Thread:AnnabellRice/@comment-3406131-20170218144909/@comment-16461120-20170324215147

I'm frustrated because I feel like people have hijacked what was a simple and clear delineation, almost from the start of implementation, by tacking on quasi-related ambiguously defined crossover inspiration nonsense, thus requiring me to spend a bunch of time and energy on what was never the intended use of my proposal. Anyway, my thoughts at this point are:


 * 1) There should be no need to make any changes to Template:Adaptation nor Category:Materials Adapted from Other Media. I implemented this correctly per community consensus, with a very narrow focus and it's simply all the extra stuff that doesn't belong and was only added on after–the–fact and should thus be moved to the Template:Adaptation2 that people demanded. I'm absolutely firm on this position and have decided to drop everything else I'd planned to focus on in the near term in order to force the issue so that I can prove it's not my fault that this happened, other people muddied the water.
 * 2) I also don't believe it's necessary to change Category:Content Adapted from Other Media, in theory wherever it's been manually added it is probably correctly used per Shabook's original vision for the category, though some citation in the article's trivia section might be a nice requirement.
 * 3) This leaves us with the spammed use of what should have been the after–the–fact requested Template:Adaptation2 and I'm about to go rectify. My quick fix for this is to simply change the autogeneration of the second template to "Category:Apocryphal Content Adapted from Other Media", which combined with the proper purge of Category:Materials Adapted from Other Media should adequately split Category:Content Adapted from Other Media between the crossover and semi-canon confusion without much work beyond people hopefully adding references to what's eventually left in the current content category.