And? It hasn't been fully (Admin) protected for three years. As a best practice for protecting pages, not every page needs to be protected just to be protected. Many wikis protect the main page (or other pages) when really it isn't needed.
I get that, but we also shouldn't protect pages simply because they might be vandalized. The main page hasn't been vandalized since I changed the protection almost four years ago. Most of what is protected on the main page (some key templates) are protected because there's zero need for non-Admins to edit them to change their coding (which would affect styling housed in CSS files). Just about all text generated on the main page can be edited by users that have been around in case of a small error.
Vandalism is gonna happen on any wiki (this wiki has been vandalized many times). Instead of simply protecting everything, build up a community of editors that can deal with the vandalism when it happens.
The block was self-explanatory. These edits are not acceptable here, period. I did not block you for the other edits.
As for the others, like this one, the edit summaries says why they were undone (appearances of minor characters aren't considered cameos, they need to say something). The Suck Toad edit included trivia that opens doors for unverifiable and very trivial trivia (seconds, thirds, fourths, fifths, etc). Firsts are generally the most important trivia. Your Who Ghosts There edit wasn't deleted but was edited.
I do my best to include reasons for why I undo something in the edit summary. There are a lot of pages on the wiki so edits need to be consistent across like pages. If you are unclear of the reason for why something is done, please do ask instead of continuing to make similar edits.
But wait a minute, where do you see Jamie in the episode Simon the Superb? Because I checed, and I didn't see him at all in the episode, were you referring to Warren, since both Jamie and Warren look similar? I think you might have made a mistake in that page though.
Hey there! I've seen these footers before many times but never added a nomination due to a couple concerns.
The first is the first item in the list of things to consider on the Television Footers page. I'm confused as to why users of a wiki should be required to help others create a wiki (that seems more appropriate for Community Central or at the complete discretion of the individual). I've helped many users on CC though it doesn't seem right for users to come here expecting help creating a wiki, especially if they seek to create a duplicate wiki. I'm a very strong opponent to the notion of duplicate wikis (I've also dealt with users that copy content without attribution) so if anyone here will be under the obligation to further fracture the fandom then there's a problem with this inclusion. And, of course, the statement listed is very broad through the footers themselves suggest my thoughts are true (I also really do not like seeing anything like "your own wiki" used as no one person owns a wiki, unless it's your test wiki, and such a statement goes against the community aspect of Fandom).
The second is in regards to the franchise. None of the footers I've seen so far are great fits (the one proposed for the wiki looks like it needs an assessment for splitting anyways as it has 54 shows in it and whatever that split is would also be a factor). This franchise is much more than television though (plus it has three series). It's also music, films, comics, books, etc and I haven't seen a footer that highlights that.
I would love to see the wiki in a footer, but under appropriate terms.
All the first really boils down to is "make every effort to be helpful", which is what admins should naturally be doing anyway. If you have an answer to someone's question, great; if not, or if you don't particularly want to go all in explaining something, can you refer to someone else? Or, failing that, can you be polite? And nowhere, of course, would there be any obligation to support a user who wants to create a duplicate wiki - in fact, even listing them in the footer is avoided. (From the requirements: Obviously this is at member discretion; members aren't absolutely required to answer every request for help, nor should they if the query is unrealistic and/or no one has the know-how.)
As to the second, there's not really a way to exactly match any one wiki with any one footer. They're all generalized, though a wiki can appear in multiple footers, such as those under Television, Movies, and Music; even then, a wiki isn't under any obligation to have more than one footer on their main page, unless they want it.
Encouraging users to come here for help for a matter that doesn't concern the community just seemed completely off to me. I'd likely refer these users to CC and/or the help page (which does a great job) not because I don't want to be helpful but because it's just off-topic to the wiki. And that's good as I will not support a user who wants to duplicate a wiki.
I still think "your own wiki" should be changed to something more appropriate.
As for the footers, I'm aware they're generalized. I've tried thinking of ways to create a better match between similar franchises (one limitation is the fact that the franchise is an independent brand while most of what's out there today is owned by a monster company like Disney). I do like the idea of some sorta franchise footer for wikis that cover old franchises over multiple generations. At this point it would seem most appropriate to be under multiple, but I'd guess it'll mean going through the same process as for this footer.
I'm also still curious about an assessment for splitting the footer.
The footer programs have been going for a year and half now, and you're the first to bring up "your wiki" :P I'll likely change it at some point, but it's not a pressing issue in the whole scheme of things.
I've not taken a good look at the animated footer as of yet, though I think it's getting a bit big. If anything, I'm leaning more towards splitting it by network-intended audience age - but that can be a tough determination to make. Sub-genre might work.
I'm honestly surprised and not surprised at the same time. I unfortunately see so many people making that claim these days. Personally I try my best to never refer to a wiki as "my wiki." It's a wiki I may like or work on but it's not mine. Sadly people begin to think they can't edit the wiki (yes, I've heard this before) and/or new wiki creators get into the habit of refering to it as their own.
That was my concern. For various reasons that varies per country. In our case, some put (or had placed) the new series on Nick Jr given the content difference between that channel and the other Nick channel or another country doesn't have the other channel, despite the audience rating. By sub-genre do you mean type of animation? In our case we have both traditional and CGI animation.
Ooops, it seems I forgotten to reply here. I remember I read your reply and was gonna post back but forgotten as I've been busy working or editing in the free time I have.
I do see that it's been split though the "your wiki" part still bothers me personally. Where the wiki belongs based on rating is debatable as the new series has been rated G and TV-Y7 while the 80s series is rated TV-Y, though it's uncertain if it would still have such a rating today.
I wanted to talk to the community a little bit before giving a final decision, if that's okay. I seen the wiki was crossed off your list so I hope this wouldn't be an issue. Sorry again for the lack of response.
Yep, no problem - I'll remove the strike-through. By and large the rating for a mixed media site would be the highest rating of content on the site. So, even if the majority of the site content is TV-G, if there's something that's TV-PG it would receive the higher rating for the footer.
That's the default assignment just to err on the side of caution, but it can certainly be adjusted on a case-by-case basis.
Does this apply strictly to the television aspect considering they are television footers? I only ask because we have three films rated PG. My take was that they wouldn't be considered as television is the focus with these specific footers. Personally inclusion in the TV-Y7 footer would make the most sense.
I'll try to get back to you with a final decision hopefully in no more than two or three days.
This was faster than I thought, but I talked to our most active users and we've agreed with the idea of being included in the footer. I still think the TV-Y7 footer makes the most sense and request being added there.
I was thinking of starting our page on the wiki, but I was wondering if you wanted all three series on a separate page or all of them on one page. You linked to a single page yet I also seen the two Avatar series split into two pages so I wanted to ask first.
Probably just a brief franchise overview page, then a page for each. The franchise page could even be just a disambig page (I'm considering that for Power Rangers). The community header would feature this site at the top of each page.
I think it'll still show due to the semi-transparent nature of the tv wiki's pages. It's simple enough to throw a small shadow effect on it if not. Won't know until "publish" is hit, though, because preview doesn't reflect page transparency :P
Let me know if it's needed, since I can add that sort of thing very quickly.