Hey, I am trying to watch Twin Peaks, I'm at 4th episode but it's so boring actually. It's not even a mystery show, it's love and drama of the people. I always want to stop watching but something happens in the end so I can not resist. That dream scene, came up for example and then we learnt about a secret cult that protects the town from something inside the woods. I don't know I want to watch but... Is it always boring? Is it always a drama thing? There is no detectivity by the way, you know, clues and something. Mystery is being solved without clues but by some dreams and it kills all the mystery in my opinion. Should I keep watching, is it worth it?
Hey! Great work getting all those actors articles up, just wanted to suggest that maybe it would be better to lead off with the Twin Peaks relation. For example it's a little odd to start reading Arnie Stenseth and get hit with something a about a video game, I think the general format should be
X is a Y actor who (appeared/guest starred) in (Twin Peaks/the Twin Peaks pilot/etc) as Z.
Separate paragraph, bio, credits, etc.
I want to also have some standard way of listing other movies and TV roles but that can come later, thoughts?
If you do - I've been having a blast putting all this together, and I'd really like to help out even more with moderating, keeping the new pages up to date, etc. Plus I have a few ideas - touching up the main page, adding the actual title font (no more of those header images!), and further improving the timeline mechanics - that would be much easier with the ability to get into the site CSS/JS. I did the current design of the 24 wiki so I definitely have a bit of experience in that area haha.
I have no objections. I really appreciate the contributions you've brought here, and I'm not too good with design stuff, so I'd definitely appreciate that. So yeah, I think you've earned it! I'll give you admin rights in a few minutes.
Hey - do you mind if I test out some changes to the site logo and wordmark? Easier to just show you in Theme Designer than go through adding to your personal CSS, if you hate it you can change it back right away. Basically it's replacing the "Twin Peaks Wiki" with an icon logo and making the text version visible and look like the actual show credits. Once they let us upload fonts (sent requet) I can get it to look exactly like it!
Hey any chance you could give User:Movebot bot privileges? Was going to make a change to the date pages so they can be shown on the main page and this would just keep the automation from clogging up the activity feed like I did a few times before. Thanks
User 188.8.131.52 is mass replacing references to the Bang Bang Bar with the Roadhouse. Which - whatever, don't care, but he's also removing all the links to the Roadhouse article despite being asked not to. Plus he's adding random stupid comments.
Personally, I actually agree that the links to it in other articles should be the Roadhouse - it is the prevailing in-universe name; I don't want to enforce some ridiculous rule like when the Star Wars wiki had to rename the Death Star to the DS-1 Orbital Battle Station because the name appeared on a screen somewhere.
And to be fair to the "special" folks who lose their shit over this sort of thing, it does take a minute (for me) when I read "Bang Bang Bar" to connect it to the roadhouse sign. I think if people want that to be used in other articles it should be allowed, even preferred - provided no more spam comments of course
Yeah, I have no argument against the links. I've only undone the edits that remove the links entirely. If changing all of the links and leaving the only mention of "Bang Bang Bar" on the Roadhouse article calms them down, that seems to be the thing to do.
I agree with Pyramidhead, articles names should use the name that is the most comonly used and not necessarily the most precise one (eg "Dougie Jones" and not "Douglas Jones", "Jerry Horne" instead of "Jeremy Horne" and so on). Of course there might be debate about what is the more common for some pages and I guess we should do a case by case talk for them. That's the way the Dr Who wiki does for example.
I think we should therefore change all mentions of "Bang Bang Bar" into "Roadhouse" since nobody used the former in dialogue. Though that would not be the most important thing to do with all the new info we have currently I guess.
If we need to think of a narrative explanation, it might be something like the Double R case in which someone tried to change the name with a new sign but nobody actually used it. Also kinda like the Twin Peaks Gazette which became the Twin Peaks Post (even on the TV series props) but nobody called it by its actual new name in dialogue.
Yeah, that's definitely what we should do. I'm not personally going to edit articles simply to change the links (you guys can, if you want to, just too tedious for me) but I'll definitely change any when I'm making more significant edits.
I've actually encountered a similar issue over on one of the other wikis I'm contributing to: trying to keep coverage up-to-date while also being respectful of people who didn't have immediate access to the episodes when they came out for the public or were released on paid streaming services.
What we've ended up doing is keeping the coverage up-to-date, but for a certain period of time hiding any and all new information under a spoilers tab––in our case after about a week, although the distribution system for that particular show is a little different. This includes plot summaries, character lists, trivia, and any new information on character pages. I think that might be a sufficient way to be courteous to people while still allowing people who've seen the episodes to be able to check the wiki.