Blargh.

Wiki poll results! by Neshomeh on 2011-11-29 02:05:00 UTC Reply

I'm sorry it's taken so long to get this up. Between the spammer messing with the data and the Thanksgiving holiday, I haven't been able to deal with it until now.

A full summary of the results, with shiny graphs, can be found here—I think, anyway. If you can't view it, let me know and I'll figure something out. In a nutshell, though, the top results are, out of 44 responses:

1. Sue and Stu Pages
Of the existing Sue and Stu articles, should we keep all, some, or none?

- Keep some Sue and Stu pages! Sues are a dime a dozen; only the most unique or impactful ones need articles to themselves. (23 votes, 52%)

2. Author Pages
Are they useful, or just mean?

- Keep some author pages! Some of them are a big enough deal to deserve an article, as long as we treat them fairly. (25, 57%)

3. Author Names
Is listing author names on wiki pages (including but not limited to the various badfic lists and Sue pages) a good idea?

- Yeah, I don't think it hurts anyone, and giving credit is important. (20, 45%)

4. Stubs
Is it ever okay to delete very short articles? (Note that this doesn't include just-for-fun articles that are intentionally short and silly.)

- Stubs of any kind should be treated on a case-by-case basis. Some should be expanded, some should be merged, some should be deleted altogether. (32, 73%)

5. Redlinks
Is it ever okay to remove links that don't go anywhere?

- It's sometimes okay to remove a redlink. They look bad, and if they've been there a long time, it's pretty clear no one is going to make a page for them. (35, 80%)

6. Bonus Round!
Bonus question!

- Starfish! (12, 27%)

Most of the real questions got a fairly clear majority result (especially the Stubs and Redlinks questions); however, the leading answer on the Author Names question got less than 50% of the votes, so would anyone like to discuss that further?

Regarding the Sue and Stu pages, I think this result calls for getting together a group to look over these pages and come up with some criteria for what's worth keeping and what isn't. I suggest that members of this group should not have made Sue pages themselves so as to eliminate personal bias, and also that they should be willing to read the missions in question to make the best evaluation and/or improvement(s). (I think we can all agree that not all of the existing pages currently give a good account of their subjects.) So, who volunteers? I've made Sue pages myself, so I'm counting myself out of this one.

It might be a good idea to make a similar group to look over the badfic author pages, too. I think the biggest concern is probably that we're treating badfic authors like people, not punching bags, but it would also be a good idea for anyone who knows about a given author to be involved. Statements ought to be backed up with sources, and it'll be easier for people familiar with the authors to find said sources. Takers?

Finally, I am shocked, shocked, I say, that Starfish won over Hats by two. (Even though I selected Nitwit, myself.)

{; P

~Neshomeh

Viewable results summary! by Neshomeh on 2011-12-04 00:31:00 UTC Reply

I made one. Here it is: http://starshadowhall.tripod.com/ppc/wikipoll/

~Neshomeh
Sue pages by Calista on 2011-11-30 01:44:00 UTC Reply

Like I said on the poll, I'm quite willing to help out.

As for Sue pages--The people who sporked the fic are the best ones to create the Sue page.

Notable Sues include:
--Sues slain in TOS (all of these have pages)
--Sues from Legendary Badfic
--Sues which showed some noteworthy trait or method of canon-bending; for example, possessing Narnia, creating an army of Mini-Sues, or causing Equestria to bend out of shape so far that reality started breaking...

If your mission had a Sue that had an unusual effect on the canon, the other option is to name the effect and write the article on that, linking your mission as a reference, so that the new idea can be used by future writers.
Another volunteer to help with Sue/Stu pages... by LunarHuntress on 2011-11-29 23:18:00 UTC Reply

I've never written one, but I've read a bunch, and though I do like them, I think the category as a whole requires some cleaning up.

What would this entail?

Up to you guys, I think. by Neshomeh on 2011-12-03 21:44:00 UTC Reply

You should talk with Guvnor, Eileen, Calista, and anyone else who's interested about it. Maybe you can discuss on the secondary Board, or e-mails, or something.

I'm happy to offer suggestions if you guys want them, but that's up to you.

~Neshomeh

Tentatively raises hand by EileenAlphabet on 2011-11-29 20:49:00 UTC Reply

I would also like to volunteer to help with sorting out the Sue and Stu pages. I have never written such a page and is too lazy to even contemplate doing so, which should make me qualified. ^^

About the author names ... I have no strong opinion. I think giving credit is important, but I do so in the opening to my missions and I don't really need to do it anywhere else. Having author names on the lists of badfics is something I can live perfectly happy with or without.

Personally, I am shocked that Llama did not win. 0_o
Google Docs Error by Antigone68104 on 2011-11-29 17:10:00 UTC Reply

"You need permission to access this item."

Anyone else getting this error message?

I am too. (nm) by Jacer on 2011-11-29 17:51:00 UTC Reply

Should be fixed now--I changed the permissions. (nm) by Neshomeh on 2011-11-30 04:08:00 UTC Reply

Still getting the permission thing. Grr. (nm) by Jacer on 2011-11-30 05:12:00 UTC Reply

Blargh. by Neshomeh on 2011-12-01 22:13:00 UTC Reply

Well, apparently I can't share the summary section like I wanted. I'll see if I can recreate the charts and such on my own.

~Neshomeh, frustrated.

I sent a "request for access." Did you get anything? (nm) by Jacer on 2011-12-01 23:36:00 UTC Reply

Sue/Stu pages by Guvnor of Space on 2011-11-29 03:04:00 UTC Reply

I've never written a Sue or Stu page. If some of them need to be evaluated, I have both the time and inclination to... do whatever it is this job is going to entail.
Opinion on Author names by SeaTurtle on 2011-11-29 02:57:00 UTC Reply

I'd feel that we shouldn't list author names on the wiki. I just think that if we list names in such a way, we'd create some sort of "wall of shame" where people would constantly associate badfic to their (pen) names.

If I saw my name on a list like that for everyone to see, I'd feel downright insulted: it would feel as if not just my work, but my very person is being targeted. I wouldn't like to have people pulling out some old shame out of the depths of the internet and wave it at my face all the time. Authors grow better as they learn and we don't need to keep track of their early attempts at writing which we consider bad.

I say keep it anonymous.

Agreed by TheScribe on 2011-11-29 19:51:00 UTC Reply

Agreed. I wrote some pretty horrible fanfiction when I was 10-12, and I would be horribly embarrassed if my name ended up on a list like that because of past offenses.

(Don't worry, I have learned the error of my ways.)
Author names. by Ellipsis Flood on 2011-11-29 14:00:00 UTC Reply

If you're talking about the pages themselves: I agree. People can change, and most of us have their fair share of old shame.

If you're talking about the names on the (un)claimed/killed badfic lists: I disagree. That has nothing to do with insulting people or waving old shame at someone's face. It's called giving credit and, at least to me, an absolute must.

Should have been more specific... by SeaTurtle on 2011-11-30 02:50:00 UTC Reply

Sorry 'bout that. I was thinking of doing it TOS style: as far as I can recall, there were no names and no links. Just the Sue. This method is probably outdated though, as the PPC has grown as a community and others might want to have a peek at the original material. It wouldn't make sense to list the title and link but not the author in the mission report. I think that the author's name just deserves a passing mention in the report, just like the way we do it now.

So in short: get rid of the author pages but leave links and names on the unclaimed/claimed/killed pages alone.