Because to some extent I believe they could warrant their own pages. Obviously thus far we don't really have much content to put on respective pages, but they'll be featured species (and a book) nonetheless.
Hi! Could I link this wiki to a Brazilian one created recently? I should have mailed the request before, and I'd like you to be aware. Also, I would like to know if there are other interwikis about DCEU.
Various users are creating articles that are either complete fanon or otherwise ripped straight from the comics. I'm marking them for deletion, but it seems like most of the articles that have been marked for deletion haven't been paid attention to and still exist.
Not trying to complain or anything, it just seems like they're all sneaking this in while admins aren't online and it goes unnoticed
The Green Lantern from Justice League was confirmed to be Yalan Gur by the WB All Access app. Can you unprotect the Unidentified Green Lantern page so it can be changed, and delete the duplicate Yalan Gur page?
In what context do you mean? We tend to write articles from an encyclopedic viewpoint, or at least that's the hope; but if it's say a character article, as if it's someone writing from within the universe.
I mean like not writing in favor of one party or another when editing, so as to negate the possibility of things like fluff or theories in favor of writing what's shown.
For instance, both the Wonder Woman and Ares articles have this happening, where a lot of excess information is added in addition to what is given from the movies. The 'Century of Horrors' section in particular.
For writing in a neutral point of view, I mean that all significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one, so that readers can form their own opinion. Like instead of saying [Character A] is so extremely powerful because he did [Action], you simply state what was done and let the reader interpret it how they wish.
This happens with a lot of articles, mainly in the Powers and Abilities section, as well as the Personality section for some (the Trinity, primarily). As the name suggests, neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints, but one that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better.
That was a bit of an earful, but I hope it explains what I mean. I think it also fits what you mean by an encyclopedic viewpoint.
Ah, right. Yes, when editing one would not favour one party over the other, largely due to what you've described. The Century of Horrors section is terrible fluff, it's not worth having in a biography section.
I completely agree with the way you describe it, that's the way I for one intend to edit. Inferences are big on this wiki and they shouldn't be, so feel free to edit them out if and when you see them on an article. I thoroughly agree with everything you've described, and really that's the way really all wikis should be edited, I feel as if that should be a given.
To summarise: yes, neutral point of view is the way to go.
Hbjhbjhbhhijhj has been going about adding all types of fanon on the wiki and it's not being addressed. I don't mean to say you haven't sent him a message about it, but the fact that it's been going on for so long is upsetting.
I don't wanna be the guy who goes about telling admins to ban people, but I don't think the guy is getting the message that his edits are counter-productive.