Category talk:Vampires - Revision history

Jeysie at 20:02, 27 July 2009

2009-07-27T20:02:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:02, 27 July 2009
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:This might be a bit meta for a discussion page on Vampires, but it's not like there isn't work to do. Cybertron's episode guide pages are in a sorry state, and the G.I. Joe characters from the various crossovers could use a lot of fleshing out. Hell, AHM #13 is only halfway complete. Is there anything we can do to steer people towards these kind of areas rather than making dubious categories or taking a no-image-uncaptioned approach? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:59, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		:This might be a bit meta for a discussion page on Vampires, but it's not like there isn't work to do. Cybertron's episode guide pages are in a sorry state, and the G.I. Joe characters from the various crossovers could use a lot of fleshing out. Hell, AHM #13 is only halfway complete. Is there anything we can do to steer people towards these kind of areas rather than making dubious categories or taking a no-image-uncaptioned approach? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:59, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
	::Oh, there's plenty of work to do. It's just that most of it takes effort, which, well, a lot of people don't want to make (which is why there's no rival "seriuz" wiki and the old site is 2000 articles behind us). And when you fail to make an effort, you make an ef out of or and t. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 15:29, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		::Oh, there's plenty of work to do. It's just that most of it takes effort, which, well, a lot of people don't want to make (which is why there's no rival "seriuz" wiki and the old site is 2000 articles behind us). And when you fail to make an effort, you make an ef out of or and t. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 15:29, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
			:::Maybe some sort of overall project drive? Although in some cases it's also a matter of "few people have seen the thing that needs updating". I wonder if coordinating some of the things people have seen, like the Generation 1 characters, might not be a bad idea. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 16:02, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

M Sipher at 19:29, 27 July 2009

2009-07-27T19:29:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:29, 27 July 2009
Line 8:		Line 8:
	This is why I didn't delete it right away. It's something that I could see being justified and potentially useful, but right now I am not really up to putting the time and effort into figuring out who else might qualify, so, now it's everyone else's goal. And Jim is right, things have gotten ridiculous lately... not just with categories, but articles as well. This wiki is at the point where there's not so much "new" to add anymore, the bulk of the necessary work now being filling in and refining already-existing pages. And... well, a lot of new/potential editors don't want to do that, as that's effort. Coming up with "list" pages, "joke" pages and weirdass categories is a cheap and easy "addition" they can do... and are typically of dubious-at-best use. And, well, I don't think we're going to see the end of it... well, ever. Just gonna have to buck up and remain vigilant. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 12:51, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		This is why I didn't delete it right away. It's something that I could see being justified and potentially useful, but right now I am not really up to putting the time and effort into figuring out who else might qualify, so, now it's everyone else's goal. And Jim is right, things have gotten ridiculous lately... not just with categories, but articles as well. This wiki is at the point where there's not so much "new" to add anymore, the bulk of the necessary work now being filling in and refining already-existing pages. And... well, a lot of new/potential editors don't want to do that, as that's effort. Coming up with "list" pages, "joke" pages and weirdass categories is a cheap and easy "addition" they can do... and are typically of dubious-at-best use. And, well, I don't think we're going to see the end of it... well, ever. Just gonna have to buck up and remain vigilant. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 12:51, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
	:This might be a bit meta for a discussion page on Vampires, but it's not like there isn't work to do. Cybertron's episode guide pages are in a sorry state, and the G.I. Joe characters from the various crossovers could use a lot of fleshing out. Hell, AHM #13 is only halfway complete. Is there anything we can do to steer people towards these kind of areas rather than making dubious categories or taking a no-image-uncaptioned approach? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:59, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		:This might be a bit meta for a discussion page on Vampires, but it's not like there isn't work to do. Cybertron's episode guide pages are in a sorry state, and the G.I. Joe characters from the various crossovers could use a lot of fleshing out. Hell, AHM #13 is only halfway complete. Is there anything we can do to steer people towards these kind of areas rather than making dubious categories or taking a no-image-uncaptioned approach? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:59, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
			::Oh, there's plenty of work to do. It's just that most of it takes effort, which, well, a lot of people don't want to make (which is why there's no rival "seriuz" wiki and the old site is 2000 articles behind us). And when you fail to make an effort, you make an ef out of or and t. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 15:29, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

Jimsorenson at 16:59, 27 July 2009

2009-07-27T16:59:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:59, 27 July 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:

	This is why I didn't delete it right away. It's something that I could see being justified and potentially useful, but right now I am not really up to putting the time and effort into figuring out who else might qualify, so, now it's everyone else's goal. And Jim is right, things have gotten ridiculous lately... not just with categories, but articles as well. This wiki is at the point where there's not so much "new" to add anymore, the bulk of the necessary work now being filling in and refining already-existing pages. And... well, a lot of new/potential editors don't want to do that, as that's effort. Coming up with "list" pages, "joke" pages and weirdass categories is a cheap and easy "addition" they can do... and are typically of dubious-at-best use. And, well, I don't think we're going to see the end of it... well, ever. Just gonna have to buck up and remain vigilant. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 12:51, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		This is why I didn't delete it right away. It's something that I could see being justified and potentially useful, but right now I am not really up to putting the time and effort into figuring out who else might qualify, so, now it's everyone else's goal. And Jim is right, things have gotten ridiculous lately... not just with categories, but articles as well. This wiki is at the point where there's not so much "new" to add anymore, the bulk of the necessary work now being filling in and refining already-existing pages. And... well, a lot of new/potential editors don't want to do that, as that's effort. Coming up with "list" pages, "joke" pages and weirdass categories is a cheap and easy "addition" they can do... and are typically of dubious-at-best use. And, well, I don't think we're going to see the end of it... well, ever. Just gonna have to buck up and remain vigilant. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 12:51, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
			:This might be a bit meta for a discussion page on Vampires, but it's not like there isn't work to do. Cybertron's episode guide pages are in a sorry state, and the G.I. Joe characters from the various crossovers could use a lot of fleshing out. Hell, AHM #13 is only halfway complete. Is there anything we can do to steer people towards these kind of areas rather than making dubious categories or taking a no-image-uncaptioned approach? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:59, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

M Sipher at 16:51, 27 July 2009

2009-07-27T16:51:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:51, 27 July 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	::::This is a decent one, though. I'm sure there are more guys that can go in here. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] 12:32, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		::::This is a decent one, though. I'm sure there are more guys that can go in here. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] 12:32, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
	:::::Yeah. This strikes me as worth keeping if we can muster up enough articles, because it ''is'' something people might be interested in, and it isn't overly specific. Categories that can be described in one word are usually the best.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:34, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		:::::Yeah. This strikes me as worth keeping if we can muster up enough articles, because it ''is'' something people might be interested in, and it isn't overly specific. Categories that can be described in one word are usually the best.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:34, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

			This is why I didn't delete it right away. It's something that I could see being justified and potentially useful, but right now I am not really up to putting the time and effort into figuring out who else might qualify, so, now it's everyone else's goal. And Jim is right, things have gotten ridiculous lately... not just with categories, but articles as well. This wiki is at the point where there's not so much "new" to add anymore, the bulk of the necessary work now being filling in and refining already-existing pages. And... well, a lot of new/potential editors don't want to do that, as that's effort. Coming up with "list" pages, "joke" pages and weirdass categories is a cheap and easy "addition" they can do... and are typically of dubious-at-best use. And, well, I don't think we're going to see the end of it... well, ever. Just gonna have to buck up and remain vigilant. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 12:51, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

Rosicrucian at 16:34, 27 July 2009

2009-07-27T16:34:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:34, 27 July 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:::We, as a wiki, are going crazy with categories ... this is not a good thing. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		:::We, as a wiki, are going crazy with categories ... this is not a good thing. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
	::::This is a decent one, though. I'm sure there are more guys that can go in here. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] 12:32, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		::::This is a decent one, though. I'm sure there are more guys that can go in here. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] 12:32, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
			:::::Yeah. This strikes me as worth keeping if we can muster up enough articles, because it ''is'' something people might be interested in, and it isn't overly specific. Categories that can be described in one word are usually the best.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:34, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

Chris McFeely at 16:32, 27 July 2009

2009-07-27T16:32:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:32, 27 July 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	::I ''believe'' it was mostly created because we were diversifying the old "zombies" category, as it lumped together nearly every undead Transformer. There are certainly more that would qualify. RotF Dead End for one.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:30, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		::I ''believe'' it was mostly created because we were diversifying the old "zombies" category, as it lumped together nearly every undead Transformer. There are certainly more that would qualify. RotF Dead End for one.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:30, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
	:::We, as a wiki, are going crazy with categories ... this is not a good thing. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		:::We, as a wiki, are going crazy with categories ... this is not a good thing. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
			::::This is a decent one, though. I'm sure there are more guys that can go in here. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] 12:32, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

Jimsorenson at 16:31, 27 July 2009

2009-07-27T16:31:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:31, 27 July 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:Agreed. 24 hours for justification, or it goes away. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]]		:Agreed. 24 hours for justification, or it goes away. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]]
	::I ''believe'' it was mostly created because we were diversifying the old "zombies" category, as it lumped together nearly every undead Transformer. There are certainly more that would qualify. RotF Dead End for one.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:30, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		::I ''believe'' it was mostly created because we were diversifying the old "zombies" category, as it lumped together nearly every undead Transformer. There are certainly more that would qualify. RotF Dead End for one.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:30, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
			:::We, as a wiki, are going crazy with categories ... this is not a good thing. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

Rosicrucian at 16:30, 27 July 2009

2009-07-27T16:30:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:30, 27 July 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This kinda needs more than four articles to justify its existence. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 12:09, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		This kinda needs more than four articles to justify its existence. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 12:09, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
	:Agreed. 24 hours for justification, or it goes away. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]]		:Agreed. 24 hours for justification, or it goes away. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]]
			::I ''believe'' it was mostly created because we were diversifying the old "zombies" category, as it lumped together nearly every undead Transformer. There are certainly more that would qualify. RotF Dead End for one.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:30, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

M Sipher at 16:27, 27 July 2009

2009-07-27T16:27:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:27, 27 July 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This kinda needs more than four articles to justify its existence. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 12:09, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		This kinda needs more than four articles to justify its existence. [[User:Interrobang\|—Interrobang]] 12:09, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
			:Agreed. 24 hours for justification, or it goes away. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]]

Interrobang: New page: This kinda needs more than four articles to justify its existence. ~~~~

2009-07-27T16:09:28Z

New page: This kinda needs more than four articles to justify its existence. ~~~~

New page

This kinda needs more than four articles to justify its existence. [[User:Interrobang|—Interrobang]] 12:09, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:02, 27 July 2009
Line 9:		Line 9:
	:This might be a bit meta for a discussion page on Vampires, but it's not like there isn't work to do. Cybertron's episode guide pages are in a sorry state, and the G.I. Joe characters from the various crossovers could use a lot of fleshing out. Hell, AHM #13 is only halfway complete. Is there anything we can do to steer people towards these kind of areas rather than making dubious categories or taking a no-image-uncaptioned approach? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:59, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		:This might be a bit meta for a discussion page on Vampires, but it's not like there isn't work to do. Cybertron's episode guide pages are in a sorry state, and the G.I. Joe characters from the various crossovers could use a lot of fleshing out. Hell, AHM #13 is only halfway complete. Is there anything we can do to steer people towards these kind of areas rather than making dubious categories or taking a no-image-uncaptioned approach? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:59, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
	::Oh, there's plenty of work to do. It's just that most of it takes effort, which, well, a lot of people don't want to make (which is why there's no rival "seriuz" wiki and the old site is 2000 articles behind us). And when you fail to make an effort, you make an ef out of or and t. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 15:29, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		::Oh, there's plenty of work to do. It's just that most of it takes effort, which, well, a lot of people don't want to make (which is why there's no rival "seriuz" wiki and the old site is 2000 articles behind us). And when you fail to make an effort, you make an ef out of or and t. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 15:29, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
			:::Maybe some sort of overall project drive? Although in some cases it's also a matter of "few people have seen the thing that needs updating". I wonder if coordinating some of the things people have seen, like the Generation 1 characters, might not be a bad idea. --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 16:02, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:29, 27 July 2009
Line 8:		Line 8:
	This is why I didn't delete it right away. It's something that I could see being justified and potentially useful, but right now I am not really up to putting the time and effort into figuring out who else might qualify, so, now it's everyone else's goal. And Jim is right, things have gotten ridiculous lately... not just with categories, but articles as well. This wiki is at the point where there's not so much "new" to add anymore, the bulk of the necessary work now being filling in and refining already-existing pages. And... well, a lot of new/potential editors don't want to do that, as that's effort. Coming up with "list" pages, "joke" pages and weirdass categories is a cheap and easy "addition" they can do... and are typically of dubious-at-best use. And, well, I don't think we're going to see the end of it... well, ever. Just gonna have to buck up and remain vigilant. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 12:51, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		This is why I didn't delete it right away. It's something that I could see being justified and potentially useful, but right now I am not really up to putting the time and effort into figuring out who else might qualify, so, now it's everyone else's goal. And Jim is right, things have gotten ridiculous lately... not just with categories, but articles as well. This wiki is at the point where there's not so much "new" to add anymore, the bulk of the necessary work now being filling in and refining already-existing pages. And... well, a lot of new/potential editors don't want to do that, as that's effort. Coming up with "list" pages, "joke" pages and weirdass categories is a cheap and easy "addition" they can do... and are typically of dubious-at-best use. And, well, I don't think we're going to see the end of it... well, ever. Just gonna have to buck up and remain vigilant. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 12:51, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
	:This might be a bit meta for a discussion page on Vampires, but it's not like there isn't work to do. Cybertron's episode guide pages are in a sorry state, and the G.I. Joe characters from the various crossovers could use a lot of fleshing out. Hell, AHM #13 is only halfway complete. Is there anything we can do to steer people towards these kind of areas rather than making dubious categories or taking a no-image-uncaptioned approach? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:59, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		:This might be a bit meta for a discussion page on Vampires, but it's not like there isn't work to do. Cybertron's episode guide pages are in a sorry state, and the G.I. Joe characters from the various crossovers could use a lot of fleshing out. Hell, AHM #13 is only halfway complete. Is there anything we can do to steer people towards these kind of areas rather than making dubious categories or taking a no-image-uncaptioned approach? --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:59, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
			::Oh, there's plenty of work to do. It's just that most of it takes effort, which, well, a lot of people don't want to make (which is why there's no rival "seriuz" wiki and the old site is 2000 articles behind us). And when you fail to make an effort, you make an ef out of or and t. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 15:29, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:51, 27 July 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	::::This is a decent one, though. I'm sure there are more guys that can go in here. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] 12:32, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		::::This is a decent one, though. I'm sure there are more guys that can go in here. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] 12:32, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
	:::::Yeah. This strikes me as worth keeping if we can muster up enough articles, because it ''is'' something people might be interested in, and it isn't overly specific. Categories that can be described in one word are usually the best.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:34, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		:::::Yeah. This strikes me as worth keeping if we can muster up enough articles, because it ''is'' something people might be interested in, and it isn't overly specific. Categories that can be described in one word are usually the best.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:34, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

			This is why I didn't delete it right away. It's something that I could see being justified and potentially useful, but right now I am not really up to putting the time and effort into figuring out who else might qualify, so, now it's everyone else's goal. And Jim is right, things have gotten ridiculous lately... not just with categories, but articles as well. This wiki is at the point where there's not so much "new" to add anymore, the bulk of the necessary work now being filling in and refining already-existing pages. And... well, a lot of new/potential editors don't want to do that, as that's effort. Coming up with "list" pages, "joke" pages and weirdass categories is a cheap and easy "addition" they can do... and are typically of dubious-at-best use. And, well, I don't think we're going to see the end of it... well, ever. Just gonna have to buck up and remain vigilant. --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 12:51, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:34, 27 July 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:::We, as a wiki, are going crazy with categories ... this is not a good thing. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		:::We, as a wiki, are going crazy with categories ... this is not a good thing. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
	::::This is a decent one, though. I'm sure there are more guys that can go in here. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] 12:32, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		::::This is a decent one, though. I'm sure there are more guys that can go in here. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] 12:32, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
			:::::Yeah. This strikes me as worth keeping if we can muster up enough articles, because it ''is'' something people might be interested in, and it isn't overly specific. Categories that can be described in one word are usually the best.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:34, 27 July 2009 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:32, 27 July 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	::I ''believe'' it was mostly created because we were diversifying the old "zombies" category, as it lumped together nearly every undead Transformer. There are certainly more that would qualify. RotF Dead End for one.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:30, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		::I ''believe'' it was mostly created because we were diversifying the old "zombies" category, as it lumped together nearly every undead Transformer. There are certainly more that would qualify. RotF Dead End for one.--[[User:Rosicrucian\|Rosicrucian]][[User Talk:Rosicrucian\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 12:30, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
	:::We, as a wiki, are going crazy with categories ... this is not a good thing. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 27 July 2009 (EDT)		:::We, as a wiki, are going crazy with categories ... this is not a good thing. --[[User:Jimsorenson\|Jimsorenson]] 12:31, 27 July 2009 (EDT)
			::::This is a decent one, though. I'm sure there are more guys that can go in here. - [[User:Chris McFeely\|Chris McFeely]] 12:32, 27 July 2009 (EDT)