Editing Rules: A recent CRT mistakenly removed some rules plus other stuff

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Well, we could technically replace that rule with something like the following text, but it does seem like a rather strangely worded and redundant rule.

"Navbox templates may only be used for character profiles, verse pages, or instruction pages. Other cases should rely on a category to group them and/or a disambiguation page on a case-by-case basis."

What do you think, @Damage3245 ?

That seems acceptable, but I'm curious, I'm curious as to what the rationale is behind implementing this rule. Is this perhaps to avoid the creation of navbox templates for various interpretations of a particular identity/name/character across different fictional verses?

 

[Antvasima]

I do not remember. Like I said above, it seems like a rather strange and redundant rule.

Would it be too time-consuming to investigate who added it and why?

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

I do not remember. Like I said above, it seems like a rather strange and redundant rule.

Would it be too time-consuming to investigate who added it and why?

This was the revision where the text was added:
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Editing_Rules?diff=next&oldid=7697450

The thread in question:
https://vsbattles.com/threads/standarizing-criteria-for-top-navigation-templates.138106/

If I understood correctly, for this specific bullet point only (obviously the scope of the thread was wider), the consensus was that if there were no restrictions on where article list templates could be used, then the need for disambiguation pages would be nullified. Bob said something about it too.

 

[Antvasima]

This was the revision where the text was added:
https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Editing_Rules?diff=next&oldid=7697450

The thread in question:
https://vsbattles.com/threads/standarizing-criteria-for-top-navigation-templates.138106/

If I understood correctly, for this specific bullet point only (obviously the scope of the thread was wider), the consensus was that if there were no restrictions on where article list templates could be used, then the need for disambiguation pages would be nullified. Bob said something about it too.

Okay. Thank you for the information.

@Elizhaa @Bobsican

Your input help would be appreciated here.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

I believe that although that particular bullet point may seem strange without proper context, it can probably remain, considering what was mentioned above. But I guess the people involved in the original thread can explain much better.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. Can you list the most active and productive participants there please?

 

[Damage3245]

That seems acceptable, but I'm curious, I'm curious as to what the rationale is behind implementing this rule. Is this perhaps to avoid the creation of navbox templates for various interpretations of a particular identity/name/character across different fictional verses?

The primary aim of the template was to making linking between different versions of the same character easier.

Completely different characters who just share the same name or inspiration would have been taking it too far.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

The primary aim of the template was to making linking between different versions of the same character easier.

Completely different characters who just share the same name or inspiration would have been taking it too far.

Yeah, I get it. For different characters with the same name, that would be the job of disambiguation.

In that case, can we now replace this text:

Article List Templates may only be used for character profiles or verse pages, other cases should rely on a category to group them and/or a disambiguation page on a case-by-case basis.

With the new text suggested by Ant:

Navbox templates may only be used for character profiles, verse pages, or instruction pages. Other cases should rely on a category to group them and/or a disambiguation page on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Bobsican]

Okay, I finally got into comparing both iterations of the Editing Rules page to evaluate, constantly spamming CTRL + F to ensure I'm not missing anything.

Anyways, the following appears to have been lost, but some of it may be redundant now, so I'll make note as needed:

*Corporate mascots and advertisement characters are not part of fictional storylines, regardless of feats in commercials and similar. It is preferable to not allow any incoherent figments without substance to be featured here. However, if they have officially published comicbooks, games, etcetera to scale from, they can probably be included.

One could argue this bit is indeed unecessary as we already make it clear we don't allow characters that aren't part of a proper plot and so on to begin with, although it wouldn't hurt to just mention this right after this (currently existing on the last page version) to clarify what isn't allowed on that regard, maybe with a reword if anything:

• Do not create any joke profiles, as they do not fit into our tiering system. Also avoid creating profiles for fan characters, advertisement characters, memes, YouTube personalities, reality television, talk shows, stage personas, and the like. If you wish to create such profiles, feel free to do so in the Joke Battles wiki instead. Take note that there is obviously a difference between a profile written as a joke, and the character itself being automatically funny.

This bit also is seemingly removed and not properly covered in the current "The Use of Art" section:

*When creating or editing a profile, if you use an image from a fan artist to represent the character/weapon/vehicle/verse in question, insert a text into the image's description page that gives credit to the artist, and if you can, also provide a link to their website or profile on DeviantArt, Tumblr, etcetera. Note that unrelated images, often for cases that lack sufficient (if any) visual details whatsoever to derive from, aren't allowed, as they apply unnecessary headcanon and derail from the purpose of illustrating the character or object in an appropiate manner.

If anything, to avoid redundancy, it may be reworded to something like this to fit properly with the new stuff:

*If fanart is used, insert a text into the image's description page (not the caption section) that gives credit to the artist, and if you can, also provide a link to their website or profile on DeviantArt, Tumblr, etcetera.
*Note that unrelated images, often for cases that lack sufficient (if any) visual details whatsoever to derive from, aren't allowed, as they apply unnecessary headcanon and derail from the purpose of illustrating the character or object in an appropiate manner.

Stuff that wasn't actually removed but could be done better:

This bit...

• While using profiles from other wikis as references for statistics is generally not prohibited, if the reasoning for the listed statistics can not be explained, or if the profiles are of sub-standard quality, they might be deleted.

...should be moved right after this, to make semantics on that area clearer to readers by being more organized:

• Please do not plagiarize from other wikis or online databases. It is unprofessional and shows a lack of effort on the part of the user. If you are getting your information from another wiki, please rephrase and summarize the passage in your own words instead of simply copying it.

Similarly, this:

• Blogs for 2-A or higher tier and particularly controversial powers will be subject to extra scrutiny and will need the approval of staff members.

Should go right before this as it pertains a similar topic:

• Profiles for characters that have any statistic or ability that is Low 1-A or above are not allowed to be created unless their reasoning has been evaluated and accepted by the wiki staff via a content revision thread or explanation blog, or if they scale to characters whose reasoning has already been evaluated.

Okay, there wasn't that much that got missed or could be upgraded on.


Edit: Looking at the discussion, @Just_a_Random_Butler is spot-on, the reason we're limiting the usage of NavBox templates is because of that kind of reasons, I recall Ant and several mods even agreed, if anyone needs a reminder of how the topic went.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Do you guys require any assistance?

 

[FinePoint]

I'm still a bit inactive since it's not quite Summer break.
I'm okay with some things being switched around from my template, even directly on the sandbox.

 

[Antvasima]

What do the rest of you think about Bobsican's suggestions above?

Also, can somebody explain the intended meanings with Elizhaa's old confusing rule text?

Well, we could technically replace that rule with something like the following text, but it does seem like a rather strangely worded and redundant rule.

"Navbox templates may only be used for character profiles, verse pages, or instruction pages. Other cases should rely on a category to group them and/or a disambiguation page on a case-by-case basis."

 

[Bobsican]

Also, can somebody explain the intended meanings with Elizhaa's old confusing rule text?

I guess I'll just do a brief recap of this thread on that regard:

From this post:

*Article List Templates may only be used for character profiles or verse pages, other cases should rely on a category to group them and/or a disambiguation page on a case-by-case basis.

Then the discussion developed into that way in that thread to avoid redundancy with disambiguation pages and overall highlight other pages of the same company, instead of combining iterations from different companies altogether.

If you need an example of an Article List Template, this.

This thread's OP then brought up the problem of instruction pages using these as well even though they weren't mentioned, so Elizhaa's proposal just mentions them as well.

A NavBox Template just seems to be the same thing as an Article List Template, now for what name we go for it is something I'm neutral on.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay, and can the rule text in question be rewritten so it is easier for a causal reader to understand the intentions of it?

 

[Bobsican]

Maybe by just adding a link, so...

"Article List Templates may only be used for character profiles, verse pages, or instruction pages. Other cases should rely on a category to group them and/or a disambiguation page on a case-by-case basis."

Although then I see that "instruction pages" may be a bit too broad to catch the other currently "acceptable" cases, right now that includes this, this and this, and IDK how to properly mention them here.

We could just delete them as @Just_a_Random_Butler made them without a CRT as far I can see, but I'd rather wait for what others think on the matter. IMO, these seem unecessary as either they're already featured in the top navigation bar (statistic explanation pages), or have entire categories dedicated just to them (policies and explanation pages, and especially important pages)

 

[Antvasima]

I think that your draft text seems good to use.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

It still seems a bit unclear to me. How's this?

Only use Article List Templates for character profiles, verse pages, or instruction pages. If you need to organize something else, you should use categories or a disambiguation page.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that is better, and can be applied, yes. Thank you.

 

[Bobsican]

We could just delete them as @Just_a_Random_Butler made them without a CRT as far I can see, but I'd rather wait for what others think on the matter. IMO, these seem unecessary as either they're already featured in the top navigation bar (statistic explanation pages), or have entire categories dedicated just to them (policies and explanation pages, and especially important pages)

I also found another concern on the matter, BTW, it seems weird to make an exception to those just because a mod seemingly deemed it fine to do it without further feedback in a CRT or the like.

 

[Antvasima]

We talked about improving our organisation structure in private, and it is a harmless and beneficial change for the better.

 

[Bobsican]

Okay then, but the other issue of what falls as a "instruction" page currently not being properly defined still stands, I think it'd be best to define it as it's not as intuitive as a character or verse page.

 

[Antvasima]

We could rename it as "wiki policy information pages" or somesuch instead if you prefer.

 

[Bobsican]

That could work.

 

[Antvasima]

So this then?

"Only use Article List Templates for character profiles, verse pages, or wiki policy information pages. If you need to organize something else, you should use categories or a disambiguation page."

 

[Bobsican]

Usually the writing shouldn't directly act like it's talking to the reader, so...

"Only use Article List Templates for character profiles, verse pages, or wiki policy information pages. Categories or a disambiguation page should be used to organize anything else."

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that seems fine if the word "anything" is switched with "something".

 

[Bobsican]

Okay, then the following should be good to go:

"Only use Article List Templates for character profiles, verse pages, or wiki policy information pages. Categories or a disambiguation page should be used to organize something else."

 

[Antvasima]

Yes. It should be fine to apply.

@Just_a_Random_Butler

Are you willing to handle it please?

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Okay, then the following should be good to go:

Yes. It should be fine to apply.

@Just_a_Random_Butler

Are you willing to handle it please?

I have applied the change.

 

[Bobsican]

(stuff)

Anyways, thoughts on the proposed changes on the Editing Rules to fix how some other stuff got skipped?

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Anyways, the following appears to have been lost, but some of it may be redundant now, so I'll make note as needed:

*Corporate mascots and advertisement characters are not part of fictional storylines, regardless of feats in commercials and similar. It is preferable to not allow any incoherent figments without substance to be featured here. However, if they have officially published comicbooks, games, etcetera to scale from, they can probably be included.

One could argue this bit is indeed unecessary as we already make it clear we don't allow characters that aren't part of a proper plot and so on to begin with, although it wouldn't hurt to just mention this right after this (currently existing on the last page version) to clarify what isn't allowed on that regard, maybe with a reword if anything:

• Do not create any joke profiles, as they do not fit into our tiering system. Also avoid creating profiles for fan characters, advertisement characters, memes, YouTube personalities, reality television, talk shows, stage personas, and the like. If you wish to create such profiles, feel free to do so in the Joke Battles wiki instead. Take note that there is obviously a difference between a profile written as a joke, and the character itself being automatically funny.

So, basically, that bullet point will be placed under the second bullet point mentioned? If so, I don't think there are any issues.

This bit also is seemingly removed and not properly covered in the current "The Use of Art" section:

*When creating or editing a profile, if you use an image from a fan artist to represent the character/weapon/vehicle/verse in question, insert a text into the image's description page that gives credit to the artist, and if you can, also provide a link to their website or profile on DeviantArt, Tumblr, etcetera. Note that unrelated images, often for cases that lack sufficient (if any) visual details whatsoever to derive from, aren't allowed, as they apply unnecessary headcanon and derail from the purpose of illustrating the character or object in an appropiate manner.

If anything, to avoid redundancy, it may be reworded to something like this to fit properly with the new stuff:

*If fanart is used, insert a text into the image's description page (not the caption section) that gives credit to the artist, and if you can, also provide a link to their website or profile on DeviantArt, Tumblr, etcetera.
*Note that unrelated images, often for cases that lack sufficient (if any) visual details whatsoever to derive from, aren't allowed, as they apply unnecessary headcanon and derail from the purpose of illustrating the character or object in an appropiate manner.

It appears to be acceptable as is, but perhaps we can consider making the "Note" section a sub-bullet under the first bullet point for improved clarity.

Stuff that wasn't actually removed but could be done better:

This bit...

• While using profiles from other wikis as references for statistics is generally not prohibited, if the reasoning for the listed statistics can not be explained, or if the profiles are of sub-standard quality, they might be deleted.

...should be moved right after this, to make semantics on that area clearer to readers by being more organized:

• Please do not plagiarize from other wikis or online databases. It is unprofessional and shows a lack of effort on the part of the user. If you are getting your information from another wiki, please rephrase and summarize the passage in your own words instead of simply copying it.

I'm fine with this.

Similarly, this:

• Blogs for 2-A or higher tier and particularly controversial powers will be subject to extra scrutiny and will need the approval of staff members.

Should go right before this as it pertains a similar topic:

• Profiles for characters that have any statistic or ability that is Low 1-A or above are not allowed to be created unless their reasoning has been evaluated and accepted by the wiki staff via a content revision thread or explanation blog, or if they scale to characters whose reasoning has already been evaluated.

I'm fine with this as well.

Even though I have shared my thoughts, it is unlikely that my input alone will be enough for this to be applied. Therefore, we will probably have to wait for input from others before proceeding.

 

[Bobsican]

So, basically, that bullet point will be placed under the second bullet point mentioned? If so, I don't think there are any issues.

Just moved there, yeah.

It appears to be acceptable as is, but perhaps we can consider making the "Note" section a sub-bullet under the first bullet point for improved clarity.

Unrelated images aren't always fanart, as much before that rule was made for the most part, stock images in the public domain were often used for entirely unrelated pages, so making it a sublist seems inappropiate. I'd rather just reword it a little to not imply it's a note per-say, but rather a standard like the rest, thus becoming:

*Unrelated images, often for cases that lack sufficient (if any) visual details whatsoever to derive from, aren't allowed, as they apply unnecessary headcanon and derail from the purpose of illustrating the character or object in an appropiate manner.

Even though I have shared my thoughts, it is unlikely that my input alone will be enough for this to be applied. Therefore, we will probably have to wait for input from others before proceeding.

Yeah, it'd be best to wait for a bit more feedback, although this shouldn't be too controversial as we're just mostly re-adding stuff that was already accepted by the staff.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Unrelated images aren't always fanart, as much before that rule was made for the most part, stock images in the public domain were often used for entirely unrelated pages, so making it a sublist seems inappropiate. I'd rather just reword it a little to not imply it's a note per-say, but rather a standard like the rest, thus becoming:

Okay, fair point. I'm fine with it.

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Bobsican]

Can a mod please ping other pertinent staff to evaluate what's currently left?

 

[Antvasima]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Damage3245 @Mr._Bambu

What do you think about the suggestions here?

I am personally fine with what was accepted by Butler above.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Since this is editing rules ongoing project, we have added the new page for Article list template, simply don't forget to update the link.

 

[Antvasima]

Since this is editing rules ongoing project, we have added the new page for Article list template, simply don't forget to update the link.

What do you mean?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Okay, then the following should be good to go:

This needs to be updated (the link)

 

[Bobsican]

Sure

"Only use Article List Templates for character profiles, verse pages, or wiki policy information pages. Categories or a disambiguation page should be used to organize something else."

The proposal is now updated, but we've yet to apply this (and the other proposed stuff) to the Editing Rules or so.