Camp Half-Blood Wiki

Riordan Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard/Admin Discussion Center

< Riordan Wiki:Administrators' noticeboard

1,708pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Nuvola apps important This is where you can request a sysop-only task that needs to be done.

This is a message board for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on Riordan Wiki.

Welcome! This is a discussion page strictly for administrators!

Essentially, this is a message board for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on Riordan Wiki. This page is limited to administrators, thank you.

If you are lost, please go to the Help desk.


I just want to make sure that all the admins on the three wikis in question have agreed on the merger, and that we can go ahead with it in the coming few days. We can discuss the categories, manual of style, and policies on the new wiki at a later date. Does anyone have anything to add? Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  09:33,5/9/2015 

I'm all for it, and I agree with discussing the policies and manual of style on the new wiki at a later date like you mentioned. Neptune - Everything's impossible until someone does it.
Someone should probably contact Birdqueen since I doubt she checks this wiki regularly. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 10:00, May 9, 2015 (UTC)
She already stated that she agreed with the proposal. It was mainly you and Bella that I was waiting for. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  18:49,5/10/2015 
Me and Hype both agree that it'd be easier to just move everything here, and if it's fine with everyone moving the stuff we have there, here. And import the KC content here instead, if that's fine with Bird. I myself will help with everything, including the importing, cleaning up this wiki, and filling in some KC content, then I think I'll be on my way. Neptune - Everything's impossible until someone does it.
If you're going to go through with the merger, you might as well discuss the manual of style, policies, categories, and other minutia right now so everyone's not lost in confusion as to what to do with these imported pages. You should take the steps to do the preparation rather than just go all in and improvise. Atelda 22:47, May 10, 2015 (UTC)
The KC wiki does not even have an official manual of style. I wouldn't recommend making too drastic changes to the one we have on this wiki though, as that would cause a huge workload for us. If anything, we could come up with a different manual of style for all three series, or just standardize everything to follow the CHB wiki model. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  04:49,5/11/2015 
Either way, it shall be a huge workload. KC will still need a manual of style and realistically, there are very few logical ways to organize the information aside from how it is on CHB so it should look similar no doubt. Atelda 05:00, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
To be quite honest, you aren't going to get an affirmative yes from me for awhile. I need more than a week for the idea to sit and also there are other complications as Atelda has said above. I don't want to throw Bella under the bus as well, but she thinks the idea is also rushed. I feel like we should flesh out other things. I would rather we have more dialogue before saying yes. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 02:24, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
My point was, there's no reason to even discuss this project if we don't know that everyone would be onboard if it does in fact end up happening. I wouldn't want to do all this planning just to see someone say no in the end. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  04:49,5/11/2015 
Even if it's shot down now, it definitely will not be erased in it's entirety. With so much planning still needing to be done, there's ample room to back out now; yet, once that is figured out, there would be little basis to say no at that point. Similarly, the ideas we initiate in the planning stages here would be helpful to Magnus and KC even if the merger gets shot down now. Thus, whether everyone is on board or not should be irrelevant, and instead an attempt should be made to convince everyone through thinking this out and truly getting a feel as to what we are going to take on. Atelda 05:00, May 11, 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I agreed that a combining of the wikis would be a good idea, not to whether it would be merger or not(I quite honestley don't care which, it will be the same amount of work for me anyway, but still), or whether it would happen right away. I would like for there to be more planning and preparing before starting this. This whole shebang will go a lot smoother if we plan first and import later. The style of the KC pages is all over the place with random bits and pieces missing, so deciding on how they will look will keep everyone on the same page. We may also end up deleting and/or adding pages depending on what info is deemed necessary. This cannot be rushed if it happens. Bird Talk 03:39, May 11, 2015 (UTC)

We aren't rushing into anything. There is no set expiry date for this discussion, so we can talk out every detail if you so wish. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  04:41,5/11/2015 

Potential Riordan wiki


Let's discuss the wiki policies here. I suggest going with the same ones we have on the MC wiki. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  04:41,5/11/2015 

I think we've only voted on one policy there and it's the talk page one. Also, all the policies that are up there are the ones I basically copied and pasted from here just to have something, oop. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 05:28, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
It's not like policies differ hugely from wiki to wiki. Look at this: w:c:kanechronicles:The Kane Chronicles Wiki:Basic Rules. Then compare it to this: Project:Policy. They don't differ a whole lot except for a few wiki-specific things that we have here. The problem on this wiki is that a lot of policies were never enforced. That's why we have a ton of duplicate images for instance. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  19:32,5/11/2015 
Isn't that the point of moving to a new wiki, I suppose? We're gonna have to monitor all the images and videos uploaded? Edit: I realize how stupid I sound since that is the obvious. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 03:49, May 12, 2015 (UTC)
Media-related messes generally can be fixed with special pages and batch deletes or personalized buttons. The policies along with it should be rather straightforward in terms of warnings and the a subsequent block should the behavior continue. What is harder to enforce and determine is unacceptable user behavior and the punishment fixing it. If the basis of the policies are going to stem from this wiki, I would probably suggest thinning out and revising most of them. If anything, make the more specific policies subpages or something because it's rather intimidating and discouraging to have to read 20+ pages of policies. Atelda 00:56, May 13, 2015 (UTC)
I think a general wiki policies page would be good, with the rest of the main policy pages linked on the same page. Similar to this, but in more detail. Neptune - Everything's impossible until someone does it.
So you mean just a quick overview page of all the policies instead, linking to the main pages? Don't we already have that? SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 02:11, May 13, 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but like Atelda mentioned, we have like twenty main policy pages linked there, that no one ever reads. Neptune - Everything's impossible until someone does it.
Also a lot of them are repetitive and could be combined into fewer, more inclusive policies. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  21:13,5/13/2015 
So what it looks like is combining the policies, condensing them, making them more inclusive. We agree on that, yes? SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 16:02, May 16, 2015 (UTC)
I believe so. Unless anyone has anything else to add? Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  19:29,5/16/2015 
Although I've been rather quiet on the merge matter, I'm happy with all the decisions being made. I agree with condensing the policies, as I have heard a few users mention they've gotten lost on the wiki navigating the policy pages ;-; Bells ][Talk|Contributions ღ| ] 02:07, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

Manual of style

Let's discuss the manual of style here. I wouldn't mind having slightly differing pages depending on the series. We could always standardize everything too, it's not like the KC wiki has a ton of content. Anything that we choose to do could easily get done as far as the KC wiki is concerned. It's mainly this wiki's content that is going to cause some headaches. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  04:41,5/11/2015 

Well in chat I suggested doing In-Universe like Avatar Wiki, and generally a bunch of other wikis (and I probably should have made it more clear that it was a suggestion), but after looking at a few successful wikis such as Warriors Wiki, and in some cases the DC Database, I'm suggesting we do In-Universe articles, but with the books as headers in the articles like we already do. Neptune - Everything's impossible until someone does it.
The KC pages are already in-universe with book names as headers, no? I suggest we do that for Magnus Chase as well by the way. As for this wiki's content, it would require a lot of work for such changes to be successfully made. I'm all for it if we get enough people on-board though. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  16:56,5/12/2015 
So when you say "In-Universe", I'm assuming that's the point of view, yes? Going along with that assumption, would the main tense be past or present or both? Atelda 00:57, May 13, 2015 (UTC)
In-Universe is the perspective from which the article is written, yes, In this case being, writing the articles as if the Percy Jackson Universe were the real world, so basically getting rid of phrases such as "Perseus "Percy" Jackson is the main protagonist and the narrator of the Percy Jackson and the Olympians series as well as one of the main characters in The Heroes of Olympus series." That entire sentence is out of universe. Also, seeing as the events have passed, I think it'd be more wise to write in past tense, but that's just my opinion. Neptune - Everything's impossible until someone does it.
I think right now we do it in presence and past? SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 02:11, May 13, 2015 (UTC)
Right now we do articles (it's terribly inconsistent, I know) the way Wikipedia does them, i.e. we use present tense because the books are still in existence. But my question is do you really, really want to convert over 1,200 pages into a different tense and style? I mean we could do that to KC and MC because they don't have much content, but for PJO and HOO, it's stretch... Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  21:21,5/13/2015 
The issue with making the wiki "black-and-white" so to speak about whether it be all in-universe or "out-of-universe" is that we could easily then miss important literary components from simple labeling such as major or minor characters, main conflict, etc.
As to tense, CHB wiki needs to make a few sacrifices as well. Tenses are not as important as content, but their consistency add to the flow of reading. Atelda 04:48, May 14, 2015 (UTC)
Okay, we need a decision on this one. Are we going to do in-universe articles? If so, I take it we also convert CHB articles to in-universe pov, correct? Personally I don't really have strong feelings either way. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  08:58,5/14/2015 
In-Universe with past tense? SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 16:00, May 14, 2015 (UTC)
Probably present tense since, like Hype said, the books are still in existence. Atelda 02:39, May 17, 2015 (UTC)
From what I understand though, if we make the articles in-universe they have to be in past tense? Because you're sort of acting as if the books were real, so only the most recent information should be in present tense or something. But again I'm not sure I even fully understood every detail of in-universe articles. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  19:44,5/17/2015 
Okay so, we'd be writing the articles in past tense, as after every book is released the events of them can be considered as having passed already. In-Universe is writing character articles as if the PJO Universe were the real world, so just as when new information is added onto an article on Wikipedia, it's written in past tense, as that event had passed already. Hope that makes sense. Neptune - Everything's impossible until someone does it.
Note: we're gonna have to change every article on here. Basically. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 20:09, May 17, 2015 (UTC)
Well that's what I basically said earlier. We'd be taking on a huge task by making our articles in-universe. Another alternative would be to convert the KC pages to fit the format we currently have here, but I do acknowledge people might be against that. But again I'm not against in-universe articles, just saying it's gonna require a lot of work. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  13:20,5/18/2015 
"In-Universe" perspective only applies to character, groups, and weapons, basically pages from information from the books really. Other articles such as the book articles, cast and crew of the movies, writer and artist's pages are automatically classified as "real world" pages, and wouldn't have to be converted. Neptune - Everything's impossible until someone does it.
That doesn't change anything about size. It's still a majority of our articles. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 17:26, May 18, 2015 (UTC)
So does everyone agree with making the articles in-universe? Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  09:14,5/19/2015 \
I'm not partial either way. I feel as if it would be easier to convert to the CHB format (less pages to convert and said pages are usually being rewritten anyway), but I'm not against in-universe. I am not completely sure what we would be converting to in-universe in the say the Annabeth Chase page. Would it just be the introduction and anything that refers to her as a "narrator" or "character?" (sorry if this is obvious, I just don't completely understand what would be changed) Bird Talk 01:45, May 20, 2015 (UTC)
It's okay, Bird. Epic and I also had trouble grasping the concept as well to what would be changed. So anything that refers to her as a "narrator" or main character would be erased. Correct me if I'm wrong (Neptune), but Annabeth's intro would become: Annabeth Chase is a 17 year old Greek demigod daughter of Athena and Frederick Chase. She is the head counselor of Athena's cabin, the architect of Olympus, and one of the Prophecy of Seven. Annabeth is currently in a relationship with Percy Jackson. I mean, we could use present tense with in-universe articles, but I don't think it's as professional? or something like that. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 01:54, May 20, 2015 (UTC)
Ah thank you that makes much more sense! I'm still not leaning either way particularly, but I understand how we may change to in-universe writing better. Bird Talk 03:01, May 20, 2015 (UTC)
I'm not too sure on using just past tense. It can loose the timeline of events, like flashbacks or future predictions or just relevant past information that gives context to the "present" situation. Most wikis that I've come across that utilize in-universe perspective write using a historical present. Atelda 16:13, May 21, 2015 (UTC)
I got confused somewhere, Atelda's right about the historical present needing to be used. And the introduction sentences of each article are supposed to be in present tense of course. Neptune - Everything's impossible until someone does it.
Edit: I think past tense sounds the best after visiting other wiki's. I think if other large wikis (i.e. Naruto, Avatar) can do it, we can do it. We just need the man power. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 04:37, May 24, 2015 (UTC)
So I suppose this is settled? Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  18:16,5/25/2015 
We haven't agreed on the tense yet? Tbh, I don't even care. We can still use present tense (so we don't have to change everything). SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 19:35, May 25, 2015 (UTC)
So we use historical present. Does everyone agree? Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  18:06,6/4/2015 
I agree. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 04:28, June 5, 2015 (UTC)


One of the things that bothers me about this wiki is the amount of links that we use. We only need things linked once when they are mentioned first and by full name and then not throughout the rest of the article. I think there can be some exceptions to the rule such as for lists of things on someone's page or something. Also, I would wanna clarify how we do apostrophe's for them [[Percy Jackson]]'s or [[Percy Jackson|Percy Jackson's]]. I would prefer the first one. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 05:33, May 11, 2015 (UTC)

The apostrophe's should be outside the links, generally. I don't know how we started to put them in the links. Neptune - Everything's impossible until someone does it.
I suggest we implement the following: Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Overlinking_and_underlinking. And I agree with Neptune on the apostrophes. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  15:37,5/11/2015 
Soooo...the stigma I have with apostrophe's (punctuation in general really) is that because links are generally in a complete different color standing out from the rest of the article, it's pretty easy to obliterate the punctuation when it stands "separate" from the actual link. Keeping the punctuation with the link color allows for better clarity and easier reading is how I see it (especially if it's like " Ouranus' " with only an apostrophe necessary). In the case for length or coding, linking is one of the easiest skills for "coding" thus even when editing, someone should easily follow even if it's like [[Percy Jackson|Percy Jackson's]] and laziness is not a excuse. Atelda 01:05, May 13, 2015 (UTC)
Lol, I forgive you Atleda. I think it's just a more standard to do it outside of the links and that it would be easier for new users as well. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 01:12, May 13, 2015 (UTC)
Besides Wikipedia puts the possessive s outside of the links. And we all know Wikipedia is always right. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  20:58,5/13/2015 
Idk, if newer users cannot handle simple brackets and a few repeated words, it doesn't spell much of a future for them on a wiki with other coding.
Navy blue and black blend (in reference to Wikipedia). Tan and light tan blend (in reference to Avatar wiki). Orange and black don't. If you're going to have such a stark contrast in colors, it'd be wiser to decided case by case. Just because something is already established does not mean that they set the standard for everything. Wikia was created in competition to Wikipedia in a sense. If we directly copy them in every single sense, what is the point of them being separate? It's fine to rely on one another once in a while, but Wikipedia is not the precedent to be followed like a puppy. Atelda 04:48, May 14, 2015 (UTC)
Uh the links are blue on the new wiki, not orange. Even if we were to merge everything here, we'd change the theme to match the Riordan wiki. And Wikipedia literally sets the standards because we use their software here. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  05:25,5/14/2015 
They just look orange because of the red links on the infoboxes. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 15:59, May 14, 2015 (UTC)
By that logic, Britain's governing system should be the standard for multitudes of countries because the majority of the world was under their control at some point in time. Or that Ford sets the standard for mass production because everyone uses the idea of the assembly line. Or the Native Americans set the standard of living because we use their land. If we wanted everything to follow Wikipedia's standards, what is there to discuss?
Meanwhile, I suppose you have a theme in mind that I guess I'm simply just unaware about. Atelda 02:36, May 17, 2015 (UTC)
Well if you look at the commonwealth of nations many of them do have a government similar to that of the UK. These are countries that Britain pretty much founded, like Australia for instance. As for mass production, it possibly cannot stay the same for a century because of innovation and advancements in technology. The free market takes care of that. Similarly, people will not be using MediaWiki a hundred years from now. Besides you're trying to draw similarities between mass production on assembly lines and a freeware product used online. One is a very capital intensive process whereas the other is an open source project. But anyway, my point is Wikia uses Wikipedia's software and develops on top of that. That's why Wikia has the chat feature and blogs whereas Wikipedia does not. But that's also why the editor looks the way it does, or why a lot of the standards here are similar to the ones on Wikipedia. But anyway I'm not even sure how this discussion is beneficial to us at this moment in time. I don't even care which way we do links to be honest. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  05:50,5/17/2015 
I agree it this discussion has gotten out of hand for simple links, my bad. Nonetheless, I'm simply making the assertions that we're so quick to jump to Wikipedia as an argument or outline for the merger. It's not so much the particular examples as it is the logic I argue against. That also goes for this entire merger. If you truly think that we should base everything off of Wikipedia, then that's fine and I suppose I'll concede if you really think so. Yet, while I think it's okay to have an idea based on a pre-existing notion, the heavy reliance simply becomes conforming and I think we can do better than that. Atelda 06:21, May 17, 2015 (UTC)
So do we put the possessive s outside of the links or inside? We need a decision on this one too. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  09:14,5/19/2015 
Wait, so... is it just the 5 of us having this discussion then is the vote over or SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 00:44, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
Yeah just the people who've been commenting on this thread (aka the sysops on the three wikis). Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  05:09,5/28/2015 

Super awesome miniature vote thing

A vote? I say outside. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 20:02, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Sayuri, they should be outside the links. Neptune - Everything's impossible until someone does it.

I vote inside c: Bells ][Talk|Contributions ღ| ] 23:23, May 22, 2015 (UTC)

I say outside as well. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  14:21,5/23/2015 

I'm with Bells, inside. if I can even vote idk??? Atelda 00:19, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Since nobody else has voted on the matter, I suppose this can be considered done. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  18:06,6/4/2015 


The original plan was to import all articles. I don't know if anyone has issues with that. If so, feel free to tell us about it here. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  04:41,5/11/2015 


(Because this really doesn't fall under the manual of style, I'm just going to go generic) Some (very few really) pages have citations with the majority of pages do not. It would be pretty easy to incorporate this onto Magnus considering it's new with no content related to inside the books, yet it would be rather hard to begin this habit on CHB and KC since they already have establish content. It would add to the wikis professionalism, yet it's also not entirely necessary. Thoughts? Atelda 01:10, May 13, 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with using citations. It's always been a serious problem, or (morons) delete the citations and then the page ends up with none. See: Percy Jackson only having like 2 citations when it's the longest page on our wiki with the most content. I think it will be easier with KC since there are only three books. If the merger happens I think we should do it on KC first since we need to update/clean up those pages first anyway. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 01:16, May 13, 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for referencing/using citations but it all depends on how we do it. I mean I've seen this wiki reference in pages, referencing to the actual book page of when whatever happened, but a lot of wikis also just reference to the book or episode, or movie in which whatever happened. Which one do we use? I mean the first option is more detailed, but book pages vary depending on which version you get (digital or paperback). I'm re-reading all the series to prepare for this potential merger, so I wouldn't mind going back and adding citations. Neptune - Everything's impossible until someone does it.
No, I would not just reference the whole entire book. That's not even helpful, lol. Episodes are easy because there are probably so many to pick from i.e. Naruto has like 500+ episodes. We would just need to standardize how we cite, "The Lightning Thief (US), 120." or something like that. All the admins are basically going to have to re-read all the series anyway. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 02:11, May 13, 2015 (UTC)
I guess we could at least reference basic stuff that people tend to get wrong e.g. physical traits and age. We could also standardize them so that we only refer to the book's chapter, not to any specific page. It would give us more leeway and save us from any potential headaches. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  21:02,5/13/2015 
I think we should use chapters to be more specific with citations (as Hype said). To make it easier and less complicated to cite, we could make a citation template (such as the Warriors Wiki has). It makes citing much easier, and users are less likely to skip citing since a template takes less effort. Bird Talk 22:28, May 13, 2015 (UTC)
I personally like knowing the exact page that everything is on instead of roaming the whole entire chapter. The chapters can get especially long. Most people will be using the US or UK version of the book anyway. The version can't be that different by adding a "u" to words, lol. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 00:14, May 14, 2015 (UTC)
The only thing is that you would also have to specify between the hardbacks and paperbacks because the page numbers differ between them. People with e-books would also be unable to cite, but the rest of us could always cite for them. Bird Talk 02:59, May 14, 2015 (UTC)
I do like the idea of a template though. It sounds good for standardizing things. For saying if it's paperback or not we could do something like "The Lightning Thief (Paperback), 120" or I guess just follow sort of what Warriors has. The template they have is here. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 03:14, May 14, 2015 (UTC)
Chapters are ridiculous, like Warriors wiki has them for ebooks and the citations are basically useless. You can always specify books, and it's a pretty easy template to set up if you ignore the switches and if/ifeq clauses. If push comes to shove, I would suggest using the US version since we use American language (yes, that is a thing). Also though, what are we going to cite? Article types such as monsters, weapons, locations, settings, etc generally? Or are we going to go a step further with biography, abilities, etc? (Manual of style-type of question but it's pretty generic still.) Atelda 04:59, May 14, 2015 (UTC)
I think it's important to cite abilities (people seem to be obsessed with them and psycho with them here). Also, descriptions are important as well such as cabin descriptions. Like probably half of it is fanon. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 05:45, May 14, 2015 (UTC)
We can include the page number in the references. We could even allow e-book readers to use references. We just have to make sure to always specify which version of the books we're talking about (be it with a template or without). And I think it goes without saying we only allow American versions of the books to be referenced. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  05:38,5/14/2015 
So we include the page number in the reference and only use the US versions of the books for this purpose. Does everyone agree? Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  18:08,6/4/2015 
And we make a template for the reference for books for ease of use" See Warrior's Wiki. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 04:28, June 5, 2015 (UTC)


By far the most problematic part of this project. Neptune & I had a few ideas about categorizing, but I think we should first ask you all about how you would like us to go about categorizing pages from the different series. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  04:41,5/11/2015 

Earlier in the week, I suggested that we follow what the Avatar wiki has done for the two different wikis. They simply just add (Korra) to the end of it. So for example it could be Gods (CHB) or Items (CHB). Instead of filing them with PJO or HoO it's better to let it stand for Camp Half-Blood Series since that is what Rick calls it. I also would like to continue to categorize things with books since that is easiest. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 05:28, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
Well the original plan was to follow the Avatar wiki's model and kind of imitate their approach wherever we could. I think it would be by far the best way to go about categorizing our pages. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  18:55,5/11/2015 
We all agree with using Avatar wiki as a model for this, correct? —The preceding unsigned comment is by user SayuriDarling (talkcontribs).
Yeah I think that was agreed upon earlier. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  16:04,6/7/2015 

Finalizing Merger

Okay, for a quick re-cap of everything that we have voted on.

  1. Categories modeling the Avatar Wiki Ex: Main Character (PJO) or Main Character (KC).
  2. Make a template for reference (See Warrior's Wiki). Standardize references for US version, e-book, hardback, paperback, and page number.
  3. Apostrophe's will be outside of the linked word. EX: [[Percy Jackson]]'s.
  4. Historical present-tense will be used (In Universe writing).
  5. CHB Wiki will be used a bases of policies. Policies will be looked over, rewritten, and condensed.

SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 21:13, June 7, 2015 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much it. We've reached a consensus on all of those issues. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  21:35,6/14/2015 
whoops forgot about this I agree with all of these decisions. Bird Talk 06:17, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

One more thing

Do we import everything to the new wiki or to this wiki? I'm personally leaning more towards here, but I wouldn't mind either way. After this has been decided on, I suggest we hold one more vote to see if we can get the majority of admins to support the merger. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  21:35,6/14/2015 

I'm for here as well. Then we'd really only have to import the KC stuff here, which would be relatively easier then having to import all three wikis somewhere else. Neptune - Everything's impossible until someone does it.
It would be much easier to import everything here. This wiki also has so much history, so it would be difficult to leave it behind. Bells ][Talk|Contributions ღ| ] 21:41, June 14, 2015 (UTC)
Aside from the ease of importing and how much work, etc., either way, the outcome would be the same. But still, I'd rather have everything imported to this wiki because... Well, I really don't know. talk page HC stalk page 23:24, June 14, 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we should import to here to lessen the workload. Bird Talk 06:12, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

oh, p.s. here. Atelda 02:18, June 16, 2015 (UTC)


ALL admins MUST vote from all 3 wikis. There are 8 admins total from all three wikis. If it's a tie, I don't know what to do. There will be a time limit 5 days from today. If you do not vote within the time limit your vote will not count or be needed.

So there are going to be eight admins? Damn, that's a lot. talk page HC stalk page 14:45, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if everyone will be staying or not. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 14:51, June 15, 2015 (UTC)


  1. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 14:42, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  15:44,6/15/2015 
  3. Bird Talk 17:15, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
  4. Neptune - Everything's impossible until someone does it.
  5. Atelda 19:04, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
  6. Bells ][Talk|Contributions ღ| ] 21:47, June 17, 2015 (UTC)


  1. I'm voting because I can talk page HC stalk page 14:45, June 15, 2015 (UTC)


Vote Results

The final results are that the merger will continue to happen. This weekend we will begin importing pages. We will make a blog post to give updates to the community. This weekend there will be three admins promoted: User:Birdqueen102 (MC & KC), User:Atelda (KC), and User:TheSonofNeptune (KC & MC). Other two admins have not expressed interest, so they will not be promoted as of yet. SayuriDarling | "But a mermaid has no tears, and therefore she suffers so much more." 19:31, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Project management

This thread is to keep all the admins up-to-date as to what's going on with the merger.


Neptune and I are currently importing the pages from the KC wiki. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  23:39,6/19/2015 



Please don't edit the CSS or JS files unless you absolutely have to. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  23:39,6/19/2015 

Wiki design

I'm working on it. Hyperborean ( Talk | Contributions )  23:39,6/19/2015 



So very recently, a lot of things have unexpectedly happened irl that have caused me to come to the decision to leave. I'm very sorry that I have to go, but my life outside of the wiki has changed so that makes it hard if not impossible to stay active here. I've had a lot of fun the past 2 years and I trust that all of you will take care of the wiki. Thank you and good luck! Bird Talk 23:34, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

Aw, Bird, it's so sad to hear you're leaving. I've enjoyed getting to know you these past few weeks, and you've been an asset to the Percy Jackson community for the last couple of years. Thank you for giving up your time to help us here. You will be greatly missed by us all and I wish you luck in future endeavors! I hope everything sorts itself out soon & I'll be thinking of you c: Bells ][Talk|Contributions ღ| ] 23:41, July 18, 2015 (UTC)
Good luck to you as well Bells c: Bird Talk 03:32, July 19, 2015 (UTC)
Good luck. It was nice getting to know you! We will miss you. SayuriDarling | "People can’t save you, but they can destroy you." 18:06, July 19, 2015 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.