Shortcut:
HDM:AD
This page is for use by administrators only. If you are not an admin on this wiki, but you would like to weigh in on a topic, please use the talk page so your input can be considered. All edits to this page by non-administrative users will be rolled back.

Anonymous users[edit source]

Hi everyone! So, I'd like to know why we have taken away the ability for anonymous users to edit this wiki. I wasn't around when it was turned off, so was there excessive vandalism by these anon users? If not, I believe we should allow them to edit again. It might encourage more edits to the wiki, and if an anonymous user edits, they might be more inclined to create an account. Thoughts? --Musical33 (talk) 13:35, July 11, 2018 (UTC)

We had a problem with anonymous users spamming the Wiki with advertisements, especially in Russian. I'm not averse to the idea of opening up the Wiki to anonymous users again, though. ~~~~ —This unsigned comment was made by Amyosaurus (talkcontribs) on July 12, 2018.
Perhaps a trial period? The return (or not) of spam/vandalism can then be weighed against any new edits reopening might prompt. — ArgentFir 16:42, July 12, 2018 (UTC)
Since neither of you are against the idea of a trial run, I will re-enable anonymous editing for a week and we will revisit the issue on 19 July. --Musical33 (talk) 19:45, July 12, 2018 (UTC)

Message Wall[edit source]

Hi again! So, how does everyone feel about the Message Wall feature? I personally believe that it helps keep track of user talk page discussions much more easily than they are kept track of now. For a new user to a wiki, it might be confusing on how to reply to a message (whether they do it on their own talk page, or on the other user's talk page) and I think the Message Wall gets rid of that confusion. Thoughts? --Musical33 (talk) 13:35, July 11, 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that message walls are easier to reply to, and would be fine with activating them on the Wiki. ~~~~ —This unsigned comment was made by Amyosaurus (talkcontribs) on July 12, 2018.
Is anyone against this idea? If not, I will be enabling the Message Wall tomorrow, 13 July. --Musical33 (talk) 19:45, July 12, 2018 (UTC)


Actors and actresses[edit source]

Hey everyone, quick consultation: should we start writing pages on the actors and actresses of the His Dark Materials franchise? --MusicaLƎƎ (talk) 18:54, August 27, 2018 (UTC)

We used to have pages for some actors (from the film), but they were deleted. I think the rationale was that there was no point having short/stub articles when a link to the Wikipedia article could provide much more actor-specific information. I'm inclined towards that sentiment: that we should focus on articles either in-universe or directly related to HDM − I suppose that also raises questions about the articles we currently have on illustrators John Lawrence, Clément Oubrerie and Peter Bailey. — ArgentFir 13:41, August 29, 2018 (UTC)
That was indeed the rationale and I'm still of that mindset. You are right about the illustrator articles. Perhaps a blanket no OOU people articles policy would be neatest? - Amyosaurus (profile|talk) 18:31, September 4, 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't that also bring up the question of Philip Pullman's article? Or would that be the one obvious exception to the no OOU people policy? --MusicaLƎƎ (talk) 18:35, September 4, 2018 (UTC)
Also, this decision has inclined another contributor to create a new HDM wiki where actor/actress pages are allowed. Do you think we should reconsider our stance on this particular rule in order to avoid users flocking to create other wikis? --MusicaLƎƎ (talk) 12:51, October 29, 2018 (UTC)
I think I'm still in favour of focusing on things other than actor pages, a possible exception being if these pages were detailed enough to rival the likes of Wikipedia. If the wiki were to become more established with the popularity the TV show might bring, it might make sense to branch out into these sorts of articles (as particularly large wikis have done). But for now, I don't see users moving to the other wiki as a particularly great threat(?); certainly finding the other wiki through search engines is much harder than coming across this one. Thoughts? — ArgentFir 19:48, October 29, 2018 (UTC)
Coming to this a little late, but I still think this conversation is relevant (especially seeing as the wiki has expanded a lot since October). The other wiki doesn't even show up when you search 'His Dark Materials Adaptions Wiki Fandom' - this one does instead - I only found it when going through the global sitemap. The wiki hasn't had any activity since October (though the founder is still active on other communities meaning we can't merge). I see the point in Wikipedia having more actor specific information but quite a few of the actors don't have Wikipedia articles (Amir Wilson, for example) and the three illustrator articles don't have Wikipedia pages (not in English, anyway) which was the main reason we deleted them. The founder of the adaptions wiki wanted us to include articles on everything (camermen, stuntsmen, makeup artists etc.) and I definitely don't agree with that (where would we get the information from?) - however I can see the point in having pages for the main actors/actresses and maybe even the directors/writers. Looking at the HPW, Daniel Radcliffe's article had less than 26 views this week (even though it features in the navigation) which asks the question - is it really worth it? NightSpeakers - My Blogs! 15:17, September 1, 2019 (UTC)

Discussions[edit source]

I believe we should discuss what type of content to promote in the Discussions area (e.g. should we allow RP, Fanfic, Question/Answers, wiki improvement discussions vs fan discussions?, etc.). Any ideas on what we should/should not have? Also, will Discussions be replacing our Forums? --MusicaLƎƎ (talk) 18:52, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

I think the ongoing HDM TV (and Book of Dust) announcements could be a potential area for Discussions − casting, filming information, links to actors' social media and speculation about the adaptation, perhaps.
Whether Discussions replaces Forums likely depends on its chosen content − if it focuses on fan discussions and announcements, it might be best to keep Forums for wiki improvement discussions. Either way, I think RP and fanfic are better left to other sites. — ArgentFir 13:41, August 29, 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, I also think the Discussions area should be a place of fandom encouragement - discussing castings and fan announcements, Q&As, etc. This is because there's really no other place on this wiki for that sort of thing, so I think making Discussions the main area for that is a good idea. But I agree that RP and fanfic is best left to other sites. I think we should keep forums for wiki improvement discussions. That is my opinion on the matter. --MusicaLƎƎ (talk) 14:18, August 29, 2018 (UTC)
I have updated the Discussions guidelines according to what Argent Fir and I seem to agree on. If and when the other admins chime in, we can revisit the topic. For now, I am encouraging fan-related posting in the Discussions area. --MusicaLƎƎ (talk) 18:09, September 4, 2018 (UTC)
I'd personally lean towards moving everything over to discussions and abandoning the old forum system, but it's only a slight leaning and I'm happy to go along with the majority decision. - Amyosaurus (profile|talk) 18:31, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

We can absolutely revisit this topic in a little while if the rest of the community raises similar feelings. Particularly if Evilquoll gets back to us on this. --MusicaLƎƎ (talk) 13:10, September 12, 2018 (UTC)

Chats/Discusisons live during airing[edit source]

I've been thinking about doing this for a while - will we be having live discussions as the show airs? We've seen Discussions take off, with loads of posters and voters on there (73 users were sent the announcements for the recent polls)! Presumably a day or two before TSC is released we can make a post for talk about the book (with various rules about spoilers- thoughts on that) but the TV series will be different (with different airings) and so we'll want to be a place where people can discuss the series (spoiler free?) live. The question would be whether us admins will be able to moderate it (deleting posts with spoilers if we decide on that, keeping everything calm). I guess there could be two different threads (one for the British release - myself, ArgentFir and evilquoll could moderate that if the other two are willing and then another for the American release - Musical33 might be able to moderate that or perhaps we could find and promote a Discussions moderator who's interested closer to the time). Another option would be to use Chat (whether alongside Discussions or not) - it would be nice to have an archive of the discussions so maybe that's not the best idea. Thoughts welcome. NightSpeakers - My Blogs! 15:17, September 1, 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to help implement this. Sorry I didn't see this sooner! I don't know if everyone would stick to one thread in the discussions for talking about the book/tv. Rather, maybe we create a new category for the book (we already have one for the tv series), and maybe a category for spoilers too so that we don't have to censor people who want to discuss said spoilers. People can just avoid the posts tagged with spoilers if they don't want to see them. --MusicaLƎƎ (talk) 13:00, September 25, 2019 (UTC)
Great! They definitely wouldn't stick to one thread however this could be made on the 1st October and could be discussion leading up to the release and also initial thoughts and other things that are simply too short to include in a post. If we add an announcement linking to this post then more users will be attracted to it. A category for the book would be nice (although there is the 'The Book of Dust' category that is probably sufficient) and we already have a spoilers category (although no posts in it atm). NightSpeakers - My Blogs! 17:48, September 25, 2019 (UTC)

User colour code[edit source]

I'm really liking the new design and I think it would be nice to continue it into the colours we use to delineate admins/staff/bots. The blue of inactive/former admins is particularly difficult to read against the background. Any thoughts? — ArgentFir 10:37, December 9, 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should come up with new colors, but LOL it looks like you've already changed yours. --MusicaLƎƎ (talk) 12:58, December 9, 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely. I like the #d8c987 you've used, any other suggestions? Also, for colours as a whole, can anyone find any other examples where it doesn't fit the background? I've looked through the templates but there might be a policy page or some other text I've looked over (P.S. Musical, if you want to change it, your message wall greeting is also a bit hard to read :P). NightSpeakers - My Blogs! 22:34, December 9, 2019 (UTC)
I've just temporarily(?) changed the colour of my signature (the magenta is still there when I edit!). I think I prefer contrasting colours to make it very easy to tell users apart from other text. What do you think of some of these?:
F64740 E6AF2E FADF63 CE796B EA526F BD8B9C E5E059 BDD358 F68E5F F76C5E DF928E C58882 00A17E FE8E3C CC7E32 E4D342 F26061 EA8500 FD7D02 FFB61CArgentFir 13:25, December 10, 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the selection! I'm happy with all of these! Any suggestions for which ones should be used? Perhaps a lighter one for the inactive admins. NightSpeakers - My Blogs! 16:38, December 10, 2019 (UTC)
How is former/inactive admins, admins, staff and bots? — ArgentFir 11:04, December 11, 2019 (UTC)

──────────── Great for me! Any objections? NightSpeakers - My Blogs! 18:50, December 11, 2019 (UTC)

Well, the bot color looks a bit like a red link, but other than that it looks fine to me! --MusicaLƎƎ (talk) 23:05, December 11, 2019 (UTC)
That's a good point. Maybe 'bots' instead? Also, wondering if 'staff' is easier to read in the paler green? — ArgentFir 10:43, December 12, 2019 (UTC)
I think the original darker green color for staff is fine. And the new color for bots looks good to me. --MusicaLƎƎ (talk) 13:10, December 12, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.