KHWiki talk:Mirage Arena

Probably. We need something to look back on for the Joint Struggle. It'll probably be something like Kingdom Hearts Wiki:Mirage Arena/Previous Winners or something like that.

Since we have four-month rounds and then the Joint Struggle, we should do it by round. Cram all the winners, and the complete tourney bracket in, and then start a new section for the next round. sound good?

Edit Count
I thought you guys had agreed on 100? Glorious  CHAOS!  00:02, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what made them change to 75... 00:06, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

We agreed (Me and R&D) that it would be more appropriate due to the slower activity here.

I hadn't noticed the part that said "quality edits". How do we measure whether an edit is "quality" or not? Save for vandalism, and a vandal would be banned long before they hit 75 edits, what makes any mainspace edit better or worse than another one?04:06, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * We're the team, right ? We can always keep a tab on those who are voting through Contribs. If the user's bound to be a vandal, we confront him and if needed, we remove his vote. 04:15, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * "Slower activity"? Redeemer himself doesn't have 100 mainspace edits. It would be hypocritical to tell users they can't vote when the one who helped start the whole thing hasn't even achieved the required goal. And anyway, we don't want to be complete Nazis when it comes to this. 100 mainspace edits are a bit much, after all. I think we need a number that isn't too high, but not so low that we accept users who barely contribute. The idea is to have something fun for regulars, and we do not want people coming to the wiki just to participate. U suggest a number between 40 and 70. Also, I think Image contributions should count as well, as there are many users (such as myself) that participate in the wiki and have mass image-contributions. That's all I ever do around here anymore anyway. -- 04:20, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, we need to re-consider the edit thing a lot.


 * Lego is right... I belive Images contibution must be counted too... I think I'll add it to the rules. But I must discuss with KKD first.04:24, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, spaces to be accepted : Mainspace, Image, Template (if we know the person has been contributing to templates on the Main Pages), Card, Walkthrough (in future), Kingdom Hearts Wiki, MediaWiki. This is just like mod elections. Other spaces will be taken into account only if we have a clear background of what the user has done in general. 04:26, July 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * This changes everything. Altought, keeping track of all this will be hard. Thank God we have the Contrib pages. So I'm changain quality mainspace edits to quality edits.04:31, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Good thought. It's never too late to mend ! ^_^ 04:32, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

So far I have 67 Mainspace edits, and 1 Kingdom Hearts Wiki edit. That's 68 quality edits(Right?). But I'm making maps for TNE's walkthrough. Does that count?--Keyblade0 03:05, July 14, 2010 (UTC)Keyblade0
 * I'm not sure... That would easily make 26 edits from there. I think I'll let the rest decide. 03:07, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it counts. In a way, it's a quality edit. Fine by me.03:12, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * So we're going with 75 edits? Man, I won't get on here in a while (not much to do, don't own a KH game...) -- シルバ  クロノ  03:13, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a thought... what about Talk pages? Not usertalk, but the ones linked to articles... usually those are productive edits, and go toward bettering the article. Lego thought of this first, but he's not here to ask right now.
 * Truth be told, 75% of Talk Page edits are useless stuff. The users Hotdragon 295‎ and Oh,how the sea calls‎ are exemple of this. They revive old topics just for the heck of doing it, using information that is known to almost everyone and sometimes Oh,how the sea calls‎ they are bashful on their messages.03:24, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of whom... he's rather frustrated right now because no one actually gave him a lowdown of the rules. Had anyone even thought of showing him the MOS in my absence ?! No ! 03:37, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * not even crossed my mind, sorry.03:40, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

/me sighs. This is PATHETIC ! But I forgive you. The next time, if someone asks for how the rules and spoilers are dealt with over here, show the MOS and the Spoiler Policy. Those are two core documents which we can't afford to even forget. KHFR sums it up into one - the MOS - so it's easier for the side of Darkness ; yet, it's still not an excuse for driving a new user to resentment. For all you know he'd have been a great contributor had he truly understood everything. 03:46, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait! For what I "talked" to him, He didn't ask for the rules... now I see he asked to Lapis. So it isn't technically my fault. Only if I fault on not stalking him enough.03:52, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * No one showed me the MoS or spoiler policy when I got here, and look how i turned out! No joke.
 * This is nonsense. We have the Card:Main Page which is begging for edits, is not gnome work, and requires NO PHYSICAL RESOURCES. We also have the Gallery: space, where all you have to do is go to Special:UnusedFiles and post the images in whichever galleries they apply to. There's no reason to be lowering the bar here - you should have at least 100 edits in mainspace articles ([main], Card:, and Gallery:). Talk pages should absolutely not count, as well as Templates (since that is mostly fiddling with talkboxes). Images and Kingdom Hearts Wiki maybe. Glorious  CHAOS!  05:33, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

@TNE: He just asked about (really just passively mentioned) the rules today, and never asked about the spoiler policy.05:38, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not accusing anyone here, but *shrugs* I just showed them to him. I don't know how it is going to be easily controlled or monitored... if we don't want to have users flouting the rules. I think we have to make it a point to remember them nonetheless.


 * As for spaces... the only few people who have been helping us with Templates can get their votes counted - Kryten being part of the fray - MediaWiki edits are for those with admin capabilities only, mods and below can't touch them - so is a restructuring in place or... ? 11:45, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the rules covers all that, including Cards. For Media... I found it unecessary, should I take it out? Main Templates, well, few users actually edit that stuff, and it doesn't have many edits to be done there, but it is still important.17:58, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

What!?!? I thought you guys agreed only on 75 edits. Why’d you change it to 125? :( --Keyblade0 01:09, July 15, 2010 (UTC)Keyblade0
 * Pfffft. We need to avoid the situation where after 75 edits, people would concentrate on the MA. This is not the purpose for it. It should be an incentive to edit. 01:19, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

And the next one ?
Yep.Redeemer &amp; Destroyer 23:53, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sweet. ^_^ Which means noms and voting should end. 23:58, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominations for next round are now open.

Increasing Edit Requirement
As we now have the increasing editcount, We need to regulate it. I say that we should reset the editcount for each round, to allow new participants to get in easier. Otherwise, we just end up having users who are near-permanently inable to reach the required quota of edits, and only users with insanely high editcounts can get in (although 10 edits per week is no unreal feat...). So, we start this round at 125, and at the end of this round, when the joint struggle rolls around, we plateau at 295 for the entire tournament, and then go back down to 125, so new users have a chance to get in. Thoughts?


 * I disagree, that would require keeping track of users who have already participated. That would be a large amount of hassle, and would likely mean that the 125-reset would only apply to a handful of just a few users. -- 02:17, August 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, no, I think you need to think a bit away from tiers. Monitoring or logging the MA activity of every individual user, and then checking each user who votes is just going to be a pain, and certainly is avoidable. Remember, the Mirage Arena is another element of the wiki that is not so "business", and is for more fun and kicking back. You users who want to "reform the wiki" should know what I mean, and hopefully agree that the edit count to participate in a fun activity for the entire (general) community should not have to become so high as to require tiers. -- 02:54, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

I say no. We should leave it be, and go from there.

Re:Edit Count
Before someone starts complaining about the removal of the rising editcount rule: CALM DOWN. It's going to stay like that for the rest of the round, and we'll work out all the kinks for the next round. Bear with us, please.

First problem
The user Gonhegon broke the rules twice, so we removed his votes, and I gave him a verbal warning. Should I have done that?


 * Oh, and D.Dark. did the same.

Explain what exactly happened.17:00, September 4, 2010 (UTC) They just didn't have sufficient edits.
 * Oh... it's not that bad. Just leave it like this for now.17:15, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

D.Dark demands an explanation. I'm not sure if he understood the Special:Editcount part, because his total is well above 300. 00:13, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll check. EDIT: Most of his edits are from user talkpages.03:07, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'll tell him the next time he pings. Or the next time I'm available. I'll be signing off, perhaps signing in after lunch and after practice. : ) 03:12, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Joint Struggle
Hey, after 16 rounds, are we going to have a gaint extraveganza with all of the past victors pitted against each other? Just curious. No one needs to respond to this.

Removal of "Supervisors"
So apparently none of you read Bluerfn's message above, and I think that is because you know that he is right. The Kingdom Hearts Wiki is completely oriented toward mainspace edits. Yes, we have had complaints about that before, but all wikis should focus on their mainspace articles, not user talk pages and auxillary games and events. Also, these "supervisors" have nothing that makes them special or any more than any other user. It is undeniable that these "supervisors" are the Mirage Arena's form of "staffers", which is completely unnecessary. A staffer is given new tools and rights to take part in certain discussions on the Kingdom Hearts Wiki, whereas there is not one tiny, even diminutive thing that seperates a supervisor from a staffer. Who is to say that I can't give someone a "Mirage Arena warning", or remove a post form someone who has made too few edits? In addition, the Mirage Arena is based on the Dragon's Neck Coliseum over at the Final Fantasy Wiki. The DNC has no "supervisors", yet it has a much more complex system and at least five times as much activity as this little arena gets. And yet, this one needs people to watch over it? No, it does not. That's absolutely preposterous.

From what I can see, anyone who follows the rules of the Mirage Arena is a supervisor, because there is no need for them. There is no need for any users with a higher autohrity or place as a part of an auxillary arena for fun. If everyone watches over the Mirage Arena for users who do not fulfill the edit requirements or post too long or offensive messages, there will be no problem, and I can see that this is already being done without any "supervisors". It is for these reasons that I am going to request the remove of "supervisors" from the Mirage Arena. They are just editors who are glorifying themselves for absolutely no reason. -- 19:43, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even need to read your huge (and expected) wall of text to know that I agree with you. I never liked that either. I was meaning to take it out, but some people said it was ok to stay. I'll end this right now.19:49, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Look who's talking, DTN. You said yourself, a while back, that the DNC was a cesspool. So what issue do you have with trying to re-structure something so that it doesn't fail? Just because it's based of something doesn't mean it has to follow it completely. The whole damn Kingdom Hearts series is based off of Disney stories, that don't follow the originals to a "T". However, Me, DS and Wolf didn't even add the "Supervisors" thing. Auror did it for some reason, and due to communication issues, we all thought someone else approved it, so it stayed.

I would rather we don't follow anyone to the T and decide for ourselves already ! Are we or are we not ? And under what reasons ? You know the pros and cons. Weigh them yourselves for once ! 01:19, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't understand your message, Troisnyxetienne. If you could reword or clarify it, that would be great. Second, KKD, I have never said that the DNC was a "cesspool." The DNC works for the FFWiki because they have less community events, unlike this wiki. Their community is also much more mainspace-oriented, unlike this wiki. That is why I had a certain dislike for the Mirage Arena being created at this point in the Kingdom Hearts Wiki's history. And the Mirage Arena is trying to be like the DNC. The opening paragraph is a direct copy of it, is that not obvious? The forum that initiated its creation was even named after the DNC. To say that they are trying to be different is not true in any way. Also, a wiki doesn't embody its subject; see this. -- 02:07, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's not bring this into a Mirage Arena discussion. The Mirage Arena was indeed a leaf taken out of DNC, only that I wonder if Joint Struggle was taken out from there, or if it was our own idea. But it doesn't mean that we are copying the DNC willy-nilly. We are just going our way and we see what happens from there. Now the natural decision we actually took was to have at least a few people supervise this page. Which, I believe, is normal. Whilst they can't be called "staffers", Blue didn't in any way say that they should be removed completely. See his "staffa" message above.


 * My two cents on this is that we continue as we are, and we see where we head on from here. After all, so far, despite the technicalities, the MA has been a great page overall. 02:24, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

The MA was based on the DNC, that's not a secret. The JS was our own idea. (I hade no idead that the Magicite Madness existed). We used the DNC as a model, a seed so that we could grow our own tree, the MA. It's not a ripoff, a copyright, a clone, replica... or whatever you wanna call it.

Now, one thing about the supervisors, staff, mods, whatver. At first it was me in charge of Starting and finishing the battles and making sure people folowed the rules. KKD was doing the same to the Nominations. We didn't call ourselves staff. And more people start helping us. The above topic about the staffers was to see if there was going to be a actual crew or not. It was never settled. And then, Auror suddenly came up and made that Mods thing on the Page. KKD and wolf though she had my permission, I though she had theirs, and from some Admin. Turns out it was just a communication problem.

So, anyone can help with the MA. And if the rules of voting are broken, anyone can use the Vote Policy, as long as they leave a message here on the Talk Page about it.

I hate to join discussion when I find they meaningless, but this time I had to do it. Now I hope you guys stop "fighting" and annoying me.02:35, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Redeemer. It was much needed. : ) 02:43, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to see everything settled. So, in conclusion, never assume that you have permission from a user by an indirect source. Thanks guys! -- 05:07, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Improvement of the Rules
After a accident involving warnings and rules, which I'm not going to enter in details, we decided that the rules should be reviewed, simplified and improved. I came with a draft for the rules and I'd like that everyone which participates on the MA, helping or voting, gave they opinions. Here is the draft:

'Any failure to adhere to these rules will result in your vote(s) being removed or loss of voting privileges. '
 * 1) You may vote only once.
 * 2) You must be a registered user to vote.
 * 3) You must have at least 145 edits before voting. Check your editcount Here, by typing in your username. Please check for: Mainspace, Image, Main Page, Template, Walkthrough, Card, Kingdom Hearts Wiki, and MediaWiki edits.
 * 4) If you are not logged in when you vote, your vote will be removed.
 * 5) To vote, type the following "#", afterward including any reasons for voting you may wish to include, keeping it with the maximum of 30 words. Unsigned, offensive and/or extraordinarily lengthy shall be removed.
 * 6) Additional comments go in the Keyblade Graveyard. Conduct yourself with courtesy. Keep in mind that the fights are between the contestants, and not the users.
 * 7) Do not alter the format of this page.
 * 8) If a battle ends in a tie, Sudden Death will occur. After one hour, the contender with more votes wins. Keep in mind that Sudden Death matches happen at random times!
 * 9) If sudden death ends in another tie, 30 minutes will be added onto the clock. This will repeat until a winner is clear.

Please, leave your suggestions and comments bellow. I would make a forum for this, but MA foruns die fast... >.> 17:21, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comments and Suggestions
Leave your comments and suggestions here. I'll be revising the rules of the Nominations page, as well. I'll get on those ASAP.

Sudden Death
Exactly when is the sudden death of a match?
 * If there is a tie, the Sudden Death takes place in a random time during the week next to the fight. 23:46, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Word Limit
Due to the fact that the keyblade graveyard is only for comments related to the fight, I'll rant about this here. This is a bad idea. I can see just by looking at the current fight that users are either already breaking the rule or just barely not breaking the rule. The fact that the length of a vote has been so controversial is unbelievable. You can users not to leave too long of a comment, but setting an actual limit is too frustrating. If a comment is so long that it disrupts the match that's when you know you've got a problem. -- 02:55, October 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I see where you're coming from, James. But the reason we even have that rule is because we're having people damn near write bloody essays on why they chose x over y. The problem with saying something's "too long" is that everyone has a different definiton of that. 30 words is easy to define. If anyone has a bright idea on how to fix this, I'm all ears.
 * I've never seen a fight where people posted soul-crushingly long comments, except maybe once. Is that serious enough to garner a rule? And, honestly, who's gonna sit there and count the words in every vote?! This isn't that serious to net a rule restricting words, for Pete's sake... No pun intended, but linked for teh luz -- A Crono  of the Silver kind  04:10, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Everyone has a different definition of "too long". For example, 30 words is not "too long" by my definition. And words can be pretty darn long, if I wrote "Hexakosioihexakontahexaphobia" thirty times, it'd be a tad more obnoxious than a thirty-one word commment that explained something.04:17, October 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * See here, there doesn't need to be a word count, or anything of the sort. I would say that the two line limit is a good idea, but the screen capacity of most computers differ, making this impossible to establish directly. I say we could just say something along the lines of: "Please do not post something extraordinarily lengthy. Please keep it short." And if you decide it's too long, you delete it. You may say this is unfair to the voter, and biased could be used, but as long as both parties assume good faith, there should not be a problem. -- 04:19, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Moved from the Keyblade Graveyard

 * Honestly? A word limit? That's just petty >_> -- A Crono  of the Silver kind  02:47, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if we need a limit on the comments, the 2 line one was better. Not only did it give more freedom to the commentor, but it made it easier on the monitor.02:51, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, Nobody followed the rule either way. We don't want essays on why you're voting for x over y. The "Two Sentence" Rule was a failure: If we removed stuff, they semicoloned it back in. Why is it so hard to say something simple, like "I like ice cream better."?
 * Beacuse some of us like to be a little more intelligent than "I like this because it looks cooler." No one was leaving obnoxiously long comments before anyway. The only time anyone violated that two sentence rule was when they accidentally had three sentences. And this rule is far easier to violate by accident.04:04, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * We defined it as two short sentences, which is apparently unmeasurable. And there were obnoxiously long comments before, during the Two Sentence rule.


 * Exhibit A:It cannot be said that light is good and darkness is bad, as they have both spawned beings that fight on protagonists' and antagonists' sides. However, according to Kairi's Grandmother, Light was at one point a constant force, but even then selfishness and greed were born, and as such Darkness came in; this proves a balance between the two forces is needed, and Darkness is what created that peaceful balance.
 * Exhibit B:It is true; light and darkness have always been mortal "enemies" of each other, as long as anyone can remember; even outside the realm of Kingdom Hearts and into the real world - our world - light and darkness have been used to personify and identify characters in books and Shakespearian plays; but the question is, which is superior, which is better, which can holds its own? The standalone answer, is light; for without light, shadows cannot be cast and darkness cannot be given form, and this balance between the two could have never come into existence; without light, there could be no darkness.
 * Now, note that both of those are two sentences, and also obnoxiously long. I reiterate what I said on the talk page: If anyone can come up with a good, fair ruling for this, please speak up.
 * How about this?


 * Please don't make long comments. Any votes that are particularly long-winded will first be asked to be modified or moved to the Keyblade Graveyard, and will be removed if not followed. Long votes include ones disrupting the template or over 4 lines, give or take.


 * -- A Crono  of the Silver kind  04:15, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I'll put it in.
 * Sounds good.04:20, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's in. Lapis, please feel free to put your vote back to the way it was before I messed with it. ^.^

My comment was destroyed ._.

I said pretty much the same thing, but cut back the line limit, seeing as screen capicities of most computers differ, and line count can be shortened or lengthened depending on the moniter. -- 04:22, October 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I wasn't miffed about my comment, it's fine how it is now, I was more concerned about future instances. I'm just glad this got to be solved with so little conflict. A rare feat around here.04:25, October 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Riight... That's why we didn't use Lines in the first place... dammit. Now what?
 * No no no no no no no. No. You canNOT use lines to define the length of a message, since it is dependent, and therefore different, on the size of one's screen. Sentence limits work better, if not a more exact word limit to make sure someone doesn't just comma-in a bunch of unnecessary messaging. -- 04:58, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sentence limits get broken. Word counts are a hassle. Line counts are dependent. What the hell do we do now? We can't just say "Don't post anything too long" because someone Will say that too long cannot be defined. Any ideas, genius?

EDIT:Okay, let's go over this. Sentence limits: were perfectly good, that is, until you, DTN, broke the rule, I fixed it, and then you just went around it by semicoloning everything back in. Word counts: Everyone's complaining that it's too much work, when I'm the one counting. Also, according to Lapis and such, 30 words is too little. Line counts: They are dependent, so they wouldn't work anyway. So, sentence counts could work, as long as everyone cooperates, doesn't just semicolon everything back in if it gets removed, and keeps the sentences within a reasonable limit. Or, word counts could work if we could find a more reasonable number that works for everyone. In history, some of the votes took up as much space as 2, 3, or even 4 votes did. They were two sentences each, too! That can't happen.
 * "Sentence lines work better, if not a more exact word limit to make sure someone doesn't just comma-in a bunch of unnecessary messaging."
 * With that having already been said, there are no identifiable consequences for abusing the message limit. If someone breaks that rule, all that is done is the message is shortened. A user can literally leave a too long message and actually expect for someone to shorten their message, without them having to do a thing. I suggest keep the sentence limit, but actually remove the vote if it is too long! Also, it is completely irrational and unfair to blame this on my unintentional mistake, I have fixed many other votes that were over two sentences. -- 05:29, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing the votes in response to breaking the rule is a horrible idea. It could result in an inaccurate result for the match, because one side had a lot of really long votes. -- 05:35, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, you unintentionally broke the rule, but nevertheless, you went around the rule by making two absolutely massive sentences by semicoloning everything back in again . Nevertheless, removing votes instead of shortening them could be an option. As James said, it could tip the balance of the votes, but then again, they forefeited their voting rights by breaking the rules, and they could always re-vote after it getting removed, providing they do it right the second time.
 * I have a tendency to break the two sentences rule, because, well, it's too short for me to voice my opinions - indeed, it is quite easy for someone to make two very long sentences, and a word limit doesn't count either. My suggestion would be a classification of ideas : not more than two main ideas per comment. For example : "I like Void Gear better because it's beautiful. And it's more effective as well. It is helpful !" would be valid, because there are only two main ideas in the post, while "I like No Name because of the design, because of its astounding boost in Magic and because it's a cool reward to get after beating the Unknown" wouldn't, despite being a single sentence. Opinions ?

— Nihil Perdere Posset Qui Nihil Est — Emptiness, and yet Infinity 19:00, October 11, 2010 (UTC)