Wiki thumbnail example diversity: Sex-gender

Here's an example of the thumbnail thing I mentioned previously..somewhere [link here]:

triangle position wiki entry

ignoring that there are 3 participants here (hence 3! sex-gender configurations which's more complex than the 2! pairing),

-
there's at least 1 example of the following 'pairings':

• f/f [eg 3, from left]
• f/m [eg 2]
• m/a (ambiguous) [eg 4]
• m/m [eg 1]

-
There're probably a/a and a/f examples, but i'm not sure if the shortcuts are valid
wow those alias lists are impressive. no results for either though

Changelog:

• updated forum op

See also and Related tags section, RE:

tl;dr- which sections should directly-related tags
(eg presenting, presenting_hindquarters, presenting_*)
and indirectly-related tags (eg spreading, ass_up, raised_tail etc)
go under?

-
Ok so, just updated the toony wiki, and noticed the abovementioned sections got switched around

compare: (ignore the stuff that doesn't exist in the older version)
https://e621.net/wiki/show/toony?version=5
https://e621.net/wiki/show/toony?version=6

--
See the following for more info:

• https://e621.net/forum/show/202621
• https://e621.net/forum/show/202622
• https://e621.net/forum/show/202638
• https://e621.net/forum/show/202644

titanmelon said:

See also and Related tags section, RE:

tl;dr- which sections should directly-related tags
(eg presenting, presenting_hindquarters, presenting_*)
and indirectly-related tags (eg spreading, ass_up, raised_tail etc)
go under?

You've asked that several times already, but again: related tags is for tags that often apply to the same posts. It's a tagging aid, to suggest other common tags that might need to be added.

So, for instance, ass_up and raised_tail are related to presenting_hindquarters. But something like a presenting_breasts isn't. It's in the same group, but rarely appears in the same posts as presenting_hindquarters.

Another example: romantic_couple is related to romantic_ambiance. Because the latter usually contains the former.

And as was discussed last time, it's only for tags that actually are common on the same posts. So it's best to check first if you're unsure about it: search for both tags at once and see how many hits you get. There's no need to list tags that are implicated either, since those get added automatically (and they're already listed in the aliases/implications).

Also, I can't remember which admin said it, but there's no reason to link to the current page. Unless you're demonstrating a tag tree structure, the tag you're currently looking at should never be listed among the links.

Linking to forum discussions is also problematic, because those tend to get outdated quickly. If the discussion contains something relevant, that should be included in the description.

titanmelon said:

See also and Related tags section, RE:

tl;dr- which sections should directly-related tags
(eg presenting, presenting_hindquarters, presenting_*)
and indirectly-related tags (eg spreading, ass_up, raised_tail etc)
go under?

By "directly related," do you mean anything more than simply belonging to the same implication hierarchy? Because for those cases (and perhaps even otherwise), we can do something like this:

Other presenting tags:

• presenting
• presenting_anus
• presenting_hindquarters
• ...

See also:

• spreading
• ass_up
• ...

In short, we can avoid difficulties in deciding which header something belongs to by making the headers themselves more specific.

Is there any sort of standard or recommended page layout for wiki pages, character pages in particular? I add some wiki pages every now and not afraid to admit that I'm not very good at it. I feel I could do a better job and wiki pages in general would be more consistent if there was some sort of standard on how pages should be made and some templates were made readily available.

Here are some ideas I've been considering:

Example images

• 1 handpicked example for each page when possible that depicts the subject matter as clearly as possible.
• Up to 2 more if necessary (different costumes, alternate forms, variations, etc.)
• Whenever possible, choose safe images depicting as few off-topic elements as possible (for clarity) and as few commonly blacklisted tags as possible (it's not much help if the example is a square with "blacklisted" written in it).

My most recent attempts at this: flaming_tail toe_ring

Where would be the best place to list wiki pages that haven't been created yet. Obviously a nonexistent wiki page is no help when someone's trying to find out what something is and there are lots of tags without wikis.

BlueDingo said:
Where would be the best place to list wiki pages that haven't been created yet.

Those are listed in red on the master tag list, and you can sort the list by tagcount to find popular tags that are still missing the wiki entries. I don't think those need to be listed elsewhere.

Genjar said:
Ones that don't exist yet are listed in red on the master tag list, and you can sort it by tagcount to find popular tags that are still missing the wiki entries. I don't think those need to be listed elsewhere.

I know that, but it can be hard to find, say, a list of character from a particular franchise that are missing pages if the character tags don't have a suffix or a list of anatomical features. Also, having easily-accessed lists may encourage the four of us who actually create wiki pages to make sure those ones exist.

Maybe the tag_group pages would be a good start. Place a symbol next to the links that don't have pages so users viewing those groups can see which ones need wikis.

We need to get users on board to ensure that pages linked in the various tag groups contain a link leading back to that tag group so users can easily find relevant tag groups no matter which page they're on. The links in each group may need to be updated.

I have added and rearranged some links in tag_group:clothes and added return links and/or wiki descriptions to over a dozen of them.

I also have an idea for a tag group (or section for tag_group:weapons) but only a small number of links to add to it: Named armaments, for unique weapons that are popular enough to have tags (eg. master_sword).

Edit: Added anchors to tag_group:clothes so you can jump to some sections instantly. Considering whether return links should include anchors so they go to the appropriate part of the tag group. Also considering whether section code should be removed (too fiddly) and whether I should add a link for each section should leading back to the table of contents (no need to scroll back up manually).

Named weapon section added to tag_group:weapons. Doesn't have many entries yet but more should be added soon.

Added a table of contents to tag_group:weapons. Only has 3 entries (Ranged, Melee, Named) but it's better than nothing.

I need ideas on a subtle way of adding "back to top" links to tag groups so users can return to the top in one click instead of scrolling up the entire page.

• What should it look like?
• Where should it be positioned? I preferably want one link per section, close to the section title.

I'm implementing multi-part links to tag group pages when applicable so users can choose to whether they go to the top of the page of a relevant section of it. For example: buster_sword has a Tag Group: Weapons - Named link. Clicking the "Tag Group: Weapons" part sends you to the top of that page, clicking the " - Named" part sends you to the named weapons section. You can even test this here.

Hello there! I am trying to use a paragraph from the e621 Wiki on Wikipedia because it sounds more neutral than the one on Wikipedia. I just need to know if our Wiki’s license is even compatible with Wikipedia (CC BY-SA, CC BY, CC0, public domain). Can please someone tell me what the license of the e621 Wiki is?

theaestheticfur said:
Hello there! I am trying to use a paragraph from the e621 Wiki on Wikipedia because it sounds more neutral than the one on Wikipedia. I just need to know if our Wiki’s license is even compatible with Wikipedia (CC BY-SA, CC BY, CC0, public domain). Can please someone tell me what the license of the e621 Wiki is?

Hmm, I guess it made sense to reopen this instead of making a brand new, very related post. The person who wrote that paragraph is in the history, BTW. If you have to, ask them. Which article and quote?