Forum:Discussion for new articles of kh3

Discussion
I disagree because I think it would negatively impact the wiki and just make the 2+ year crowd's workload even harder, and I think "2 years" is an arbitrary subjective number which is overkill. That means someone who's been editing the wiki for a year and 11 months must ask for permission to edit a KH3-related article's on the talk page, which is inane. So far, the edits I've seen in recent changes have been pretty logical and positive, and doing things like helping out with plot summaries. Instead of trying to reduce newcomers, I think we should just step up our game, correct the articles, tell people how to improve, and move on.

And yes, I jumped the gun because I didn't realize how much KH3 removed the Frozen storyline and that it would remove the famous "betrayal" plot twist. That was a one-time event and I promise I won't do it again. Also, we are basically done learning the true names of each character in the journals. It's not the end of the world because a wiki called a character "Woody Pride" instead of "Woody" or something like that. Soroxas (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if you created a MediaWiki Sidenotice. Then everyone will see it before. Pain88 (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not asking for permission on the talk page, it's presenting a draft for discussion, and to make sure that all policies are being followed -- the same thing that even bcrats do when they are proposing a major change for an article. I'm not suggesting a hard measure like locking the articles, but instead encouraging users to be more conscientious in their edits, because we're seeing a lot of gun-jumping.
 * The Frozen thing, for example, should have never happened in the first place. The information that was put in was not based on sources -- the wiki should never, ever guess. "Remy" makes sense, because reliable sources pre-release used "Remy", as does "Woody Pride" (since SE itself officially used that name, just not in the final game, so it's actually undecided if it's still valid or not).
 * The point is to get editors unfamiliar with the wiki's policies (which is why the 2-year suggestion) to not see the policies as "those arbitrary things that the staff use to punish me", but to actually understand how they work and why they're useful. 13:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)