Our friend Luis 106 Lincoln is once again spamming the comments. I was late to see it (because I've been busy getting ready for school and other commitments to even notice), but they didn't respond kindly to you blocking them for a week. And they pulled the "I have cystic fibrosis" card yet again. Should we just ban them for failing to listen to us?
This feature includes some really insightful statistics that should allow you guys to inform some wiki decisions, such as:
Top viewed pages
# of page views (daily over the past 30 days)
Most visited files
Desktop vs mobile sessions
So as I mentioned above, this feature is really great as it allows you to see what areas are doing very well and how you can capitalise on them. For example, the tool shows the wiki's current most popular page by some distance is Jennika. You could take a look at that article and see if there is any more content that can be added to it to really flesh it out and give readers more information on this character they're interested in. The more rich (but not irrelevant or repetitive) information you can have on an article, the better its search engine optimisation will be. That's just one way this tool is super useful! :)
Hopefully you like this feature, it's been highly requested for some time and we would really appreciate your feedback on it. For more help with it, please feel free to ask me questions and also refer to these two super useful articles:
Importantly, when Palladium allowed their TMNT license to expire without renewing it, they discontinued materials like TMNT&OS itself (along with Transdimensional TMNT, etc.), but continued publishing the After the Bomb scenarios stripped of their already sparse direct relation to TMNT. So even though After the Bomb was originally conceived as a supplement for TMNT&OS, its later editions are not published or promoted as TMNT-related works.
I find this fascinating as what is effectively an anti-crossover, where material originally conceived as part of TMNT continues to live on as a non-TMNT franchise. In any event, I think it would be fair to treat the After the Bomb scenarios as a subseries in its own right.
I gave it some thought to that too, but I don't think it's too much of an integral thing to make a decision on immediately, especially since, like, the only character who has any overlap is Raph, and that's just in a comic.
Honestly, everything as far as I was concerned was pretty straightforward, but it might be a bit of cognitive bias clouding my sight. I've made some adjustments to a couple of categories that you may find useful. Please do let me know if they need further clarification, and just ask if you have questions on any specific categories.
On the Intimidator Suit article, just to be clear, didn't need an Unfinished tag because it was essentially, well I wouldn't say complete, but at least structured soundly enough to stand, and the data you noted would be useful would have actually taken less effort to add than it did to add the tag and notate it.
Hi The S, my name is Antonio and I am a Community Manager of the TV/Movies vertical for Fandom. I wanted to introduce myself and see if you need anything, have any problems, or would like to share any ideas you have. As you may already know, our Community Org is changing. From now on our team will focus even more on building closer relationships with the communities, admins, and users.
We are here to support you and help make this community thrive. If you need anything, feel free to contact me or our Wiki Manager directly at any time. And just so you know, Wiki Managers might be more available than me on weekends.
I will be here together to Spongebob456 -Wiki Manager- for anything you need.
Please let me know if you have any questions and I hope to hear back from you soon! :)
I know that in the main space these aren't allowed. Is my assumption that such things are okay in our blogs correct? (I have something I'd like to end up making a pseudo-entry as a blog post but I want to be sure it is okay to do that)
There's a specific wiki we have for fan materials that has gone pretty much abandoned. The only real stipulation outside of the regular rules is that it has to be a real work, not like something one just makes up for the shell of it.
So, this would be information about the version of Leonardo (based on Leonardo (2012 TV series)) online. I had been figuring a blog post about it would be better than the Fanon site also but I guess it doesn't belong on either maybe?
I'm not sure how better to explain it than this: I'm going to be portraying a version of Leonardo on a MUSH and once I get approved I thought I'd make a blog post here so I can link on the blog post to the articles here I'm referencing. (for example, my version of Leonardo (2012 TV series) watched a show as a child about a fictional version of Galahad which also featured Bruce Lee as an actor)
The antagonist badge (as an example) is keyed off the antagonist category. As many antagonists aren't in that category but Antagonist (<Series>) categories this prevents you from getting the badge for them... can the badges be fixed to work with the current category setup?
I was recently shown that a categorization set up I wanted (Donnie's Inventions vs Donnie's Inventions <by series>) was excessive on pages then I found Bo. Can I remove the Weapons <by series> categories from that page and any similar I find?
One of the primary issues about overcategorization, in general, is avoiding excess cluttering of parent categories with entries that can be better placed in subcategories. In years past, Turtlepedia had a habit of routinely putting articles in every applicable subcategory and parent category, with the result that many parent characters had hundreds of direct placements and were far less efficient to browse by category. It is the established practice of certain large wikis like Wikipedia to keep parent categories as free as possible from entries that are better placed in subcategories. From the perspective of any librarian, it certainly does make sense to manage categories in a sense that not only makes them efficient to browse, but also efficient to maintain. At first when I brought it up with The S he was skeptical about it, so I let it go at the time. Then, one day, The S started decluttering parent categories in much the way I had suggested, and increasingly the category structure has become much easier to browse and maintain.
As an example, yes, the bo is a weapon. But many very different objects are also weapons, and they can have very little in common beyond being weapons. So sometimes it's easier to sort weapons not just by continuity or inventor, but also by basic type of weapon—whether they stab, bludgeon, shoot projectiles, etc.
Of course, if a particular category entry can be considered important and iconic enough to merit a discretionary placement higher in the category hierarchy, it might be appropriate to place it there in addition to its subcategory placements. An example is Category:Humans. They are also technically Category:Apes, Category:Primates, Category:Mammals, Category:Reptiles, Category:Amphibians, Category:Fish and Category:Vertebrates. But which of those categories seem like natural places to look for them? That would be Category:Apes because that's one of their most direct parent categories, and Category:Mammals because they are often thought of as mammals in relation to other non-mammal characters, and perhaps also Category:Vertebrates because their unique status of dominance among vertebrates makes them of noteworthy mention alongside fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Humans may have evolved from fish, amphibians and reptiles in that order and technically are them, but are not as immediately associated in the reader's mind with being any of them, which makes a direct placement in those parent characters look like unnecessary clutter.
And also, of course, sometimes there's such a thing as too many subcategories. In the past, I went a little nuts with taxonomical classification of species, and created categories like Tetrapods, Amniotes, Squamates, Eutherians, Laurasiatherians, Supraprimates, etc. These are of interest to geeky molecular biologists, but they seem rather hypertechnical for the most useful everyday purposes of Turtlepedia categories. I later rearranged them for more direct placements in familiar categories like Mammals, Birds, etc., and kept a few particularly recognizable group categories like Category:Ungulates (most hoofed animals), Category:Carnivorans (dogs and cats and their nearer relatives), etc. While it may be an occasional obscure plot point that rats are frequently used as laboratory animals specifically because they and humans are more closely related to each other than either is to most other mammals, this is usually considered obscure trivia, and it wasn't absolutely necessary to have a Supraprimates or Euarchontoglirans category (the two terms are synonymous) just to put Category:Rodents, Category:Rabbits and hares (Lagomorphs) and Category:Primates together.
But what if, when you divide the categories, some categories have only one entry? In those situations, it's possible even to have too many relevant categories, too, if a disproportionate amount of them contain only one entry. There are some categories where it may be all right to have just one entry in them, but for example, it wasn't absolutely necessary to have Category:Hedgehogs unless there were entries besides Sonic the Hedgehog in them, so for a while he was instead placed among Mammals, as there were no other more immediate categories he could be placed into. And that remained the case until we placed Stone Hedgehog into categories, and suddenly there was a better reason for a Hedgehogs category to exist.
As a question of cladistics, they are. As mammals, humans are also synapsid reptiles, tetrapod amphibians and lobe-finned fish, though it may be more accurate to classify them in Synapsida, Amniota, Tetrapoda and Sarcopterygii, which are clear clades. But Turtlepedia categories aren't given such hypertechnical names—they're organized in more familiar terms. Even Category:Lizards is generally a familiarly-named placeholder for Squamata, so it includes Category:Snakes as a subcategory, since all snakes are members of the Toxicofera branch of squamates.