Talk:The Old Guard
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Help in archive a link
I archived this link: https://web.archive.org/web/20200817201116/https://solosvejs.tumblr.com/post/625310725669371904/the-old-guard-and-subverting-expectations -- is this what you had in mind? --MPH (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you so much! I don't have an account with the Internet Archive yet so I can't upload any media; much obliged for the assist!-- User:lightdescending (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2020 (PST)
- Hi, just to let you know, you don't actually need an account with them to archive websites! Anyone can do that. It does give you a fairly useful option to save a list of which pages you've archived to your personal "library", which could be handy potentially, but I think webpage-wise that's the only advantage to having an account vs not. --Mokuroh (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ooh, that's useful to know - I think I made it to the homepage and got discouraged, hadn't had time to look into the ins and outs of archiving. I might have more time this weekend to delve into the process for that (I'd like to archive some of the other meta posts I've added here). Thanks, Mokuroh! User:lightdescending (talk) 3:52 pm, 18 August 2020 (PST)
- I use a Wayback Machine bookmarklet in my browser - just click when I want to archive a page and *poof* there's a Wayback version, ready for me to grab the link. See: Save Pages in the Wayback Machine --Elf (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ooh, that's useful to know - I think I made it to the homepage and got discouraged, hadn't had time to look into the ins and outs of archiving. I might have more time this weekend to delve into the process for that (I'd like to archive some of the other meta posts I've added here). Thanks, Mokuroh! User:lightdescending (talk) 3:52 pm, 18 August 2020 (PST)
- Hi, just to let you know, you don't actually need an account with them to archive websites! Anyone can do that. It does give you a fairly useful option to save a list of which pages you've archived to your personal "library", which could be handy potentially, but I think webpage-wise that's the only advantage to having an account vs not. --Mokuroh (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- I second Elf's advice. You don't need an account. Just go to the main Wayback Archive page. You can either search and use an existing link (that's the main box at the top of the page). Or you can make your own link right away. That's lower down and on the right. The link Elf provided is helpful: Save Pages in the Wayback Machine --MPH (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Where do I add this?
Fandom Section Query So I had a question I could use some help with from more experienced users of fanlore! There's been an effort in the fandom to collect meta or historical resources about characters from the film, as well as background readings to help fan creators who are making works. These 'resource hubs' are being generated as lightly moderated google docs. My questions are as follows:
- I'd like to create a short writeup that this fannish activity has been occuring; should it go under it's own subheading in the Fandom section on this page? I don't think it fits as neatly under "notable fanworks"
- Brilliant, thanks so much for both of your input! User:lightdescending (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2020 (PST)
- At present, I have permalinks to tumblr posts where the creators of each google doc linked to the documents. I imagine I could provide these posts as interim sources, but not a link to the Google Doc itself (which isn't stable). Is that a reasonable measure to take?
- Permalinks (archived links, right?) to posts, pages, and websites are most welcome. --MPH (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks so so much! User:lightdescending (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2020 (PST)
- Permalinks (archived links, right?) to posts, pages, and websites are most welcome. --MPH (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for any input! User:lightdescending (talk) 4:00 pm, 18 August 2020 (PST)
New fandom occurrences page needed?
Thank you to the recent editor re: controversies; there's other related coverage of the topic on Yusuf's page as it's developed since August, and I was wondering if folks think the top!Joe discourse/wank warrants its own page as a fandom occurrence? -- (Lightdescending (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC))
Is it big enough to warrant separation (e.g. more than a page worth of scrolling)? Then yes. I'm out of most of the drama by choice so can't judge. - [[User:Raine_Wynd|Raine_Wynd]
- I think it is probably a good idea to create a page for it -- Kingstoken (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks both - I'm currently quite busy but if someone wants to create the new page / merge content that would be awesome -- (Lightdescending (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC))
- It's definitely more than a page of scrolling. I can create the page at least as a stub. Ulanbataar (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks both - I'm currently quite busy but if someone wants to create the new page / merge content that would be awesome -- (Lightdescending (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC))
- The Top!Joe Wank Spreadsheet
- lazaefair
- Top!Joe <-- There is an existing page for Top!Joe Discord, but I made it a redirect? Feel free to disambiguate. Ulanbataar (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Ulanbataar -- Kingstoken (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Edits concerning tumblr user LGBTmazight needed?
Considering what's come to light about tumblr user LGBTmazight during the past week wouldn't it be better to remove their meta contributions from the Reference section of the TOG page?
Aletheia (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- I was wondering the same thing last week, and ultimately just decided to create a page for Lgbtmazight that includes some details of the controversy. Their meta turns up on a few different TOG pages, as references and examples of notable fanworks. I'd lean towards keeping them in fanwork sections, as we generally don't delete examples added to the wiki! But the references are a bit trickier, because LGBTmazight is been held up as an authority on historical and cultural inaccuracies...
- Whatever editors decide to do - I think the links should be maintained somewhere on Fanlore! If lgbtmazight deletes it would be difficult for folks to find archived versions of their meta without the link, and these meta essays may be of interest to people who want to see what lgbtmazight was saying in TOG fandom. So what do other TOG editors think of referencing lgbtmazight on TOG Fanlore pages?? (cos I'm happy to go with the majority decision)-- Auntags (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think that it's not our call as editors to decide whether a reference is of a particular quality or accuracy - reference links also exist to point to what fans have said, without making claims that the thing said was accurate. I also don't think that in other cases we'd be removing meta links or references on the basis of the source's identity, assumed or known, and I worry about the precedent removing reference links on the basis of a call-out would set. I'd like to suggest leaving all links in fanworks and reference sections for Old Guard pages as they are, and make use of notes for context as needed instead of taking anything down. -- Chanterelle (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- The problem with those meta posts is that actual MENA fans have since pointed out the inaccuracies of many of the historical and cultural "facts" stated by LGBTmazight in their posts. Wouldn't keeping those links up be some sort of disservice to the fandom and those who are seeking reliable sources on how to approach writing Joe and his history for example? Aletheia (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Would adding the lgbtmazight Fanlore page as a bullet point under the "Fandom controversies" section do the trick? Maybe with a quick summary of what the issue is, so that people who read the section would know that the legitimacy of one of authors of the meta cited is being questioned? I agree that simply removing references to those posts, which were popular/influential at one point, wouldn't reflect the state of the fandom at the time. Greedy dancer (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- I really like this idea! I would also suggest notes could be added to lgbtmazight meta links referenced on other TOG pages, to in the same way make readers aware of questions related to the accuracy of their meta. Is that a compromise other editors could agree with? --Auntags (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I like both suggestions! I think the bullet point + notes combo could be a good compromise Aletheia (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- So I see Greedy Dancer has already added lgbtmazight to the controversies section, and assuming we have reached a consensus, I have added a Template:Discussion to this page - in the hopes that other editors may choose to review this discussion before editing. If anyone has any additional comments or suggestions on this issue, this talk page is always open to them! ETA: I've also added notes to the Yusuf Al-Kaysani and Top!Joe (trope) pages, and started talk page discussions directing editors to this discussion!--Auntags (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you so much Auntags and Greedy Dancer for making those notes on the main pages! I'm happy with this resolution to the situation. -- Chanterelle (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- So I see Greedy Dancer has already added lgbtmazight to the controversies section, and assuming we have reached a consensus, I have added a Template:Discussion to this page - in the hopes that other editors may choose to review this discussion before editing. If anyone has any additional comments or suggestions on this issue, this talk page is always open to them! ETA: I've also added notes to the Yusuf Al-Kaysani and Top!Joe (trope) pages, and started talk page discussions directing editors to this discussion!--Auntags (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I like both suggestions! I think the bullet point + notes combo could be a good compromise Aletheia (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I really like this idea! I would also suggest notes could be added to lgbtmazight meta links referenced on other TOG pages, to in the same way make readers aware of questions related to the accuracy of their meta. Is that a compromise other editors could agree with? --Auntags (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Would adding the lgbtmazight Fanlore page as a bullet point under the "Fandom controversies" section do the trick? Maybe with a quick summary of what the issue is, so that people who read the section would know that the legitimacy of one of authors of the meta cited is being questioned? I agree that simply removing references to those posts, which were popular/influential at one point, wouldn't reflect the state of the fandom at the time. Greedy dancer (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- The problem with those meta posts is that actual MENA fans have since pointed out the inaccuracies of many of the historical and cultural "facts" stated by LGBTmazight in their posts. Wouldn't keeping those links up be some sort of disservice to the fandom and those who are seeking reliable sources on how to approach writing Joe and his history for example? Aletheia (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think that it's not our call as editors to decide whether a reference is of a particular quality or accuracy - reference links also exist to point to what fans have said, without making claims that the thing said was accurate. I also don't think that in other cases we'd be removing meta links or references on the basis of the source's identity, assumed or known, and I worry about the precedent removing reference links on the basis of a call-out would set. I'd like to suggest leaving all links in fanworks and reference sections for Old Guard pages as they are, and make use of notes for context as needed instead of taking anything down. -- Chanterelle (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)