Standarizing criteria for Top Navigation Templates

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Damage makes sense to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I suppose that part probably needs to be modified then.

 

[Bobsican]

Fine by me, I suppose
We can just skip that part then, so...

Regarding Article List Templates, content featured in each one is limited on the following criteria:

*Article List Templates should be kept to group multiple pages in the following cases:
**Alternate incarnations of the same character within the same franchise (Link)
**Different time periods regarding the same character and timeline (Son Goku (Dragon Ball) to Son Goku (Dragon Ball Z))
**Multiple versions of the same character in alternate canons (Cloud Strife (Final Fantasy) to Cloud Strife (Kingdom Hearts))
**For verse pages it's for long-running series with multiple relevant continuities (Marvel and DC)
*In-universe clones and derivatives (such as merely being a family member) aren't allowed to be within an Article List Template for the given character, as they're simply considerable as their own individual characters without sufficient relation and similarity for the purposes of an Article List Template to the respective character, this also extends to alternate timeline incarnations.
**Alternate canon characters can be featured in Article List Templates, even if their alternate canon is regarded as an alternate timeline in relation to the main canon in question.
*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.

Went ahead and edited the (now) first part as merely mentioning usages without enforcing anything isn't even a rule at that point, so I modified the wording a bit accordingly.

Maybe we could also add this as a footnote somewhere nearby or similar:
"A character is considered to be the same as another for these purposes for cases sharing the same name and some degree of appearance and personality traits, note that this is still one criteria on its own and it may not be sufficient to qualify for sharing an Article List Template"

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

However, I am not at all fond of the idea of, for example, cramming the Marvel, Record of Ragnarok, and mythological versions of Thor into a single navigation template, and the same goes for Siddharta Gautama and other religious figures, so I personally think that your original draft was a better option.

We also already have disambiguation pages for visitors who are interested in different versions of characters from different verses.

 

[Bobsican]

While I agree, more staff are against it, so if anything I'd suggest to ask more staff or to see any re-evaluations.

 

[Antvasima]

However, I am not at all fond of the idea of, for example, cramming the Marvel, Record of Ragnarok, and mythological versions of Thor into a single navigation template, and the same goes for Siddharta Gautama and other religious figures, so I personally think that your original draft was a better option.

We also already have disambiguation pages for visitors who are interested in different versions of characters from different verses.

While I agree, more staff are against it, so if anything I'd suggest to ask more staff or to see any re-evaluations.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Andytrenom @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz

Would any of you be willing to help evaluate this please?

 

[Starter_Pack]

Well, that part is something I definitely agree with. Disambiguation pages exist to clarify which incarnation of what common "character" comes from what.

Templates are simply for similar characters within the same revolving canons for easy access, so while Marvel Thor wouldn't be grouped with RoR, GoW, or other incarnations as such, they would serve to direct people to, say, the alternate comic versions, any video game incarnations of the comic character, etc.

 

[Antvasima]

Exactly. Strongly agreed.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Starter puts it well enough, aye.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Would any of you be willing to help evaluate this please?

Yeah we 100% should not make every version of a character into one template. That's what a disambiguation page is for.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Well, that part is something I definitely agree with. Disambiguation pages exist to clarify which incarnation of what common "character" comes from what.

Templates are simply for similar characters within the same revolving canons for easy access, so while Marvel Thor wouldn't be grouped with RoR, GoW, or other incarnations as such, they would serve to direct people to, say, the alternate comic versions, any video game incarnations of the comic character, etc.

Agreed.

 

[Elizhaa]

Well, that part is something I definitely agree with. Disambiguation pages exist to clarify which incarnation of what common "character" comes from what.

Templates are simply for similar characters within the same revolving canons for easy access, so while Marvel Thor wouldn't be grouped with RoR, GoW, or other incarnations as such, they would serve to direct people to, say, the alternate comic versions, any video game incarnations of the comic character, etc.

I got to also agree.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Starter makes sense for me.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the evaluations. I think that you can return to your previous version of these instructions/regulations then, Bobsican.

 

[Bobsican]

Okay, I still think the other changes I've made still were rather appropiate, so I'll just repost the stuff updated accordingly:

Regarding Article List Templates, content featured in each one is limited on the following criteria:

*Article List Templates should only be used within the Intellectual Property in question, and as such shouldn't have content outside the permission of the respective owners. Disambiguation pages should be used instead otherwise.
*Article List Templates should be kept to group multiple pages in the following cases:
**Alternate incarnations of the same character within the same franchise (Link)
**Different time periods regarding the same character and timeline (Son Goku (Dragon Ball) to Son Goku (Dragon Ball Z))
**Multiple versions of the same character in alternate canons (Cloud Strife (Final Fantasy) to Cloud Strife (Kingdom Hearts))
**For verse pages featuring long-running series with multiple relevant continuities (Marvel and DC)
*In-universe clones and derivatives (such as merely being a family member) aren't allowed to be within an Article List Template for the given character, as they're simply considerable as their own individual characters without sufficient relation and similarity for the purposes of an Article List Template to the respective character, this also extends to alternate timeline incarnations.
**Alternate canon characters can be featured in Article List Templates, even if their alternate canon is regarded as an alternate timeline in relation to the main canon in question.
*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.

For the sake of discussion, I'll remind that the other change proposed was to reword the normal uses of an ALT into a standard, as otherwise it's not even a rule out of not enforcing anything.

Maybe we could also add this as a footnote somewhere nearby or similar:
"A character is considered to be the same as another for these purposes for cases sharing the same name and some degree of appearance and personality traits, note that this is still one criteria on its own and it may not be sufficient to qualify for sharing an Article List Template"

 

[Antvasima]

I think that your article list template instructions seem good to apply, but I do not properly understand what you mean with your other suggestions in your last preceding post in this thread.

 

[Bobsican]

I think that your article list template instructions seem good to apply, but I do not properly understand what you mean with your other suggestions in your last preceding post in this thread.

Went ahead and edited the (now) first part as merely mentioning usages without enforcing anything isn't even a rule at that point, so I modified the wording a bit accordingly.

Maybe we could also add this as a footnote somewhere nearby or similar:
"A character is considered to be the same as another for these purposes for cases sharing the same name and some degree of appearance and personality traits, note that this is still one criteria on its own and it may not be sufficient to qualify for sharing an Article List Template"

It was merely a minor rewrite to make the usages of it a standard than mere suggestions or mentions of what they're mainly used for.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

Anyway, where should we place these instructions exactly? In a new standard format page?

 

[Bobsican]

The Editing Rules as said before, there's too little for a standard format page (namely no formatting details are brought up), and talk over doing one probably would be best in another thread.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. What do the rest of you think? Is it fine if Bobsican's latest draft is added to our Editing Rules page now, and in that case, would one of our administrators be willing to handle it in a proper manner (with all of the embedded links included)?

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. What do the rest of you think? Is it fine if Bobsican's latest draft is added to our Editing Rules page now, and in that case, would one of our administrators be willing to handle it in a proper manner (with all of the embedded links included)?

@Elizhaa @DarkDragonMedeus @LordGriffin1000 @Qawsedf234 @Mr._Bambu @Starter_Pack @Colonel_Krukov @Damage3245 @Mariogoods @DemonGodMitchAubin

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks fine

 

[Damage3245]

Seems okay to me too.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I'm fine with it.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the replies. It can probably be added then. Would one of you be willing to handle it?

 

[Elizhaa]

Thank you for the replies. It can probably be added then. Would one of you be willing to handle it?

Done.

 

[Mariogoods]

Since it is accepted, maybe we could start to delete top navigation templates which are not allowed by the new rule. First, I propose them as I feel that they are not allowed by the new rule:

Zhao Yun

vsbattles.fandom.com

Cthulhu

vsbattles.fandom.com

Slenderman

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Dereck03]

Since it is accepted, maybe we could start to delete top navigation templates which are not allowed by the new rule. First, I propose them as I feel that they are not allowed by the new rule:

Zhao Yun

vsbattles.fandom.com

Cthulhu

vsbattles.fandom.com

Slenderman

vsbattles.fandom.com

I've deleted the templates and removed them from the profiles.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Wait, why are we deleting templates? I thought we disagreed to this?

 

[Damage3245]

Yeah, I have no idea why the Slenderman and Cthulhu templates are being deleted.

 

[Antvasima]

I am not at all fond of the idea of, for example, cramming the Marvel, Record of Ragnarok, and mythological versions of Thor into a single navigation template, and the same goes for Siddharta Gautama and other religious figures, so I personally think that your original draft was a better option.

We also already have disambiguation pages for visitors who are interested in different versions of characters from different verses.

Well, that part is something I definitely agree with. Disambiguation pages exist to clarify which incarnation of what common "character" comes from what.

Templates are simply for similar characters within the same revolving canons for easy access, so while Marvel Thor wouldn't be grouped with RoR, GoW, or other incarnations as such, they would serve to direct people to, say, the alternate comic versions, any video game incarnations of the comic character, etc.

A clear majority of our staff agreed with the above arguments.

 

[Antvasima]

I've deleted the templates and removed them from the profiles.

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Antvasima]

Done.

Thank you, but the instructions seem out of place in our editing rules page. Wouldn't it be better if we move them to a new "Standard Format for Article List Templates" page instead?

 

[Bobsican]

If we also get format instructions (rather than only regulations) to add to such a page to begin with, sure.

 

[Damage3245]

A clear majority of our staff agreed with the above arguments.

I agreed with it too; but I thought it would be more case-by-case and potentially useful templates wouldn't be deleted without discussion.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

Saman literally said above that they agreed with me and Damage that deleting them would be a waste of time and detrimental

 

[Antvasima]

If we also get format instructions (rather than only regulations) to add to such a page to begin with, sure.

That seems like a good idea. Is somebody here willing to write a draft for it?

 

[Antvasima]

I agreed with it too; but I thought it would be more case-by-case and potentially useful templates wouldn't be deleted without discussion.

Thank you for the support.

Anyway, templates that mix wildly different intepretations of characters that have almost nothing to do with each other than their names are not allowed anymore, and there were only a few of them available I think, so I am not sure if there would be much left to discuss. Please elaborate.

Saman literally said above that they agreed with me and Damage that deleting them would be a waste of time and detrimental

I am afraid that I couldn't find a reply from Saman above, and Damage seems to have agreed with me and Starter Pack going by his last comment in this thread.

 

[Colonel_Krukov]

I am afraid that I couldn't find a reply from Saman above, and Damage seems to have agreed with me and Starter Pack going by his last comment in this thread.

I meant Starter, whoops. That doesn't explain why we're deleting them without consensus though, and I still think deleting them outright for no reason is a detrimental move.

I don't see why we need to delete them in the first place. It's much more easier to navigate than having to find a disambiguation page then finding the related character. It's just backwards