User talk:Frogspace

From Fanlore
Jump to: navigation, search

The reasons why i haven't put fandom context on the pages i created on this site is because of time, and i just wanted to get the pages i created started not necessarily complete of how it's viewed in fandom Katy

Hey Doro! Ich hätte Hamster darauf verwettet, dass du unter den volunteers bist *hält nach ihrem Hamster Ausschau* :3 --Lian 16:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fliegender Hamster auf 11 Uhr! --Doro 20:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your name is confusing. I used to be called Doro too (offline, I still am) Rodo 19:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a common name and I actually met Lian because she mistook my livejournal for yours. *g* For what it's worth, you can use the settings under "my preferences" to show your name of choice in your signature. ;)--Doro 20:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
oh, no! You said you wouldn't spill! Cross my heart...sob. (*g*)--Lian 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't want to!!! But I had no choice! Reading all the chat transcripts and recent changes page entries I realized that you were turning into a zombie because you refused to go to bed. At all! I planted this comment as a last resort to make you cry which would make you very, very tired. Then you were supposed to fall asleep at your computer. Apparently it didn't work. Oh noes! /o\--Doro 19:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow! That is...even more embarrassing! Because I totally *was* turning into a won't-leave-chat-zombie, or chat squatter, or wiki squatter, or what have you. You found me out! /o\ I WAS NOT JOKING when I was speaking of addiction! lol. (okay, plus I have late evening/night shifts at work recently, which pushed my sleep cycle a bit too far back than is healthy.) But the result is that I am too tired to be motivated and structured enough to tackle thoroughly researched, proper articles, which means I eventually need get more sleep -- SLEEP FOR FANLORE! *raises tiny fist* lol. --Lian 20:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
No thanks, I like Rodo just fine. Does this happen to you often? I have just been accused of being the translator of a very long Harry Potter fic so far. We used to have the same nickname. Oh, and once someone thought I wrote SGA fic. I think the whole Doro thing is really confusing because I only met people with my name when I started studying (well, people I am not related to). So whenever I see that name, I think people are talking to me. --Rodo 20:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Does this happen to you often? Six or the seven years ago on one mailing list and now you. My lucky streak must be over! xD (I'm in SGA fandom, so that might explain your encounter of the dorolicious kind. Although I don't write fanfic...) --Doro 20:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Doro -- it's cool to be hanging out near you again! --Sherrold 15:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping clean up the multimedia links! I think that was the last of them that I saw.--rache 16:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC) --Doro 21:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)--Doro 21:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's much more fun (and more addictive) than playing solitaire! \o/ I just started linking multifandom on pages that mention the term without linking it yet. *facepalm* --Doro 16:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't sure whether it was better to change the link to 'Coming Home'—it seemed like that was it, but I'm not in the SGA fandom, so I figured I should let it be. :D --ChristyCorr 11:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The exact same page at the exact same time -- that's amazing! :-) Mrs. Potato Head 19:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I know! I was looking for this page because it lists title and author name for several German Star Trek zines and I ended up on the other zine page instead. There I noticed the covers. Then I searched Fanlore for the zine title and saw that it had only one cover but I didn't bother to check out Recent changes. Heh. *g* --Doro 19:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
And I was moving through a google search for "Star Trek fanzine images" stumbled across this page, a spot I'd found in November but for some unexplainable reason, left some covers off. There must have been some line drawn between your keyboard and mine, right at that very moment. It's a nice thought, eh?Mrs. Potato Head 20:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
You're fixing these stinkers. I could kiss you, Doro. What is the problem with them all? Mrs. Potato Head 21:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
^___^ *blushes* The redirect pages (the ones with the author names) aren't empty, they just look empty because of the redirect. If you click on edit, you see that all the text and the categories are still there. The text isn't a problem, but the categories on these redirect pages is what makes them appear in the zine category list. I just remove all the text that isn't necessary for the redirect and without the categories they disappear from the list. --Doro 21:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for any more zines for the BDSM page, these are fun: Mrs. Potato Head 20:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I forgot about that one. ^^ --Doro 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on all these pages! I haven't done any editing in months and it's nice not to feel alone.  :) --Sophinisba 00:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Whee!!! I had a great time too! :) It's true, editing is always a lot more fun when it's not just one person doing it. Come back whenever you like, there is always more to do. *\o/* --Doro 15:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I second Doro. The more the merrier. :-) Mrs. Potato Head 15:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up after me, and sorry for the silly mistakes. That's probably a sign I should go to bead x) Cheers, Sparcicle

Cleaning up is the one thing I can do when I don't know anything else about a topic. *g* Don't worry about that! (Also, sleep is good but highly overrated. Wiki editing is so much more fun. XD) --Doro 10:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Celebrating the Star Trek Reorga

And it's because I messed it up before, right? Because it doesn't seem intuitive. Just want to be sure. Mrs. Potato Head 19:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I know, I know, but the massive pairing page with all the content and all the history belongs to Star Trek: The Original Series. You are totally my HERO and you should get a space ship full of virtual cookies!!! --Doro 19:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm giving you and Ratcreature a virtual high five; you did all the thinking and made the plan. ;-) Mrs. Potato Head 19:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
This was awesome! We made Star Trek feel the earth move under its feet. Hee! :D :D --Doro 20:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

the TPM as toplevel issue

I'm not sure that just singling out TPM from the other SW is the solution here. I mean, on the one hand TPM is very distinct from other SW with its Q/O slash OTP etc, but there also is a fandom for the other prequel movies, Anakin/Obi-Wan and Anakin/Amidala also Obi-Wan/Amidala stuff and, that is also connected to TPM, but not just that, but also often covers the time between the Original and the prequel trilogy. In any SW reorganization there needs to be a place for that part of the prequel fandom.--RatCreature 13:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I singled out TPM because we already have it as a subpage and I think it should move. If the other prequel movies have fandoms too, I don't see why they shouldn't have their own top level pages. :) --Doro 15:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
But there is no movie II fandom that is separate from movie III fandom as far as I could tell while reading (and newsletter-wise it was mixed up with RPF too, but that is a different matter), nor was that fandom completely removed from episode I. And no matter that some original SW fans hate the prequels, while being in fandom for Obi-Wan (first trying to find enough gen to read in TPM, which turned out futile though I became resigned to Q/O, while also reading original trilogy fic) then reading various other pairings with him, I've always just seen myself as a "Star Wars" fan, following everything with my favorite character. I think there could maybe a Star Wars Prequel trilogy page, and one for Extended Universe parts, or maybe that even split into Old Republic and New Jedis, something organized along areas, that also coincides with franchise segments, like it is in some SW archive and messsage boards.--RatCreature 16:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
ETA: What I mean is that to a large extent (maybe even for everyone not into it only for Q/O OTP) the two trilogies are about the same characters in the same continuity, telling one story (leaving out the extended universe aspects), quite unlike the Star Trek series with different crews at different times and/or different continuities (like with the reboot).--RatCreature 16:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I hear you but I don't exactly see where you are disagreeing with me. Star Wars fandom is huge, everything is connected, the Star Wars page is a mess and having TPM as a subpage doesn't work (There is not just Q/O but also X/O and Q/X and those pairings don't even have pages yet). Moving TPM to its own top level page would solve that immediate problem. If there is a fandom for the prequel movies, it could go to a Star Wars (prequel trilogy) page. --Doro 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that the prequel trilogy fandom page ought to be just called "Phantom Menace" as if that fandom didn't evolve to include the movies II and III. The fandom shares infrastructure and people, I find it artifical to divide the article into "fans who only liked TPM and lost interest later" and "fans who liked all the prequels". I find this division artifical.--RatCreature 19:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say the prequel trilogoy fandom page should just be called Phantom Menace, I said there is a distince Phantom Menace fandom (abbreviated TPM) that is usually regarded as its own fandom and not something that should be a subpage of another fandom. I don't see why there shouldn't be a Star Wars: The Phantom Menace page for TPM fandom and a Star Wars (prequel trilogy) page for anything that is about all the prequel movies. --Doro 20:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
But where would you put an overview about canon-compliant Anakin/Vader fic for example? The kind of split you propose creates as many problems for other SW fandom sections as it may solve for the TPM-only slash segment of SW fandom.--RatCreature 20:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Or the Obi-Wan character page, where would that go?--RatCreature 20:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I would say the answer to both questions is wherever it is needed and/or either/both. The thing about this wiki is that it's not so much about the canon as it is about the fannish interaction with the canon. There could be a page about Obi-Wan and how much the fannish interpretation was influenced by Ewan McGregor and other characters he has played and there could still be a different page about Obi-Wan somewhere else. After all we have two Spocks, two Kirks, two Uhura's, etc. Right now you are taking about hypothetical content that could be there while I would like to sort out the content we already have. The content we have strongly requests a TPM page which tells me that we need one. --Doro 21:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
So everything that "regular" SW fans did/do with TPM is supposed to go on the SW page while everything that the "new"/"TPM-only" or whatever fans did with it goes on the extra page?--RatCreature 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

summary refs

Doro, can you reference those summary links you're putting in? Like, "from a distributor, Agent With Style" or any other source you're quoting? :-) Mrs. Potato Head 20:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

They were all from the Supernatural Fanzine List and I think the summaries there were from the publisher/distributor sites. I'll check it out. --Doro 20:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


I've seen you edit headers for the TOC, and I think you can control where the TOC appears with __TOC__, like I could put this talk page's TOC all the way down here: (ETA: moved TOC back --Doro 10:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)) so I think that might be better to control the positioning. Maybe it even has options but I don't know about that.--RatCreature 17:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I admit that I also removed some of the section headers because starting the page with a header instead of a general introduction feels wrong to me. I blame Wikipedia. ^^° Next time I'll try the TOC code. --Doro 17:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I rather like TOCs out of the template, too; but people complained and the layout was spazzing, so as per this post, I was supposed to put them back as they used to be. If you want to make a case for getting the TOCs out again, you can email the wiki committee at wiki at, or make another post at the DW comm—I'd be more than happy to back you, and to remove them again, if the committee revisits this decision! :D I'm really sorry. I can only imagine what a pain it will be to undo everything. (But since the magic word won't actually have any effect on pages when the TOC is displayed in the template, maybe you can not alter the pages you edited in the hopes that maybe this will get reversed someday? I don't know.) --ChristyCorr 04:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I follwed your link and I don't see any discussion there, just an announcement that some people complained and that it was "decided" to change it back. I find that incredibly frustrating because I don't know a) what people complainded about b) what they were told in reply. Maybe they said 'it messes with the layout on this or that page', then the right answer would have been what ratcreature told me here 'you can move the TOC somewhere else by adding __TOC__ wherever you want the TOC to go!' and it would have solved the problem. But without having these discussions in public before any major revisions are made, there is no way for editors to address concerns. I'm not going to touch any of the pages where I moved the TOC because that's a pain I don't want to inflict upon myself. >_< However, I'm not going to challenge this decision; right now I don't feel like I'm in the right frame of mind to engage in a constructive way and criticizing the wiki committee all the time can't be much fun for them either. --Doro 05:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm can't tell you precisely what people complained about because I honestly don't remember. [Edit: User:Meri says: "All right I was one of the people who really didn't like how it looked. All of the TOCs were down the middle of the page. To me, anyway, it made everything look wonky. But I thought it broke more than it fixed."] However, I will do what I can to have this discussion again, all right? I'll let you know next Monday. Do you think you could send me a couple of examples of pages that looked particularly better TOC-in-template-less-ly? --ChristyCorr 10:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
While the TOC out of the boxes often led to weirdness for me, I share the frustration with the wikicommittee's handling of these switches. I found the switch to having the TOC's elsewhere too sudden to begin with, and then the switch back was even more quick so that you get whiplash as an editor here. I mean, changing something major in the default layout could have been first done on that testwiki where the search engine was tested for example, to let users and editors look at the effects on real wiki pages first, and then we could have maybe had a discussion post about it, or some poll to gather input or *something*, maybe then the pro/cons of either could have been evaluated before and avoided some of this mess, and not created unnecessary work for everyone to keep pages readable as defaults switch back and forth.--RatCreature 11:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to apologise on behalf of the wiki committee, then—I'm afraid not many people in it other than myself had a formed opinion on the subject, so when the idea to remove the TOC from the pages came up and I supported it, no one had much to say, and we decided to give it a try. I'm really sorry for the lack of polling and pro/con listing, ratcreature. See, changing the template pages themselves doesn't take more than a few seconds; while I certainly respect User:Frogspace's hard work moving the magic word around in a bunch of places (and yours, that of whoever else did that), I guess we figured that making the change would prompt people to voice their agreement/disagreement with the placement once they realised what was different, whereas not everyone understood exactly what you guys were suggesting when the idea first came up.
FYI, I think the current bottom line is basically this: the TOC's placement outside of the template leads to some CSS floating conflict, and we'd need someone to edit fanlore's skins to find a solution before we remove the TOC from the infobox templates (if we indeed end up doing that). I know the MediaWiki software pretty well, but stylesheets are very much not my forte, so we'd have to find someone else to do this if we want to do it properly. Once again, I'm very sorry for any toe-stepping—and I'm really more of the MW go-to girl in the committee, I may not be your best option for a...political explanation of what committee does or whatever. *laughs* I'm sorry. Maybe you can email them to complain about the decision-making process if you think this was handled too badly? I don't know. --ChristyCorr 11:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

cover work

I love it when you tweak the covers and art, Doro. It always looks lots better. Mrs. Potato Head 19:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. ^_^ These covers are all so pretty and apparently I have an undeniable compulsion to make everything shine. --Doro 19:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the covers just light up a page as well as tell more of the story. They're like little jewels, even when, well... they're not. ;-) I know I'm a lot better at finding them than shining them, so we make a good team that way. Mrs. Potato Head 20:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(Just for the record, I erased a message from this section related to an artist's RL first name being used here.) --ChristyCorr 17:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope then that someone is going to edit the images I linked here because one is a scan of a TOC that mentions her first name (which is, as far as I know, perfectly alright according to Fanlore policies; it's not a unique name, there are other fans, even other fanartists with the same first name, she used it in a fannish context, won awards under that name, and it's hardly a matter of outing) and the other mentions her *full* name. I would have thought that one would be much more of a problem than using her first name. --Doro 17:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
*nods* I've emailed the image names to the committee. --ChristyCorr 18:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I just edited the TOC image that used the full name, so all the moderators would need to do for that one image is remove the original. We really need a secure area where we can discuss the various permutations and possibly even offer a list (ex when you see name Z, use this psued instead). Even absent a list, a secure area to discuss would be a good start. In X's case, the problem is further compounded since the "real" first name is so generic and is contained in post 1995 works, so it is hard to know in advance that she is an exception to Fanlore policies. In a few other pre-1995 names, even using the first name, last initial is not permitted (instead we're supposed to use completely different names altogether). Impossible to sort out. The other solution is to have a team of 'privacy' volunteers that review all entries each week so these can be caught and addressed before the fans/fan friends start complaining that Fanlore does not follow policies. --FanloreFan 20:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Doro! I just plopped those images down on Suzan's page and forgot they were alpha-ordered. Thank you for catching it. Also, I added a back cover to Dangerous Lives, Dangerous Visions 2 and think it looks clumsy. Do you have any ideas for it? Mrs. Potato Head 20:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the break, made the back cover shorter and the other images a bit smaller. Better? --Doro 20:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
*smiling and nodding* looks much nicer. Mrs. Potato Head 20:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Doro! Heh, you totally beat me to starting to tag the multimedia zines; that was on my list for after the fandoms got done. Yay for a start being made! I created the category so now anything that gets tagged with the category actually has a place to go. \o/ --Arduinna 17:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! :D

adding categories

Is there some sort of plan/system about the sequence in which categories are added? I mean, I'd help out, adding a fandom category to a couple of dozen pages here and there, because clearly it's a ton of work, and I don't mind soothingly repetitive tasks every now and then, but I'm wary of messing up some grid of progress... Is there a list somewhere, where there are groups laid out (like say "MUNCLE zines a-f" or whatever), and then you take that group and make a checkmark once you finished with it, or something like that?--RatCreature 21:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not that I'm aware of. I thought there might be and waited a few days after the fandom cats were announced, but then I caught a cold and couldn't do much this weekend so I simply started somewhere and got lost in the soothingly repetitive motion of clicketyclick. Right now I'm working my way through the Star Trek anthology zines and after that I was planning to start on the Star Trek novel zines, although I might need a break from Star Trek soon. Other big zine fandoms no one has tackle yet: Sentinel Gen Zines, Sentinel Slash Zines, Stargate SG-1 Gen Zines, Stargate SG-1 Slash Zines, Blake's 7 Zines, Star Wars (Original Trilogy, TPM), Professionals Zines (Gen, Slash, Crossovers?), LotR... If you want to add cats, just pick a fandom. :) It seems we are supposed to be able to create cats on our own but I haven't tried that yet. There is a help page that explains creating categories but you can also add non-existing cats and when someone else creates the category later, it's already linked. --Doro 22:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the wiki committee was informally dividing up the alphabet in email. So fandoms A-P theoretically have someone assigned to them, but I don't think anyone would object if you feel inspired to get started on a fandom in that range. Or if you want to take "q" and "r" fandoms, that would be great. So many big fandoms start with S that I was afraid to claim the whole letter, but I'm planning to tackle Stargate next.--æthel 22:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The secret master plan, it has been revealed! *g* (I seriously hope I haven't messed too much with your system. ^^°) --Doro 12:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Not at all, I appreciate your categorizing efforts!--æthel 21:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Doro, what do you want to call the BB poetry zines? "Category:Beauty and the Beast Poetry Zines"? And do we want to also have a general zine poetry zine category, one that captures all of them? --Mrs. Potato Head 14:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we are supposed to make categories that aren't fandom categories. Maybe we could request a general "Poetry" category? With regard to BB I think I would go with Beauty and the Beast Poetry Zines. Should I make it or do you want to try? :) --Doro 14:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you request the general poetry zine category? And I'll give a whack at making the BB poetry category? I found a bunch more this morning! ETA: it worked, we're all set. Say, I've lost track of where you had that preliminary list of BB poetry zines yesterday. If you'll hook me into it, I'll add them. --Mrs. Potato Head 15:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The list is here: Category talk:Beauty and the Beast Zines. With regard to the more general category I would go with poetry instead of poetry zines because there is a lot of poetry that is not in zines. I'll send æthel a message when I get home (if she doesn't read this first). --Doro 15:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


I had wondered whether to redirect the page to FictionAlley too, but "schnoogle" has been used as a common noun since before the archive. It's one of those internet slang onomatopoeia-but-with-an-action words like "glomp" that was used a lot in chatrooms, and FA adopted it (their definition's here). I don't know if that's enough to warrant its own page or a dismbiguation page, or if the history of the name should just be explained on the FA page? Thanks! Sparcicle 09:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I only know the term in the FA context. Hmm. I would say if it has another use in fandom (or just HP fandom), there should be a separate page or disambiguation. If it's just a regular internet term and the FA context the only fannish usage, then an explanation on the FA page would be enough. What do you think? --Doro 10:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for wikilinking that entry

I was dying to listen to that Star Trek cassette tape Fanzine! I had it in my hot, little hands and had no way to play it. Zarabeth! Gongs! The racist section?! Synthesizers! All very interesting. --Mrs. Potato Head 23:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

gardener tags

It would be better to put the gardener tag on the main page, not the talk page, of an article. That way, when I remove it, it doesn't mean I'm erasing a visible "talk" issue, something that doesn't feel right. --Mrs. Potato Head 12:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I just moved it there because it has been forever on the main page without anything happening and I find these notices discouraging when editing a page. :/ The admins said that they never check the attention gardener category so my best guess is that the best chance to get it moved is to add the template while you are editing the wiki and can see it in the recent changes because you always act on these calls. :) But you are right, I could have just left the notice where it was, changed the wording and repeated the call for gardeners in the summary. Will try to do so next time. --Doro 12:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed Sexually Explicit Image Warning?

Hey, I'm kind of confused why you removed the Template:SexuallyExplicitImage warning on the Image:Merlinriding.jpg page. I'm pretty sure that's what the template was created for (Fanlore:Image Policy, number 12), and you can hardly argue that the image in question isn't sexually explicit.
Thanks, Sparcicle 02:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't find the image particularly explicit. At least half of the image is background, there is hardly any skin, the characters are dressed (both of them wear long shirts, Merlin wears pants and shoes), and even their eyes are covered. You added the template above the image summary so that the image summary wasn't visible any longer without scrolling and with so few images having a summary at all, there is no reason why anyone would think to scroll down because usually there isn't anything down there except the page history. That defeats the whole purpose of having an image summary. The reason why I removed the template instead of just moving it down on the page is that I don't think the specific instructions of the template apply to the page. The naked skin part of the image that could be interpreted as explicit already is 100x100px in the full-size version uploaded to Fanlore. If I had just made an icon of that part or a similar part of another picture and uploaded that instead (for example for the "Spocks alien genitalia" section, I could have used that 100x100px image on the article page without reducing it in size. Treating an image differently where it's only a small part of a whole that shows otherwise clothed people and a lot of background doesn't make sense. Also, the image isn't used in full-size on any page. The only pages where it's used have it as 180px and 120px thumbnails. In the 180px version the part that shows any bit of skin is only 70x70px. In the 120px version it's only 30x30px! Arthur's cock there is 6x9px, possibly. I can't say for sure because if I view it in a big enough resolution to crop it it's too pixely to see anything! Instructing someone to reduce the whole image to a 100x100px version would be an abuse of the option to have clearly explicit content not display bigger than 100x100px on an article page.
Also, I'm not wild on the idea of branding an image as "explicit" or "rape" or whatever on any page where it's used in general. If an image has been minimized because of content, clicking through to the big version would be enough to find out that it was done because of specific instructions relating to content. The content itself is obvious to anyone looking at an image, even a 100x100px one, so telling someone "the image you are looking at right now is sexually explicit" is either patronizing (Yes, I *noticed*!) or declaratory ("We have judged this image to be explicit and feel the need to point it out!), which is insulting to the artist. :/ IMO this reduces the usefulness of the templates a lot, but that is a more general problem and doesn't just refer specifically to this image. --Doro 20:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
If you don't think a template was applicable, then that's cool, I'm not contesting your right to remove it. Generally, though, it's nice to explain why you disagree on the talk page ("The explicit bits are already less than 100x100px" etc) rather than just remove it without explanation, which is kind of rude to the person who put it there to begin with.
That being said, I think it's important to clarify Fanlore's policy on explicit images (and their use in articles and whatnot) before we debate the appropriateness of the template on this specific image. I agree that the term "explicit" can be subjective and that labeling images as such could come off judge-y if not done carefully. I think that it can be done inoffensively if in adherence to specific predetermined criteria, and personally, "visible genitalia in a depiction of a sexual act" would be on my list (which is why I flagged the image) but of course it should be open to debate. I think that this and the discussion of the template's usefulness would be more appropriate on the template's talk page. I'll make a post there when I get a chance later tonight, but if you want feel free to beat me to it.
Thanks, Sparcicle 00:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
True, sorry. I was on a train where I had spotty net access on my phone and when I noticed that you couldn't see the image summary anymore, I acted immediately because that was one of the conditions for the permission to use the image here. I linked the discussion on the Help_talk:Image_templates page. --Doro 18:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on how the new template is *not* working out in real life appliction. --FanloreFan 17:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Doro, you'd added a question on the Warped Space page last year. I checked my copy of Warped Space #29/30 and the slash SW story "The Learning" you have isn't what's in that zine. It sounds like a good story, wish we could pin it down. --Mrs. Potato Head 21:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"Sample" question

Hey Frogspace, first, thanks for doing cleanup and tidying of pages I'd poked at plus the very helpful information on images and other fanlore topics you've given me over the past weeks; very much appreciated.

To follow from that, a question: I noticed you took out the word "Sample" on a few pages where I'd used it in subheaders such as "Sample Recs and Reviews" or "Sample Fanworks" -- would you prefer it if I used the word "Example" instead?

I think it's good to have some kind of indicating word, whatever it is, to make it clear that the fanworks by a creator or recs&reviews of a fanwork are a subset of what exists in that category, so more casual fanlore users don't assume that what they see listed on that particular fl page is all of it. (Using "Notable" or "Influential" was discussed as perhaps being exclusionary or creating a judgment-threshold for adding examples in a discussion around adding to fanlore pages initially at facetofcathy's DW and later at the sga_guide community, so I've tried to not add "Notable" or "Influential" as the modifying word.)

One of the discussions came up with the idea of "Fanworks Sampler" as the proposed subhead, which I could definitely use instead of "Sample Fanworks" or "Example Fanworks" but I don't think the word "Sampler" works so well for a Recs&Reviews subhead. Anyhow, please let me know what you think on this topic/which term you'd prefer to see used for these things. Thanks! --Sk 02:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sk, thanks for the great work you are doing on the SGA pages. :D It's great to this part of fandom grow on Fanlore, escpecially since this was my main fandom for years. ^_^
I removed the word "Sample" because I hate it so much in this context! /o\ Sometimes I can't help myself and just edit it out. I definitely never use it on any of the pages I create. To me it says "Here, try this thing. How does it taste? Do you want to buy the whole thing?" and I could live with it if we would call quotes from stories samples of these stories, but calling a link a sample makes me itch. The other thing is, using the reasoning for adding "sample" to a section header we should add it to all sections headers because by its very nature nothing in a wiki is the complete something of anything. Personally I don't care for "sample meta", "sample opinions", "sample resources", "sample websites", "sample controversies" or whatever. Also (and that's not a small thing), the way it's used on the fandwork pages it indicates that people should only add links when there is so much more that could be added! When we are talking about fanfiction, there could be mention of awards, influences, writing style, tropes, impact on the fandom, and so on and so on. If there has to be a qualifier, I think example fits better, although I prefer it when it's made clear what it's an example of. --Doro 12:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems like, okay, the word "Sample" is just not very pretty (I admit I often use it rather than "Example" because I am too lazy to type the extra letters /o\ -- and I can definitely change it to use Example instead when using a word like it does seem like the right idea), but there's also a philosophical question about whether and what type of modifying words to use in subheads. I tend to think that some type of modifying word is a good thing to lower the threshold for the idea of editing a page, where something that (perhaps over-subtly) indicates "this doesn't have to be a complete list, just add some of what you think are especially relevant or interesting examples" might encourage editors to add something in the category. Hmmm. Must think on this more...
(Related: is there an existing template (not just infobox) page for Fanworks and/or for Fans? With the types of subheads more fanlore editors like to use and see (versus with words or phrasing that other active fanlore editors find cringe-inducing) that might encourage editors, if they chose to consider using the template, to think about additional possible categories of information (such as awards, etc., good point) to add? I know there's (draft?) templates for characters and pairing pages, but now I can't find those again either, eep.) --Sk 21:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
is there an existing template (not just infobox) page for Fanworks and/or for Fans? The templates are the infoboxes so I'm not sure what you mean. ^^ When it comes to page structure, that's up to the individual editor and what they can agree on with other editors. Usually it changes a lot over time. It also changes from fandom to fandom and from fanwork to fanwork or fan to fan, depending on what there is to say about a fanwork or a fan. The basic structure is just infobox and introductory text. If there are references, it's usually a good idea to make a "References" subheader. Everything else depends. If a fan is a fanartist and some of their fanart has been uploaded for other pages, there usually is a gallery to collect all these images on Fanlore on the fan page of the artist. //ETA: I just realized, if a fan is multifannish or was active in different fandoms at different times, making the major fandoms of their fannish activity a subheader usually works best for me.// If I make a page about a story, I try to include a "Recs and Reviews" section because it's easier for me to use the words of others to explain why I made the page to begin with. If there is a lot going on with the story (translations, sequels, podfic, fanart, fic trailer, etc.), I sometimes make a "There is more" section or name the section something more specific.
What I'm thinking of as page-templates are, for example, Help:Character pages/Template and Help:Pairing pages/Template -- to me, the infoboxes, while invaluable, feel like a small sub-element of an overall page-template. Of course, many people absolutely thrive on freeform creation, but for others it's easier to start creating something if they can pick and choose from/add to existing modular elements. So I'm thinking that having more page-template concepts available might be a useful tool for new(er) or less confident fanlore editors, as something that might encourage some of them less inclined towards freeform creation to still make new pages or add to stubby stubs. (I strongly suspect that some of the most interesting pages will be ones that don't adhere to (m)any of a modular page-template's options; but having more "look, it's easy!" optional newcomers tools like templates available (among other things) might make editing the wiki feel more welcoming to some more (varied) fans. ?
Also, I really like most of the categorization examples you use above. --Sk 22:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
but there's also a philosophical question about whether and what type of modifying words to use in subheads. I tend to think that some type of modifying word is a good thing to lower the threshold for the idea of editing a page
I agree, sort of. "Notable" tends to be intimidating and who decides such a thing? :/ On the other hand, sometimes "notable" is exactly what is meant in a specific context. In other situations "example" may be more fitting or "influential" might better describe the criteria for inclusion. I think the criteria for inclusion should (depending on the context) be either made clear in the text or should be obvious to begin with. For example, modifying "Recs and Reviews" or "Comments" to me is redundant because obviously nothing under such a header is a complete list of every comment ever made about something, and they aren't some random examples either, they express different things about the story in question and give the most relevant POVs/good summaries/more information, etc. However, if we are talking about lists of story links, then yes, it should be made clear why a story was included, but that information doesn't have to be (and often can't be) all in the header because there could be (and likely are) different reasons for including stories in a list. One was influential, one is a particular good example of a trope, the next one won an award, another one was controversial, etc. In conclusion: I'm no friend of lists without additional information in the text, but if the information is in the text, I don't need (and use) modifiers in the header. --Doro 12:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like we agree on the principle around a lot of things mentioned here. It might be more a matter of trying to figure out (if it's considered useful) more specific phrasing that is not-offputting to experienced fanlore users and editors but might inspire more casual or newer fl users to contribute or use the wiki more could be a good thing? --Sk 22:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Laura Hale

I have new proposed text on Talk:Laura Hale and would welcome your comments. Thanks, TruthTeller2 00:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


I saw that there's no entry for yet. I have fond memories of that page, so I wanted to would correct that. But apparently animexx is not only a website, it's also an association with various other fannish functions, and I have no idea where/how to start. Since you have "make pages for archives and websites" on your to-do list and probably have a lot of experience with that, I thought I'd ask you for advice and/or help. Doesn't have to be right now, but sometime in the future, maybe? Thanks! --Tiyire 16:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Animexx! It never was my fannish playground (I spent my time on the YaoiGer forum and the BxB mailing list) but I've seriously lamented that we don't have a page yet for one of the most important German fannish websites. If you are going to make one, I'll happily cheer you on! :D I would say go with the archive template and make a page about Animexx as an archive, add a screencap, say something about content and structure, dates, etc. You can add that it has a vibrant community and how it is organized. The Verein who maintains the website could have its own page and if they organized conventions, etc. that could have its own page as well, but for a starting point, I would stick with the archive and let it grow from there. --Doro 09:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I put it on my to-do list and will hopefully get around to it in the next few days/weeks. --Tiyire 09:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this version is as much as I can do right now: Thoughts? Anything missing/unclear/else? --Tiyire 19:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks good! Great work! :D Maybe it could use a few screenshots? I'll check it out later and see what I can do. Thanks so much for making this page! ^__^ --Doro 08:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Yay \o/ I couldn't find much about the history of the site itself, unfortunately, but maybe someone else will add that later. I added a screenshot of the welcome page (whee I have figured out how to upload + insert images *proud of self* ^^ Next time I will even remember the categories.)
Congrats on your "promotion", btw :) --Tiyire 12:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

your image guide

I don't think I've explicitly said it before, but I should: your image guide section is super useful; I use it all the time (and the times I forget to do so the images I put on a page never look as good). Thank you for writing & exampling it up! --Sk 11:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm glad you find it useful. :) There is another option for fixing the problem of images stacking up that I haven't added yet (Template:FixBunching) because I don't use it all that often and can't remember any good example pages. ^^° --Doro 12:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Very useful! Not that the images always look great when I add them even using your image guide -- I'm better with words than layout and markup languages -- but, y'know, at least less all over the place. :) Wow, that template looks kinda scary definitely advanced! (Maybe MPH has used it on a zine-page for an example?) --Sk 12:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Polyamorous Recs

I'm wondering why you changed my reference on the Lust Over Pendle page -- I'm not referring to the fanlore page, but to the actual recs page. Your change seems incorrect, and moreover, annoying to someone who just wants to see if Nestra wrote anything further with a single click. Espresso Addict 12:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I changed (aka the link to Polyamorous Recommendations) to Polyamorous Recommendations, which is the fanlore page about the rec page and naturally also includes the link to the rec page. I don't see anything wrong with that. --Doro 12:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I think EA is right - it's a citation, so it should link as directly as possible to the page actually being cited. MegR 12:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. It doesn't link to a fandom subpage, or subset of recs or anything like that, it links to the main page from where you have to search to find the rec, so there is no "direct" link to begin with. --Doro 12:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd link to the fandom subpage if I could but PR site doesn't seem to allow it. (Can someone find a fix?) I'd really rather not link to a fanlore page as my reference, as it simply wasn't, and it makes my date accessed fictitious. Espresso Addict 13:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I fixed the link so that it goes to the subpage and links to the fanlore page at the same time. --Doro 13:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, excellent, thanks. Espresso Addict 13:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


I LOVE what you are doing with this subject! Makes me want to go out and track some down, too. --Mrs. Potato Head 13:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a lot of fun! :D If you want to join in, I'm moving backwards through one of my old link collections (and then get distracted by other link collections, but that's part of the fun). ;) --Doro 13:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
You have a list! I'm impressed. I'll take a look at it. --Mrs. Potato Head 14:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I love the meta/commentary you're adding. It's something I've wanted to see more of -on the few pages I have added, I run the URL through the Wayback machine to make certain there is a backup copy. The Wayback is now archiving "as you browse" so if the website has not already been archived they'll add it a few months later. --MeeDee 19:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Just checking that are you working with this one "Move Fandom vids categories from Vidding to Vids and update category descriptions" (Gardeners Task / Current Concerns)right now? Just that I won't do the same thing XD --Tuulia 08:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, no, I didn't work with that. ^^ I just saw that the fandom vid categories hadn't been moved yet and did it. I haven't updated the category descriptions, so that's still a To Do. --Doro 09:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh okay (: I was just checking cause I saw that you were doing something with the fandom vid categories. --Tuulia 09:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"Canon Era" query

You've created a page called Canon Era but made it specific to the Merlin fandom. I'm adding links to some fics on The Eagle page and want to label some as canon era, but can't link to the page you've created. Do you think it would be worth broadening the scope of the page so that other historical fandoms can link to it? amandawarrington (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

archive templates

Do you want a Multifandom archive template so those don't turn up in the main Archives category? Or any other type of specific archive type? Like pairing-specific archives or archives by theme?--æþel (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know yet. I've just been adding information that was collected by another editor, so not really my project. :) Come to think of it, templates for pairing, character, and genre archives and sites could be useful. Many sites are very specific about the content they host, so we could have slash, het, gen and femslash site/archive templates. What we also should think about are templates for fanfic sites that aren't single author pages or archives. Group sites, sites that host only a few author, collections of favorite fanfics, themed collections, index sites, etc. If there could be a template for something that is somewhere between author site and archive, that would be great. --Doro (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Naming Conventions for Avengers Pairing Pages

Hey, I saw you changed the name of the Sam/Steve page to Steve Rogers/Sam Wilson. I actually do prefer that formulation, so that if there's another Sam/Steve in some other fandom there's no confusion, but I had originally titled the page Sam/Steve to keep it in line with the majority of the other Avengers Pairing pages, which are overwhelmingly first-name-only. Is there a way to change the rest of them, for consistency? (I'm happy to help, if it's something any Fanlore user can do!) --PhoenixFalls (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Sam and Steve are pretty generic names that are part of major pairings in many fandoms. Sam Winchester (Supernatural), Samantha Carther (Stargate), Steve McGarrett (H50), etc. Following the example of Steve Rogers/Tony Stark and Clint Barton/Phil Coulson seems to be the better approach. If you want to move a page, you need gardener rights. You have done some great editing and know your way around the wiki, so if you would like to become a gardener, please let me know! Anyway, I can move the other Avengers pairing pages, if you want. :) --Doro (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Ha! I still feel like I'm flailing my way through the wiki, but thanks! Um, are there any specific commitments to being a gardener? (Beyond just, "follow these additional rules when editing.") If not, then I'd love to be a gardener, but if there are I don't think I can, as I can't predict when I'm going to be in an editing mood and when I'm going to abandon the wiki for months. --PhoenixFalls (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I hope you become a gardener, PhoenixFalls. It's not very onerous, and it's easier to edit things (you can move things around, rename things, and I think (it's been a long time since I became one) you don't have to answer that pesky math problem every time you change something. --MPH (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
There are no specific commitments. There is a mailing list for gardeners (very low traffic) with the occasional support question and gardeners keep an eye on Recent Changes when they are hanging out here, so that they can help when someone has editing problems or give a second opinion on a talk page, etc. Mostly it just helps a lot with your own editing. :) --Doro (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Cool! I think I'll pursue that then. And then figure out how to help with the renaming. :) --PhoenixFalls (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

did I just mess up all those x-files pairing names?

If they all need to remain last names, I'll switch them back. --MPH (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you know the name of this story?

"Not a lot of postmodern type fic conceits (i.e. stuff like the one where steve and bucky watch all the movies made about captain america while steve was in the ice..." --MPH (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't read Steve/Bucky, sorry that I can't help. I know that there are Steve/Tony stories like that (likely because 616 Tony has a private collection of Captain America memorabilia) but that probably doesn't help in this context. --Doro (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hawaii Five-O Fic

Thanks for adding all the Hawaii Five-O story pages. I think that fandom gets top prize for LONG story titles; it's hard to imagine a fic simply called "The Gift," or "The Decision"! :) --MPH (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Heh. It's June Bloom and a made a H50 spreadsheet. *facepalm* I'm currently watching the whole series and can't remember why I stopped in season one. There where some issues at the beginning of season two but I think the show recovered nicely and it's a bit of a mystery to me that slash fandom seems to have dropped the show so completly. It's really very, very slashy and I'm making up for lost time. (Also, the titles, yes. O_O) --Doro (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)