Big CRTs and Bad Pages - A Different Way

[Agnaa]

It seems like recently, we've approved the deletion of verses when they have outdated profiles which require massive CRTs to revise. In the past, we never did this, but we also never wrote rules about it.

I think there's a better way to deal with the concern of the profiles being a bad foundation to build on, and of many users not realising that; more liberal use of a better Outdated Template.

I think that could have its wording change to encourage a collaborative mindset towards such pages. If a verse has known bad pages, and has no-one working on them, I think it should just be deleted. So if a page gets this template, there should be someone working on a fix. And so, I think the wording should be changed to:

This article is outdated and has missing or incorrect information. A revision for it is underway. Please look to the verse's Discussion Thread if you want to contribute to this effort.

Such a template should be put onto all relevant pages for the verse, potentially including the verse page.

EDIT: Ant has provided a new suggestion for that template, which I'm happy with

This article is outdated and has missing or incorrect and unreliable information. A revision for it is underway. Please visit the verse's general discussion thread if you want to contribute to this effort.

We should probably also codify this template's usage, and some general standards about when it or a deletion should be used for a particular verse, within our Discussion Rules. While I think our deletion standards for established verses should simply be "is the profile obviously bad & lacking, and is there no-one working on it", I'm not sure exactly where standards should land on the template's usage, so some discussion (on both points) would be welcome.

Similarly, I also think it's worth considering being a lot more liberal with discussion rules during this time, so verse supporters don't need to be distracted by half-baked revisions.

Why not just delete them?​

I think doing so holds some concerning risks. It prevents independent users from creating low-stakes but high-quality profiles that are disjointed enough to survive general revisions to the verse, it often makes it difficult for those who aren't in the clique to contribute, something which is exacerbated by drama on off-site groups such as Discord, which has already popped up for the Nasuverse revisers. On top of that, a remake and recreation makes it easier to force through changes that wouldn't ordinarily get accepted, as they're bundled with literally every single statistic, ability, and the entire existence of the verse itself.

Note: I'm not planning to undelete any profiles if this change passes, especially since I'm not familiar with all of the cases mentioned. And since I think there's room for this template, even if we agree that the rules should be written such that the recently-deleted verses would still be deleted.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Yeah, rather than deleting a verse, I'd prefer to kinda "lock it down" in a sense and put in something like this. I worry we've become a bit too trigger-happy with verse deletions lately

 

[Damage3245]

We should probably also codify this template's usage, and some general standards about when it or a deletion should be used for a particular verse, within our Discussion Rules. While I think our deletion standards for established verses should simply be "is the profile obviously bad & lacking, and is there no-one working on it", I'm not sure exactly where standards should land on the template's usage, so some discussion (on both points) would be welcome.

This is the part I'm concerned about, yeah - deciding when it is appropriate to apply the template to pages.

 

[Flashlight237]

I mean we did recently give @LegendariumOfLies 's Outdated Verse thread a sticky so we can try and help outdated verses out a bit. No reason to go gung-ho on verses, especially if said verses cannot be updated because their franchises have long since ended and there's no means of updating them.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think this may be a better idea than nuking verses altogether.

 

[AKM sama]

I think doing so holds some concerning risks. It prevents independent users from creating low-stakes but high-quality profiles that are disjointed enough to survive general revisions to the verse, it often makes it difficult for those who aren't in the clique to contribute, something which is exacerbated by drama on off-site groups such as Discord, which has already popped up for the Nasuverse revisers. On top of that, a remake and recreation makes it easier to force through changes that wouldn't ordinarily get accepted, as they're bundled with literally every single statistic, ability, and the entire existence of the verse itself.

I would like to also propose some general guidance for everyone regarding this matter, which is somewhat related to the controversy sparked by the same incident. Since we've clearly stated that we do not have an official Discord group, it would be best to avoid posting links or advertising any Discord groups within general threads or CRTs. Our goal is to encourage engagement on this site, and the general discussion thread serves that purpose well. Of course, individuals are free to create Discord groups for specific verse activities, but it would be preferable to share joining links through private messages or message walls rather than publicly in threads, as this may give the wrong impression to newer members or non-members who are casually surfing the threads. It's also an overhead if some drama erupts, so we just want to steer clear of that and keep the threads clean.

 

[Agnaa]

I would like to also propose some general guidance for everyone regarding this matter, which is somewhat related to the controversy sparked by the same incident. Since we've clearly stated that we do not have an official Discord group, it would be best to avoid posting links or advertising any Discord groups within general threads or CRTs. Our goal is to encourage engagement on this site, and the general discussion thread serves that purpose well. Of course, individuals are free to create Discord groups for specific verse activities, but it would be preferable to share joining links through private messages or message walls rather than publicly in threads, as this may give the wrong impression to newer members or non-members who are casually surfing the threads. It's also an overhead if some drama erupts, so we just want to steer clear of that.

Do you think it's worthwhile to add that proposal to the OP, or should it be more concretely tackled elsewhere?

 

[AKM sama]

Do you think it's worthwhile to add that proposal to the OP, or should it be more concretely tackled elsewhere?

I don't think making a thread for something as small as this is worth it. It's just a general guidance, not a punishable offense. At most people will be told to link to their groups somewhere else and their links can be removed if they post them in CRTs. I am fine with discussing it here seeing this is coming from the same incident.

 

[Agnaa]

I think it's kinda better as a rule so there's something to point to, which people won't just forget or lose track of.

 

[Apotheosis69]

I wholeheartedly agree with this, along with making it a rule. That way there is more awareness on utilizing the template in a more proper fashion. As putting the Template is much more convenient and expressive instead of just removing the page altogether... and then having to undelete it.

I believe its best to contact the OP(s) via a direct message or maybe in this thread in fact. Instead of making a brand new thread for like 2-3 messages

 

[Duedate8898]

I can support this measure

 

[Agnaa]

I would like to also propose some general guidance for everyone regarding this matter, which is somewhat related to the controversy sparked by the same incident. Since we've clearly stated that we do not have an official Discord group, it would be best to avoid posting links or advertising any Discord groups within general threads or CRTs. Our goal is to encourage engagement on this site, and the general discussion thread serves that purpose well. Of course, individuals are free to create Discord groups for specific verse activities, but it would be preferable to share joining links through private messages or message walls rather than publicly in threads, as this may give the wrong impression to newer members or non-members who are casually surfing the threads. It's also an overhead if some drama erupts, so we just want to steer clear of that and keep the threads clean.

I wanna say, I do disagree with this. I think we should encourage people to engage however they want to, off-site or no. At most, I think we could require people to include a disclaimer that it's not officially sanctioned by us. But I don't like limiting the ways people can share those.

 

[Apotheosis69]

I wanna say, I do disagree with this. I think we should encourage people to engage however they want to, off-site or no. At most, I think we could require people to include a disclaimer that it's not officially sanctioned by us. But I don't like limiting the ways people can share those.

Yeah, I don't see the purpose and practicality in encouraging restriction. As through more media/mediums can give more freedom and even possible exposure.

 

[AKM sama]

I wanna say, I do disagree with this. I think we should encourage people to engage however they want to, off-site or no. At most, I think we could require people to include a disclaimer that it's not officially sanctioned by us. But I don't like limiting the ways people can share those.

I never said about restricting anybody from engaging elsewhere. Just about not advertising a private discord group in threads where it can be misunderstood as being run in any official capacity. As long as that part is clear we won't have to be responsible if somebody joins a group and then thinks about coming to us if something bad happens with them. Can't really deal with that.

 

[Agnaa]

I never said about restricting anybody from engaging elsewhere. Just about not advertising a private discord group in threads where it can be misunderstood as being run in any official capacity. As long as that part is clear we won't have to be responsible if somebody joins a group and then thinks about coming to us if something bad happens with them. Can't really deal with that.

If it's about risk of being misunderstood, would you be okay with those links being posted in threads if they're explicitly described as unofficial?

 

[AKM sama]

Sure. I just want users to join such groups knowing that they are doing so at their own risk, and that we are not responsible for whatever is going on in there.

 

[Agnaa]

Currently (among voting members for this sort of topic), DDM has expressed agreement, and Damage has wanted an elaboration on how we'd decide when to apply the template.

My first guess for a standard would be something like:

• The idea of adding the template must be proposed and agreed upon by at least 80% of those who comment on the matter. The proposal can be put in the general discussion thread for the verse, or a CRT of its own, but must be up for at least 24 hours before being applied. Votes of non-staff will be counted for this, unless at least four evaluating staff have commented on the issue, in which case, only their votes will be counted.
• The template cannot be added for reasons which are covered by a Discussion Rule, or based on a suggested change which has been rejected in the past year.

First prong aims to allow less-popular verses to quickly get this sort of thing through, while still letting staff and/or a core of knowledgeable members prevent the template being added for bad reasons. Second prong aims to stop this from being used to stealth-relitigate ideas which have already been rejected.

 

[Flashlight237]

Currently (among voting members for this sort of topic), DDM has expressed agreement, and Damage has wanted an elaboration on how we'd decide when to apply the template.

My first guess for a standard would be something like:

• The idea of adding the template must be proposed and agreed upon by at least 80% of those who comment on the matter. The proposal can be put in the general discussion thread for the verse, or a CRT of its own, but must be up for at least 24 hours before being applied. Votes of non-staff will be counted for this, unless at least four evaluating staff have commented on the issue, in which case, only their votes will be counted.
• The template cannot be added for reasons which are covered by a Discussion Rule, or based on a suggested change which has been rejected in the past year.

First prong aims to allow less-popular verses to quickly get this sort of thing through, while still letting staff and/or a core of knowledgeable members prevent the template for being added for bad reasons. Second prong aims to stop this from being used to stealth-relitigate ideas which have already been rejected.

I think this seems logical. I will ask, what do you mean by 80%? As in staff members (including my lazy ass), or just members in general?

 

[Agnaa]

Members in general, staff and non-staff, unless at least four evaluating staff have commented. In which case, only evaluating staff votes would be considered.

I don't want one or two out-of-line evaluating mods to be able to veto that sort of thing, but with enough votes I think we end up with staff being better evaluators of that sorta thing.

 

[Dark-Carioca]

I agree with the template and that's about it, like OP says I don't think we should delete pages all willy-nilly.

 

[Antvasima]

I mostly think that this seems like a good idea, and do not think that the Nasuverse seems to have been in bad enough condition to delete in its entirety. The Slime verse might be, but even so, I would much prefer if it is significantly revised from its current unreliability and exaggerations instead.

However, I do not think that the wording in our "Outdated" template seems ideal for this purpose, as it does not cover when the information within the pages for a verse in our wiki has been deemed to be highly unreliable, so an additional "Unreliable" template should preferably be created for this purpose before we apply the new rule.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Mr. Bambu @Just_a_Random_Butler @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist

What do you think about this?

 

[Agnaa]

I mostly think that this seems like a good idea, and do not think that the Nasuverse seems to have been in bad enough condition to delete in its entirety. The Slime verse might be, but even so, I would much prefer if it is significantly revised from its current unreliability and exaggerations instead.

However, I do not think that the wording in our "Outdated" template seems ideal for this purpose, as it does not cover when the information within the pages for a verse in our wiki has been deemed to be highly unreliable, so an additional "Unreliable" template should preferably be created for this purpose before we apply the new rule.

In the OP, I suggested changing the wording modestly to this

This article is outdated and has missing or incorrect information. A revision for it is underway. Please look to the verse's Discussion Thread if you want to contribute to this effort.

If you still think that's insufficient for our purposes, then I'd be fine with a new template.

 

[Apotheosis69]

I honestly dig that idea for an "Unreliable" template.

 

[Antvasima]

In the OP, I suggested changing the wording modestly to this

If you still think that's insufficient for our purposes, then I'd be fine with a new template.

Sorry for not noticing that. The following text seems acceptable:

"This article is outdated and has missing or incorrect and unreliable information. A revision for it is underway. Please visit the verse's general discussion thread if you want to contribute to this effort."

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, should we undelete our Nasuverse pages if this revision passes? It seems to have been a massive overreach.

 

[Agnaa]

I'd like to discuss that separately, as while it is large overreach, it's also been a while, and would be a fairly large project to undo.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. That seems very reasonable.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

The template mentions a revision is underway as part of the template. Suppose a verse is recognized as outdated, but no revision is underway, as the verse is defunct, or any other reason. Would the plan then be to just delete the verse, or just don't apply the template, or should the template be expanded?

 

[Agnaa]

The template mentions a revision is underway as part of the template. Suppose a verse is recognized as outdated, but no revision is underway, as the verse is defunct, or any other reason. Would the plan then be to just delete the verse, or just don't apply the template, or should the template be expanded?

Just delete, if we know it's outdated and there's no will to fix it.

EDIT: Although, I will say, I think I'd go with "meaningfully outdated", I don't think we need to delete profiles that have simply gotten new material, but still meet our standards, and are reasonable based on that material.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Alright. I think there are deeper questions to discuss on that front but they are very tangential to this thread, so. I'm fine with the revised template as proposed by Ant, to be used as you, Agnaa, laid out. I formally sign off on that.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Dark-Carioca]

The template mentions a revision is underway as part of the template. Suppose a verse is recognized as outdated, but no revision is underway, as the verse is defunct, or any other reason. Would the plan then be to just delete the verse, or just don't apply the template, or should the template be expanded?

Maybe add something akin to the "stub" category other wikis use, to recognize that the page is outdated? I'm not sure how I feel about deleted something that could have been a lot of work for some people if they're simply stuff that could be fixed in the future or just decent enough to use for versus threads and stuff.

 

[KLOL506]

So... what's the current situation here RN?

 

[Agnaa]

People generally support the ideas in the OP, but have wanted more explicit standards on when this outdated template should be added.

I made a suggestion for that above:

Currently (among voting members for this sort of topic), DDM has expressed agreement, and Damage has wanted an elaboration on how we'd decide when to apply the template.

My first guess for a standard would be something like:

• The idea of adding the template must be proposed and agreed upon by at least 80% of those who comment on the matter. The proposal can be put in the general discussion thread for the verse, or a CRT of its own, but must be up for at least 24 hours before being applied. Votes of non-staff will be counted for this, unless at least four evaluating staff have commented on the issue, in which case, only their votes will be counted.
• The template cannot be added for reasons which are covered by a Discussion Rule, or based on a suggested change which has been rejected in the past year.

First prong aims to allow less-popular verses to quickly get this sort of thing through, while still letting staff and/or a core of knowledgeable members prevent the template being added for bad reasons. Second prong aims to stop this from being used to stealth-relitigate ideas which have already been rejected.

Which received a bit of discussion, but hasn't received any from other Administrators, who are the only people with voting rights on this sorta thing.

 

[Antvasima]

The following text seems acceptable:

"This article is outdated and has missing or incorrect and unreliable information. A revision for it is underway. Please visit the verse's general discussion thread if you want to contribute to this effort."

I also suggested the template text above.

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69 @LephyrTheRevanchist

Your help seems to be needed here.

 

[Antvasima]

Sorry about overlooking to remove you from the ping list, Agnaa.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Your help seems to be needed here.

Yeah I'm fine with the proposed template. Generally speaking unless the profiles are massively wrong to the point of giving bad information I think its better to keep them anyways.

 

[Elizhaa]

I also think the proposed template looks fine, from the arguments.