| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Forumheader|The Realm of Sleep|The World that Never was}} | | {{Forumheader|The World that Never was}} |
|
| |
|
| <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with either your talk page template or four tildes ~~~~ --> | | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with either your talk page template or four tildes ~~~~ --> |
| Line 18: |
Line 18: |
| This needs to be a community-wide discussion, so please everybody leave your input (''not just affirmations'') below. | | This needs to be a community-wide discussion, so please everybody leave your input (''not just affirmations'') below. |
| }} | | }} |
| | |
| | [[Category:Stickied threads]] |
| Omamus: I agree with NV | | Omamus: I agree with NV |
| {{Xiggie|time=00:55, January 9, 2010 (UTC)|talk=I think that it should be OK to put up information from BBS on various articles, but Spoiler templates should always be used (except for names of items, weapons and such stuff). I think that as long as the information comes from a trusty source (like Youtube BBS gameplay vids), the info from them should be added to the Wiki. I understand that some users don't wanna get spoiled, but I don't think that we should not update any BBS articles until the english release just because of that... Maybe the main articles should stay protected, but the BBS information should be added to here... somewhere... | | {{Xiggie|time=00:55, January 9, 2010 (UTC)|talk=I think that it should be OK to put up information from BBS on various articles, but Spoiler templates should always be used (except for names of items, weapons and such stuff). I think that as long as the information comes from a trusty source (like Youtube BBS gameplay vids), the info from them should be added to the Wiki. I understand that some users don't wanna get spoiled, but I don't think that we should not update any BBS articles until the english release just because of that... Maybe the main articles should stay protected, but the BBS information should be added to here... somewhere... |
| Line 56: |
Line 58: |
| {{Randomnessity|text=I didn't take it as a problem. I was just stating what I do.}} | | {{Randomnessity|text=I didn't take it as a problem. I was just stating what I do.}} |
| {{LA|Vtext=Randomnessity, just letting you know that I'm pretty sure we made it clear that spoilers are not to be deleted, but marked with the Spoiler templates.}} | | {{LA|Vtext=Randomnessity, just letting you know that I'm pretty sure we made it clear that spoilers are not to be deleted, but marked with the Spoiler templates.}} |
| {{Randomnessity|hooded=Must of missed that. Better tell ENX that too then. He was reverting some as well.}}
| |
| {{KrytenKoro|Spoilers are to be marked with the spoiler template ''if'' they are actual information, and not just someone throwing blurbs up. Either way, warnings should be given to the editor that put the spoiler up there without discussing it on the talk page or using the spoiler template.
| |
|
| |
| Basically, if it seems like the guys just trying to fill in a section of the article, more power to him. If he is instead '''''just trying to post spoilers for spoilers sake''''', burn the **cker.}}
| |
|
| |
| {{Randomnessity|text=Reasonable enough.}}
| |
| {{LA|Vtext=Fine.}}
| |
| {{Bluer|14:18, January 11, 2010 (UTC)|Okay, I've received complaints about some pages relevant to BbS being fully protected for three months due to a spoiler policy, kupo, and I have to say something:
| |
|
| |
| '''RIDICULOUS MOVE, KUPO.'''
| |
|
| |
| Protecting pages from vandalism, it is understandable, kupo, but protecting pages from spoilers, confirmed translations or otherwise, is utterly ridiculous, kupo. Wikia Protection Policy does not recommend to this, at all.
| |
| There is a reason why a talk page is installed for each article - and discussing translations would be one of it.
| |
|
| |
| Now, I'm going to this on a more personal level, kupo. I've seen KrytenKoro pulling this move time after time, kupo, policing the wiki in ways which some users complain are less user-friendly. The page protection rendered the spoiler policy utterly useless, kupo. Now, I would like it to be possible that the pages are made editable to users, kupo.
| |
|
| |
| It is really ironic that even though there's a page protection in place on his article, I get spoiled about Vanitas from its talk page,}}
| |
| {{KrytenKoro|I'd like to remind bluerfn that this discussion of the spoiler policy has only been up for three days, and most of the major editors haven't even had a chance to comment here. Considering the reliability of the "information" being added despite the protections, the spoiler policy is toothless, if anything.
| |
|
| |
| I started this forum and locked the pages specifically because multiple editors asked me to, and when some new editors have complained about it, I have directed them to this forum and asked them to chime in. I agree with them that there is ample evidence of new editors rushing to post spoilers, and in the process making a mess of the pages, ''especially'' given the fact that, at the time ''there were no translations available''.
| |
|
| |
| The point of a wiki is to encourage the building of articles, yes, but '''when it is 100% certain that the information is not verifiable or reliable''', protection is appropriate.
| |
|
| |
| As I said at the start of this forum, the locks were entirely pre-emptive, and I personally have no problem with them being unlocked. But the unlock needs to be the community decision, not a unilateral move by one admin.}}
| |
| {{KrytenKoro|To head a protect-war off at the pass, can we all agree that the blocks are no longer needed? As long as we've agreed on what the spoiler policy is, they shouldn't be needed anymore.}}
| |
| {{Bluer|04:45, January 12, 2010 (UTC)|Forgive me, this is where I have to point out something, kupo. The editors you refer to have all the right to fear the spoilers, as well as I, but I don't think we should be locking out articles in the wiki at their expense, kupo. I commend DTN, for one, who took a self-imposed wikibreak to keep away from spoilers.
| |
|
| |
| If a user has posted a spoiler, ask them for verification, kupo. A dedicated user will do all in their power to verify what info they wanted to input, kupo. If they could not, then act against them, but the articles must still be editable for other users who wish to maintain and keep the article according to the wiki's style, kupo. As a wiki dedicated to the series, kupo, we should always keep up with information, and this isn't possible when we lock it because a vocal group wants to keep themselves unspoiled, kupo. It's also pointless when the discussion page has all the possible spoilers they had wanted to avoid}}
| |
| {{Bluer|04:55, January 12, 2010 (UTC)|I have simple reasons, really, kupo. I want people to edit, to contribute as much as they could, kupo. Restrictions only bog down their potential, kupo. If I wanted to filter all the things written here, I might as well lock the entire wiki up, and people who want to contribute can just write me an email and I'll write it down for them, but of course I won't do that,}}
| |
| {{KrytenKoro|You seem to be acting like I want to keep people out, but I too want people to edit. But I also want to respect the wishes of the community, which is why I immediately asked for comment when said group asked me to protect the pages. While the clear consensus is to just use the spoiler policy we already had in place for ''Days'', the only discussion on the protection has been one "support", and one "against". As soon as there is actual discussion on it that shows it is the consensus, I will eagerly support unlocking the articles - I myself am a spoiler hound.
| |
|
| |
| As for asking users for verification, I have been. See [[Talk:Aqua's Keyblade]]. Specifically because we had gotten two different names, since people were confusing her default Keyblade with the final Keyblade (i.e., direct confirmation that the claimed name was unreliable). No verification was provided, and instead, the article was again moved to the unconfirmed name. (I will note that by now, I have searched youtube and found the correct name myself.)
| |
|
| |
| Furthermore, no one seems to be following or respecting the spoiler policy we already had in place, or even the temporary sitenotice that DTN asked me to post. (Example given below). In this case, the information was a mess (as predicted by the editors who asked me to lock the page), the information clearly shows no understanding of the script itself (as I predicted), and no spoiler template was posted. Furthermore, the information was added back after it had been reverted by another editor (which is within rights, as reversion policy supports removing badly written sections). As the edit had already been reverted, I'm not going to give the editor a warning, but I've not seen other editors giving warnings even in still present cases.}}
| |
|
| |
| *[http://kingdomhearts.wikia.com/index.php?title=Xehanort&diff=240669&oldid=240659 Example]
| |
|
| |
| {{BebopKate|time=08:00, January 12, 2010 (UTC)|text=My apologies for being late to the party; I've somehow missed this thread.
| |
|
| |
| And frankly, I don't have a lot to say about the Spoiler Policy itself. We seemed to make it through the ''358/2 Days'' info-glut just fine. Articles were posted, information was corrected, and while some spoilers slipped through, it seemed to work pretty well over all. Is it a huge pain in the butt? Yeah, of course it is. You're talking about allowing anyone access who wants to contribute, from excited kids who just want to contribute ''something'' to seasoned editors who want it done right to jerks who want to ruin it for everyone. In the beginning, especially with translations, articles are going to be a huge mess with information going back and forth, but they will eventually gel into something coherent and correct. They did with ''358/2 Days'', and they continue to. The wiki evolves.
| |
|
| |
| As much as we'd like everything to be 100% perfect when we put it up, it's just not going to happen. People will make mistakes. Rumors will be mistaken for fact, no matter how hard we try. I'll admit I chewed another editor out for this not two weeks ago; I also felt genuinely bad for doing it when he told me he'd gotten the info from a source we usually think of as reliable. The annoying fact is nothing is reliable all of the time; no source or work is perfect. Some error will slip through. Our strength is that when that happens we look at it and ask what we can do to fix it and make it better, and really, that's all we can do.
| |
|
| |
| And honestly, I think there are also still a few bruised egos floating around from the incident with GameFAQs a while ago. Perhaps some editors are trying to prove we are "quality." My question is quality by whose standards? If we had less plot and story info, someone would complain about it. If we group articles in one way, someone somewhere would whine. If we made the entire wiki an amazing 3-D virtual, truly interactive experience, someone would still find something to gripe about. There's a point at which you have to ignore the criticism and do what you feel works best.
| |
|
| |
| For those suffering from tl;dr: We're not perfect, but do your best. It will work out in the end.}}
| |
| {{Bluer|08:22, January 12, 2010 (UTC)|Ultimately, though, I really wish we do not resort to page locking/protection in the near future, kupo, especially at user request, and especially when multiple users are asking for it, and especially when the reason for locking these pages is "spoilers", kupo. That defeats the whole purpose of this wiki to be publicly editable, kupo. When referring to "publicly editable", that means every user can edit AND revert edits. Locking pages devolves into lazy community policing, meaning if you're not going to help maintain articles, ultimately you do not need to be here.
| |
|
| |
| What I like better about certain notable Wikias is that it is serious in marking whichever paragraph in an article contains a spoiler, kupo, and they rarely employ full protection of articles, kupo. The most protection these articles received are semi-protections, even for high traffic articles, kupo. It is a wonder how they can get by with that, but in the end, it comes down to understanding how wikis work, and it doesn't work with too many restrictions,}}
| |
| {{KrytenKoro|I don't disagree with you bluerfn, I just want us to all agree on unprotecting the articles. One of the reasons those wiki's work without full protections is because there is a larger, more active base of experienced editors (if we're thinking of the same ones), and they have put much more effort into ironing out the policies and policing edits.}}
| |
| {{KrytenKoro|Both because no one else seems to care about the protections, and because no one else seems to care about ''respecting'' the protections, spoiler policy, translation policy, or verifiability policy, I've gone ahead and unprotected all of the articles. If even the admins and established users are violating or supporting the violation of these policies, then protections are useless. (Ex: [[Vanitas]], where it is clear the story section was written by someone who had no idea what any of the characters were actually saying)
| |
|
| |
| Instead, I will be aggressively pursuing these policies myself. I will mark or remove material that is unsourced or obviously used without context, as a violation of the fundamental policy of verifiability, and I will be giving warnings to those who persist in readding the information without sources.
| |
|
| |
| Is the situation now acceptable, bluerfn? If there are any other suggestions you had, we should probably implement them now.}}
| |
