Hey, thank you for helping out the wiki! As you seem really experienced at this, I've decided to grant you Rollback rights. Looking forward to seeing your future contributions here!--Technobliterator TC (Admin) 21:39, August 10, 2018 (UTC)
- Hello there, thank you for the opportunity! I haven't been very active on FANDOM lately (I was actually brought here through your post on /r/SpidermanPS4) but you guys have done a great job with the wiki and I'll try my best to help out as much as I can! —Reg Boy (talk) 22:01, August 10, 2018 (UTC)
With only one game and no references to a new game coming after this, it makes the most sense to have either "X in Marvels's Spider-Man" or "X", but not both. Having both at this point just makes the category tree unnecessarily dense; since pages are already tagged with the former, I'm moving through and deleting the latter (except for those that don't have a "X in Marvel's Spider-Man" connected category). Raylan13 (talk) 15:28, September 11, 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, that works for me. Thanks for the heads-up. —Reg Boy (talk) 19:59, September 11, 2018 (UTC)
As a rule of thumb, things should always be placed as singular whenever possible. It's very easy to add an "s" at the end when linking. From an SEO perspective, similar to categories, the idea is to limit the number of hoops web crawlers have to make from getting from one page to another. So if I write a sentence that uses a singular link, it would hop to the redirect, then hop to the actual page with content. If, however, I have the page as singular, there's no middle step to hop through, which looks better. Raylan13 (talk) 18:07, September 12, 2018 (UTC)
- I'd just like to pop in here with my two cents. I expressed this in our Discord chat when it came up so I'll basically say the same thing here. On all other wikis I've worked on, we pluralize the title of the article if it serves as a hub page of sorts for multiple gameplay things. So for example, on the Jak Wiki where I'm from, we have Zoomers for the vehicle type, and we have Zoomer for one specific kind of zoomer only ever referred to as "zoomer".
- Although that particular example is a rather odd case, I use it as an example for hub articles because it highlights an important organization point. We pluralize article titles based on whether the subject itself is inclusive (or in other words, based on whether the subject itself is pluralistic). —User:Jak Himself (talk) 18:12, September 12, 2018 (UTC)
- It's not an outlier insofar as it illustrates why plurals should be used. You are right that the two articles sharing a name is unusual, but that wasn't my point.
- Other examples include missions, buggies, airships, etc. The title of the article is broad for the topic, because it is inclusive multiple different topics. For example, there's no such thing as just an "airship", as there are multiple specific kinds of airships. Thus, the airships article serves as a hub, and is thus plural.
- Incidentally I'm well familiar with Wikipedia policies, I edit there. It's not a matter of editor use, it's a matter of the classification of the article. Like Reg pointed out, some are still okay to be singular, like with the token pages. But broad-scope articles inclusive of multiple topics serve as prose-ified list pages, so they should be plural. —User:Jak Himself (talk) 19:16, September 12, 2018 (UTC)
- I think I have to agree with Reg and Jace here. For the purposes of "hub" pages, using plural names for article titles just makes more sense. A page about "Gadgets" is a page about all gadgets as a concept, hence the name makes sense, whereas a page about "Web Bomb" is a page about the Web Bomb gadget.
- From your link, "Articles on groups or classes of specific things" -- I think this applies to "Gadgets" here, but not "Web Bomb". An argument could be made that it applies to "Tokens" also.--Technobliterator TC (Admin) 19:18, September 12, 2018 (UTC)
- Also-- can you clarify what you meant by the SEO point? Because I don't see what the problem is with us using [[gadgets|gadget]] links rather than redirect links, if that's the issue (but we'll rarely use "gadget" in article as opposed to "gadgets").--Technobliterator TC (Admin) 19:24, September 12, 2018 (UTC)
- The wikipedia article makes the most succinct point with "Dog". Though they have a page about dogs, meaning all dogs, they still name the page "Dog". Partly it's because people are much more likely, when writing, to create a link to dog rather than dogs; the other reason is that, as explained already, it hurts SEO if there's a bunch of redirects from singular pages to plural pages.
- Again, using the "Dogs" example, the way things are pluralized is if it really can't be said any other way. People aren't going to talk about "aging in dogs" and link to "aging in dog". Likewise, they aren't going to link to "list of fictional dog".
- Honestly, there's so much work and content that can be added to wikis, it creates much more work to create a system that doesn't help people's normal way of writing and linking. Why spend the time creating a bunch of singular redirects when a) people aren't going to be linking the plural naturally and b) when they get to the singular page, it's really obvious that it's a page about everything related to that subject? Raylan13 (talk) 19:31, September 12, 2018 (UTC)
- Making the title plural does not necessitate a singularized redirect. We don't use redirects in that way on the multiple other wikis we've done/are currently doing and it works fine. Yes that means extra typing, but I'd say we should organize the wiki based on what's best for the organization rather than what's more or less convenient to type out. —User:Jak Himself (talk) 19:37, September 12, 2018 (UTC)
Users are going to contribute based on how easy it is for them to add content. And, as the person here who has added the bulk of content, it's incredibly frustrating to have the decision made off-site and then to have changes made after the fact of adding the info when there's so much more to be added. It's effort that could be spent in a much better way.
- Ideal is ideal. People can be on board with that or not. Lower standards for the sake of attracting new people isn't good practice (speaking from experience).
- I understand and appreciate the work you're doing here, but reminder the existing admin team here has a ton of collective experience on multiple other wikis. That's the reason we use the discord chat, is to coordinate projects across Fandom, not just here. We'd really like to have you aboard, then it might be less frustrating. Kind regards, —User:Jak Himself (talk) 19:59, September 12, 2018 (UTC)
- We're going to have to agree to disagree that plural/singular has anything remotely to do with "lowering standards".
- Well for the record I wasn't referring to that specific issue when I brought up standards. I'm just saying, in general, we shouldn't make decisions based on what's more palatable to newbies, because that brings everything down.
Wiki knowledge Edit
Hey RegBoy, I stumbled upon your wiki through Reddit. I like how it looks... very professional. Over the past 8 years, I have actually gained knowledge in wiki - mostly the background mechanics and whatnot - so if you need any help, I'm more than happy to help you ... I want to see this wiki grow even more. --CosmicBreakfast (talk) 01:12, October 1, 2018 (UTC)CosmicBreakfast
Character ages Edit
- Finally a game that does it right XD CosmicBreakfast (talk) 05:08, October 4, 2018 (UTC)ComicBreakfast
I think it's worth making Screwball an actual page rather than a redirect for Internet Famous. First, she has appeared in the Marvel Comics. Second, she has appeared again in The Heist. As the admin, what are your thoughts? GuillermoIE (talk) 17:38, October 25, 2018 (UTC)
- I'd say go for it. I've deleted the redirect page. —Reg Boy (talk) 17:50, October 25, 2018 (UTC)
What's up, Reg Boy? Just wanna ask if we could make separate headers like personality, powers and abilities etc instead of putting them all under characteristics. It'll be more easier to maneuver. Mite-Man16 (talk) 20:49, December 16, 2018 (UTC)
- Hey there. I'd speak to User:Technobliterator if I wanted to suggest changes to our Manual of Style. —Reg Boy (talk) 20:58, December 16, 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but I was wondering why a while back you removed all of the quotes I gathered from the game from the "Inner Demons" page. They're all correct, so I would appreciate an explanation.
- Hi. We don't do quotes. —Reg Boy (talk) 02:55, March 4, 2019 (UTC)
can you unban me on crimnal case wkiki
Regarding the structural choice of pagesEdit
Hi Reg Boy. I've noticed how you've turned most character ability sections from bullet points into condensed paragraphs. While I laud this structural transition, I instinctively feel as though they should be reverted back to standard bullet points, especially for superhuman and ability-extensive characters, seeing as how this is a superhero wikia after all and people are generally more accustomed to the aforementioned structural choice. Condensed paragraphs are somewhat unspecific in elaborating character abilities, which will potentially result in vague and insipid articles. In addition, regarding Peter Parker's page, those abilities are what've been noted from substantial observation, and seeing how this version of Spider-Man is more scientifically and technology oriented, I consider his noted abilities to be entirely justified. Plus, that version is more grammatically correct, not to mention considerably more lucid, concise and engaging. Thanks for taking your time reading this.
- It should be pointed out that this isn't a "superhero" wiki; the wiki is primarily for the game Marvel's Spider-Man and although it has superheroes, this doesn't really warrant giant copied lists from the Marvel Wiki for everyone's abilities that laud the subject as some immeasurable champion of humanity. The Marvel Wiki isn't remotely the best source of inspiration for writing and structuring articles in an encyclopedic manner. While they use endless lists of bullet points to dump character powers and abilities, prose is actually preferred over lists in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another. In this particular case, prose also takes up less article space and doesn't clutter the article with bullet points, while also appearing more professional. Lowering standards to attract people who are more accustomed to bulleted lists isn't exactly good practice. I also don't see how the previous format is more "grammatically correct" and "concise", though it is as far from the latter as I am from becoming Spider-Man. Furthermore, there are no "ability-extensive" characters; they are only such if you can't be concise enough with your words and end up going on and on about the same thing until readers lose interest.
- So in conclusion, I would much rather take the safer and more reliable Wikipedia approach — i.e., use condensed paragraphs where only significant powers and other notable abilities are included (not mundane skills like "skilled photographer", "good at math", or "multi/bilingual", and definitely not stuff like "mediocre culinary skills"), in a descriptive but clear and precise manner. Last thing, to clarify, this was a consensus-based decision made by the administrative team.
- About Spider-Man: City at War, yes, but only briefly, under the
==In other media==section of Peter Parker's page. —Reg Boy (talk) 00:44, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, yeah, you may have a point about those "mudane skills" regarding Spidey's page (although I assure you that "mediocre culinary skills" wasn't intended to be a joke and I myself later snorted at its absurdity), but I don't think that "master scientist", "expert hacker", "expert tactician" and "skilled investigator" can really be considered as mudane, if you get what I mean although I'm more than happy to explain if not.
- Regarding the aforementioned tie-in, writers claimed that it would supposedly feature "all-new story moments never seen in the game" so should we include these in the main storyline?Mite-Man16 (talk) 07:47, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that this is a superhero wiki does not mean that we need to follow the structure of other superhero wikis. In fact, there are quite a few ways we differ from them already: for instance, if you compare our pages with the Marvel Database, our pages do not have nearly as many categories (for good reason: we keep a simpler, cleaner category structure that is easy to navigate and also to maintain), we have much simpler infoboxes (without containing millions of "Aliases", which I've seen non-editors complain about across Reddit and other sites), and we have a different page structure because we have one that makes more sense for a videogame wiki than a comic book wiki.
- The bullet point structure never really made sense for us. Aside from encouraging bloat, and encouraging non-skills added to the page, condensed prose is simply more readable and easier to consume to gain a grasp on the characters' abilities. We don't really need to just list every skill, we just need to describe the character with regards to their abilities in gameplay.--Technobliterator TC (Admin) 09:21, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
- I removed it because a) a source is arguably not needed to back up that paragraph, and b) it was a video link and text articles are always better. But seeing as I have since found an article about the video, I'll go ahead and add that to the page instead. —Reg Boy (talk) 22:28, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
Range block Edit
Hi, just a quick note that I've added a range block for the person causing troubles. talk 12:00, June 23, 2019 (UTC)
- Yep Tim actually let me know, thanks for taking care of it! —Reg Boy (talk) 15:07, June 23, 2019 (UTC)
Hello Reg Boy, I hope you have a good day. I just wanted to explain my edits. The reason I went on the page history for Peter Parker and copy-and-pasted the powers and abilities because I felt that the section needed more work, and I did not understand why it all had to be removed. However, I did not completely copy-and-paste I reworded the sections that I thought were a little too speculative (I know this sounds totally opinionated and dogmatic but this is my reason). I just want to let you know that I understand why you removed all of my edits, and next time I make an edit I will not do the same actions. That'll be all. Take care. Sega&Nicktoons fan 3000
- That's fine. The reason why it all had to be removed was because the section grew too long as a result of it being overly detailed and repetitive, making the overall page difficult to read and navigate; hence the need for condensed paragraphs. Thank you for understanding. —Reg Boy (talk) 19:12, October 28, 2019 (UTC)
Is Kingpin the tertiary antagonist while Silver Sable is the quaternary?
- I don't think there is a tertiary antagonist in the game, or a quaternary for that matter. The latter is rarely, if ever, even applicable in a narrative. Kingpin may be indirectly responsible for the events of the game, but he ultimately has too little screen-time to be regarded as the third-most important villain. Silver Sable is only an antagonist initially, as she becomes an ally to Spider-Man by the end of the story. —Reg Boy (talk) 16:06, January 20, 2020 (UTC)
- I know Kingpin had little screen time but he was still giving orders to his minions and he was in a war with Mister Negative and he was a threat throughout the whole game and he setup construction sites throughout the game and he was one of the people who helped Norman with the Devils Breath and he’s thugs were pestering you throughout the game and Kingpin’s thugs and the inner demons gang fights leads to the Ryker’s prison escape which is the way the Sinister Six could form in the first place and you deal with his plans and schemes until the end of the game and he was trying to be a main villain but he couldn’t back it up since Mister Negative was the bigger threat while Silver Sable was just adding fuel to the fire wasn’t really trying to be a main villain and tertiary means the villain with the third most influence over the plot and Kingpin had more influence than Silver Sable and on the villains wiki says that Kingpin is a major antagonist while Silver Sable is a supporting antagonist so I would say Kingpin is the tertiary antagonist while Silver Sable is the quaternary do you agree with me?
- Read my reply on the Tertiary/quaternary thing
- My statement still stands. —Reg Boy (talk) 15:27, January 23, 2020 (UTC)
To be fair main antagonists don’t have to have a lot of screen-time like the Supreme Intelligence was only in two scenes in Captain Marvel yet it was the main antagonist since it was the one behind the plot, Yon-Rogg was the secondary antagonist yet he had far more screen time but he’s the secondary because he was just supporting the Supreme Intelligence’s plan and also why does your statement still stand?
Are you going to answer my statement and question?
Why don’t we consider Miles Morales the tritagonist even though he clearly is?
Why don’t we consider Norman Osborn the overarching antagonist he’s responsible for everything going on
Why don’t we consider Yuriko Watanabe the secondary antagonist of the DLCs?
Kingpin was also a necessary evil
- no. —Reg Boy (talk) 20:14, January 26, 2020 (UTC)