New important rules for the forum and wiki editing (Staff only)

[Antvasima]

As I mentioned in our forum migration thread, we need a new rule for that all content revision edits in our profile pages should always include links to the forum discussion threads in which the revisions were accepted by our staff in the edit summary boxes, in order to greatly simplify the wiki edit patrolling work for myself and others, especially as I will not be as active with organising content revisions as I was before the partial wiki lockdown.

Here is an illustration of what is intended:



We also need to write a rule for that we should always search for and add the relevant previously existing tags (formerly called topics) to important discussion threads when creating them, so they are much easier to find in the future, and can be more easily linked to and overviewed.

It should be noted that the new forum only allows staff members to change the tags/topics for discussion threads after they have been created, so please ask them for help in case somebody has made a mistake.

-----

For community information purposes, I have also inserted a step by step illustration of how tags work in this forum below:

Here is the page where you search for tags/topics related to specific characters or verses.

https://vsbattles.com/tags/

And here is what it looks like after you have selected a specific tag for which all the connected discussions are listed in chronological order.



Here is how anybody can insert tags into a new discussion thread. Make sure to not type too quickly, so there are no errors, and be very careful to select the most relevant tags directly connected to specific wiki verse and character pages.





Here is what tags look like in a posted content revision thread.



If inaccurate tags have been added to an already posted discussion thread, discussion moderators and administrators can be asked to edit the tags by clicking the small icon to the left of them.



Here is what it currently looks like when somebody edits the tags of an already posted discussion thread (the layout colours will be improved soon).

 

[Antvasima]

My apologies for the slight derailment of the main topic in the first post, but since this is a new forum, and it is an extremely important topic, I wanted to properly explain tags while I have the community's attention.

Anyway, let's focus on wording proper rules for this please.

 

[The_Impress]

Tag thing imo should be a guideline rather than a rule.

But yeah this seems agreeable, the wording could go

"When applying an accepted content revision to a profile, it is compulsory link the Content Revision Thread within the Edit Summary"

 

[Antvasima]

@Zark2099

Within a few months we intend to start a big project for adding links to the tags/topics for discussions related to all verses and the most popular characters to their pages within the wiki, in order to increase visitor traffic to this forum, and get enough advertisement money to keep it running in the long run, so adding tags definitely need to be a rule, yes.

 

[The_Impress]

But a rule implies that forgetting to add tags is in some way punishable

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

This looks like a good idea.

 

[Antvasima]

But a rule implies that forgetting to add tags is in some way punishable

Well, it obviously isn't punishable to forget, but we should add the guideline in one of our rules pages, to heavily encourage our members to remember, and ask the staff for help otherwise.

 

[Amelia_Lonelyheart]

Yeah, I'm with Zark. The tagging thing works better as a guide line, since staff can just add that stuff in later. If a topic goes uncategorized, it' probably not a high-traffic thread to begin with, so it's really not a big deal IMO.

 

[Antvasima]

Look, just because we add something to the regulation page as a public instruction and precaution does not mean that we have to ban everybody who forget about it, if it isn't something significant. It just lets us avoid an awful lot of unnecessary extra work, due to that our members are not aware of it otherwise, and in addition, I think that we already have a rule that is similar to this. We just need to reword it properly.

I would appreciate if we can move onwards to deciding how to properly word the regulation please, as it would be a destructive track for our community otherwise.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I mean, it's fine to simply add the rule. And it's not going to be punishable if you don't add the thread in every edit. For example, you have a big list of pages to edit; you include the link in most of you edits, but not every page edited had a linked reason. But it's obvious that within the collection is the same reasons as example edits that have them. But obviously making a bunch of statistics changes and not even including the link may have staff come to wall reminding you. It's only punishment worthy if done excessively for example; editing a bunch of pages with a 0 listed justification.

 

[AKM sama]

The tag thing is already a regulation. We just need to modify the wording:

• Building upon the previous suggestion, make sure to add topics for the "verse" and main characters related to your forum threads, in order to make it easier for other members to find them later on.
• Only add topics that are directly relevant to the discussion threads. This includes the names of verses and characters for which revisions are being argued about. However, do not add mostly unrelated topics, such as for instruction or policy pages, unless the contents of the pages themselves are being discussed. Otherwise it will get hard to find important older discussions for each particular subject. Click here for further information.

Not every rule means people will be penalized if they forget to do it. Also, the "General Rules" section of our Discussion Rules page is mostly filled with these types of guidelines that people have to follow.

 

[AKM sama]

This one is also written in the Editing Rules, it also needs to be modified:

• When you are revising character statistics, please remember to provide links to the related concluded content revision threads in the edit summary boxes. It greatly helps to avoid misunderstandings when the staff are patrolling edits, as they might mistake the changes for vandalism otherwise.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Would it be useful to add tags for blog posts as well? It would make tracking down important calculations, explanation, or cosmology blogs easier.

 

[AKM sama]

Would it be useful to add tags for blog posts as well? It would make tracking down important calculations, explanation, or cosmology blogs easier.

I think we already add categories in those kind of blogs that are also accepted and shown on pages.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with AKM sama. Thank you for helping out.

Also, let's try to stay focused/on track here please.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, I am very tired, and have to go to bed. I hope that you manage to keep this discussion constructive until I come back. Good night.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Honestly, I think our standards for page creation should be just as stringent as what we have here for later profile additions.

A lot of the time, pages are created with a slew of abilities that aren't justified with scans or evidence - which requires our staff to either just take everything in the profile in good faith or start a CRT just to confirm everything in the profiles. We already enforce something like this for higher tiers, however I believe that feats and powers should either be extremely obvious (barely anyone will question or ask for evidence that Zuko from TLA has Fire Manipulation, for example) or be cited in the form of a calculation or scan.

 

[AKM sama]

I think that you're correct, but it is preferably better handled in its own thread. For now, we should focus on how to word the above two rules better.

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with AKM.

(I came back briefly before going to bed.)

 

[The_Impress]

For now, we should focus on how to word the above two rules better.

As stated prior, we can word the "Edit Summary required" rule like this:
"When applying an accepted content revision to a profile, it is compulsory link the Content Revision Thread within the Edit Summary"

And the tag rule as this:
"It is required for users to add the relevant previously existing tags to important discussion threads within the forums when creating them"

 

[Dino_Ranger_Black]

This seems quite complicated. I hope I will get use to it.....

 

[Antvasima]

I tried to clean up the text flow and make it more informative, but these are still drafts, so they likely need to be improved further. Help would be appreciated.

"When applying a content revision to a profile, it is required that you always link to the discussion thread in the external forum wherein it was accepted by the wiki staff within the edit summary box."

"When creating new discussion threads in the external forum, it is required that our members add the relevant previously existing tags to them, for example the verse and most prominent character profiles that will be discussed during a content revision. If something goes wrong, and you need to add or change the tags of a certain thread, please ask our discussion moderators or administrators for help."

 

[AKM sama]

This seems fine to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you.

What do the rest of you think?

 

[The_Impress]

Seems fine

 

[Elizhaa]

The drafts also look fine, to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the input.

 

[AKM sama]

I will apply the changes then.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the help.

 

[Antvasima]

I made some minor fixes for clarification purposes:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/index.php?title=Editing_Rules&diff=6928069&oldid=6927808

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/index.php?title=Discussion_Rules&diff=6928066&oldid=6927807

 

[AKM sama]

This can be closed then.

 

[Elizhaa]

I also agree; I will close the thread.