This. Very much so.

Subject: This. Very much so.
Author: doctorlit
Posted on: 2013-02-19 05:47:00 UTC

I was planning on spending my day off this week (Wednesday) by checking for actual story sources for every mini listed on the mini page that didn't already have one. (So that I'm not taking credit for others' ideas, I will point out this was at Data's prodding.

But everyone who would like to join in and help is more than welcome! If everyone finds one or two missing links, we can quickly whittle down the number of "parentless" minis.

Which will lead us, I think, to the next step: removing any entries that don't have legitimate sources within the PPC or OFU canons. I don't want to be stepping on the toes of any past or present PPCer who imagined the concept for such minis (future toes I have no respect for). However, mini creation is partly a reward for that first writer who sporked a new canon and lived with enough sanity to tell about it. It's not a decision to be made after a random engine search turns up some bizarre typo, followed by throwing up a new entry on the wiki. If nothing else, creating minis through narrative will help the author pick something that will make for good, funny writing.

After we've got our list, we can have a discussion here about the "parentless" mini types. Maybe? Or just delete them? I don't know. I'm suddenly very sleepy, and fear I may be ranting. To summarize:

1. Good shared idea, Data and hermione of vulcan.

2. Start your search engines and find those missing minis!

3. The bristle worm spines under the skin of my finger are really annoying.

4. No more making up minis outside of a mission or OFU publication.

5. I appear to be stealing hermione of vulcan's numbered listing from the post I am responding to. Sorry about that.

6. No picking up goats, please.

7. doctorlit fell asleep and became healthy!

Reply Return to messages

Jump to this post's position in the thread ↴

Minis! by hermione of vulcan on 2013-02-16 16:38:00 UTC Reply

There was some discussion a few threads below about what the Hunger Games minis should be. Several ideas were tossed around, and it seemed that the most popular idea was mini-muttations - the dog creatures from the first book, with the physical traits of the person whose name was misspelled. Can we have a vote? If it seems like a lot of people agree, I'll add it to the wiki. The minis found seem to have been adopted already: World-Jumper - Peta, DawnFire - Suzan, Rina - Senica. All we need to know is what these people have adopted.

Also, another thing pertaining to minis that I've been thinking about: the minis for Percy Jackson. The wiki lists them as mini-Harpies, however, mini-furies were used in the well-written Percy Jackson OFU, and were the first thought of those involved in the goddess co-write. I would suggest changing them, but on the wiki mini-Erinyes (furies) are listed as the minis for Aeschylus, an ancient Greek playwright. My thought is that maybe a mini can be agreed upon for Greek mythology and Greek mythology based canons. Same with the Egyptian mythology mini (mini-Ammets) - it could work just as well for the Kane Chronicles. Discussion?

World-Jumper, DawnFire, and Rina... by hermione of vulcan on 2013-02-19 20:39:00 UTC Reply

It seems that you three have adopted invalid minis. No minis until the first Hunger Games mission.
Maybe just to resolve this, whoever writes said first mission can purposely pick a mini-filled one.
Re: Minis! by Blu on 2013-02-19 04:18:00 UTC Reply

I think the minis should be mockingjays.
Can I have Peta btw?

Sorry. by hermione of vulcan on 2013-02-19 10:45:00 UTC Reply

There can't be any mini types until missions or an OFU. And Peta is already adopted.

Adopting minis that aren't from missions/OFUS is still iffy. (nm by Ellipsis Flood on 2013-02-19 14:02:00 UTC Reply

I agree, but... by hermione of vulcan on 2013-02-19 16:29:00 UTC Reply

It's all very meta. If you don't have agents to give the mini to, it's just in name only, and doesn't affect anything but your pleasure at having a virtual whatever-it-is.

Then it's even worse. by Ellipsis Flood on 2013-02-19 16:50:00 UTC Reply

You have no agent and, most likely, don't write any PPC stories. The only thing you do is claim a mini someone else doesn't get to claim any more.

So... by hermione of vulcan on 2013-02-19 20:37:00 UTC Reply

Perhaps the minis should be un-adopted. Why did I put myself in charge of this?
I adopted a mini before I got Permission... by KittyNoodles on 2013-02-19 19:40:00 UTC Reply

It's little Elladn. No one raised much concern when I did, other than pointing out that I should have mentioned my Board name when I asked to adopt him. Once they knew I was part of the PPC, nobody ever brought up Permission or anything like that, as far as I'm aware.

I think the issue with this thing is... by Tray-Gnome on 2013-02-19 19:54:00 UTC Reply

...more that hermione of vulcan was handing out Hunger Games minis without Hunger Games having a specific mini type, and doing so without consulting anybody else.

Re: I think the issue with this thing is... by Myrddin on 2013-02-19 22:51:00 UTC Reply

I think it was less that hermione of vulcan meant to hand them out, and more that once they were noticed, people claimed them. Which in turn started the discussion of what they might look like as there were several Hunger Games fans present and already discussing Hunger Games things.

And once the discussion was started, well the consulting issue came into effect, and this thread was started. ^_^;
Ah, okay. by KittyNoodles on 2013-02-19 20:01:00 UTC Reply

For a second I got confuzzled. I thought the problem was with non-Permission-havers adopting minis.

Thankies, Tray-Gnome!

So, this whole thread boils down to... by hermione of vulcan on 2013-02-19 02:41:00 UTC Reply
1. No minis until OFUs or missions. The people who have adopted Hunger Games minis have amorphous wraith minis for now. Lookit the adorable whatever-it-is!
  
  2. The mini list is artificially inflated, to borrow Neshomeh's term for it. If there are no missions and no OFU, there should be no mini. If everyone could go to the mini page on the wiki and start adding references, that would be awesome!

This. Very much so. by doctorlit on 2013-02-19 05:47:00 UTC Reply

I was planning on spending my day off this week (Wednesday) by checking for actual story sources for every mini listed on the mini page that didn't already have one. (So that I'm not taking credit for others' ideas, I will point out this was at Data's prodding.

But everyone who would like to join in and help is more than welcome! If everyone finds one or two missing links, we can quickly whittle down the number of "parentless" minis.

Which will lead us, I think, to the next step: removing any entries that don't have legitimate sources within the PPC or OFU canons. I don't want to be stepping on the toes of any past or present PPCer who imagined the concept for such minis (future toes I have no respect for). However, mini creation is partly a reward for that first writer who sporked a new canon and lived with enough sanity to tell about it. It's not a decision to be made after a random engine search turns up some bizarre typo, followed by throwing up a new entry on the wiki. If nothing else, creating minis through narrative will help the author pick something that will make for good, funny writing.

After we've got our list, we can have a discussion here about the "parentless" mini types. Maybe? Or just delete them? I don't know. I'm suddenly very sleepy, and fear I may be ranting. To summarize:

1. Good shared idea, Data and hermione of vulcan.

2. Start your search engines and find those missing minis!

3. The bristle worm spines under the skin of my finger are really annoying.

4. No more making up minis outside of a mission or OFU publication.

5. I appear to be stealing hermione of vulcan's numbered listing from the post I am responding to. Sorry about that.

6. No picking up goats, please.

7. doctorlit fell asleep and became healthy!

Question by Myrddin on 2013-02-19 18:59:00 UTC Reply

*gets into the list-making theme*

1. I think point 4. "No more making up minis outside of a mission or OFU publication." maybe should be added to the mini page, since currently it says "A mini is a creature created by a misspelling usually, though not always, made in fanfics." So since there are mini-boarders, maybe point out that they are the only minis that can be created on the board?

2. Per item 6, I've put down my goat.

3. Where would be a good place to report a missionless/OFUless mini or in my case, one with both that never actually named the mini? I know anyone can technically edit the wiki, but that doesn't mean anyone should. And as new as I am, I'd prefer to simply report any findings to those more familiar with the people/fics involved. :)

5. Because I don't feel like 4. today. I would cast my vote for the "parentless" minis to be be deleted, since technically they shouldn't have been allowed in the first place right? Or as a compromise to those who did add them, they should be moved to their own section which notes they are sourceless and therefore not official, but as an idea those that do write the official OFU or mission might want to use, but are not bound to. Maybe?

Clarifications! by doctorlit on 2013-02-20 05:20:00 UTC Reply

I am leaning towards the deletion of the "parentless" minis as well, but wanted to see if anyone had less dramatic options (like yours) which I couldn't come up with in my addled-by-sleep-deprivation state yesterday. (Wow, do I read like a goddam idiot.)

A "Sourceless Minis" section is a good compromise. What I was trying and failing to say in my post last night, however, was that we should have a discussion/vote on the Board on each individual "parentless" mini type once we've established which minis those are, just so we can get as many members as possible in on those decisions.

Now I must return to the Realm of Sleep before I start spouting off zoo rules again.
Regarding your third question by Data Junkie on 2013-02-20 03:10:00 UTC Reply

You don't. Minis aren't reported, like badfic, they're found by agents or students/staff of an OFU. Until someone enters the story, the minis don't technically exist.

Think of it like Shrodinger's Cat, only with fanfiction: Minis are in a perpetual state of limbo until someone enters the wordworld and observes them. They were never meant to be a meta thing. At least, not to this extent.

Sorry I was unclear I guess ^_^ by Myrddin on 2013-02-20 04:05:00 UTC Reply

I meant how would one go about reporting a mini that is already listed on the wiki, but is sourceless, as there was talk of trying to clean up the mini page and get rid of/move the "parentless" ones to a different section. Not how would I report a mini in general. ^_^

Such as the Percy Jackson ones that were already mentioned. They are on the wiki, but there has never been a mission to the universe or an OFU written, so they would be removed/moved to a new section. I found another breed like that, and wondered who I would report it to if I didn't feel qualified to edit the wiki myself yet? (Especially in the case of the mini I found, since there are actually two missions to the universe and an OFU, albeit a very short one, however neither one actually says what the minis are. They just refer to them having been created.)

Sorry for the confusion!

Good ideas! by hermione of vulcan on 2013-02-19 21:27:00 UTC Reply

Going to do a list. Because I have started a thing!

1. I like that - no minis made on the Board except for mini-Boarders.

2. Moving "parentless" minis to a new section - also good. We should check with everyone, though. See how many reply to these two posts.

Addendum: Sign in when wiki-editing. by Neshomeh on 2013-02-19 15:59:00 UTC Reply

There are lots of reasons to create an account and sign in when you edit the wiki!

1. If you don't, your IP address shows up, so it's more secure to have an account.

2. It's completely free, and you don't even need to provide an e-mail address if you don't want to. It's also fun!

3. If you don't, we have no idea who you are and may not be inclined to take your edits seriously (i.e., we might just undo it instead of talking about it first if there's a problem).

4. Not doing so may mean you haven't read the main page or the PPC Wiki etiquette & style instructions, and have possibly ignored automated prompts from PPC Wiki, too. This is a sign that you may have no idea what you're doing or just don't care, which always makes people nervous.

5. If you make a habit of anonymous edits, your IP's anonymous-user Talk page will receive warnings. If the warnings fail, your IP will be blocked for some period of time. We understand that sometimes you can get logged out accidentally or just forget, but this is a community, and we don't take kindly to nameless strangers messing with our stuff. If you can't sign in for some reason, at least identify yourself in your edit summary.

This has been a Public Service Announcement from your friendly neighborhood Neshomeh.

~Neshomeh

Um, sorry, wait. by Huinesoron on 2013-02-19 18:56:00 UTC Reply

5. If you make a habit of anonymous edits, your IP's anonymous-user Talk page will receive warnings. If the warnings fail, your IP will be blocked for some period of time.

Um... you went from 'might undo if there's a problem' and 'you might not have read the style guide' to 'you will be unavoidably blocked for your crimes'. Is that... I mean, that seems a bit out of proportion? No?

hS

It goes like this. by Neshomeh on 2013-02-19 20:09:00 UTC Reply

Some IP makes an edit without logging in. If it's fine, no big deal. Their talk page gets an automated welcome from the SO prompting them to make an account.

If they make more edits without logging in, they get a warning from the Marquis, reminding them to make an account/log in.

If they continue to make anonymous edits, they get a final warning.

If they STILL INSIST on ignoring everything and editing anonymously, their IP is blocked from editing without using a logged-in account. This simply forces them to make an account and use it if they want to do anything; it's not a "You can no longer access the wiki at all" kind of block. Those are reserved for spammers, trolls, etc.

Is that so extreme?

~Neshomeh

Er... yes? by Huinesoron on 2013-02-20 00:10:00 UTC Reply

Because, y'know, people might not want to make an account?

hS

Supposing.... by Neshomeh on 2013-02-20 15:05:00 UTC Reply

People didn't want to follow the rule about sticking to just one penname on the Board. Why should they have to be easily identifiable if they don't want to? I'm guessing for a lot of the same reasons I've already mentioned...?

I think you're overreacting, dude. You use a pennname on the Board; you use a handle in the IRC. As long as it's consistent, you can even call yourself "(no name)" if you really want to—remember that guy? Why should the wiki be different?

~Neshomeh

Yes, I remember no name. by Huinesoron on 2013-02-20 17:34:00 UTC Reply

I also remember someone once telling him(?) off once for not having a username...

There are three different mechanisms for those three areas, is the thing. On the Board, you just type in your username - if you can make a post at all, it's just as easy to post your username. On the IRC, I'm guessing but, again, if the thing loads at all, it'll take your name.

The Wiki is different. You have to log in. You have to input a (secure, and theoretically not the same as anywhere else) password. If you use a public computer, or someone else's computer, or a shared family computer, you have to put those details in every time.

hS

Hold on, this is actually getting off-point. by Neshomeh on 2013-02-20 20:50:00 UTC Reply

To quote myself, If you can't sign in for some reason, at least identify yourself in your edit summary.

The point is, identify yourself, because not doing so is suspicious, especially if you've been asked to before and you're ignoring it. I realize I've placed a lot of emphasis on logging in, because I don't see it as an issue—usernames and passwords are Internet 101, I have to log in with a password for darn near everything I do anyway—but if you're really that afraid of getting hacked or whatever, there IS a recourse. You're not going to get blocked as long as you make a little effort to go "hey, this was me, and subtextually I am totally willing to be accountable for the action I just did."

~Neshomeh

Confusion beckons. by Huinesoron on 2013-02-21 20:04:00 UTC Reply

I don't know whether it's me not reading or you not writing, but - I got the impression the whole 'block' thing was automatic? Which is a rather different cubegame*.

hS

*Ballgames are so passe.

Could be both. by Neshomeh on 2013-02-21 23:23:00 UTC Reply

I definitely overlooked some things through familiarity, but no, admins (mainly me, I admit, since I'm there the most) do the blocking if needed. I don't know if blocks even can be automated.

~Neshomeh

Re: Could be both. by VixenMage on 2013-02-22 17:54:00 UTC Reply

*takes the opportunity to issue you both hugs for working out your disagreement rationally and without freaking out or attacking each other*

{= ) by Neshomeh on 2013-02-23 16:49:00 UTC Reply

It's easy to be gracious when we're right about everything all the time. Because we are, you know. We are both right about all the things, all the time, even when we would appear to the untrained eye to hold mutually exclusive opinions. We just argue to show the common folk how it's done. *sage nod*

(But seriously I just try to keep the freaking out private.)

*hug*

~Neshomeh
!!!Hugs?!?! How VERY dare you! by Huinesoron on 2013-02-22 20:09:00 UTC Reply

... oh, wait, not freaking out...?

:P

(Would you believe it took me three tries to type that emoticon? I think I'm tired...)

hS
(Not that it's ever likely from either of you. Still.) (nm) by VixenMage on 2013-02-22 19:07:00 UTC Reply

Then why bother editing the wiki at all? by Data Junkie on 2013-02-20 03:05:00 UTC Reply

Besides, making an account is literally as simple as coming up with a user name and password, and you can set it to remember you so you you don't have to log in every time you visit the wiki.

I've had an account longer than you, yes. by Huinesoron on 2013-02-20 07:45:00 UTC Reply

But neither you nor I nor anyone else knows the reasoning behind the actions of everyone in this Community.

However, as a quick answer to 'Why bother editing the wiki at all?' - because otherwise people say things like this.

Basically, I do not like the fact that the wiki has become a) compulsory and b) trammelled about with rules. Call me old-fashioned if you like.

hS

I can get behind that. by VixenMage on 2013-02-21 05:42:00 UTC Reply

I remember going "Oh cool, a place to put all the historical stuff we always have trouble looking up!" when it came about, but all the sudden, it seems to be Absolutely Necessary to log all missions, agents, and so on in the Wiki. Which is frustrating.

(Though I do agree what Neshomeh is saying with regards to people identifying themselves. If people do it by signing edits manually instead of logging in, that's fine - but a while back, we had a kid doing edit-floods that were nigh-on universally unnecessary and quite often more harm than good, and initially nobody had any idea who he was. I think we'd be equally eyebrow-raising if people clumped around here refusing to sign their posts.)

My favourite memory of the Wiki... by Huinesoron on 2013-02-21 20:10:00 UTC Reply

... is after all those years of having a note on Makes-Things' page about a purported assistant named Fix-It, I finally got to read Neshomeh's edit summary when she found him.

hS

Heh. That was pretty awesome. by Neshomeh on 2013-02-22 16:34:00 UTC Reply

Huh, it wasn't even that long ago. April 2011.

I'd say things like that are a point in favor of keeping the thing up to date, actually. Discovery is fun, but it's also pretty time-intensive work sometimes. I do it because ~~I have no life~~ ~~I am a masochist~~ ~~I am Indiana Jones~~ I like to know where things come from, and I want other people to be able to find and enjoy them without having to do as much work as I did hunting them down. It's easier keeping the record up to date if more people are helping, even if it's just to look after their own stuff—but that doesn't mean I want to force editing on people who don't feel comfortable with it.

Incidentally, did you know the Foxglove Official has multiple personalities? I learned that just this year, when I finally went and pulled the original All-Purpose Department series from the depths of the Wayback Machine.

Maybe I should reinstate the Did You Know? box, since Featured Agents has stopped being a thing again...

~Neshomeh

P.S. And yes, that artifact should be in a museum. {; P

Oh, you do that too! by Huinesoron on 2013-02-22 23:26:00 UTC Reply

Huh, it wasn't even that long ago. April 2011.

Nesh... that was almost two years ago. I've turned a squishy pink thing into a little boy who talks and everything since then. That is totally a long time.

(In my mind, everything since about 1997 is 'a couple of years ago')

... the Foxglove Official has MPD? Okay, I know I didn't do it deliberately, but... 'the Foxglove' as one of the later villains of the piece is looking more accurate all the time...

hS

Well, gee, when you put it like that... by Neshomeh on 2013-02-23 16:26:00 UTC Reply

I guess I'm still not used to the idea that it's 2013 yet. 2012 didn't last long enough—and I hear this is just going to keep getting worse.

hS, we're oooooold. Like adults and stuff. You've got kids, I'm giving relationship advice to my mom, Harry Potter started more than a decade ago. In fact, Harry Potter started in 1997. I did not consciously realize that when I picked it as a point of reference. o.o

Not so much MPD as that each blossom has a different persona (based on characters/public figures) and they take turns, but yeah. If they stopped taking turns, that could be a problem. One of them is Vito Corleone, and who knows what other ones we haven't heard from yet?

~Neshomeh

Re: I've had an account longer than you, yes. by Miah on 2013-02-20 17:29:00 UTC Reply

I am definitely not the poster child for consistent wiki edits. So anyway, most likely hypocritical since I am fairly certain I don't have all my stuff on there, BUT I like having a list of all the missions on the wiki. I don't always keep up with the Board, so I miss missions sometimes. Especially for those missions that are posted with something like Google Docs, the only way to find missions that previously featured the agents I am reading about is through the wiki.

So I understand how people might not want to edit the wiki, and we shouldn't be ugly toward them over it, but it is very valuable to have a central location for the mission links, as well. Maybe there could be a system where people that are very nervous about the wiki could ask for help?
I agree completely with this by Tray-Gnome on 2013-02-20 17:13:00 UTC Reply

Personally, I hate editing the wiki. I always feel like I'm about to mess something up, or change the wrong thing, or accidentally blank a page, or... *carries on for several minutes* ...thus causing the downfall of the entire Martian civilisation. Again. So, I pretty much wind up editing it as little as possible. Most of the edits I've made have been adding to my primary agent pair's page. I haven't even gotten around to any of my other PPC characters to the wiki, or adding Zombieland minis, or pretty much anything. I just get way too anxious about it.

For anyone who doesn't want to tangle with the wiki . . . by doctorlit on 2013-02-20 17:22:00 UTC Reply

When you folks do have new info that should be added, go ahead and let me or someone else who does frequent the wiki know so they can add it for you. We want the wiki to have all possible PPC info on it!

(I'll work on Zombieland minis in a bit.)

Seconding doctorlit. by Neshomeh on 2013-02-20 20:54:00 UTC Reply

I practically live there anyway. {= P I can help out, whether by adding stuff or answering questions about how to do stuff.

~Neshomeh

Thirding! by KittyNoodles on 2013-02-21 06:53:00 UTC Reply

Mostly because I really like to edit things. It got me in trouble once or twice on the wiki, before I learned how to do things the right way... ^.^;;

Fourthing! by hermione of vulcan on 2013-02-21 12:32:00 UTC Reply

(That's probably not a word…but you get it.)

Fifthing :) (not a word either) by DawnFire on 2013-03-04 10:52:00 UTC Reply

(Because I was too slow in posting to make it to fourthing :D )

...even though that sounds kind of strange. Oh well. My point is...

Feel free to give me information to put on the wiki if you don't want to do it yourself/don't have the time/aren't sure how to do it/fill in other reason. I'm quite happy to take care of it. It's fun, and helps me learn the tricks of editing the wiki, which are good to know. (Yes, I'm still learning. Don't worry, if I can't figure something out through fiddling around or looking at a tutorial, I'll ask someone else how to do it (read: Neshomeh), or just pass it on to someone who knows (again, read: Neshomeh)).

Speaking of which, Neshomeh: Judging by the fact that Agent Neshomeh is also known as Soul, I'm pretty sure you took your screenname from the Hebrew word for, well, soul. Is there a reason you wrote it as Neshomeh instead of Neshamah? (Just a Hebrew-speaker with an interest in linguistics being curious here).

~DF
(Pretty sure thirding isn't a word either...) by KittyNoodles on 2013-02-23 07:38:00 UTC Reply

(..So you're in good company! XD)

In retrospect... by Neshomeh on 2013-02-19 20:16:00 UTC Reply

I didn't explain that last bit, about the type of block, in the original post. Sorry about that! Wikia has very flexible blocking options; it's pretty cool.

~Neshomeh

Ooh~ Minis! by Rina on 2013-02-18 12:55:00 UTC Reply

Who's in-charge of the adoption list? *is curious* I think it's you... Yes, you. Right? 0.0

To which minis are you referring? by Tray-Gnome on 2013-02-18 16:23:00 UTC Reply

If you're referring to minis in general, there is no one person who hands out minis. It depends on which 'verse the mini is from. If you want to know more, there's a handy-dandy mini page on the wiki.
If you're referring to Hunger Games minis, there are none. Hunger Games has neither an OFU nor any missions. There is no mini type for it, and therefore HG minis should not be handed out.

Oh... by Rina on 2013-02-19 10:13:00 UTC Reply

Now I understand. Thanks!

On the subject of The Hunger Games... by DawnFire on 2013-02-17 14:08:00 UTC Reply

Has anyone seen the terrifying phenomenon that is the list of characters on FFN? I just went to check it out, and saw something strange: 'Katniss and Peeta's daughter' was listed as a character. That's odd, I thought, and opened the list of characters. As to what I saw there...

Among characters that I'm pretty sure aren't canon are 'Katniss and Peeta's son', the aforementioned 'Katniss and Peeta's daughter', 'Finnick and Annie's son', and 'President Snow's granddaughter'. There are some other things, too, such as 'other tributes', but that's more plausible.

I can understand having an OC listing. That's quite normal, quite logical, even. But...canon characters' children? Correct me if I'm wrong, but...none of them actually exist in canon, right? They're about as implausible as--as 'Celeborn and Eowyn's daughter' or 'Draco and Helga's son', right? *Right*?

FFN...I'm terrified of you right now. I've even got a 'deer-in-headlights' look going on.

Has anyone else seen this yet? How did it even get there?

~DawnFire

WellÂ… by hermione of vulcan on 2013-02-17 15:32:00 UTC Reply

Was it you who said that you hadn't read all the way through Mockingjay? Then obviously you wouldn't know about Katniss and Peeta's children. It's been some time since I read the series, so I don't remember if Finnick and Annie have a child or President Snow has a granddaughter. (Actually, that last one sounds interesting to explore. How would you feel if he was your grandpa?) I'm inclined to believe that these are all legitimate, they just look bad because they were never named in canon.
Not that their blank slate status doesn't make them likely to be Sued, though.

... by DawnFire on 2013-02-17 16:01:00 UTC Reply

Guh? Wuh?

Ok, so they have children. And yes, I'm the one who picked up Mockingjay, read about half a chapter, decided it was more depressing than I wanted to read just then (not to mention that I couldn't really remember the details of the first two books anymore) and put it down again.

Hm. I suppose that ought to be googled or something.

(How would I feel? Probably pretty unhappy. Or else, blissfully oblivious)

Well, as long as it isn't fanon. Because that would just be ridiculous.

...I just realized that I've had part of the ending spoiled for me...oh well.

Poor kids. I'm seeing a lot of stories with bad summaries that include them...and I only went through one page, too.

Thanks for the correction :) I just got horrified because of the apparent OC types in the character list.

~DF

Sorry about the spoilers by Myrddin on 2013-02-17 16:35:00 UTC Reply

Sorry about the spoilers DawnFire. I'm going to add to them just a tiny bit though.

Peeta and Katniss have two children, a boy and a girl, Finnick and Annie have a son and a fleeting mention is made of Snow's granddaughter. These characters are not really given anymore description than the "other tributes" though. They are named to have existed, but we don't have any further information on them, names included.

Considering how aware the the rest of the capital was I would imagine Snow's granddaughter was actually pretty happy, being the presidents family and all, and blissfully unaware of what was actually happening, or what her grandfather was doing.

Ah, but these are good spoilers by DawnFire on 2013-02-17 16:51:00 UTC Reply

Moreover, these are spoilers necessary for Protecting the Canon, so thanks :)

Alright, so basically, anything that acts like a Sue is a Replacement, and anything that sounds logical and plausible and good is an acceptable speculation/OC. Got it. This is like the situation with Aragorn and Arwen's daughters, isn't it? We know they exist, but nothing more than that.

Ok. Understood. Panic over, too, which is good :)

That's true...probably dressing very colorfully, too.

~DF

Oh man, there already is a Percy Jackson OFU by World-Jumper on 2013-02-16 20:16:00 UTC Reply

Because I wanted the Minis to be mini-Hydras, with a bib that has their names on it and a new head each time that spelling is used. Oh well. As for the egyptian, yeah, mini-Ammets sound good (though mini-Kufu's humor me immensely). I think I can agree on mythology-based minis, though I still think the OFU writers shpold be able to decide if they want a different creature.

Yeah, you know my vote for Hunger Games minis. Mini-Mutts all the way!

*should not sphold. (nm) by World-Jumper on 2013-02-16 20:18:00 UTC Reply

While I think mini-mutts makes sense... by Neshomeh on 2013-02-16 19:16:00 UTC Reply

The idea is that OFU- or mission-writers in that continuum get to name the minis for a couple of reasons. First, it reserves the privilege for the person who actually goes to the effort of writing said OFU or mission. Second, it prevents the list of minis from getting (even more) artificially inflated by mini types that we've never seen mentioned anywhere else and may cause a conflict when someone actually does want to write about them.

So, while I'd agree with mini-mutts, I don't think it should go on the wiki until someone actually does something in that continuum.

~Neshomeh

I agree. by hermione of vulcan on 2013-02-16 22:14:00 UTC Reply

It's just that there have been minis created and adopted, so I thought we should give them a form. And I have a feeling that someone involved in that conversation (maybe me) will be the first person to write in Hunger Games.

As to the artificial inflation - it seems that Percy Jackson is a victim of it, considering that the mini listed isn't from the OFU and there are no missions into Percy Jackson yet. Should somebody possibly go through the list and delete the ones with no references?

Agreed here as well by Myrddin on 2013-02-17 00:12:00 UTC Reply

I was also thinking along the lines of what hermione seems to have been, that one of the people involved in the discussion would probably end up being the one that wrote the first mission. Heck, I'd do it if I wasn't not even a week old here yet and therefore not eligible for permission. XD

That said, since I am new here, I wasn't sure how minis created on the board worked, and since they were collected, I figured we might be onto a rare situation here that might warrant a slight re-interpretation of the rule in this one case.

If not, amorphous-wraith minis are shiny or if we go with no non-mission minis, it's fine. We can pretty much bet the first or second mission will come back with peta and senica minis anyway, although I do vote that Suzan be allowed to stay and just gain form when the first mission gets back just because author minis seem to be rarer. I do whole-heartedly agree with the rule that the first mission/OFU gets that privilege. ^^ I wasn't trying to rock the boat. ^^

I also vote for the wiki to be changed in favor of the Percy Jackson OFU minis if there really are no missions yet. (I checked on that too, and was wondering where the mission(s) were at.) And that any others found without a reference be removed too. ^^
But the thing is... by Tray-Gnome on 2013-02-16 22:33:00 UTC Reply

It's not a Board consensus. It's not a PPC decision. It's up to whoever writes the OFU or the mission. If one of the people involved in the conversation happens to do one of those first, that's great! But the thing is, if it's not, then it's not fair to to the person who did. Savvy?

Which currently leaves us with... by DawnFire on 2013-02-16 22:48:00 UTC Reply

...amorphous wraith-minis, yes? Until the OFU starts or the first mission is written?

...*cool*. I have an amorphous wraith-mini named Suzan!

~DF

Hee hee by Myrddin on 2013-02-17 00:13:00 UTC Reply

I like it. ^^
To be honest... by Tray-Gnome on 2013-02-16 23:09:00 UTC Reply

...I am kind of "eh" on handing out non-mission minis, especially in a 'verse that doesn't have minis yet.

Hm... by DawnFire on 2013-02-17 00:36:00 UTC Reply

It would be something interesting to explore, though. I mean, the poor mini doesn't know what it is. The mini's owner, for lack of a better word, has to figure out how to take care of it. Both mini and owner wait patiently/impatiently for the mini's form to be created. It could get pretty humorous.

That's my viewpoint, anyway. Also, as Hermione said, there will probably be a Hunger Games mission relatively soon, so it's unlikely that the minis would remain amorphous wraiths for too long...

~DawnFire

It's funny... by Phobos on 2013-02-17 04:21:00 UTC Reply

...how often "relatively soon" turns into "eventually" which turns into "maybe never". Seriously.

If you think it won't be long, then you shouldn't have a problem waiting. If it never happens, then we don't need it anyway. Either way, waiting seems to be indicated.

-Phobos

Fair point by DawnFire on 2013-02-17 10:28:00 UTC Reply

I suppose I'll just work (theoretical) amorphous wraith-minis into a conversation between agents sometime instead. Somehow. I wonder how that could even come up...no, actually, that bit's not so hard. The harder part is how they actually feature in the conversation, since they technically shouldn't exist in the PPC's world.

As to waiting...I'd write the mission myself (after getting permission), but I never got past the first two books and the movie. And I don't remember much from the books now. The Hunger Games isn't really my favorite Suzanne Collins series, although it was enjoyable and interesting to read.

~DawnFire

True, but... by Myrddin on 2013-02-16 22:14:00 UTC Reply

I know that's the official take on minis from the wiki, and I don't disagree with it, creating a mini species is a high privilege, and should be reserved for OFU and first mission writers. But what about a case like this, where the minis were created before the continuum has been visited or an OFU built?

Are they amorphous wraith minis until someone officially does something in the continuum or in such rare cases might not a board vote suffice? Just curious. ^^

That's the thing, though. by Neshomeh on 2013-02-16 22:53:00 UTC Reply

Minis shouldn't be created before an OFU or mission is written, because it's their prerogative. It's fun to think up minis on the Board, but then what? We get a long list full of minis with nothing official backing them up, and a lot of potential conflicts in the future if something official comes along. This is not actually a rare case, if you look at the list on the wiki. The rule is what it is for a reason.

~Neshomeh

Thanks hermione! by Myrddin on 2013-02-16 18:19:00 UTC Reply

Thanks for getting this set up for discussion, and clearing up the mini adoption issue. ^^

Sadly I don't think I have anything to add to the discussion about Percy Jackson minis. I know OFU's hold precedence over missions, however if the missions were written first, perhaps it could just be noted that the "official" minis were found at the OFU after the first however many missions. While the mission minis were tied to the Greek mythology base as a whole some how and explain the difference that way?

I do think I'll agree with Ellipsis Flood that conforming minis across the board for mythology related universes wouldn't be ideal. Although you could spin off that thought and note that for mythology universes sometimes minis take a universal form, for a to be thought up later reason, and explain the discrepancy in the Percy Jackson minis that way too? Perhaps?
Where are these minis from? by Ellipsis Flood on 2013-02-16 17:20:00 UTC Reply

Normally mini types are only chosen when someone starts an OFU or writes a mission. I can't remember if there has been a HG mission.

The second thing is kind of iffy, since there's a wide variety of ways to interpret mythology, so I'm against unifying minis there. Not sure what to do with the Percy Jackson thing, since OFUs have priority in mini design.

Those minis were created... by hermione of vulcan on 2013-02-16 17:53:00 UTC Reply

In this post. In my response, I pointed out the minis. Then people wanted to adopt them, which led to a discussion of what, exactly, had been adopted.

As to unifying mythology, I agree. It was just an idea that I thought might help reconcile the conflicts.