just saying that bc I have seen a number of pages like that and I suspect they were created after the project, but I never double-checked if that's an actual issue we gained.

Hope that helps.

 

[Antvasima]

I definitely agree with that our official wiki pages should not use informal writing styles, such as personal pronouns and the like.

 

[Eficiente]

I edited the Kirby series Template, and created the first page.

A lot of profiles used the "User blog:Eficiente/Kirby: Canon & Scaling#Side content" link to justify side content displaying their canonical abilities. Now it needs to be changed to "Kirby: Canon explanation page#Side content" Any volunteers for that?

Also, given the many names used, I found it better to call each page "Kirby: [Name of the page]" rather than "Kirby [Name of the page]." So the "Kirby Explanations" page we already have should be changed to "Kirby: Explanations," or "Kirby: General explanations" to be more accurare (...since it only explains a fraction of things).

 

[Agnaa]

I believe there's a tool that lets one automatically make simple changes like that.

Although, I'm not familiar with it.

 

[Antvasima]

I believe there's a tool that lets one automatically make simple changes like that.

Although, I'm not familiar with it.

What do you mean? Renaming pages and blogs is something that anybody with wiki administrator rights can do.

 

[Agnaa]

What do you mean? Renaming pages and blogs is something that anybody with wiki administrator rights can do.

There's a tool that lets one change all instances of certain text strings within pages.

We've used that in the past, i.e. to turn '''9-B''' into {{9-B}} when we created those tier templates.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for your reply.

And for what purpose what would we use that tool in this case?

 

[Agnaa]

A lot of profiles used the "User blog:Eficiente/Kirby: Canon & Scaling#Side content" link to justify side content displaying their canonical abilities. Now it needs to be changed to "Kirby: Canon explanation page#Side content" Any volunteers for that?

Also, given the many names used, I found it better to call each page "Kirby: [Name of the page]" rather than "Kirby [Name of the page]." So the "Kirby Explanations" page we already have should be changed to "Kirby: Explanations," or "Kirby: General explanations" to be more accurare (...since it only explains a fraction of things).

To update the links on the Kirby profiles from the blogs to the new explanation pages.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I think that @Just_a_Random_Butler , @Dereck03 , @AKM sama , or @IdiosyncraticLawyer might know more about how to do so.