- 2,060
- 3,918
Introduction
The discussion rules page is genuinely so depressing, and after some discussion, it seems like I’m not alone in thinking so. If the overly-in-depth structure of the page was working, I wouldn’t be opposed to it, but seemingly the only two things that have resulted as a consequence of it (in my view) are (1) less and less people end up reading it (2) the specificity leads to arguments akin too (as Agnaa put quite nicely) “but the rules don’t say dogs can’t play basketball. "
Basically, me thinks our aim should be the ten commandments not the bible.
Proposal
So HERE is my proposal, and here is the original.
Lets break it down:
Change 1: The most obvious thing you’ll probably notice is that I want to separate the General Discussion Rules from the Franchise Specific Rules. For one, there are enough of these Franchise-Specific Rules to take up nearly half the entire page, so it’s definitely a big contributor to the clutter. I really don't think its necessary to have the universally-applicable discussion rules and the verse-specific rules on the same page, and it honestly strike me as a bit unoffical looking.
Change 2: In line with what I mentioned earlier, I added the following note to the introduction page:
Change 3: Footnotes! A lot of the important information on the page is snuggled in-between a ton of extra info that isn’t directly pertinent but plays at least some kind of role, so I decided to include them in footnotes.
Change 4 (the big one): Removals
Let me give an example:
Yes they absolutely should, but thats... a given. I hope you see the categorical difference between this "rule," and something like this:
Here is the list of my proposed Removals:
The discussion rules page is genuinely so depressing, and after some discussion, it seems like I’m not alone in thinking so. If the overly-in-depth structure of the page was working, I wouldn’t be opposed to it, but seemingly the only two things that have resulted as a consequence of it (in my view) are (1) less and less people end up reading it (2) the specificity leads to arguments akin too (as Agnaa put quite nicely) “but the rules don’t say dogs can’t play basketball. "
Basically, me thinks our aim should be the ten commandments not the bible.
Proposal
So HERE is my proposal, and here is the original.
Lets break it down:
Change 1: The most obvious thing you’ll probably notice is that I want to separate the General Discussion Rules from the Franchise Specific Rules. For one, there are enough of these Franchise-Specific Rules to take up nearly half the entire page, so it’s definitely a big contributor to the clutter. I really don't think its necessary to have the universally-applicable discussion rules and the verse-specific rules on the same page, and it honestly strike me as a bit unoffical looking.
Change 2: In line with what I mentioned earlier, I added the following note to the introduction page:
Change 3: Footnotes! A lot of the important information on the page is snuggled in-between a ton of extra info that isn’t directly pertinent but plays at least some kind of role, so I decided to include them in footnotes.
Change 4 (the big one): Removals
Let me give an example:
Yes they absolutely should, but thats... a given. I hope you see the categorical difference between this "rule," and something like this:
This policy is (a) not something one would naturally assume (b) is something that occurs often enough (c) isn't vague about what specific policy its enforcing. Therefore, it should absolutely be on the page. However, the first rule is obvious and a vague "encouragement" which again is not a bad thing per se... its just not needed.
Here is the list of my proposed Removals:
first check if the topic has been handled previously. You can do so by [[vsforum:tags/|clicking here]] and searching for a specific verse or character page title. We have also added "related discussions" links to our new forum at the bottom of our verse and character profile pages. If using the talk sections of this wiki's character profile pages, please sign with your username at the end of your posts, by adding four "~" signs.
*You should use the "[[vsforum:watched/threads|Watched threads]]" page to better keep track of your watched threads; the ones with new replies have bold text.*To use images on the forum, you must use image upload sites such as Imgur, ImgBB, etcetera, and link the URL of the image that ends with .png, .jpg, .jpeg or .gif by using the [[vsforum:help/bb-codes/|IMG code]]. It likely won't work if you simply use the URL for the page on which the image is hosted. Given that Fandom seems to disallow hotlinking to its hosted images from external sites, doing so in our forum either won't work or will significantly reduce their displayed size. However, you can still link to wiki images in the following manner: <code>File:VS Battles Main Image 3.png</code>
**To reiterate, when creating content revision threads, it is best to keep your suggestions as structured and simple to understand as possible, so the staff will have an easier time evaluating the text. Avoid writing upgrade threads mainly based on assumptions from a limited amount of information, with no additional context or evidence to support them.
*Before starting to argue in our forums, please read the [[Fallacies|logical fallacies]] page.
**To get better input in a content revision thread, inspect the [[Knowledgeable Members List (Verses)|knowledgeable members list for verses]] to get information about the people who know much about a franchise, and leave polite notices on their message walls that ask them to participate in the discussion. If staff members are present, they can also use the @''Username'' command to send automatic notifications to others. However, this does not work for regular members.
**The input and comments of these staff members and trusted knowledgeable members should be carefully considered by those with evaluation rights, and may influence the final decision regarding the approval of a content revision.If a disagreement arises between staff members during the evaluation of a content revision thread, it is important to seek the input and guidance of additional staff members in order to reach a fair and unbiased decision. This may involve seeking the opinion of higher-ranked staff members, or consulting with staff members who possess specific expertise or knowledge related to the revision in question. The final decision on the approval of a content revision should be based on a thorough and unbiased evaluation of the suggested changes and their impact on a verse.
*It is important to remember that all staff members, regardless of their rank, have a responsibility to act in the best interests of each verse by prioritizing accuracy and quality above personal preferences or biases. Staff members should strive to approach the evaluation of content revision threads with an open mind and a willingness to consider the perspectives of others.
**Ultimately, the final decision regarding the approval of a content revision should be based on a thorough and unbiased evaluation of the suggested changes and their impact on each verse, rather than on the rank or status of the staff members involved.
**Provide accurate and relevant information within the staff thread, ensuring it aligns with the purpose for which permission was granted.
*Regular members may not comment on Staff Discussion threads marked as "Restricted solely for staff members" under any circumstances, as such discussions cover sensitive wiki policy issues and other similar crucial matters that require great caution.
*In controversial Staff Discussion threads that must avoid spam and unconstructive bickering, regular members are only allowed one highly relevant post each to prevent thread spamming/hijacking. Only Bureaucrats may make exceptions to this rule, which should only happen when they deem the user's expertise/information essential.Every staff member's input will be taken into consideration, with the level of influence determined by their expertise in the specific field of the thread. This ensures that staff members who have relevant knowledge and expertise in a particular subject are given more weight in the decision-making process, aligning the contributions with their areas of specialization.
*If you are creating a content revision thread that affects a particular verse, then you need to specify the name of that verse as part of the title of the thread so that other users can recognize what the revision thread in case the rest of the title is unclear. For example: "Post-Timeskip AP Revision (Naruto)".
*You should use the "[[vsforum:watched/threads|Watched threads]]" page to better keep track of your watched threads; the ones with new replies have bold text.*To use images on the forum, you must use image upload sites such as Imgur, ImgBB, etcetera, and link the URL of the image that ends with .png, .jpg, .jpeg or .gif by using the [[vsforum:help/bb-codes/|IMG code]]. It likely won't work if you simply use the URL for the page on which the image is hosted. Given that Fandom seems to disallow hotlinking to its hosted images from external sites, doing so in our forum either won't work or will significantly reduce their displayed size. However, you can still link to wiki images in the following manner: <code>File:VS Battles Main Image 3.png</code>
**To reiterate, when creating content revision threads, it is best to keep your suggestions as structured and simple to understand as possible, so the staff will have an easier time evaluating the text. Avoid writing upgrade threads mainly based on assumptions from a limited amount of information, with no additional context or evidence to support them.
*Before starting to argue in our forums, please read the [[Fallacies|logical fallacies]] page.
**To get better input in a content revision thread, inspect the [[Knowledgeable Members List (Verses)|knowledgeable members list for verses]] to get information about the people who know much about a franchise, and leave polite notices on their message walls that ask them to participate in the discussion. If staff members are present, they can also use the @''Username'' command to send automatic notifications to others. However, this does not work for regular members.
**The input and comments of these staff members and trusted knowledgeable members should be carefully considered by those with evaluation rights, and may influence the final decision regarding the approval of a content revision.If a disagreement arises between staff members during the evaluation of a content revision thread, it is important to seek the input and guidance of additional staff members in order to reach a fair and unbiased decision. This may involve seeking the opinion of higher-ranked staff members, or consulting with staff members who possess specific expertise or knowledge related to the revision in question. The final decision on the approval of a content revision should be based on a thorough and unbiased evaluation of the suggested changes and their impact on a verse.
*It is important to remember that all staff members, regardless of their rank, have a responsibility to act in the best interests of each verse by prioritizing accuracy and quality above personal preferences or biases. Staff members should strive to approach the evaluation of content revision threads with an open mind and a willingness to consider the perspectives of others.
**Ultimately, the final decision regarding the approval of a content revision should be based on a thorough and unbiased evaluation of the suggested changes and their impact on each verse, rather than on the rank or status of the staff members involved.
**Provide accurate and relevant information within the staff thread, ensuring it aligns with the purpose for which permission was granted.
*Regular members may not comment on Staff Discussion threads marked as "Restricted solely for staff members" under any circumstances, as such discussions cover sensitive wiki policy issues and other similar crucial matters that require great caution.
*In controversial Staff Discussion threads that must avoid spam and unconstructive bickering, regular members are only allowed one highly relevant post each to prevent thread spamming/hijacking. Only Bureaucrats may make exceptions to this rule, which should only happen when they deem the user's expertise/information essential.Every staff member's input will be taken into consideration, with the level of influence determined by their expertise in the specific field of the thread. This ensures that staff members who have relevant knowledge and expertise in a particular subject are given more weight in the decision-making process, aligning the contributions with their areas of specialization.
*If you are creating a content revision thread that affects a particular verse, then you need to specify the name of that verse as part of the title of the thread so that other users can recognize what the revision thread in case the rest of the title is unclear. For example: "Post-Timeskip AP Revision (Naruto)".
