FANDOM

Original Authority

Global Discussions Moderator Bureaucrat
  • I live in England, United Kingdom
  • I was born on October 30
  • My occupation is Student
  • Bio Possibly writing trash over at TVD Wiki.
  • [Show More]
A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • Hi OA,

    How are you? I hope all is well!

    So, it would seem we have a timeline issue and wanted your opinion on the matter. So basically given the premiere, we're at a 7 year time jump. The last known date in TO's timeline is May 2019. Now jump 7 years, it's ~May 2026; however, they are preparing for Mardi Gras which is usually February or March. --I've made this note on the timeline that it's either Feb. or May of 2026.

    Additionally, Hope was 9 years old, in 2021 when she astral projected to Klaus in Russia, again, confirming that 2026, she's currently 14. This being said, in Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, Freya states that Hope is 15.

    At this point, it's quite sad that the writers can't keep a simple timeline, but none-the-less, as far as the timeline goes, by all accounts it's 2026 and Hope is 14. Shall we keep with the timeline as the actual date, Freya's statement, or just include both for prosperity?

    EDIT: Alternatively, a 7 year jump from May 2019 to May 2026 would place Hope right on her birthday (which is May 2nd), which would make her 14. The timeline, however, is based on actual Mardi Gras dates, unless they are having Mardi Gras in May (for the continuity of TO).

    Thanks for your input. ^.^

      Loading editor
    • Hi Bennett,

      Firstly, apologies for the late reply. Secondly I'm good thanks, college is stressful, but same old same old. How about you?

      I agree. The writers have never been able to follow a timeline correctly. For the moment, the best we can do is follow what the writers have said. Freya stating that Hope is 15 is what we will, at this moment, have to go off for canonical reasons. However, it should be noted on the bloopers article that, yet again, there has been a timeline mix-up.

      We haven't really seen anything about Hope's birthday, in the way of celebrations or anything, though right?

      If more information comes out in the future that points to our original timeline being correct, we can change that up and note that Freya actually made a mistake.

        Loading editor
    • I'm good. Not as much stress, currently. :) No worries about the timing. It's not a big issue and I just locked the page until it could be reviewed and decision be reached.

      No, we've not seen anything by means of celebration (or otherwise) for Hope's birthday, which would have occurred during/after (give or take) the Hollow's de-possession of Hope and the separation of the Mikaelsons.

      Regardless, I can make the necessary correction using Freya's statement as a confirmed source, until proven otherwise.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I've been noticing on pages that proper nouns such as names of magic types/practices, beings like Originals/Evolved Werewolves, and etc. aren't capitalized like they should be and I have been editing them for a little while now.  I've recently been told that I had to inform you of them so your bot could take care of them.

      Loading editor
  • Mr. Original Authority can I please be an admin on this wiki?

      Loading editor
    • Hello,

      I've decided to answer your question here, on Original Authority's wall, versus my own, due to another issue.

      First, to answer your question, it's a No. You've only just created your account today and you have no experience editing nor contributions to FANDOM, let alone to this community specifically. Not to sound harsh, but you can't expect to just create an account and ask for admin rights and them be given to you unless you founded your own community.

      That brings me to my second point. Your The Vampire Diaries Books community. You've taken our community's Wordmark without the permission of the author, which is also happens to be apart of FANDOM's staff, nor our community. Secondly, you've also not attributed where it's came from, which is not only rude, but it's against FANDOM's Terms of Use, as you're not the author of the image. Additionally, you've taken our community's Favicon, as your own, as well as these two images: Community header and Wiki background, again without attribution.

      Please respect our community and remove these from your community.

      Feel free to ask us any additional questions you may have. Thanks.

        Loading editor
    • ^Agree, it's something you have to earn like BBM18 did.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hi Luke. I need help with a couple things on my wiki.

    - I see the extended navigation is gone. Is there a way to restore it? Seeing it's gone here too, I fear it might be an irreversible global thing. I hope it's not.
    - I want to change the colors of dead links, but the methods I tried doesn't seem to work. Can you give me a hand with that maybe?
    - The top wikia bar keeps annoyingly reappearing in the middle of the page when I scroll back up. Is there a way that you know of to fix it to the top?
    - Lastly, I'm pretty sure I had added a code to a css or js page for a UTC time to appear in the pages. It appears to be gone as well. Can it be restored, to your knowledge?

    I know I asked a lot, sorry about that :) So if you can help out, it will be much appreciated! Hope to hear from you soon :)

      Loading editor
    • Hey MGC, nice to hear from you, how are you?

      Apologies for the late reply, but I've done my best to answer below, let me know if something is unclear or you need anything else :)

      1. With the extended navigation, I'm pretty sure that this script was a ToU violation and, with the new header, has not been fixed due to this. However, I can take a look if you have a link to where you have it installed (I can't find the initial script anywhere).
      2. Dead links should be easily changed through theme designer, however, if you can't seem to do this, adding this to your CSS should work:

      a.new { color: yellow !important; } You can change the yellow of course, but don't remove the !important.

      1. If you mean the white global FANDOM bar, yes, there is a way to fix it. Are you looking to fix it to your screen all of the time, so that it scrolls with you, or to the top of the page?
      2. Regarding the UTC clock, do you want it to appear anywhere that you add some sort of code to an article page? For example adding <clock> would replace the tag with a clock on the specific page? Or are you looking to have it in a somewhat more permenant page, such as on this wiki? Let me know and I'll take a look :)

      Again, sorry about the late reply. Let me know what you mean by some of the things above and I'd be glad to lend a hand :)

        Loading editor
    • Hello :) no problems friend, late reply is always better than no reply at all 

      well, if by script you mean the code I added to have it, it's on my Common.js page: 1.

      I have been to Theme Designer ... I don't think we can change the color there .. can you show me a quick tutorial for it?

      as for CSS, I tried that code: 2. but it didn't work. I tried some other codes as well .. none took. feel free to try yourself as well, for maybe I did something wrong .. (FYI, I want the color maroon: Example >> check the link color for "Ian Lowe")

      absolutely not all of the time lol if it was up to me I'd even remove the damn thing altogether .. but since it's not possible, I'm content with fixing it to the top.

      about the clock thing .. we too had that clock here on this wiki .. it stood just above the "recent wiki activity" line harmlessly, not a part of or visually on any local or global navigation bar .. and showed the UTC time 3. I mean it's not really necessary, it was just something I liked having.. 

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I had a discussion with Bennet Blood mage about this but I still feel it needs to be changed.I don't want to make such a major edit to the wiki without your approval but the term enhanced original is indefinitely incorrect because the creatures created by the spell include a portion of werewolf attributes and I think that they should be called enhanced hybrid like vampires

    Thread:http://vampirediaries.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:1805921

      Loading editor
    • View all 17 replies
    • Original Authority wrote:

      1. Renaming the article to venom upgraded original vampire is not really clever since they also got other attributes such as the ability to compel originals, etc.

      Additionally, Originals Vampires do not possess venom and venom upgraded original vampire implies that they do and yet this new species venom, it's "upgraded", which again isn't the case.

      Original Authority wrote: 2. I'm not sure what the Camile Wiki' is, however, we are not affiliated with that.

      For clarity, Sophie Deveraux, this is the Vampire Diaries/The Originals FANDOM, powered by Wikia. Each page herein is referred to as an article i.e. a specific page on a defined topic. In regards to Camille's page, it's formatted corrected.

      Marcel is an Upgraded Original Vampire with an Advance Werewolf Bite (see P&A section). There is no other "bite" and considering this venom is derived from the seven packs, it's an advance form. (i.e. A hybrid's bite is no different from a werewolf or an evolved werewolf --it's all the same. The only bite that is different is the UOV).

      Marcel is not a hybrid. He was not a born wolf, turned vampire. Lucien did not replicate The Werewolf Curse, but Esther's Vampire Creation Spell with the added venom. All Lucien did was upgrade her spell, which already had "fangs" incorporated into the spell --Lucien just added an advance form of venom.

      Lucien's own admission, he (and Marcel) are an upgrade from an Original Vampire. Everything is clearly explained on associated pages.

      Names are derived from canon and changing them to a description, i.e. "venom upgraded" isn't a practice used here.

        Loading editor
    • Bennett Blood Mage18 wrote:

      Original Authority wrote:

      1. Renaming the article to venom upgraded original vampire is not really clever since they also got other attributes such as the ability to compel originals, etc.
      Additionally, Originals Vampires do not possess venom and venom upgraded original vampire implies that they do and yet this new species venom, it's "upgraded", which again isn't the case.


      Original Authority wrote: 2. I'm not sure what the Camile Wiki' is, however, we are not affiliated with that.

      For clarity, Sophie Deveraux, this is the Vampire Diaries/The Originals FANDOM, powered by Wikia. Each page herein is referred to as an article i.e. a specific page on a defined topic. In regards to Camille's page, it's formatted corrected.

      Marcel is an Upgraded Original Vampire with an Advance Werewolf Bite (see P&A section). There is no other "bite" and considering this venom is derived from the seven packs, it's an advance form. (i.e. A hybrid's bite is no different from a werewolf or an evolved werewolf --it's all the same. The only bite that is different is the UOV).

      Marcel is not a hybrid. He was not a born wolf, turned vampire. Lucien did not replicate The Werewolf Curse, but Esther's Vampire Creation Spell with the added venom. All Lucien did was upgrade her spell, which already had "fangs" incorporated into the spell --Lucien just added an advance form of venom.

      Lucien's own admission, he (and Marcel) are an upgrade from an Original Vampire. Everything is clearly explained on associated pages.

      Names are derived from canon and changing them to a description, i.e. "venom upgraded" isn't a practice used here.

      Thank you for clarifying Imjust gonna agree to disagree on this

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I am sorry but you have a mistake in page which include Caroline and liam because they didnt have a sex they just made out and Caroline bite him and then she compeled him to forget about biting and also she compeled liam to remember just they had a sex because if people ask him about her when stefan asked him he said we made out pretty hardcord but Caroline when she bite him said you are complicated and then she didnt do anything with him like sex they didnt have a sex

      Loading editor
  • No it was never stated. It is only a fan assumption. The Originals aren't true immortality yet they don't age. Dahlia knew more about the spell than Freya so what she says goes. And thats that the spell granted them eternal never ending life. If they aged then it wouldnt be eternal.

    Thats like saying the white oak tree (one of natures eternal objects) will never die (unless burned or cut down) yet in about 5000 years it will die of old age. Thats the opposite of eternal. Thats longevity. Both were said to be eternal

      Loading editor
    • In a way it was. I'll elaborate:

      To follow up OA's edit summary, here is the full quote: "I'm here because of a spell Dahlia cast, placing me in a deep sleep for a century, only to then wake for a single year of life. I've repeated this cycle for hundreds of years. It started as a way for us to stay young and beautiful. She said if a witch can't be immortal, this was the next best thing. But, in time, I realized that all her stories were paired with lies. "

      While I don't remember the explicit word "age". That is what the quote "Only to wake for a single year of Life" means, i.e. "life" being define as "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death" (i.e. age.)...

        Loading editor
    • Klaus, an Original Vampire that doesn't age, considers himself to be "alive" aka life. As do a lot of vampires. All of whom don't age. And Dahlia who created the spell says it grants them eternal life, which means it never ends. Them aging then it would end. Freya saying it was the closest a witch could come to true immortality is because of the fact that they have to sleep. They still can't be killed when awake. (Excluding spevi ingredients).

        Loading editor
    • They (Originals) are biologically undead (regardless of what they consider themselves to be; i.e. they consider themselved unkillable, yet most of them have died)... What's stated and what's actually shown is a "Misnomer". Immortality and Eternal life are often used interchangeably but the context isn't always right. Here, Klaus claimed that Dahlia could link herself to him because he already had eternal life (Fire with Fire) (I.e. he's an undead immortal). If Dahlia was biologically immortal, one, she couldn't have her magic, and two, biologically immortal organisms do not experience aging or they cease to age, i.e. Silas. Fundamentally, To have life is to functionally/biologically age.

      Oh and the ^^about quote was from The Devil is Damned.

      It can ultimately be up to Original Authority. I just wanted to expand upon his summary with some sources and other useful information. Based on that, I feel it should stay. Just my two cents.

        Loading editor
    • Apologies for the late reply, and further apologies for not providing a reasonably well-provisioned edit summary, but they are limited to 150 characters if I am not mistaken.

      You cannot parallel the biological status of a vampire and that of a witch, simple. Thank you Bennett for providing the quote, I'd like to focus the attention on She said if a witch can't be immortal, this was the next best thing. Therein lies the fact that they are not immortal, thus, will eventually die of old age, as they age each year. Also, you're saying that Dahlia granted Freya and herself eternal life, that does not end, however, the "eternal life" she had given Freya ended with the death of Dahlia, thus, not eternal.

      You're welcome to widen this discussion further afield to other editors, however, do not change information like that again without providing concrete, factual proof without prior discussion among other editors. The false information can stay behind on cached versions of the app which will throw readers into confusion until the article is cached again.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • what up

      Loading editor
  • New Episode Proof

    The 5x09 episode title is We Have Not Long To Live

      Loading editor
  • Hello, I am Lmumford2022 and I am assoicated witch BaneDiaries (who your rencecley blocked) I understand that she did copy/pate information such as css and wordmark, but I have to ask why did you block her? I mean it's a wordmark. Is it under some kind of copright or anything? Sure she copied monobook css but on my opinion it's nothing wrong with copying it from this wiki. She told me the only reason why she removed the Vampire Diaries Wiki part because she wanted it to look good. 

    I'm sorry if you don't understand, but She didn't mean it. All she wanted was for her wiki's to look good.

    If you'd be soo kind, please remove the block or I will report you to FANDOM

    Lmumford2022 (Admrinstatior of Wolfverse WIki)

      Loading editor
    • Prior to this messge aren't you supposed to be blocking people when they do bad stuff? How is taking a wordmark and css and putting it on your wiki bad? 

      I've seen other people take it and put it on their's. 

      I'm a truly sorry if you don't like what I am saying. All I am saying is the truth.

        Loading editor
    • Hello, yes I am the administrator responsible for blocking BaneDiaries, for which I had good reason, and authority to do so.

      I will, although I do not have to, entertain this message. I have warned BaneDiaries before about copying my personal JS and removing attribution, which is rude, and against FANDOM ToU (all content copied must be appropriately attributed). The response given was "I will not do it again", or something similar.

      Then, she copied my entire personal CSS file, without attribution, and the entirety of this wiki's Monobook CSS without attribution, which I also wrote. Then, the wordmark, which they do not have permission from the author to use, which happens to be a member of FANDOM staff.

      I will report you to FANDOM
      Is this a threat? Because if so, it's quite a funny one. I have full authority to block anyone I see fit, for any reason, big or small, or no reason at all. If I so wish, I can block you just for leaving this message (which I will not do, of course). FANDOM staff do not intervene with local blocks; all responsibility is with the community in which the block resides. The block will stay in force.

      Thanks.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
See archived talk page
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message