American Girl Wiki
Advertisement

Previous discussion on my talk page can be seen here: Nethilia Talk Archive. Please check here before asking a question--it may have already been asked.

Tips for Communication:

  • Don't ask me questions that don't have anything to do with information on the Wiki. I don't talk Fandom on my talk page and this is only for Wiki work. If you would like to talk to me fandom wise, please contact me AWAY from the A*G Wiki. There's a list of places I frequent on my user page. I'll reply if I care. And don't use my social media to ask about the Wiki. The Talk page is right here.
  • So you have a question about a character, a movie plot, when something aired, an actress's data, or other live action media minutiae. Great! Go look it up yourself. Read a book, watch a movie, check a catalog. I don't have fine details on movies, plays, books, actors, plots, etc. I don't own everything or consume everything, and what I have consumed I'm not here to answer questions about. As of March 2018, all questions about media/characters will be deleted unanswered. They're becoming a clutter.
  • Questions about basic formatting/editing/where to start/what to do will not be answered and will be removed from the page. I don't have time to tell people step by step coding, how to upload or edit, or anything starter, so I won't even start. I learned by working and so can you. Go play in the Sandbox, look at pages on the wiki as they are formatted, look around at Community Fandom and the help pages, and test and learn from there.
  • Do not use my page to bitch about any other admins or complain that I wasn't nice enough to you. Be a Big Kid and Accept Editing. Chances are, if you're getting fussed at or your edits purged, there's a good damn reason for it. We're here to get the information down, and complaining that the admins aren't being kind enough to you is acting childish. I haven't the time nor the spoons for it.
  • If you've been blocked, wait out your block and take that time to learn how not to make the same mistakes again. Blocks are temporary. Take your time out. If you've been perma-banned, you aren't likely to be unbanned. Don't e-mail me if I blocked/banned you. Nethie hears ya. Nethie don't care.
  • If you're banned for age reasons, you won't be unbanned until you're old enough to be here. * If your sister/brother/cousin/nibling/relation came on and was underaged/caused issues and got your account banned, then you've learned a valuable lesson about not supervising children and others on the internet. Teach your relatives not to mess around on your accounts and wait out the ban.
  • If you leave an unsigned, unsectioned, or misplaced message on my page, it can and often will will be immediately deleted. If you want me to care, then sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) and leave a proper heading. And yes, you have to do both. I only have so many hours in this world and I'm not going to spend them answering unformatted questions. Furthermore, if the only thing that you ask on my page is about formatting--including how to sign on a talk page--I'm just going to undo your message and go about my business. I haven't the time nor spoons.
  • If something is retired, revamped, released, or in need of edits, don't leave notes to this effect for me to have to work with. Go to the page and edit it yourself. I'm not the only person who can edit pages.

Now go forth and read all the talk on my page or something.

Edit reversion inquiry

Hey there, Kirkburn from FANDOM Support here. We've been contacted about some of the editing practises here, since a lot of edits are reverted, and I wanted to ask you about it.

For example, this edit. Those descriptions seemed entirely reasonable to my eye - so why were they removed? (I admit little familiarity with the topic of this wiki, but the info matches the photo.) -- Kirkburn (talk) 17:41, February 2, 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Kirkburn. As one of the head admins, I can explain why edits like those are reverted as improper. One of our standard policies is that we would like descriptions of outfits and items to be as detailed as possible, not just a quick line. This has been true for some time (as seen here, at the part where it says "Articles and descriptions of items on pages should never consist of one or two short lines, a short list of items, or only two or three sentences").
This is especially crucial for product descriptions, because one or two lines doesn't give enough description unless it's a simple article of clothing. (We don't expect a long description on a pair of white socks, for example, "white ankle socks" is sufficient.) Compare the reverted edits to the edits for this recent article's descriptions, which can be seen in edit history here. People aren't required to own a product to edit an article--many items on this Wiki are older and may be harder to get. But an edit should at least be able to tell a reader more than a single sentence description. For example, I do not own this item. However, the description of the item is enough to tell the dress's plausible visual fabric, skirt length, some of the trims, and back closure (most of these items close across the back with Velcro), enough to picture the item without the image.
We have this policy in place because, when the Wiki was launched and still open to anonymous edits, it was easy for the targeted audience or younger editors to leave short, non-thorough descriptions. These were often based on product descriptions from the website or catalogs which are, by nature, written in flowery, product-selling descriptive language (e.g. for the above stellar outfit example, the webtext is A multicolored space-dyed tank top; A varsity jacket with patches [the character] proudly wears at camp and at home; Denim shorts with a decal heart; Bright cosmic-print sneakers).
Another reason is because many secondhand purchases of AG items may not and often do not include every item; as a product targeted to children, it is plausible that outfit parts are lost, damaged, or mixed up in secondhand sales. A description here should be clear enough that if someone finds just one part e.g. just a white shirt with text on it--they can try a search here to find what set it belongs to by the text of the article. We are aiming for a high level of detail so that a person, without looking at an image, can compare what they may have or see in a search online and verify what an item is without the other items in the product or a verification of a purchased item.
ETA @ 4:48 PST 2/3/18: For example, there are multiple outfits with blue jeans. A description of "blue jeans" does not help others find out which of the jeans they may have. However, if they see that the jeans are "distressed," this may lead them to the right outfit. Some older articles have short descriptions; this is because they have not yet been cleared or updated.
An accepted description of the jersey from the article linked--based on the picture alone, because this is also something I don't own--would be akin to: White short sleeved soccer jersey. V-shaped neckline. Purple trim on neckline, down front, and on sleeve cuffs. American Girl logo and pink 2 on front of jersey. (I have not put this on the article yet.)
I hope this explains things. If you have any other questions or concerns, please let me know.
Nethilia (talk) 06:49, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

Descriptions

Hey. I edited Kit’s gardening outfit on AG wiki. and you deleted everything. May I ask why? I mean, people want descriptions and they were good descriptions. I’m not trying to be rude but I’m wondering why if you didn’t think they were good enough then why didn’t you write your own? (This unsigned comment was made by Jodo Russo (talk) at July 1 2018, 18:51 (UTC))

1: Sign your posts on Talk pages using four tildes as so: ~~~~
2: I certainly did roll back the descriptions, as they were not up to the quality we require for descriptions. If you look at the last time this came up, under the heading "Edit reversion inquiry" here in this talk page, you will see an idea of what we require for descriptions. They were not good descriptions as stated under our article creation policy. Specifically, the spot where it says "Articles and descriptions of items on pages should never consist of one or two short lines, a short list of items, or only two or three sentences.
3: As Admin and founder, I have the ability to revert articles that are poorly written quickly; other admins would have done the same once they saw the description. I just happened to be the one checking in at the time. Depending on my ability at the time, I will either leave them back on the stub level to encourage proper descriptions or do thorough descriptions.
4: I often do descriptions of items, though I am not obligated to do it as soon as I revert. To see an example of my description level and the level we require on items, compare your reverted descriptions to the ones on Luciana's Stellar Outfit, which I coded in myself. It's not required to own an item to do the description--for example, I don't own Molly's Evergreen Velvet Dress. I still did a description that is enough to tell the dress's plausible fabric, skirt length, some of the trims that can be seen, and back closure (most of these items close across the back with Velcro), enough to picture the item without the image.
I hope this explains why the descriptions you submitted were reverted and gives you a good the level of item description we require here. Repeated poor descriptions can result in temporary blocks.
Nethilia (talk) 02:49, July 2, 2018 (UTC)

Terms for People

Please update Joss Kendrick's page to correct the out-dated term "disability".  People have accessibility needs, they are not disabled. (this unsigned comment was by user DracheMitch on 00:15, 2020 January 2‎)

Joss as a character is a disabled person with accessibility needs. She is partially deaf or hard of hearing, to get into specifics, and visibly disabled. The term disabled is perfectly acceptable to use to refer to her as a character and a doll. As a disabled person myself, I use the term; "cutesy" or covert language that tries to hide disability does not help people like me or the actuality of my needs. What I need is accessibility, yes. And what I am is disabled.
"But as actually disabled people will tell you, their disabilities are a vital part of who they are. That's why many prefer "identity-first language," in which the disability is put front and center in the terms we use. Examples include terms like “disabled people” or “Deaf person” rather than “person with a disability. [...] "I can't hear properly, but no amount of condescending language is going to change that," said Meg Szydlik, a student [...] who is disabled. "I'm also not Daredevil, and I didn’t gain superpowers from my disability, which is always what 'handicapable' makes me think of." It’s Perfectly OK To Call A Disabled Person ‘Disabled,’ And Here's Why (accessed 1/2/2020)
"It is okay to use words or phrases such as "disabled," "disability," or "people with disabilities" when talking about disability issues." Respectful Disability Language
The term is appropriate and is as stands.
If you deign to attempt to regulate the perfectly appropriate language of this wiki again--and I suggest you not--at least have the wherewithal to sign your posts with ~~~~.
Nethilia, Head Admin (talkpage) 08:45, January 2, 2020 (UTC)
ETA: No, a Bad Attitude Is Not the ‘Only’ Disability:
And that quote,The only disability in life is a bad attitude, the reason that's bullshit is because it's just not true, because of the social model of disability. You know, no amount of smiling at a flight of stairs has ever made it turn into a ramp. Never. Smiling at a television screen isn't going to make closed captions appear for people who are deaf. No amount of standing in the middle of a bookshop and radiating a positive attitude is going to turn all those books into Braille. It's just not going to happen.
Don't tell me the only disability in life is a bad attitude
As an adult, it's easy to joke about it but as a kid, it's the kind of thing you internalize. Disabled kids should be taught to embrace their bodies and their abilities, whatever they may or may not be. Teaching them phrases like 'the only disability is a bad attitude' simultaneously strips them of part of their identity and instills a sense of shame when they're unable to do the same things their abled peers can.
There's this weird belief that if you can't do something you’re just not trying hard enough. You haven't found the right way yet, keep going, don’t give up. People will encourage you to damn near kill yourself trying before letting someone else do something for you. That's obviously a really toxic attitude to have. A lot of people try to catch us in a lie like we’re 'faking' our disabilities because of that attitude.
Nethilia, Head Admin (talkpage) 00:27, July 27, 2020 (UTC)

How can we help?

Hi, I'm Sannse one of the Fandom staff team. We've been looking at some of the wikis that are currently categorised as "Lifestyle". We would like to move away from lumping together so many varied wikis, and give them a more accurate category. In your case, we have classified this wiki as "Collectibles".

The hope is that with wikis grouped into smaller more focused groups, we can give better and more personalised support. For example, we can give help with wiki design, advice on search engine optimisation, and generally just be around for any questions and other needs you have.

We have a short survey that will help us understand what your needs are, and where we can best focus to help you keep building your wiki. I hope you'll participate and let us know what you need. You'll find that here

I'll be your primary contact, with the rest of the Exploration and Innovation Team ready to jump in and help where we can. I look forward to working with you! And if you have any questions, please let me know -- Sannse (help forum | blog) 20:51, April 14, 2020 (UTC)

Quality of Article Descriptions

Hi, I am wondering what was wrong with my additions to several item pages that were all reverted.  I put a lot of thought into them and tried to be as detailed as possible, and I can vouch that all the information was accurate.  Should I not be editing pages here without permission?  Should I have cleared the edits beforehand or something?  I'm confused and a little upset.  I tried to clean up the two edits that I could still recover; I'm not sure how I could make them cleaner or more detailed.  And the page I had written the most on can't be recovered.  Did I break a rule or something without knowing it?  Thanks. Platypusbutt (talk) 13:27, October 3, 2020 (UTC)Platypusbutt

As per my post regarding this currently at the top of this talk page as of today's date:
One of our standard policies is that we would like descriptions of outfits and items to be as detailed as possible, not just a quick line. This has been true for some time (as seen here, at the part where it says "Articles and descriptions of items on pages should never consist of one or two short lines, a short list of items, or only two or three sentences").
This is especially crucial for product descriptions, because one or two lines doesn't give enough description unless it's a simple article of clothing. (We don't expect a long description on a pair of white socks, for example, "white ankle socks" is sufficient.) Compare the reverted edits to the edits for this recent article's descriptions, which can be seen in edit history here. People aren't required to own a product to edit an article--many items on this Wiki are older and may be harder to get. But an edit should at least be able to tell a reader more than a single sentence description. For example, I do not own this item. However, the description of the item is enough to tell the dress's plausible visual fabric, skirt length, some of the trims, and back closure (most of these items close across the back with Velcro), enough to picture the item without the image.
We have this policy in place because, when the Wiki was launched and still open to anonymous edits, it was easy for the targeted audience or younger editors to leave short, non-thorough descriptions. These were often based on product descriptions from the website or catalogs which are, by nature, written in flowery, product-selling descriptive language (e.g. for the above stellar outfit example, the webtext is A multicolored space-dyed tank top; A varsity jacket with patches [the character] proudly wears at camp and at home; Denim shorts with a decal heart; Bright cosmic-print sneakers).
Another reason is because many secondhand purchases of AG items may not and often do not include every item; as a product targeted to children, it is plausible that outfit parts are lost, damaged, or mixed up in secondhand sales. A description here should be clear enough that if someone finds just one part e.g. just a white shirt with text on it--they can try a search here to find what set it belongs to by the text of the article. We are aiming for a high level of detail so that a person, without looking at an image, can compare what they may have or see in a search online and verify what an item is without the other items in the product or a verification of a purchased item.
Your descriptions were not adequate. Take the time to look at other articles of high quality descriptions. One of my most recent is Courtney's Care Bear Pajamas. Consider this your first warning before a block is implemented for improper descriptions.
Nethilia, Head Admin (talkpage) 21:36, October 3, 2020 (UTC)

Blog Posts

How come there isn't a blog post around here?787716 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Blogs serve no purpose to the needs of the AG wiki project and contribute to idle chatter. If you wish to blog about AG things or share your opinions, please find a service such as Blogger or Wordpress. Nethilia, Head Admin (talkpage) 06:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

New Wiki Representative for the American Girl Wiki!

Hey there!

I'm Cörey, the new Wiki Representative for the American Girl Wiki.

As your Wiki Representative, I am here to act as your community's personal liaison with Fandom Staff. As a part-time member of Fandom Staff, I'll be able to help with any issues that you or members of your community may come across.

I'm looking forward to working with you! Please let me know if you have any questions or need any help!

× Cörey (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello and Thank you! I hope to have a good working relationship with you. Nethilia, Head Admin (talkpage) 07:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

FandomDesktop Migration

Greetings! My name is Jillian and I'm a Content Team Member with FANDOM. I have been assigned to your wiki to ensure that you and your community are ready for the upcoming merge to the FandomDesktop platform. You might have seen me around the wiki in the previous weeks helping to import your themes and ensuring everything migrated smoothly. If you feel that the wiki is ready to make a full migration, please mark your wiki as ready in the Admin Dashboard! If you still need assistance, please let me know, I'm here to help. Thanks! TotallyWitchy 03:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Protected

Did you protected my user page?787716 (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. As stated on the User Page Policies:
[Y]our user page is to help contribute to the project. It is not a personal homepage, blog, or fandom hub. [...] Editing your user page repeatedly without assisting with other articles--and doing it properly, not one-and-two small edits or incorrect information just to say you did something--is doing nothing.
If admin detects that a user is editing their personal page in such a way that it shows more personal focus rather than contributing to the project, user pages will be temporarily locked to encourage focus on the project. Continued failures to contribute will result in temporary bans.
Your most recent edits have been your personal page with your last project work being over a year ago. This does not contribute to the project. The page will remain protected. Nethilia, Head Admin (talkpage) 06:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Locking User Pages

Hello Nethilia.

I'm sure you're aware of who I am as I did leave a message back when we were doing UCX prep. But in case you overlooked it, my name is Jillian and I'm a Wiki Specialist with FANDOM. It recently come to my attention that you are locking user pages without issuing a warning first. This is not okay. Especially given the user's number of edits to their profile and the type of profile that have created. You cannot lock a users profile page without at least issuing a warning ahead of time. While I understand that you want to encourage people to edit the main space and not just their user profiles, there other and better ways to go about this. You can see similar examples on the larger Harry Potter Wiki who have a system in place for this type of issue. You can view their policy here. I have unlocked their profile and it should remain unlocked. Please refrain from doing this sort of thing in the future. Thanks.

TotallyWitchy, Wiki Specialist with FANDOM 01:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
This user's page was locked in part because the user has, over the years, made minimal contributions to the project and has recently only returned to make personal page edits, rather than any substantial contributions. They have not added to the project main pages in some time, as was discussed earlier on my talk page. I was also concerned about the level of personal information they were posting on their page. I looked at the policy on Wookiepedia here to create our policy on userpages here, with the information on excessive user page focus added to our page on June 12, 2021. As American Girl is a interest that encourages personal focus and character creation, our policy was made tighter to avoid endless talk on characters and self. We have, as of the new change on June 12th, made it clear that a user constantly focusing on their personal information rather than the project will be pushed towards main project edits including user page locking.
However, I failed to add proper warning and blocking clarifications, and have done that now. Admins will make sure in the future to make sure there is a warning given before user page locking, and the user has been properly warned as their only contributions for over a year have been small page edits. Thank you.
Nethilia, Head Admin (talkpage) 22:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Dark theme

Hi! My name is ProfessorTofty, or George, and I am a Wiki Specialist with Fandom. We have recently been conducting a review of skin issues caused by the update to FandomDesktop. While reviewing this wiki, I noted some issues with readability in the dark theme, including on the homepage and when it comes to the boxes in the References section on pages like Kira Bailey. Also, the dark theme hasn't been customized much, meaning that it may not be ideal for this wiki. Would you be okay with me making some updates to fix these issues? You would have final approval over any changes. I am reaching out to you as you are the most recently active admin or bureaucrat. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, goodness, the dark theme looks throwed off. Yes, please, I'd sincerely appreciate your help! I almost always use light mode with the customized colors we have. Nethilia, Head Admin (talkpage) 05:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Advertisement