Wiki Editing

Started by Goujer, March 30, 2019, 06:38:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Goujer (she/her)

Edit: A lot of this might not be accurate anymore and needs review.

I need to explain why I am hesitant on Wiki access and what not.
The "Canon" of OS-tans per-say is what seems to be accepted by Futaba or the majority of artists on Eastern sites.
VolareVias concern about the Wiki being treated as the OS-tan Wiki is valid. The issue however is that it is the only OS-tan wiki. (at least that I know of) So in a sense we kind of are officialish in a way. To much of the interest outside of this community, the Wiki serves as a useful tool to look at the design behind the characters, and understand them better. Years before I became involved on the forum I only used the Wiki and gallery to look at images of -tans/-kuns and understand their designs better. We are the 3rd result for OS-tan on duckduckgo, bing and Yahoo, and number two on Google and Ask.

The Annex project from what I can tell is (f/c)anon generated out of users on the forum. Which is not to say it is any less valid than anything else, because there is no true canon. The purposed Appendix has as much right on the Wiki too if it is agreed upon enough.

Bloating something like 95-tan's character page with many details from someone's work that feel fan fictiony, editing out details on a character or another project to conform more with someone else's view should not be allowed. The work that is their has a right to be respected. For example we can't just agree that Xp-tan and 2K-tan are together and update their profiles to say as much. That would be confusing, especially as there is little to no art to back it up.

Wikis can serve as a great tool for producing written fiction, but as we do serve as the official unofficial website for OS-tans we need to remember to not get to fan fictiony when editing the Wiki in places that visitors might come to get relevant information on OS-tans.

We have new users with a great eagerness to clean the Wiki and add to it. This is great, but I'm writing this as a set of guidelines that should be followed when doing so. The wiki needs a lot of work there are many broken images, and sloppy looking pages. It would also be nice to see some citation and credit given to the many artists both on this site and around the world that have drawn the images and comics that make OS-tans/kuns what we love.

If you want to have wiki access you can DM me here, comment to this post or DM me on Discord. But please tell me what you want to work on and how you think you can help improve the wiki. I'll grant you access if I think you can help, but please don't be afraid to ask.

Aurora Borealis

Should we have a standardized format for OS-tan character pages? There's a standardized infobox template that is used, but the Contents section is arranged differently across pages.

The general arrangement is:

1. Technical details
2. Character details
3. History and background

Within the Character details section, sometimes a character's appearance, personality, abilities and relationships are split into different sub-sections, but not always. Some pages have all of those lumped together.

In the Character details section, which of these arrangements is more readable?

2a. General (description of character's personality, appearance and role)
2b. Family and relationships

2a. Physical
2b. Personality
2c. Abilities
2d. Family and relationships

Some pages also have an OSC Notes section as its own section used for a character's backstory, or to explain interpretations of the character that are specific to OSC fanon. Should this section be kept, particularly for the Futaba-based OS-tans? On the Futaba-based OS-tan pages, we need to make it clear what is established canon recognized by the entire fandom vs. what is OSC fanon-specific.

Goujer (she/her)

Both section 2s work but the first would be better for a shorter description character and the second would be better if it would get to long and wordy in the first style.

Can you give an example of a futaba character with a OSC Notes section?

Goujer (she/her)

NT-tan should serve as a model for most pages.

Goujer (she/her)

Yeah, you could probably structure the OSC section like the main area a bit in-case things get a bit long in there.

Aurora Borealis

Windows 3.1's article has a History and Background section with an OSC Fanon sub-section, and Windows NT's article also specifies which of her history and background are OSC fanon-specific. I agree with this.

I don't know if 95 OSR 2.5 is considered canon, but her article has an OSC Notes section, though she wasn't created on Futaba, but another board. I also found that Windows ME's article has an Alternate character interpretations sub-section within the Character details section, and the Mac OS article focuses on the different interpretations to what "Mac-tan" represents. Not a lot of pages have an Alternate character interpretations sub-section, but could be handy for some characters. If a page will have that sub-section, we will need to clarify if it's OSC fanon-specific or not.

Aurora Borealis

Quote from: VolareVia on March 30, 2019, 08:14:42 PMActually, what about edge cases like 95 OSR 2.5? Should she be treated as if she were a Futaba character, as she was not created by us, or as if she were an OSC character, as she wasn't really created by Futaba, but by a comic artist who wanted to write about her?

Edit: I will say that 95 OSR 2.1 likely should be considered an OSC character, as while she first came up in the same comic 95 OSR 2.5 was in, we were the ones who really developed and designed her, but it is a different situation than 95 OSR 2.5.

Since she's not from OSC, we will need to mark what is OSC-specific fanon about her, like we would with the Futaba-based characters.

OSR 2.1 is an edge case, being only mentioned in the 95 OSR 2.5 comic to hint at her existence, but her appearance and everything else was created on OSC. We should specify that that the design and characterization that exist for her are OSC-specific. She's the equivalent of an OC stand-in, where a canon character has so little in the way of appearances that fanon almost makes a new character out of whole cloth.


Makes sense to me to separate, say, fanon things without as much material backing it (see: OS9-tan loving Mountain Dew; which is strictly a thing in my stories) from the stuff that could be considered canon (see: XP-tan loving beef bowls).

I do remember when I first gained wiki access, I was working on a project to add profile pics to those that didn't have one, but sadly, life got in the way and I never got to finish that. Maybe on a day off, I can see what I can do to continue that.

Hālian He/him

At what point does a theory originated here cross over from fanon to OSC canon?

Goujer (she/her)

As much as I hate it. I think thing like that need to be viewed on a case by case basis. Perhaps you could detail it here and we can give our ideas on where it belongs.

Also inevitably new OS-tans will be made by us or by others, in which case the "canon" becomes tricky. For an OSC created character like IRIX, we have the -tan's creator (Bella, I think). So if she agrees with it, it's essentially canon for that character. Otherwise I would say it would have to be a collective majority of the users for it to be seen as canon.
Otherwise it would probably be best to put it into a "Other Interpretations" section below.
For Futaba or other Japanese -tans, I would say we would a follow similar process but it might need more case by case discussion.

Aurora Borealis

That's the approach I'd take to distinguish what he established for the characters he created within the Annex Project storylines vs. storylines from a branched continuation based off of the Annex Project. There is a lot of information to go by, because he left a lot of notes on their backstories, and ideas for future story lines as a guide. Some of these future story lines that changed a character a lot could have already happened now, or in the near future, but set timeframes for when these were to happen weren't usually given. To include timeframes for them would fall under a branched continuity.