NinjaFatGuy

Sorry to see you go, but I understand. I'm slowly dialing back my presence on Wikia in preparation for eventually doing the same thing.

Take care out there. You've been a great beaurocrat, editor, and friend.

Thanks Braden, I appreciate it! All the same to you, take care and don't be afraid to stay in touch!

What I have said has been posted on the main blog but I'll repost it here for emphasis :D

I'm sad to hear you've decided to retire but then I suppose we all have to move on from wikia when real life calls for it. It has been an honor to serve under you at The Last of Us wiki. I'm glad to hear you will still be around for me and the others to consult if ever we need to. Shall I take it this means you will have to give up your administrative rights and us staff will have to start a recruitment drive?

Who knows? Maybe when Part II releases, you'll be spurred on to return to us ^_^

All the best in whatever life leads you to do. Hopefully it still leaves you with time for gaming now and again ;)

Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to add a tabber of images to infoboxes. It just clutters the infobox and portrays images that can be found later in the article. Given the way we typically format the wiki, we strictly display current events of the series so the most recent, primary iteration of the character should be solely used for the infobox.

However, I am only one man with an opinion. I'd recommend contacting Snivystorm for his opinion as well, but I say we keep it the way it is.

Thanks for the suggestion though! Cheers.

Hey. Saw the message and, to save time, figured I'd post here. ^_^

I'm on the middle ground. I agree with @NFG that piling on the images in the infobox will get cluttery and be counter-productive to the wiki. However, I think a balance can be found (similar to how wikis like The Walking Dead and Call of Duty have done when it comes to characters that have aged and/or be "reincarnated") where we have two images: one for how the characters appeared in Part I and another for Part II.

I actually brought this up on the Ellie talk pages ages back but it kind of got ignored (twice! ahah). You can find what, little, was said here: Talk:Ellie.

Regardless though, if we are going to change the infobox/add to the infobox image then we're probably best waiting until the game is fully released and editors have their one month of throwing content onto the wiki (images, information and so on). By that time (I'd estimate March, 2020) we'll have plenty of images to pick from then and can better decide.

That's what I reckon :D You can see what the other staff members think (if they're still around).

I'm not exactly the biggest fan of tabbers, so I can see NFG's point.

On the other hand, I can see Snivy's. I feel we should wait until the game comes out. Oh, and sorry for forgetting to say my peice on the talk page back then.

No hard feelings my man ahah. We all got busy lives. ^-^

Understood, thanks guys.

Yup, thanks for the suggestion! If you have any other ideas feel free to message us, cheers.

You mean you would like to create an independent wiki for The Last of Us? I personally don't know how to create an independent wiki that doesn't have a host other than buying your own website URL and coding it from there. I'm sure there are Wikipedia-copycat hosts that give you more freedom also.

As for adding the Russian wiki to ours, do you mean as in a link form? Because there is a link to the Russian one on the bottom of our home page.

Thank you for your response, but I was talking about FANDOM for: The Last of Us in Google and App store. How did you managed to get an independent one? Cause in order to get a mobile version of TLOU fandom in Russian, we have to download FAMDOM app first and in the app itself find TLOU fandom.

Ah okay, I see what you mean. Our wiki personally had nothing to do with that app, that was all FANDOM. I looked on the app and you're able to change the content language in the settings, so I'm not sure if they could make a separate one for the Russian wiki. However, I don't see the option for a Russian language either.

I would probably contact staff at Special:Contact asking them about separate app for your wiki or if they're able to add your language to the settings.

NFG, thank you very much for your concer, but I can take it from here and contact local FANDOM staff and interigate them further. :) That was fruitful till the next time!

Yup, no problem!

Do you want to add a link to our (English) wiki on your wiki's homepage? Or do you want to link the Russian language pages to their English counterparts? Because the latter is easier to do with interlanguage links. In fact, we seem to already have a few of those going to a Russian wiki, like on the Tess page.

Not quite, but I have checked with FANDOM representative and he cleared out everything to me. I am aknowledged regarding counterparts, but thank you.

Yeah, sure thing. The link can be found here, the download links should still work I would assume.

I'd definitely appreciate the work though considering I just don't have a lot of time nowadays to work on the wiki.

As for Discord, I've already had a staff channel and a wiki chat created so we're all good there.

On Discord, awesome, I realised last night when I was chatting with Tim - guy is a great help :D

On the audio files, the link to reddit you provided works but the actually linked provided by the user for both dialogue and music appears to have stopped working for me, thing keeps saying the site can't be reached :(

Hm, that's strange. Try this link for the dialogue, and try to open it while you're on desktop.

Actually, I just noticed this one - would it be all right if we used this one?

Yes, go ahead, we actually uploaded that one for use by our affiliates!

Great, thanks!

Sure thing! I'll get to it now. :)

Alright, the template can be found at Infobox/Person. Feel free to makes changes that you see fit!

Awesome, thanks @NFG ^_^

I went ahead and added it to a few articles all ready; I'll be sure to do more later.

Hey there, Snivy. Sorry for such a late response, I was on vacation. Anyway, yes, we should categorize characters as such. For me, the categories should go a little something like this:

• Characters
  • The Last of Us characters
  • The Last of Us II characters
  • The Last of Us: Left Behind characters
  • Male characters
  • Female characters
  • Members of the Fireflies
  • Members of the Military

Of course it isn't going to be exactly like that but I believe that is an ideal way to organize our character categories.

It's all good, hope you had a fun vacation! Glad to have you back :D

Sounds like a thorough way to categorise them, though we do already have categories for the respective groups.

I take it we are doing similar with the weapons pages as well? Such coming out in a format like:

Weapons > The Last of Us weapons > Left Behind weapons > Part II weapons

With each weapon them being categorised into their respective type (melee, pistol, long-gun etc)?

Side note: We could suggest these in the forums if you'd like?

Yup, I've already added such categories to the Bow page so you have an idea. That is a better format of categorization so I hope we can reform the wiki using it and get this poor categorization out of the way.

Indeed. Shall we get cracking on it then or put it up to the community first?

I'd rather start on it first. Even though it is a major change to the wiki, it's for sure a better one that needs to be done for the sake of maintenance so I don't think the community input will be needed.

Alrighty then, I'll get to it. We adding in a Faction Weapons category as well?

I've even come across other category pages that are just kind of there, like [[Category:Long guns]] and [[Category:Long barreled guns]] and even a [[Category:The Last of Us long guns]]. Are we doing away with all of them (and any other categories just like them, like pistols, melee, and the like) or are we keeping them and have a very in-depth categorization process, which will probably warrant a highlighted notice to all editors about?

Also, ND stated that the game will have the enemies refer to each other by name - this means they're gonna be a ton of named characters now, but with scattered line references (and likely going to be repeated/different for each player) is it worth adding them to the list of known members?

Some editors are already adding them to the pages, as seen here: https://thelastofus.wikia.com/index.php?title=Seraphite&diff=80136&oldid=80125

I would personally just keep "Long guns" as a category as opposed to the other ones. However, we can additonally add "[game] long guns" if we do want an in depth categorization system; there wouldn't be anything wrong with that.

As for the enemy names, we've added such characters to the wiki before so I don't see why it wouldn't be appropriate. For now, we'll just add them to the known members section and wait for further gameplay to see how this works exactly. 

Thanks!

So this means we are having "category" -> "[Game] category" for everything?

As long as that category appears in multiple games, then yes.

Also, when re-doing categories, make sure words like "characters" and "weapons" are not capitalized. For example, use the category "The Last of Us Part II characters" instead of "The Last of Us Part II Characters" because they register as different categories and we want the wiki as uniform as possible.

Okay, does this include the male and female categories, or is that too meticulous?

What are you referring to? Like "The Last of Us male characters"?

Yeah, and the subsequently needed Part II, Left Behind, American Dreams (etc) categories

I don't believe that's needed. If they're male, then they're male. Doesn't really matter what game they are in, that's why the other game categories are used.

Sweet, saves us a job :D

By the way, is the [[Category:Multiplayer]] purpose to house practically everything in multiplayer, including Part II?

No, that category really serves no purpose being on any article. Replace that one with "Factions MP weapons" or "Factions MP skills" or whatever. But the Multiplayer category should be removed from articles.

Nice, I've went ahead and removed a good chunk of the category, just the hats left to do now ^_^

Alright, good job. As long as the wiki and page organization, as well as these redlinks we have left, get finished before tons of Part II information, I'll be content. It's good to see some progress being made, hopefully other people will jump in.

Thanks. Same, that's my aim - best to prepare now rather than rush and panic on release day.

Hopefully others will, but then our community has been pretty quiet for years - I personally think we'll only have surplus 10 daily editors once the game actually releases.

Yeah, we will for sure have plenty editors when Part II comes around. But it'll be nice to finish our to-do list before that happens so we can solely focus on new information. 

Precisely! :)

Just a quick check, is this category worthless too?:

https://thelastofus.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Left_Behind

I would say it is. We can make more specific categories, like Left Behind characters, weapons, etc

Then consider it deleted ahah

Minor foolist question, how do we classify character in the category: https://thelastofus.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Unknown_status_characters

As in, how do we assert their fates are unknown? I mean, surely every character who is not in the presence of the player is classed as unknown as we only know a character's status based on what condition they were in when we saw them last. we assert characters like Ellie are alive because we saw them alive but we characters like Henry and Sam re dead because we saw them die. But then we have awkward ones like Bill. We know he's alive because we last saw him alive, but time's past - meaning we don't know for a fact he's alive, we just assume he is, when there's a chance he may have died. Obviously, this is all speculation - but then that's why it's come to mind. If we can't say for sure, why bother saying "we don't know"?

Also, if a character is "Mentioned-Only", is it worth adding "Mentioned" as well to the page or does that just clog that category with double the articles, making the former a refined version of the latter?

For characters such as Bill, we would classify him as being alive since he was last we saw him. If we learned that he was dead or otherwise hinted that he may not be alive, then we would change his status. Most mentioned characters would be classified as "unknown" since we physically don't know if they're alive or dead.

As for your mentioned statement, I don't quite understand what you mean. Would you mind elaborating?

That's cool, I get it now - thanks for the clarification! :D

What I mean is we have two categories - "Mentioned" and "Mentioned-only". I was making a point that - given most characters that were mentioned were only mentioned, we have two categories containing the exact same stock of characters (mostly) much like the "Survivors" and "Characters" dilemma we had.

However, I've noticed today the "Mentioned-only" category is gone - so it seems the "unneeded" category has been deleted anyway.

"Mentioned characters" should be the only category we need when it pertains to that. However, it should only appear on mentioned-only character articles such as most characters mentioned in artifacts who don't ever physically appear.

Hey fellas, 

would this mean that Frank does not count as a "mentioned character" considering we see his corpse in Lincoln?

It would, except there are 2 Franks mentioned in the game. The first is Bill's partner; the second is the guy mentioned in the note that Joel can find in a spore-filled area of Boston.

That's a frustrating one - it's clear the two Franks are the same person, but because we lack a sufficient - point blank - statement confirming them as such, we're forced to fuse their pages (thus their categories) into one.