Note: Remember that I'm not an official staff member, so don't take anything I suggest/say/opine/posit/etc. as 'official policy' unless otherwise confirmed by an Admin.

forum link: forum #159148 Wiki Standards: Policy, Editing and Content (May 2015)

If you notice:

• A topic in this Wiki Standards forum that's not mentioned in the OP,
• Any inconsistencies in the below information,

please DMail me with relevant links to them. Thanks!

Go here to discuss Specific articles:

forum #191799 - Wiki Discussion: Specific articles: Edits, questions, concerns, etc. (Apr. 2016)

Go here to discuss Feral articles:

forum #204964 - Feral-specific tag/wiki discussion:[..] (Aug. 2016)

Go here to discuss feral Sex-gender policies:

forum #190431 - Tagging Policy Discussion: Feral anatomy and tagging genders: (Apr. 2016)

Go here to discuss birds:

forum #204948 - Avian Megathread (Aug. 2016)

About

General forum for discussing wiki standards, since one doesn't seem to exist at the moment.

Both formatting and actual content discussion would be included for the time being, unless that gets too cluttered. see forum #191799

Major topics addressed in this forum so far: (last updated Jul. 2016)

[WIP]
O - Open
C - Closed
P - Partially-addressed
0;P - Topic was acknowledged by at least 1 other person, but no conclusion
-,? - N/A, unknown

Links to other discussions:

• forum #187125 (locked) - Wiki guidelines? (Mar. 2016)

---------------------------------------------------

(Any new points will be added to this post for consideration)

Many new users don't realize that they should be using underscores, so I'm thinking that it's best to have those in the wiki. To act as a kind of a reminder that those should be used when tagging/searching.

Genjar said:
Many new users don't realize that they should be using underscores, so I'm thinking that it's best to have those in the wiki. To act as a kind of a reminder that those should be used when tagging/searching.

That's a good idea, since it gets them accustomed to the format (especially since most sites separate tags with whitespace and commas, rather than underscores and whitespace)

I wish there were an option to toggle those for parsed links though, since the underscores make it look really cluttered on article pages

There isn't really a standard, but this is how I currently do it:

• Description: Word word [[Capitalized if Necessary with no Underscores]] word word.
• See also: * [[underscore_lowercase]] - Text if applicable, I avoid any links here.
• I almost never link to tag pages, I prefer to link to other wikis. If someone wants to look for posts they can click "posts (123)" at the top of the page.
• Exceptions: Guides, howto pages, e621 pages.

It would be awesome if creating/editing a wiki gave a template for description, examples, aliases & implications (are those automatically added?), and other relevant info.

The blank canvas we're given when creating a wiki or editing one seems a bit intimidating.

Knotty_Curls said:
It would be awesome if creating/editing a wiki gave a template for description, examples, aliases & implications (are those automatically added?), and other relevant info.

The blank canvas we're given when creating a wiki or editing one seems a bit intimidating.

I don't know how easy it is to do something like that as a built-in thing, but I'll bring this up for discussion. I might be able to come up with a copy-pastable template in the meantime (I've been meaning to write a help page for wiki formatting for a while now anyways).

aliases & implications (are those automatically added?)

If you are talking about this box at the bottom, yeah those are automatically populated from the tag alias and tag implication tools. You don't have to add those yourself.

How do you rate my copyright tag wikis?

https://e621.net/wiki/recent_changes?user_id=33842

https://e621.net/tag?name=&type=3&order=count

These are typical examples:

hamtaro_(series)
fallout_equestria
awesomenauts
puella_magi_madoka_magica
soyuzmultfilm
pixar
bunny_maloney
legend_of_queen_opala
little_red_riding_hood_(copyright)
chip_'n_dale_rescue_rangers

They range from lazy to some thought given.

Lance_Armstrong said:
How do you rate my copyright tag wikis?

https://e621.net/wiki/recent_changes?user_id=33842

https://e621.net/tag?name=&type=3&order=count

These are typical examples:

hamtaro_(series)
fallout_equestria
awesomenauts
puella_magi_madoka_magica
soyuzmultfilm
pixar
bunny_maloney
legend_of_queen_opala
little_red_riding_hood_(copyright)
chip_'n_dale_rescue_rangers

They range from lazy to some thought given.

I'd rate them from lazy to some thought given. :P

But yeah, they look good. Ideally I'd prefer to keep from copying text from other sites, but you do a good job at summarizing them. Seeing as copyright tags don't really need much in the way of usage guidelines, a brief synopsis is probably where I'd focus the effort anyways. Having the framework set up like that also makes adding things like character and related tags feel significantly less daunting than when working with a blank page (as Knotty already mentioned).

I actually had your edits in mind when I wrote that bit about external links, as I think it's a good way to handle them.

Not only is Wikipedia text Creative Commons , you don't need to attribute to quote from it:

"Other Rights—In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license: your fair dealing or fair use rights;"

I focus on copyright wikis because we should be able to find out what Extreme Dinosaurs or Onmyou Taisenki is instantly and where it can be found. Dafuq is nyani_ga_nyander_nyander_kamen or beast_wars or doctor_lollipop or fantomcat or fallout:_new_vegas... one click and you can know.

titanmelon, don't forget [[wiki_page_title|Wiki Page Title]]

Currently working on the tag group:species wiki, and noticed that an official format has still not been established (or if it is, I missed that)

A few considerations:

In the main sections, there are entries with multiple words. Some of them are written in the formats:

• [[word foo]]
• [[word_foo]]
• [[Word foo]]
• [[Word_foo]]
• [[Word Foo]]
• [[Word_Foo]]

The latter 2 seem to be used most often for proper nouns, or terms (Arctic Wolf)
But some are also written using the former (Winged_unicorn)

So the questions are:

• What standard formats (if any) should we use?
• When should they be used?
• When should they not be used?
• Where should they be used?
• Where should they not be used?

• Are there exceptions to this?

• Should this info be documented somewhere? (such as one of the e621:index sections)

---

Lance_Armstrong said:
titanmelon, don't forget [[wiki_page_title|Wiki Page Title]]

Oh, that's right
We could do that either way:
[[wiki_page_title|Wiki Page Title]] or [[wiki page title|Wiki_Page_Title]],
since wiki links seem to be parsed correctly in both cases

That still doesn't answer the question of which format to use though, or where, or when:

or [[wiki page title|Wiki page title]]
or [[wiki page title|Wiki_Page_Title]]
or [[wiki page title|Wiki_page_title]]

parasprite said:
There isn't really a standard, but this is how I currently do it:

Everything there sounds great, I feel like that should be added/incorporated with whatever style guidelines we come up with for the formatting thing

So basically there's no preferred method for underscores?
Personally, I omit them because it looks neater that way. Especially for small Wiki's it's still easy to copy them over too.

I tend to put underscores in, because it's clearer.
It's also easier to copypaste an unfamiliar tag if the underscore was included in the wiki entry where someone found it.
And I figure at least half the people who read any wiki are going to be less familiar with all the ins-and-outs of the site's formatting, so by adding the underscore in the entry itself, it makes it more accessible to all users.

Omitting it assumes people would just know to add the necessary underscores before turning around and using it as a tag anywhere. It creates an unnecessary knowledge barrier to applying the tag that they just read about. Or trips up anyone who didn't notice it was written with a space instead of the expected underscore. And the tag is technically spelled with the underscore, (it's misspelled as a tag without it). So the tag is not really supposed to look the same as a normal sentence with spaces does. It can look a little tidier, but just less accurate and accessible.

So that's why I tend to include the underscores for tags on the wiki. And if we were going to make any way of doing it official, that is why I'd lean towards typing the underscores in tags out rather than skipping them. After all, red_hair and red hair (aka [[red_hair]] and [[red hair]]) will both go to the same wiki page for linking across wikis. But the underscored one is more consistent with how the tag looks when in actual use (searches, tag editing, etc). And I think that consistency helps anyone learning how our tags work get the hang of it faster.

furrypickle said:
[..]
And the tag is technically spelled with the underscore, (it's misspelled as a tag without it). So the tag is not really supposed to look the same as a normal sentence with spaces does.
[..]

This is a really good point (as well as the rest)

If no one comes up with a good reason not to, I'm about 99% convinced that we should use the underscored tag format wherever possible from what you said alone

-

That still leaves the issue of capitalization though. So if we use the underscore format, here are the remaining options:

• [[Red_hair]]
• [[Red_Hair]]
• [[red_hair]]

-

My suggestion about that is as follows:

• Use the [[Red_hair]] format when it's the first entry of a list or sentence (possibly includes entries under the 'See also' section, but idk)

• Use the [[Red_Hair]] format when the entire tag is a proper noun, such as [[Arctic_Fox]]

• Use the [[red_hair]] format when it's neither of those cases

Along the lines of what Pickle said, I usually leave it in all lowercase/with underscores unless it's part of a sentence (e.g., a My Little Pony spinoff that involves...) unless I'm talking about a different tag specifically (e.g., Not to be confused with jack_nicholson). It's not a huge deal if they are but I try to at least make the pages all one format (if they are nixing the underscore and I'm adding a tag, I'll just go without the underscore and move on).

Here's some other informal guidelines I use:

• I also avoid links in the middle of the description more than I used to, but I still do that sometimes.
• I avoid outgoing links whenever possible. If they are needed/relevant I always stick them individually in lists at the end of the wiki page (never in the middle of a sentence).
• Aside from specific help pages, I don't ever use \some_tag.
• I don't link to the same wiki page that you are on (such as linking to penis on the penis article), because there is literally no good reason to do that.
• I avoid writing the tag I'm describing on the wiki page because that usually makes grammar/syntax clunkier than it needs to be (e.g., "A type of jewelry worn around the neck, usually for adornment. Often made of precious stones and metals." not "A necklace is a type of jewelry worn around the neck... A necklace is often made of...").
• I don't ever use "Images or animations which contain..." because...well, aside from there being little point (what else do we even host?) if there was something on here which wasn't an image or animation, chances are we'd be using that tag anyways (Corruption of Champions comes to mind).
• I keep it short, simple, and to the point (think dictionary, not wikipedia)

titanmelon said:

[[wiki_page_title|Wiki Page Title]]

or [[wiki page title|Wiki page title]]
or [[wiki page title|Wiki_Page_Title]]
or [[wiki page title|Wiki_page_title]]

Just so you know, you don't have to use the pipe unless you are changing the actual name. Dtext will automatically add underscores and make the link lowercase for you.

• [[Wiki Page Title]] -> Wiki Page Title
• [[Wiki page title]] -> Wiki page title
• [[Wiki_Page_Title]] -> Wiki_Page_Title
• [[Wiki_page_title]] -> Wiki_page_title

Aha, I knew that this topic seemed familiar. I started a related topic in forum #187125, but this one is better organized so it seems better suited to continue the discussion here.

Do you suppose that avoid spoilers should be added as a guideline?
For instance, those new Undertale entries are chock-full of spoilers. I'd hate to stumble on something like that while only looking for tagging information. And spoilers in general don't seem at all relevant to tagging.

Genjar said:
Aha, I knew that this topic seemed familiar. I started a related topic in forum #187125, but this one is better organized so it seems better suited to continue the discussion here.

Do you suppose that avoid spoilers should be added as a guideline?
For instance, those new Undertale entries are chock-full of spoilers. I'd hate to stumble on something like that while only looking for tagging information. And spoilers in general don't seem at all relevant to tagging.

...Shit. Sorry about that. I'll keep that in mind as I continue later on.

Genjar said:
Aha, I knew that this topic seemed familiar. I started a related topic in forum #187125, but this one is better organized so it seems better suited to continue the discussion here.

Good idea. I locked the other one with a link to here to keep discussion tidy.

Genjar said:
Do you suppose that avoid spoilers should be added as a guideline?
For instance, those new Undertale entries are chock-full of spoilers. I'd hate to stumble on something like that while only looking for tagging information. And spoilers in general don't seem at all relevant to tagging.

Mmm. Maybe as a sort of style suggestion. Like you've already said, for most things if you have a spoiler it's too probably long/irrelevant for the wiki ("Protagonist" is one exception :P).

Then again, I've never really been bothered by spoilers, so my judgement may be a bit skewed.

(continued from forum #187125)

titanmelon said:
Yes please

Added to forum #159148

-
@Genjar ; @parasprite et al:

Completely agree about the wiki having an emphasis on information that's inherently useful, and primarily applicable to the site (e6), rather than leaving it copypasted verbatim from elsewhere with conflicting tagging info

Can't count the number of times I've seen 'but the wiki states [old/misleading stuff]' used as a reason against more recent, beneficial changes that takes the old info into account

No kidding. I've seen some pretty inane junk in there quoted like that (some which haven't been edited since 2008).

titanmelon said:
I was working on a howto:tag feral gender wiki article that utilized most, if not all of the guidelines mentioned, but it's only about 75-95% completed atm for various reasons

Neat. That's a tricky one to word since there is so much variability involved.

titanmelon said:
I made a forum for discussing/establishing wiki standards a couple months ago, which was the most recent attempt (tmk):

forum #159148

There were lots of interesting and meaningful discussions, especially the guidelines parasprite mentioned in multiple places: forum #184692

Along with very useful suggestions/observations by Genjar and friends

Discussion seems to have died down/thread got lost/other before anything official happened though.

Since we now have a dedicated subforum for tag/wiki discusion (suuuper big thanks to parasprite for both implementing it asap, and single-handedly moving pretty much all the topics),

How about trying again? (in here, or the above forum)

Whatever agreed guidelines could then be added to a sticky or something, which is a step forward in achieving some semblance of true standardization
[/quote]

I have plans for this :P

This has been bugging me for a while,

Should the 'See also' part at the end of an article for related tags have a colon?

See also

• [tags]

-

See also:

• [tags]

(the lack of one is probably an artefact from the Danbooru days, but I've seen some articles with a colon, and it looks much better imo)

----

parasprite said:
I have plans for this :P

:O

titanmelon said:
I've seen some articles with a colon, and it looks much better imo

I concur.

titanmelon said:
Should the 'See also' part at the end of an article for related tags have a colon?

Keep the colon.

I personally prefer it with the colon, but as long as it's relatively standardized across wiki pages I think both look fine.

In reference to this suggestion: (forum #188232)

titanmelon said:
Requested feature:

Reverse linking the forum post made for aliases/implications to the wiki, i.e

• 1. alias/implication for x -> y created
• 2. forum post created
• 3. link to forum post on wiki article for x and/or y created

Why it would be useful:
So I don't have to go around manually adding forum discussions to the wiki for every single alias/implication tag made

If something like this ever gets implemented (and even if it doesn't), should there be a standard way to list the links to forum posts?
-

I usually do them on a case-by-case basis, depending on how big the article is, or how many forum links are added, but a standard format for everything might just be easier

How about:

See also:

• [relevant wiki tags]

Forum discussion:

• [forum \#123]
• [forum \#456]

?
--

Could probably be done with a 'simple' IF check or such to ensure duplicate headings aren't added:

or some equivalent

@All:

Not gonna actively go around changing them, but until someone objects with a good reason, all future articles/edits I create/edit will have the colon as well

\o/ [superimportantsrsbsns]

titanmelon said:
@All:

Not gonna actively go around changing them, but until someone objects with a good reason, all future articles/edits will have the colon as well

\o/ [superimportantsrsbsns]

> implying you have the authority to make this a rule :v

But yeah, in the interest of "picking one for the sake of standardization" I'm going to go ahead and say it's officially preferred but we aren't about to give records for it.

parasprite said:
> implying you have the authority to make this a rule :v

Well, I meant that the ones *I* edit/create will have them, whoops v:

But yeah, in the interest of "picking one for the sake of standardization" I'm going to go ahead and say it's officially preferred but we aren't about to give records for it.

Wooo (that would be silly, yeah)

• moved the Fictional species listing in tag group:species to tag group:fictional species since the former was getting to be kind of unwieldy

Wiki updates/new pages

If you have an idea for improving these, by making them more readable etc, please post it in here!

• made the following tag groups:
• tag group:anatomy
• tag group:multiple tags
• tag group unknown tags

I'm still working on the naming conventions for the [tag]_* etc sets, such as multiple_* and unknown_* mentioned above.
Should the _tags in the title be removed?

- tag group:multiple
- tag group:unknown etc. ?

• Also made a meta:list of tag sets wiki, which is both unofficial and in need of a better name.

It's for listing all the similar tags with a common, identical theme (multiple, unknown)

Check it out for a fuller idea of wh-wh-what it's about

-
Should that (meta:list of tag sets) include the *_(disambiguation) tags as well?

-

There's also a meta:index article, which is basically a full list of lists

Might rename that to meta:index list, or something else, and use meta:index for the actual meta:* index listing

Since I consider this important, I'll mention it in this thread too: adding thumbnails to the wiki entries can be useful. The site itself is largely visual, and -- although I don't know the actual numbers -- a large portion of the traffic is from non-English countries. Including the thumbnails makes the usage of the tag relatively easy to understand, even to the users who aren't fluent in English.

I've also been thinking of the guidelines for those. Since wiki is shared on both e621 and e926, I believe that it'd be best to use safe-rated examples. That's not always possible, of course, depending on the subject.

Blacklists are an another thing that might be worth consideration: hardcore, commonly blacklisted kinks such as vore and gore should be avoided. And since some users blacklist genders, it's good to have some gender variety.

^{_{Also, as a personal preference, I try to pick images that are of the same height. It just makes the page seem tidier.}}

Genjar said:
Since I consider this important, I'll mention it in this thread too: adding thumbnails to the wiki entries can be useful. The site itself is largely visual, and -- although I don't know the actual numbers -- a large portion of the traffic is from non-English countries. Including the thumbnails makes the usage of the tag relatively easy to understand, even to the users who aren't fluent in English.

I've also been thinking of the guidelines for those. Since wiki is shared on both e621 and e926, I believe that it'd be best to use safe-rated examples. That's not always possible, of course, depending on the subject.

Blacklists are an another thing that might be worth consideration: hardcore, commonly blacklisted kinks such as vore and gore should be avoided. And since some users blacklist genders, it's good to have some gender variety.

^{_{Also, as a personal preference, I try to pick images that are of the same height. It just makes the page seem tidier.}}

The problem with that is that you never know if it becomes taken down for being an inferior size to a larger image uploaded in the future or because the artist(s) wishes for its removal.

So browsing through the wiki and replacing deleted pics with new ones as examples is helpful.

Are sections really necessary for larger wiki entries?

Here's one example: I was looking for a species in tag_group:species. Hit Ctrl-F, tried to search for it. Nothing came up. Scrolled down to 'reptile', which said to check 'scalie'. Scrolled down to 'scalie', to find out that it was hidden behind a section.

Kind of defeats the purpose of a reference list if it can't be easily referenced.

Genjar said:
Are sections really necessary for larger wiki entries?

Here's one example: I was looking for a species in tag_group:species. Hit Ctrl-F, tried to search for it. Nothing came up. Scrolled down to 'reptile', which said to check 'scalie'. Scrolled down to 'scalie', to find out that it was hidden behind a section.

Kind of defeats the purpose of a reference list if it can't be easily referenced.

I personally prefer them out of sections or with ,expanded.

• Added the major topics brought up so far regarding wiki standards and issues (See OP)

If you see any major topics I missed, or have a suggestion about making the OP more readable, please either mention it here, or (preferably) message me about it
thanks!

Genjar said:
Are sections really necessary for larger wiki entries?

Here's one example: I was looking for a species in tag_group:species. Hit Ctrl-F, tried to search for it. Nothing came up. Scrolled down to 'reptile', which said to check 'scalie'. Scrolled down to 'scalie', to find out that it was hidden behind a section.

Kind of defeats the purpose of a reference list if it can't be easily referenced.

Yeahh, been wondering about this recently

One of the biggest reasons I include section tags in something is:

-
But like you mentioned, none of that really counts for much if you can't actually use the wiki to find something in the first place

So it's an issue of accessibility vs convenience

This is one of the reasons why I submitted a feature request for it (forum #189583) - so you can expand/collapse everything via a single click
-

parasprite said:
I personally prefer them out of sections or with ,expanded.

Do you all think that the wikis should use expanded section tags instead of closed ones, regardless of possible performance issues?

If so, where?

• major lists (like the species wiki)
• ??? (haven't given this much thought for now)

-
also the species wiki needs so much reorganization/updating ;-;
no idea when i'll have the time to bring that up formally though, if someone else doesn't

Determining 'officiality' of wiki articles, and tags mentioned in the wiki articles

Somewhat related to wiki entry (that Tag Standards forum idea seems more and more likely)

Based on some discussions in forum #185586, starting from forum #190139

what, if anything, should be done about the issue of wiki articles being 'official' enough? Namely:

Content

-----

For example, just created a tag group:ambiguous tags wiki since there seem to have been some rather obscure ones that have been coming into the light (forum #191296)

What I didn't add though, were tags with <10 uses such as

• ambiguous_genitalia (not sure what this is about)
• ambiguous_fruit
• ambiguous_background (not sure what this is about)

Due to what Genjar said here:(and I agree with)

-

However, that raises the question of

What should, and should not count as a valid wiki/tag entry, and why?

• For tags, this primarily applies to the non-obvious (typos, singular/plural mixup), low count ones created by others
• If I listed them in a tag group wiki, with relevant warnings about low count tags, would that encourage others to use the tags, which are relatively unknown to most, and haven't been discussed at length in relation with existing solutions, reasons against usage, etc?

titanmelon said:
Do you all think that the wikis should use expanded section tags instead of closed ones, regardless of possible performance issues?

I'd prefer them without sections altogether.
Expanded or not, all the 'click to expand/collapse' banners are just extra clutter that doesn't seem to serve any purpose. If there's too much text to manage without sections, then maybe a rewrite is in order. Not many users bother to read walls of text.

Also, I happen to be using the Hexagon theme, and light blue text (links) on medium blue background is somewhat hard to read.

titanmelon said:

What should, and should not count as a valid wiki/tag entry, and why?

Old tags, except the low count ones, should be considered valid. And artist and character tags rarely require discussion, so those probably can be added directly to the wiki. Unless it's something like princess_molestia.

As for the general tags... those usually should be discussed first in some way, or at least mentioned somewhere. Such as in this thread. And if there's major disagreements about the usage, that should be ironed out first before starting to use the tag.

If I listed them in a tag group wiki, with relevant warnings about low count tags, would that encourage others to use the tags?

I'd say... Obviously. They're in the wiki, and the wiki is the main source for tagging information. If something's listed there, it's meant to be used.

One example is those color tags. We have an accepted list of colors. There's absolutely no reason to list colors that aren't among those. Such tags should be fixed when found, not used.

Mention of the realism wiki entry:

https://e621.net/forum/show/191496
https://e621.net/forum/show/191498

-
I think there should be some more things done with realism and toony, in relation to the art styles of posts

There was also another tag (dunno if it's on here too) from other boorus that was used for posts of fanart that were drawn in the original art style of the franchise.

I'm not sure how realism is related to this topic...?

Anyway... What's the best place for the thumbnails? I tend to put those between the text and links (a habit that I learned from another booru), but some others put those at the top.

Either seems fine, but we should have a standard for it. Top, middle, or end?

Genjar said:
Anyway... What's the best place for the thumbnails? I tend to put those between the text and links (a habit that I learned from another booru), but some others put those at the top.

Either seems fine, but we should have a standard for it. Top, middle, or end?

I usually stick them at the top unless the page is large and broken up (think overweight).

Expanded \[section] articles

OK, as per what Genjar and parasprite mentioned here: forum #191139, forum #191141

Expanded the section tags of tag group:body types

-

Also expanded tag group:species the other day

Feel free to compare and contrast the different article types (eg. one is image-heavy, one is list-heavy. Both are long/Complex)

Feedback very welcome/needed

• Especially about losing the \[section] wrapping completely

Genjar said:
I'm not sure how realism is related to this topic...?

Not realism itself, but the wiki article for it

...should actual discussion of specific wiki articles be moved to somewhere separate?

Feels like that should be a thing too
make ALL the dedicated forums
------

Anyway... What's the best place for the thumbnails? I tend to put those between the text and links (a habit that I learned from another booru), but some others put those at the top.

Either seems fine, but we should have a standard for it. Top, middle, or end?

parasprite said:
I usually stick them at the top unless the page is large and broken up (think overweight).

This is pretty much what I do as well, or below the description of the tag/example, if a thumbnail example ever gets included.

(which they should as much as possible, imo. Especially because of what Genjar mentioned here about non-english members)

Assuming caching doesn't cause performance hits (???)

Capitalization standards when mentioning tags in wiki articles

Based on what was said here: forum #184686
About capitalization standards when mentioning tags in lists and such, does anyone have new/other ideas regarding that?

parasprite mentioned some capitalization standard methods here: (forum #184692)

Which sounds like a great supplement to the below:

--
Just expanded the tag group:fictional species wiki, whose capitalization was mimicked from the tag group:species wiki

Compare the capitalization formatting of the lists from tag group:species, tag group:fictional species, and tag group:fictional species#list_franchise

---

Not sure what's even going on in this topic anymore, all the edits and links are making the discussion hard to follow.

Didn't we go over the underscore issue already? My opinion is the same as before: lowercase and underscores for the link-section, normal capitalization for the description.

Genjar said:
Not sure what's even going on in this topic anymore, all the edits and links are making the discussion hard to follow.

Yeah, since this is sort of a macro-topic, things are starting to get more complicated when they become interlinked

working on that

--

Didn't we go over the underscore issue already?

We did, but nothing 'official' and/or conclusive was agreed by everyone (i.e. the entire purpose of this forum)

Before I go around changing the format of multiple wiki lists, (like the tag groups, related section etc.),
thought it would be a good idea to make sure at least the active members agree via statement about the formatting in relation to capitalization as well as the tag/underscore syntax
(the latter of which seems to be somewhat more streamlined now, which is great)

-

My opinion is the same as before: lowercase and underscores for the link-section, normal capitalization for the description.

Noted; anything different for actual lists? Specifically lists about 'proper' nouns (like the species wiki)

-
Still very related is that suggestion about having a way to mark wiki articles as 'official', so things like this don't keep getting repeated without risking miscommunication by assuming a consensus where none was made

titanmelon said:
Yeah, since this is sort of a macro-topic, things are starting to get more complicated when they become interlinked

But weren't there actual formatting guidelines in the OP? Those seem to be gone now. Maybe I'm thinking of some other thread, or the preview that parasprite posted.

We did, but nothing 'official' and/or conclusive was agreed by everyone (i.e. the entire purpose of this forum)

Very few things are directly declared 'official' by the admins. They seem to prefer it if we can work these things out on our own.

Two admins and a few users supported the use of that standard, and nobody has spoken against it. That seems like a consensus.

thought it would be a good idea to make sure at least the active members agree via statement about the formatting in relation to capitalization as well as the tag/underscore syntax

Is that necessary? I rarely reply to topics (such as aliases and implications) if there's already a consensus that I agree with, and I've kind of assumed that it's the same for others.

________

Anyway, here's my reasoning for pruning down the latest Gangbang edit. The addition was:

May be consensual, or forced.

• For consensual gangbangs - happy_sex sometimes applies.
• Possibly fucked_silly and/or looking_pleasured.

• For forced gangbangs - gang_rape usually applies.
• Possibly abuse, mind_break, rough_sex, or sometimes public_use scenarios.

It is tagged for all types of gangbangs, and there's nothing that suggests otherwise. Gang_rape is already listed in related tags, and it implies gangbang. Therefore, the first line is redundant.

Happy_sex almost never applies to gangbangs. Those tend to be solo_focus, which excludes happy_sex. Less than 0.5% of gangbangs are tagged as happy_sex. Only listing tags that are actually related seems like a good guideline.

Fucked_silly and looking_pleasured are a bit more common, but I dunno if either is common enough. I kept those in the related tags anyway.

And the tags related to gang_rape should be listed in the gang_rape entry, not in gangbang.

@Genjar:
Response about gangbang moved to

• forum #191799 - Wiki Discussion: Specific articles: Edits, questions, concerns, etc. (Apr. 2016)

Thanks for pushing that before this forum got too divergent

-

Changelog

• created forum #191799 - Wiki Discussion: Specific articles: Edits, questions, concerns, etc. (Apr. 2016)

• added link to OP for both

• 'moved' forum #191520 (realism) to forum #191799

'Deep' category tags and #anchor tag placement

Mentioning a couple ones, major first:

1. Should the 'deep' category tags- ones which cover multiple subthemes...

(eg sex, breasts, penis, anthro etc.) have a section for general information and use for the subtheme tags?

• e.g breasts wiki has a list + description of use for the different breast sizes, related fetish tags, sex tags, anatomical features, etc.

Question here is: Should we do something like that for all the Deep tags, or limit their wiki entry to just relevant info about the tag itself
(,while still listing the other related subtags- but in less detail)?
-

My suggestion about that:

• We could possibly have a separate wiki article (info:breast usage) or similar for really detailed documentation about the usage of a single broad tag and its subtags,
• while leaving the main wiki article (breasts) for the main tag alone
• and still listing the subtags, but in less detail

2. Where should the [#anchor] tag go for title headers?

My suggestion(s) about that:

i. Personal preference is #2, since it flows better when writing wiki articles- I usually think of an anchor tag after the title, not before

But it could vary between author.

ii. Another option is to just not have a standard format at all, and leave the placement position up to each person's discretion.
But that could probably get confusing quickly if you have to edit what someone else did if there are many anchor tags and title headers + formatting etc.
(See tag group:body types for a good example)

Article example: section tags, anchor tag placements + spacing

Ok, based on the following questions:

• General formatting - spacing
• 6 Are sections really necessary for larger wiki entries?
• n Where should the tag go for title headers?

Updated the tag group:species wiki. Here are some observations/queries about it:

• 1. Added 1 space after a header title for the anchor tag, and 2 spaces for a 'return to top' button; like so:

h3. Fauna (Animals) [#fauna]  [[#top|^]]

Is this a good general syntax for wiki titles?
--

• 2. There are quite a bit of section tags in the article, would it be easier to understand without any section tags at all?

(Ignore the Flora section for now, since that may be moved to a separate article, like what ZaSigma4 suggested )

--

• 3 Switched the placement of the anchor tags with the header title; from:

h3. [#fauna] Fauna (Animals)  [[#top|^]]

To:

h3. Fauna (Animals) [#fauna]  [[#top|^]]

---
Thoughts?

Anchor tags should probably be placed at the beginning of a header

Ok, update about the [#anchor] tag placement thing:

For longer wiki header titles, like

Putting an anchor tag at the end, like:

Might not jump to the correct line (the first line of the header) of the title, since the anchor tag is at the very end
-

The easiest solution to that, is to place the anchor at the beginning, right after the header markup:

Idea: wiki thumbnail rotation event

Not really related to the title, but I don't want to make another entire topic for meta wiki stuff since this one is rather quiet
-

What do you all think about having a sort of voting event for wiki thumbnail choices?

Somewhat similar in scope and purpose to @slyroon's e621 high scores forum sticky

Basic idea is this:

• The community can vote on what examples they'd like to see for wiki article thumbnails
• there'd probably be a set of rules about this to ensure things stay fair for everybody; more on that later

• The chosen thumbnails stay up for a certain time, possibly as a function of how popular (tag count) the article is

• after that time passes, members can vote again for a new set of thumbnail/s

-------

Here's what an event like that could accomplish:

• raise awareness of wiki articles

• help increase quality of examples based on what a portion of the community (majority of voters) decide
• maybe we could have a rotation of 'art styles' or something, not sure about that for now

• increase exposure of artists with higher quality works
• this part may be tricky in future, more on that later

Any feedback/suggestions on this greatly welcome
(none of this is official of course, but who knows what could happen with enough interest)

The wiki thumbnails should be picked based on functionality, not on popularity. They need to be clear enough to demonstrate the usage just by looking at them. Which almost certainly wouldn't be the case with the winning entries.

Speaking of the thumbnails... Here's a guideline that I think would be good: if the tag is generally safe, it'd be best to use safe-rated thumbnails. So those'll be viewable from e926.

titanmelon said:

Idea: wiki thumbnail rotation event

[...]

What do you all think about having a sort of voting event for wiki thumbnail choices?

[...]
Any feedback/suggestions on this greatly welcome
(none of this is official of course, but who knows what could happen with enough interest)

I see a few issues about this:

I don't see why higher quality works should be favored in wikis, that's not what the wiki is for, it's for describing the tag, and maybe describe what not to tag, hence thumbnails should be chosen based on that not how many favorites or what score it may have (or may get). It's entirely irrelevant. When I choose thumbnails for wikis I tend to choose ones that feel neutral, have good contrast and where described feature is easily discernible without visiting the post itself, often ignoring posts with detailed backgrounds or groups.

Who chooses the candidates? Are all posts candidates? Who moderates this? Would it be automatic? What happens if no-one votes? What happens if there's a draw? Sounds like big tasks considering the amount of wiki articles, of course one could do it on a few select articles, but then I feel it gets less effective as well.

The really good thing would be the awareness thing, but it is secondary.

General List Spacing Poll

Question: Which Navigation section (table of contents) is easiest to read/understand at a glance?

• 1. No linebreak afther headers

• 2. Linebreak after headers

-
I'll add a Results section to tally these after enough people give their opinions or enough time passes, whichever comes first

RE: Thumbnails Rotation Event - Short version

1. We should definitely have wiki functionality as a primary critera

2. Higher scores and favecounts shouldn't be the primary, or even secondary criteria, but they help with many possible obstacles regarding getting people to be more aware of + interested in tags/wiki/usage

• 1. A major portion of the community is familiar with the example
• 2. Community picked examples are likely to be remembered and better internalized (like memes)
• 3. Community participation encourages interest in the example, the tag usage, and the wiki
• 4. The better examples/favourites chosen could then have an opportunity to be tagged better
• 4a. if the thumbnail rotation is regular, this means more and more high quality images getting tagged more thoroughly, according to recent policies at the time of the event

3. If we have the event done in a similar way to the off-topic forums, we can have members post their choices and state why it'd be a good example for the article

• We could have a team of experienced staff/memebers decide which choices would be best for the articles per event
• Once there's an explanation to the community about the purpose of the thumbnails, then I think they would understand why some examples won't be chosen

RE: Thumbnails Rotation Event - Long version

(All emphases and additional formatting for extra readability are mine)

(Moved the first topic in this forum to save space in the OP)

(old, closed) 1. Some inconsistencies with the way tags are linked in articles:

[[wiki link]]

{{tag link}}

titanmelon said:
What should the standard for linking to other wiki articles be?

We went over this on page one of this very thread. Lowercase, with underscores for the link sections. But proper spelling and without underscores if it is within the description.

Yeahh that one's old, should probably append Closed to it too

Since this is a thread on content and standard (and someone already has asked for a rating before here) if anyone would mind checking/rating my first three wikis please. (found incorrectly tagged as general, and wiki-less)
(I edited these several times):

bertín
doña_ana
furrnion

Thank you!

Tag/Wiki policies for specific and general cases

(This one's more about tag policy than wiki, but it's related)

It'd be great to have some kind of stated protocol for new/underused tags and/or wiki entries for such;
Something which takes the following concerns into account:

• determining how useful a tag is for searching, blacklisting, etc.

• determining whether or not an existing tag with a higher post count is already in use
• Should there be an alias? What order?

• Possible conflicts with other tags

• what happens if you ask about the tag and don't get a reply?
• is it OK to go ahead and use the tag/make or update the article?

• is there a place where people can easily see the changes and discuss them?

--

There are likely to be more, but those are from the top of my head.
If you have any constructive ideas about this please be sure to mention it in here!

BlueMoonstruckWolf said:

Those wiki articles look very well done!

In general, the character-type wiki entries would be great with a livelier, less 'academic-sounding' tone of writing, but that's just me

--
That could possibly be part of the stated guidelines for wiki articles-

Difference in tone between certain types of articles

titanmelon said:
Those wiki articles look very well done!

In general, the character-type wiki entries would be great with a livelier, less 'academic-sounding' tone of writing, but that's just me

--
That could possibly be part of the stated guidelines for wiki articles-

Difference in tone between certain types of articles

Good point, characters aren't exactly something you'd write about in an essay format. After all, they're "people", not inanimate rocks. XD
(Unfortunate that I always write "academic-sounding". Guess it's my perfectionism at work..)

I was thinking of adding more 'opinion/personality' based traits rather than only physical to make it sound less 'textbook-cold', which I originally had done, but I also wanted to make the wiki as little without unnecessary words as possible, following what parasprite(?) said for their own tag guidelines.
The line at which to work at is truly a task for me.

BlueMoonstruckWolf said:
I was thinking of adding more 'opinion/personality' based traits rather than only physical to make it sound less 'textbook-cold', which I originally had done, but I also wanted to make the wiki as little without unnecessary words as possible, following what parasprite(?) said for their own tag guidelines.
The line at which to work at is truly a task for me.

Nah, 'textbook' is fine. Could use some example thumbnails though, for users who don't speak English.

The wiki exists mainly for tagging purposes. As such, it's best to focus on the visual aspects such as appearance, and leave things like personality and backstory for the actual Wikipedia.

Genjar said:
Nah, 'textbook' is fine. Could use some example thumbnails though, for users who don't speak English.

The wiki exists mainly for tagging purposes. As such, it's best to focus on the visual aspects such as appearance, and leave things like personality and backstory for the actual Wikipedia.

Aight, makes sense. Problem here for me was that I happened to come across that one post by accident; seems that's the only post thus far that has these characters tagged, so the one post is the only example so far. ^^' (Thus the lack of an example thumbnail, not to mention I hadn't thought to put one)

However, I did actually find some pictures online; by the actual con, fan art, as well as a sort of ref(?) sheet for both, which I used to help make the wiki. I'll have to ask if I can post those on here, but I'm not sure how to ask.

And given the tagging system, surely it can't be terribly impossible for me to find these characters elsewhere here, using physical attributes in tags. (unless fan art gives them different clothes: then I'm screwed)

Another question though, is should I make wiki links to the physical attribute/clothing tags, such as green_eyes?

Mentioning this in here for now:

'See also'/'Related tags' listing format

TMK, @parasprite was the first one I noticed doing this, and it's rather effective in keeping things organized:

e.g on the presenting wiki article:

See also:

• presenting

** presenting_anus
** presenting_breasts
** presenting_cloaca
** presenting_hindquarters
** presenting_penis
** presenting_pussy

So the general format would be:

See also:

• unlinked tag - usually/always the name of the wiki article
• \[[list of immediately-related tags\]] - this list would usually/always have at least one word in common with the main tag (e.g presenting_anus and presenting)

-
(see here for more info about this)

See also and Related tags sections

In addition to the above, I also noticed that some of the articles for very broad tags tend to have a very large number of subtags for them

e.g. presenting

There are 2 major types of lists on a wiki article in general:

• 1. Directly-related tags: see the above post for examples of this
• 2. Tags with a similar theme/purpose
• eg. ass_up, spreading, raised_tail etc.

For the first type, all listed tags are usually/always related to the main tag in question
eg. presenting_anus is always related to the 'presenting' tag, no matter the context

Type 1 would usually the the set to have tag implications made

-

The tags in type 2 aren't always immediately-relevant to the main tag

eg. a character spreading something could be portrayed as spreading an orifice, which would likely mean they're presenting the orifice as well (eg spread_anus + presenting_anus)

But it could also be irrelevant to the main tag as well, to varying degrees:
eg. spread_wings and presenting

Names for the different categories: See also / Related tags / etc.

I'm not sure what names would be best for different sections,

So far the most common are

and Related tags:
-

• Which name do you think would be the most appropriate for each section? (type 1 and 2 above)

• Would other section names be better?

How about Common traits: as a section name for type 2?

ZaSigma4 said:
How about Common traits: as a section name for type 2?

Not all of them are traits, though.

The current split is basically this:

• See also is for tags that you should know about, to avoid mistags. For example, if you didn't know that it exists, it'd be easy to mix up presenting_hindquarters with presenting_anus.
• Related tags serves multiple purposes: it's useful for taggers who are trying to find more tags to add, works as a kind of a tag recommendations system (´if you like this, you might also be interested in these´), and can even help clarify the usage of the tag. For instance, if the main tag is explicit, I try to list primarily explicit tags as the related ones. That helps hammer in the fact that it's for explicit content. Even when the user only glances over the page, instead of reading the description.

wiki thumbnail rotation event: expanded

More ideas about this one

[not currently implemented] The rotation could be scripted (ie cycles through a prefetched set/database of post/post ids

-

• there could be a maximum number of categories per article [where applicable]

eg at least one example of the following:

• sfw
• rating:s example

• at least 1 gender each
• male, female, inter/altersex, hermaphrodite

• at least 1 major bodytype each
• anthro, humanoid, feral, taur

wiki thumbnail rotation event:expanded 2

It was also pointed out to me that having a forum topic event for every single major article on the wiki would quickly become chaotic;

To which I agree- if not handled properly

And that's not even considering if we did it bi annually or whatever

----

That said, it's definitely *doable*, if we have some procedural rules in place to do it, but i'm not sure whether or not it would be worth the effort

---
Instead, we could maybe use Sets, and people would submit their choices in the forum in the following format:

Category: [gender/body type/sfw eg etc]
Article: foo
Thumb #

(Reason)

--
Which shouldn't be too bad.
(I'm already doing something similar in the Ambiguous tags forum.)

It's just a matter of finding volunteers to collect the data, tally them, and make impartial decisions accordingly

(not necessarily the same group of people for all those)

Update - Aug. 16 2016

Added links to other relevant forums to OP

Idea: Basic and Advanced wiki articles (tag groups)

What do you all think of having 2 types of tag groups?:

'simple': which lists the basic info and major tags/categories of the article (for maximum readability/conciseness)

and 'detailed': which gives an exhaustive/advanced listing and explanation of things
--

A possible example is the tag group:species wiki,

I'm thinking we could have the basic one be like what @Circeus and @Genjar said here and here,

• maximum readability and concise as possible for when you want to just look something up/find a tag

in addition to:

• a more advanced, taxonomically-accurate whatever that even means nowadays.. listing of all the relevant species tags on e6 (each taxon)

Changelog

Changed title from:

• Wiki Standards: Editing and Content
• -> Wiki Standards: Policy, Editing and Content