Wikitroid
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Wikitroid
Wikitroid
6,994
pages
in: Administrator's Noticeboard

Wikitroid:Requests for Comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blaze of Fire (talk | contribs) at 23:12, 29 January 2012. It may differ significantly from the current revision.
Add topic
Shortcut:
WT:RFC
Forums: Index → Administrator's Noticeboard → Requests for Comment



Archives
Archives
# Archive 1

This forum is for discussion regarding policies, rules, procedure, guidelines, and the like. All users are welcome and asked to comment, including anonymous users. However, only registered users should create a new topic (the instructions for doing so can be found here). Archived sections are surrounded by a thick blue border and should not be edited. If you wish to reopen an archived debate, please ask an active administrator to do so.

Implementation of non-canon, theoretical and spoiler templates

It has come to my attention recently that Wikitroid has become notorious for its large amount of speculation, too much non-canonical information (that Hellkaiserryo12 causes you to destroy a large amount of info on the page and/or mark it as real-life.) and too many spoilers that are unmarked. The latter issue has a policy, but they aren't marked.

This is why I have created this RfC, to question whether or not we should implement templates for these purposes. For example:

"Noncanon" template

[insert noncanon info here]

"Endnoncanon" template

The templates would add the page to a category for "Articles with non-canonical information". The same would go for theories, which would get a category for "Articles incorporating theory". The spoiler template wouldn't, though, as is standard with wikis incorporating the feature.

  • Question: Should Wikitroid implement templates and categories to indicate articles with non-canonical information, theories and spoilers?
  • Possible Postitions: Agree (if you would like these templates to be implemented), Neutral (if you are not sure), or Disagree (if you disagree that these templates should be implemented).
  • Default (no consensus): The templates/categories' status as a necessity is unmodified.

One last point: don't accuse me of starting the C&C RfC all over again with the noncanon part. It's supposed to be an extension of C&C. --RoyboyX 16:39, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Disagree: Not exactly sure how to format an answer with no preceeding ones, so I apologize if I needed to make a section or anything. Anyway, it's simple: We have a Metroid Fanon wiki. Speculation and theories and fanfic bullshit can go there. It's too much of a slippery slope otherwise. How do we decide which theories are too ridiculous and which are okay? If we require everything to be cited or drawn directly from the games, we avoid any technical confusions as well as avoiding confusing readers. No need to add new templates, no need to look unprofessional by becoming a soapbox for every dumbass with a crazy theory... Noncanon stuff, definitely. Big-Time and Smash Bros and Captain N? Those shouldn't have the same 'weight' as real Metroid stuff. So I'm not really sure if that's an agree or a disagree. It's kind of both, since part of your idea has merit and the rest is ridiculous. Dazuro 19:32, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment: Can you name such examples of theories? And why is everyone obsessed with professionalism! Do you want to make us bland and outcasts because we have almost no sociality? We'd be unwelcoming. According to Piratehunter, the Assassin's Creed Wiki's users are very nice, and I think we ought to start being like them. Of course, they are overly social, and I'm not asking for that here. Just to be a little like other wikis and to be more interactive. After all, no personal interaction means no civility. As for the theories, we would only use theories based on evidence in games or related media. Everyone's a critic. --RoyboyX 19:40, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree with RfC as it is written - What is the definition of non-canonical information? --FastLizard4{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) - Would you like to participate in the new forum trials? 23:32, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply - If there are sections for non-canonical manga, SSB, whatever, then they have a template indicating where they start, and where they end. Different templates, obviously, like here. --RoyboyX 23:56, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • Mildly Disagree- Speculation, theory, and non-canon can mean a lot of different things. I would instead support an additional "extrapolation" template, for things like explanations of inconsitancies, reasonable possibilities, and connections between things in the game and real-world science/history. I would also want to make sure there is a strong distinction between reasonable and baseless speculation.--AdmiralSakai 00:20, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just to clarify the non-canon, it would be an extension of the C&C policy. --РoйбoйX (Talk • Contribs • UN) 17:10, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree - In that case I change my vote to Agree. "My name is AdmiralSakai, and I approve this message." 17:25, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Okay... people, I'm going to address a small detail. Stop adding comments that say "Mildly Disagree" or "Disagree with RfC as written" or "Somewhat Agree". The possible position are traditionally placed at the head of the RfC for a reason, and in this case they are set as either Agree, Disagree, or Neutral. If you "slightly" disagree with the RfC issue, then state as such in your description that follows your vote. --القراصنةهنتر{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 17:35, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment- What do all of you believe to be a reasonable "expiration date" for spoilers? (i.e., when should we remove spoiler templates from content). It would seem somewhat unreasonable to take up space with a warning to protect players from, in an extreme example, the knowledge that Samus Aran is female, in the event that they have not played the original Metroid. (That was something of a run-on sentance...) "My name is AdmiralSakai, and I approve this message." 19:48, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • Discuss - Never. There may be readers who are new to Metroid and want to look up information on it. They would be there to warn them, regardless of game. If they read on, then fine, their loss. We warned them. And there's no need to mark Samus' gender as a spoiler. We all pretty much know she's a girl anyway. --РoйбoйX (Talk • Contribs • UN) 19:56, February 13, 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree- Somewhat. I would like us to define exactly what material is non-canon before a template is implemented (that is, if the idea goes ahead). Not so excited about theories and spoiler templates, they don't really link in to this RfC. However, I am somewhat against both because: Theory templates encourage speculation and an encyclopedia really shouldn't contain speculation from opinions. We have to remain professional. Yes I know you may find that stupid or whatever RBX, but trying to remain objective which is what we strive for would be damaged by adding fan-theories. If it is implemented, I would like to see it used vary sparingly and not on every page where something relating to the topic is left ambiguous. For spoilers, the whole wiki is one big spoiler, I don't like the idea because defining spoilers would be much more difficult than defining non-canon material. You couldn't really apply a general rule as each bit of information that could be a spoiler would have to be debated. Also, what about Trivia? Trivia contains many spoilers and theories. Seperating them and so on would take a long time and be labourious. Do you really thing spoiler templates are necessary? The only other place I have seen them in use is Zeldapedia, where the only spoilers are really the final boss or antagonist due to the recycling of material in the games. HellKaiserryo12[ADMIN] (Talk•Contribs) 19:07, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
  • Discuss - I meant strongly believed theories and not just every single one we have. And spoilers would only go on plots but not certain points. For example:

[spoiler template]

[insert Queen Metroid info]

[end spoiler]

For any newbies to Metroid that are reading here we need to warn them. As I said, we warned them with the templates being there, but if they go on down, it's not our problem, we warned them, they didn't heed it and they spoiled themselves. --РoйбoйX (Talk • Contribs • UN) 19:12, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

  • Disagree: No matter what you do, spoilers are inevitable. While I played Other M, I avoided reading content, but I was still spoiled regardless by the navigation boxes about Phantoon. You can get spoiled by ANYTHING on the internet. Entire articles could be spoilers. Theories should generally be not used anyways, unless it actually helps in the explanation. Non-canon info on the other hand is a maybe, though really, they should be in their own sections of the article. Also, please restate your positions people. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 22:47, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

i think we shouldnt have spoiler tags and i think that we can have noncannon tags but call them ambiguously cannon instead like zeldapedia. 

Blaze of Fire 23:09, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Descriptive Names

As the U-# system has expanded, users have begun using short descriptive passages found within manuals, developer interviews, and strategy guides in addition to proper names for articles. However, treating these descriptors identically to proper names has proven largely unsuccessful and somewhat confusing. Therefore, I have drawn up a rough outline of a definition of descriptive names and some specific rules for their use:

A descriptive name is defined as: any' 'a'rticle name consisting entirely of simple English words '(uncapitalized) and other subject names, and arraigned in accordance with conventional grammar rules.

  1. As it is sometimes difficult to determine exactly where the "name" portion of a descriptive name ends, to prevent the names from becoming too cumbersome they should be of the least length necessary for them to make grammatical sense, to provide an indication of the identity of the subject, and to delineate it from other, similar subjects. For instance, the "massive" in "massive tentacle" would normally be removed, as it does not convey much information regarding the identity of the subject in question. However, it is required to separate the massive tentacle from the much smaller Leviathan tentacle. This applies to removing words from the middle of names as well as those at the very beginning or the very end.
  2. Descriptive names must be treated within text as conventional nouns, not proper nouns. In particular, they should be given definite articles such as "the", "a", etc.
  3. If the descriptor does not meet the same standards of professional voice that are applied to article text, it cannot be used as a name. The only incident I have seen of a name that would be rejected under this provision is a "communal" ULF that was described as "white squiggly things".
  4. The ordering, conjugation, and other such aspects of descriptive names can be altered to match conventional English language and professional voice, provided that the basic meaning of the descriptor remains the same.
  5. Descriptive names are to be identified as such by placing a "descriptive name" template at the head of the article. Seeing debate on the inclusion of templates, I have decided to restore that section to its default state (no templates) until such time as a conclusion is acchieved).
  • Question: Should the policy outlined above be implemented as it applies to descriptive names?
  • Possible Positions: Agree- if you agree with implementing the policy as it stands. Neutral- Undecided or unsure. Disagree- You are opposed to implementing the policy as it stands. Suggestions on improving the policy are always welcome from adherents of any position.
  • Default (No consensus): There will not be an official policy towards descriptive names.


Comment: Difficult to tell what the Agree/Disagree positions are. I'd like to see descriptive names kept, maybe with template disclaimers. ChozoBoy (Talk/Contribs) 23:05, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Comment': The names would of course be kept (in fact, I am hoping that the rules outlined here would allow a wider latitude in terms of the subjects that could be named using them), and although I had not considered a template necessary I would certainly not be at all opposed to one. "My name is 'AdmiralSakai, and I approve this message." 23:31, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Disagree: Apparently you have a vendetta for size types in names. "If [those] names [aren't] used then we can't use [them]. You ought to know that rule by now..." And can we just, like, find a name for something and make it have no template at all? If developers would just name the goddamn things then we wouldn't be having this conundrum. Fan names don't solve the problem of confusing readers at all, you say? They will know what an Omega Fusion Suit or SR227 is. Other wikis, such as Zeldapedia, do not have Unknown Name systems. They instead have a huge thing at the top of the article saying UNOFFICIAL NAME and the people of that sight choose a fitting name for the page. If they find an official name, great, they use it. I wouldn't name ULF 12 Semisentient organic structure but I would name ULF 13 Parasitic fungus, and I did. --РoйбoйX (Talk • Contribs • UN) 23:59, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I suppose I do have a "vandetta" for isolated size types in that they are rarely, if ever, necessary to delineate the subject of the article. A "large" Leviathan-class ship is only "large" if there is a "small" Leviathan-class ship, and when there is not it serves only to add an extra word to the article and any links we intend to create. I've little issue with articles such as "big Metroid" and "massive Tentacle", as those need some form of modifier to delineate them from normally-sized versions (which are in fact completely different things). Although I would be happy to participate in a descriptive name system, I feel that we should codify what these names will be before we replace the U-# system with them entirely. If this RfC passes, I will immediately write one to replace the U-# system.
You will have to debate the template issue with ChozoBoy, as I am entirely neutral in that regard. "My name is AdmiralSakai, and I approve this message." 00:11, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Agree: I think we need some guidlines for these names. Some of them can get a bit ridiculous. HellKaiserryo12[ADMIN] (Talk•Contribs) 12:05, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: One possible solution to the template issue is to forgo the template and simply put the bolded name in quotation marks. That may or may not work, but I would like it to be considered. (It also makes me think of a quote, possibly from Dean Stockewll: "You know you have a good compromise when both parties walk away feeling screwed".....) "My name is AdmiralSakai, and I approve this message." 13:13, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: We could even do both if we wanted to. My history instructor from last semester used to say, "Never underestimate the stupidity of the reader." ChozoBoy (Talk/Contribs) 13:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: "Never underestimate the stupidity of the reader." This site is truly filled with a bunch of assholes.

Comment: I agree mostly with what the anon just said. Chozoboy, that was completely inappropriate and unnecessary. Don't act so condescending and arrogant. Complete Supremacy 19:04, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: We are not here to harass ChozoBoy for quoting his history instructor. Please cofine your comments to the topic at hand. CB also makes a valid point that we must be certain to make Wikitroid as understandable and user-friendly as possible, especially given that not all of our readers will be of first-rate intelligence. If RoyBoyX does not object (or objects and is overruled??), I will include the quotation mark provision in the policy. "My name is AdmiralSakai, and I approve this message." 19:37, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Okay, I am now going to be a very tyrannical monarch at the moment... namely because, one, I am very pissed off for off-wiki reasons, and two, the constant bickering is getting old and thus adding to my pissy mood. To start off, the next goddamn time I see someone say one derogatory, offensive, insulting, or even slightly biased comment, I am blocking you for some random period of time, mirroring the punishment for vandals. I'll tell you if I see it. Secondly, ChozoBoy shut the fuck up with your college shit; no one give a damn about you being a fucking senior in college, and majoring in animation. Go to hell, in short (and no I'm not jealous of you, little boy, I'm a junior in cognitive neuroscience and a teacher of English and foreign languages, so piss off). And as a matter of fact, I do see you as a completely retarded imbecile, so kindly go die, so I can not miss you. And third, exactly what AS said, if a fucking RfC is going on about Article Names, then keep the bloody conversation(s) relevant to Article names. In fact me being the tyrannical monarch I am at this current moment I may decide to strike any comment that is empirically deemed irrelevant or otherwise redundant to the actual purpose of the RfC. Hell I may decide to abuse my power and start blocking [people for use of arrogant attitude(s). You never know, I'm just a tyrannical bitch like that at the moment. In short everyone, shut the fuck up and be "nice". In return, I won't block you, and I may stop bashing you for being retarded idiotic morons, and instead take pity on you. And just for everyone's own good, I strongly suggest that no one says something to me regarding this comment, and just take it into your minds and use it. In other words, read it, and do it. Because people saying something to me is just going to piss me off that much more. Which you will regret. --القراصنةهنتر{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 20:09, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: As for the real matter on hand, I think that descriptors are important when they help distinguish between certain articles, but I don't like the fact that we need a "the" and "a" on every article. It takes up space and newer users when creating links might link to articles that don't exist. Then we have to reprimand said user and fix the problem. While it doesn't take up a lot of time, it isn't efficient. I quite like the ULFs because they're easy to link to and the most professional name that we can give to them. Complete Supremacy 21:52, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: [pointedly ignoring the Piratehunter/Complete Supremacy "debate" and focusing on, for whatever reason, the topic at hand.] I did not mean to suggest that "the" or "a" be added to article titles- that is, as you have said, cumbersome and unnecessary. I was referring to use of descriptors within the articles. That way, users are able to see more clearly that they are not proper names of any sort: for instance, an article with the opening sentance "Big Metroid is an anomaly within the Metroid life cycle..." would recieve a "the". "My name is AdmiralSakai, and I approve this message." 23:47, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I actually do agree with the point made regarding Big Metroid. The problem I would like to point out however, is that it is named via direct accordance with the Super Metroid Player's Guide. And although I loath the admission of Player Guide details as actual infallible/canon data, it is from the enemy list in the book. --القراصنةهنتر{ADMIN} (Talk•Contribs•Logs) 01:09, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Notability

This RfC was closed at 16:02, December 18, 2011 (UTC) by The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} with the final resolution of making these cases eligble Please do not modify it. A large portion of the community feels that certain topics aren’t notable enough to have articles. However, lack of notability is not one of the current criteria for deletion. The point of this RfC is to decide whether certain topics deserve articles and what types of topics are undeserving. Topics that are not deserving of articles should probably be discussed briefly on other articles.

Guidelines about what topics wouldn’t deserve articles under this new policy:

  • Things found in the real world (or real world culture) that are found or mentioned (possibly as comparisons) in the Metroid Universe, but have no special meaning or effect on gameplay. This means things like carbon, epidermis and Bigfoot. This doesn’t include things like water or the cow which have special meaning to the Metroid Universe.
  • Flora, fauna, and structures that serve as scenery, especially when there is little to no information on the topic. These could potentially be discussed in the article of the area they are found in.
  • Topics whose articles restate that which is in other articles or could be discussed in other articles without leaving the primary topic or creating large walls of text. Like the former Large lava pit arena article.
  • Topics who have very low potential to have an article with much more than 3 sentences relevant to Metroid describing it.

These would serve as a loose set of guidelines; it is ultimately determined by Request for Deletion and a bit of common sense. There are probably going to be exceptions to this, and are to be made on a case by case basis.

  • Question: Should articles that are not notable enough as determined by these guidelines be deleted or merged with other topics, or left alone?
  • Possible Postitions: Agree (if you would like to implement these guidelines and allow unnotable articles be deleted), Neutral (if you are not sure), or Disagree (if you disagree with these guidelines and do not want to allow these types of articles to be deleted).
  • Default (no consensus): The types of articles mentioned above will be left alone.

If I forgot something or worded something badly, please tell me below. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 22:30, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

  • But I'd like to add an additional point. I'd like for this system to not be enforced until all the articles that would be made illegal are deleted. I dunno, I just feel like we should study them more in depth before deciding they're outlawed. --रॉयलड़काएक्स (Talk • Contribs • UN) 23:51, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to point out my changed stance on the cosplayer articles (mind you, it is not because of the addition of Daniel Cattell). The cosplayers have not really been in much official media, just the fan community section of Nintendo Power. Thus, I'd be for deleting all articles but Jenni Kallberg. Before you cite Blood of the Chozo, that was strictly Metroid related and worked on during the time NoA actually did NP, while the community section stuff has surfaced post the sale of NP to FutureUS. It's also talked about yarn plushies for other series and the like. --रॉयलड़काएक्स (Talk • Contribs • UN) 01:07, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
Going by this logic, however, articles about fansites would also be deleted, since they are not official media. Unless fansites would be made an exception. Which would be rather arbitrary. And I'd prefer not to remove those articles. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 01:21, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

"And I'd prefer not to remove those articles." cosplayers? Fansites? Both? Anyway, my stance on the fansites are that MDb and maybe Metroid 2002 can stay. MDb would be kept because of its unintentional appearance in the Fusion strategy guide and the fact that the site admins have interviewed people who worked with Metroid and they thus know of the MDb's existence. It was on Metroid 2002 where the term Sequence Breaking was coined (see Wikipedia). As for Metroid Metal... as awesome as they are, I'm not entirely sure as to what to do about their article. --रॉयलड़काएक्स (Talk • Contribs • UN) 01:26, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

The fansites ones. Also, metroid2002 was linked to in an http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2007/09/26/retro-studios-answers-the-dreaded-metroid-dread-question-and-other-prime-exclusives/ interview] with retro studios that included a question about sequence breaks. And I actually don't really like metroid metal all that much (no offense to them). But OK maybe... I just don't want to give a bunch of metroid communities the trademark Samus thumbs down. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 01:40, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
  • But her thumbs down is supposed to be the same as the others' thumbs up! She's joking back! [lol] --रॉयलड़काएक्स (Talk • Contribs • UN) 01:43, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree as was originally proposed. The list is a massive ungodly thing that will take years to work through with individual debates for each one. It was meant (as the description said) to be an inferior substitute for a policy. While it is a good place to FIND suspected irrelevant articles, it relies on individual discussions to figure out what to do with them. While the cosplayer/fansite/related debate is certainly important, it's really more regarding fanon/canon and referential content than relevancy, and I think should be discussed there. Those articles would not, however, be placed on this particular list. "My name is AdmiralSakai, and I approve this message." 05:48, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Any other thoughts? Please, by all means, participate. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 16:13, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree: I fully support the above guidelines. Their implementation would greatly help in reducing the number of small articles we do not need, especially those that have potential to join our Unknowns (if not already) or have little relevance to Metroid that's worthy of creating full-fledged pages.</nowiki> The Exterminator {ADMIN} (talk • e-mail • contribs) 01:28, November 23, 2011 (UTC)</
  • Comment Can we revisit my concern over the cosplayer/fansite articles? --RoyboyX (Complaints Box • Resume) 01:45, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment See Admiral Sakai's comment. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 01:47, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment So would you want individual debates for the fansites/cosplayers, or could we incorporate them into another part of the RfC, or what? --RoyboyX (Complaints Box • Resume) 01:53, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Either a different RfC, or individual debates. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 01:59, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment So can we consider this policy passable? --RoyboyX (Complaints Box • Resume) 21:23, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Bump. I'd surmise that a large amount of time has passed, and that the policy can be enforced and all the respective articles deleted. However, I'd like to make special cases for Sand (not only is it an environmental element but an obstacle/hazard in SM/MP2), Blood (well, I'm not really sure but I mostly made it because it was the only examinable target in MOM to not have an article), Tree (some trees serve as gameplay elements), Industrial-grade pesticide (an actually seen substance), Waste (a game element), Ice (ditto), Prophecy of Light (a major factor in MP1's plot), Baby's particle (the whole reason for MOM's events, maybe pluralize it?), Chozo bust (unique statues everywhere there is Chozo), Hand of Ur (an attack with no real-life equivelant), Little Girl (not really sure, perhaps we can just merge most of the info into Mother Brain/MB), Zoomer (character) (a character in non-canon Metroid media that would fit under the policy), Chief Astrogation Officer (not so sure, but mentioned in MP1), Vermin (maybe make a disambig?), Cyborg (same, or describe what each specific cybernetic organism is like?), Volcano (hazard in-games), Doctor Wells (I thought I'd convinced it to be taken off the list?), Ensign (I have additional information on it), Bayonet (perhaps merge with Wrist Bayonet?), Machine Gun (not very sure, but a weapon in the game [I think]), Chairman (not sure...) and Brinstar (Adventure Mode) (we already took down the Adventure Mode page). As an additional note, the Bee Family category will have to be removed with the bee pages. --RoyboyX (Complaints Box • Resume) 02:05, December 6, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It is, I just need to take the time to write it up. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 02:41, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Fansites and Cosplayers

We need a standard. We either say "delete all fansites" or "keep all notable fansites". Thus, I propose a vote here on this specific issue. Personally, I'm leaning towards the former, since I don't see why fansites are needed for a gameplay oriented site like this. Mr. Anon 21:49, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

We also need to think of what to do with cosplayer articles. Do we keep them, or do we delete them? --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 02:39, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
  • Questions:
    1. Should articles about fansites and cosplayers be deleted, or should they be kept? Also, which fansites qualify as notable?
      • Possible Positions: Delete, Keep, and Neutral. If keep, please specify which articles.
      • Default if no consensus: The fansite/cosplayers articles will remain as is.

Fansites vote/discussion

This really needs to be a seperate RfC. At the moment they contain unique information not easily found in outsde sources, so they would be grouped with the vast majority of "good" articles under the current notability doctrine. Anything else would need to be a seperate rule. "My name is AdmiralSakai, and I approve this message." 00:54, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

It is, but I don't think he knows the formatting. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 01:12, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
Um Anon, by that logic you'd have to delete the Smash Back Room and other such pages on SmashWiki. I'd say stick to MG's original idea of individual debates. --RoyboyX (Complaints Box • Resume) 01:36, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
SmashWiki standards =/= Wikitroid standards. Smash is a fighting game, so competitive matters are important, but the same cannot be said about Metroid. Mr. Anon 18:06, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
There is actually a competitive aspect to Metroid, but not in the normal sense. Metroid is one of the most popular series for speedrunning. Sequence breaks (heck, the term itself has it's roots in the Metroid community), and the like make up some of the appeal The source of most sequence breaks is Metroid2002 (runs are found on Speed Demos Archive, but most Metroid sequence breaking discussion goes on M2K2).
Also, Metroid Database conducts interviews with developers of the Metroid series and is another major site, so they deserve an article too. I'm not sure about any others... Besides, why not reach out to other sites. If we plug them, they could plug us back. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 21:15, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. --RoyboyX (Complaints Box • Resume) 21:23, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

  • So, I'd just like to bump this up and bring it back to your attention, ppl. My opinion on the matter is that yes, we should keep our article on MDb and maybe even M2K2, but Metroid Metal I am not so sure. The RfC should also concern our four cosplayer articles. My stance on them is that all of the ones who have articles here have only made one or more appearances in Nintendo Power in the Community section, which from time to time will contain fan creations for another game series, like, say, they might cosplay as Fox or Jade or Alex Roivas. As for Jenni Kallberg, she actually appeared in an ad for MPT, so she is like the only valid cosplayer page. Make sense? Also, we need to figure out what the questions will be and we can now start voting/debating/flaming/warring/the usual business. --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 14:33, January 7, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm going to make a shrewd business-like decision, and say to delete Metroid Metal, but to add metroid recon because they have a link to us. With the exception of m2k2 and mdb which are guaranteed articles, I'd say only create articles for those who link to us, or we have arranged to link to us. Cosplayers are a completely different RfC. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 00:25, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see why cosplayers are different, can't we have them both debated on here? And this isn't Nintendo vs. Sega. We're a wiki, so we're different from other Metroid fansites. We aren't even technically a fansite; we're a wiki, which is a non-social encyclopedia in some cases (like a theoretical Great Lakes Wiki). --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 00:50, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, just keep Metroid Metal. My comment may have come off weird. Also, "A wiki (i/ˈwɪki/ wik-ee) is a website whose users can add, modify, or delete its content via a web browser using a simplified markup language or a rich-text editor." Well, we're a website. And it is not official, but fan-made, so we are a fansite. We don't have to seal ourselves off from the internet. If we were to decide cosplayers in this RfC, we should change the title and the description. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 01:30, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
  • Same reasons as cosplayers. They're a part of the Metroid "experience" and there really aren't any good outside sources that cover that angle. We don't just cover in-uni subjects, after all. In fact, I think easing up on restrictions for things like fan creations would probably do us some good. "My name is AdmiralSakai, and I approve this message." 20:45, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep See my messages above. Just keep all. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 19:20, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep all articles but Metroid Metal MDb and M2K2 are more notable than Metroid Metal. MDb is known to numerous game developers and such as they have been interviewed, and Metroid 2002 has impacted the gaming community with all their sequence breaks. Shinesparkers would also fit into the same context as MDb; Darren Kerwin has even asked me numerous times to write an article on it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Metroid Metal is merely a fan project with no official developer acknowledgement. It is merely a brainchild of the massive OCRemix, the individual composers of which I don't think have articles on other respective wikis. You know, like the composer of that brilliant Animal Crossing theme remix (listen for yourself), who does not have an article on Animal Crossing Wikia or NIWA's Nookipedia. --ROY-BOYX 19:46, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
And just a note, but AS' vote does not officially say "Keep", so for the purposes of this discussion I'm disregarding it. --ROY-BOYX 19:47, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't say that we can't create new articles. I think, actually shinesparkers probably does deserve an article. I don't know if we should really make a distinction between those that do and those that don't. If we have the right. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 20:59, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we should maybe just rely on individual debates. --ROY-BOYX 21:05, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

KEEP- i dont like metal but it isnt for me its for everyone. 23:12, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Cosplayers vote/discussion

  • Neutral: At the moment, I am neutral towards it. Part of me says that if we should keep fansites, we should keep cosplayers. But another part of me isn't sure. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 02:25, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete (3)/Keep (1) - As I've said above, only Jenni Kallberg would theoretically qualify as a good article, because she was in a German ad for Trilogy. Yuki, Zadra and Junge have only made appearances in the Community section of Nintendo Power, which often contains other fan content from other series. One might dress as Takamaru, another might make a papercraft of Gruntilda, and another might show off his Ezio made of NES cartridges. Therefore it's never really Troid exclusive. --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 02:39, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


  • Keep Um why would you treat metroids speedrunning community better then our cosplaying community? Theres a lot of us dedicated to making high-quality samus suits and i think its a shame that you wouldn't even give credit even to the people that got published. I think it shows that NINTENDO POWER cares about metroid a lot if they keep featuring it in that section. Cosplayerchick 19:22, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Same reasons as fansties. They're a part of the Metroid "experience" and there really aren't any good outside sources that cover that angle. We don't just cover in-uni subjects, after all. In fact, I think easing up on restrictions for things like fan creations would probably do us some good. "My name is AdmiralSakai, and I approve this message." 20:45, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment In response to Cosplayerchick: How do we know this isn't an attempt to keep the article you created, as well as the images, from being deleted? Plus, we wouldn't be treating cosplayers any differently from speedrunning. Unlike cosplays, which can be done for Cybersix or Zelda or Hatsune Miku, speedrunning has had a major impact on Metroid and video games, especially considering that our community is where the term sequence breaking originated, and because Metroid is most famous for it. Basically, cosplaying doesn't count. In response to AS, "easing up on restrictions for things like fan creations" sounds to me like you'd want to turn our articles into something like this. It's no longer the case, but Zeldapedia has way better structure. As for fansites... what I've said before. --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 20:56, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment "How do we know this isn't an attempt to keep the article you created, as well as the images, from being deleted?" Roy, that don't make that kind of accusation, please. Assume good faith. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 21:06, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Did you do that when I used to defend Epidermis and the like? --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 21:21, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: In fact, no accusations of such were made. Check the archives. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 21:29, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Anywho, I did say I'd like to keep one cosplayer page, Jenni Kallberg. She actually appeared in an ad for MPT. --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 21:49, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep At least Jenni Kalberg, still not sure on the rest. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 19:20, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Updating to new Wikia navigation

I propose upgrading Wikitroid to the new Wikia navigation, which would change the top dropdown menus to a new and more pronounced layout. The option is located in Special:WikiaLabs. Shotrocket6 00:04, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Oppose Okay, now that we sort of know the main idea with where this is going, I'll have to say, in a nutshell, no. I want you all to take a look at some of the features in Wikia Labs. They might make for a more engaging experience, but most of these are unprofessional and easily abused. The first of this are Polls. Polls that can be placed on mainspace articles. Do you think that would be good? The next is a top ten list. All you users who say you want to be professional will never agree to this. In fact, I was once speaking to the head admins of the Inception Wiki, and I was informed by Matias Arana that the Helper Kacieh enabled top ten lists on the wiki and would not remove them when asked, which ties into the controversy surrounding Wikia's staff, the skin, and the company as a whole. [1] You'll find that they were only really opposing the article comments, but look around and you'll find top ten lists that they had no say over. Next is Achievements. They are easily abused in what has been dubbed "achievement whoring", you can ask my colleague HavocReaper48 about his experiences with the system on Donkey Kong Wikia. Then there's the aforementioned article comments, which are also often spammed and are a poor replacement for talk pages. Finally, the ones you can rate and see the presence of on wikis across Wikia are the new chat function, which is another poor replacement for IRC, and the focus of this whole RfC, which is the expanded Wikia navigation. Don't see this message as from an anti-Wikian's point of view, but see this as my own point of view. One of the users here has suspected that I'm only changing my stance on things for fear of being blocked again. --RoyboyX (Complaints Box • Resume) 00:37, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
    But you didn't explain your opposition to the navigation upgrade. Shotrocket6 02:10, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
  • Because we don't really need it. It's late, so I can't exactly come up with a super well rounded out response, but right now all I have is that it's a feature of Wikia Labs, which I oppose in general for reasons I stated above. It could possibly affect users of Monobook or those who code their own skin. --RoyboyX (Complaints Box • Resume) 02:26, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
I know a lot of users from other wikis that use monobook, and I'm fairly sure it doesn't effect it. I think it does make it easier to navigate the site as it's a user-friendly scheme that can be completely changed and it just looks nice. It's much easier to use as everything is categorized (you can have 2 sub-categories, as opposed to one with the current setup). Shotrocket6 07:39, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
If you'd like an example, you can look at Call of Duty Wiki or Crysis Wiki. Shotrocket6 20:56, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't have any problem with the dropdown menus. Actually, I've run into more annoyance with this proposed "upgraded" layout then the dropdowns. Plus, it's from WikiaLabs. Nothing ever goes right from them...Vommack 23:19, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment What trouble, exactly, have you run into? Each tab and sub-tab can be customized and linked to whatever need be, just like the current setup, and it looks much nicer. Also, there are a number of things from WikiaLabs that work great, albeit with some inevitable glitches. Shotrocket6 10:38, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • You happen to be using Wikia right now, actually. Shotrocket6 07:59, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see why everyone is automatically so biased against Wikia's upgrades, especially one like Expanded Navigation that is virtually flawless. Shotrocket6 07:59, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Now for a fair look into this. The expanded navigation itself seems pretty nice. The contribute button is completely worthless. You can't change the community section of it either which is rather annoying. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 13:18, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
    • Do not cross out other people's posts. Don't alter them at all for that matter. You, as a bureaucrat, should know better than that. You are a bureaucrat for pete's sakes. Bureaucrat's are in charge in closing these RfCs, no? If you think my reason is shit, ignore it when you're in the process of deciding whether this passes or fails. That's the type of stuff you should do as a bureau, on RfCs, and on RfAs if that proposal passes. Now, if you want an actual reason from me, I think RoyboyX summed it up pretty well. When does Wikia come up with something that helps? DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 15:52, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment When it has customization levels greater than that of Monaco? Though really, the contribute button and the community section is really a big turn-off. If only it didn't have to come with those. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 16:08, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment And if you have no reason of your own, please simply say "per whoever". The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 16:15, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
        • At least Monaco wasn't as huge of a drain on my computer. When ever I access Wikia and am not logged in, my computer starts lagging, and I have a new computer too. But that's beside the point. What's even the point of this navigation system. Most users just use the search box. And don't fucking tell me what to say. I can say whatever the hell I want. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 16:35, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
          • You are being sarcastic when the RfC creator legitimately thought this would help. If I was sarcastic below (which I probably was regarding the lack of admins), I apologize. I don't seem to be running into any issues when on sites that actually use the expanded navigation. What browser are you using? Anyways, one, Metroid has a lot of things you probably can't remember the names for. Two, it could be helpful for categories and the like. Three, we are out of space in the current navigation system. The main disadvantages are potential glitchiness (which IDK, I've never actually encountered any issues), the contribute button, and the uneditable community section. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 17:13, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks

This RfC was closed at 16:16, January 22, 2012 (UTC) by The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} with the final resolution of accepting the new Wikitroid:No Personal Attacks page as official policy. Please do not modify it. Officially proposing this. Stuff like an NPA is pretty basic and it honestly lowers my opinion of this wiki knowing that it doesn't have something as essential as this. Mr. Anon 01:55, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

  • Question: Should Wikitroid's own policy on disallowance of personal attacks be created?
  • Possible Postitions: Agree (if you would like to implement Wikitroid's own NPA guideline), Neutral (if you are not sure), or Disagree (if you disagree that Wikitroid should have its own NPA policy and instead continue to use the Wikipedia one).
  • Default (no consensus): Wikitroid will continue to enforce the Wikipedia NPA policy.

Discussion

  • Agree Just corrected the formatting, but I agree with this. It's time we pull the plug on using Wikipedia's policies. --RoyboyX (Complaints Box • Resume) 02:07, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd agree, but not quite as is. It doesn't seem to say what should happen if an administrator does it, since apparently that is a major problem on this wiki. >_< The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 16:52, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be generally clear that administrators attempting to go around the rules constitutes as an abuse of power and is to be dealt with by Wikia staff. Mr. Anon 17:07, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, this has gone unopposed for a while now. Time for things to stop taking so long here. Motion for immediate passage. Mr. Anon 18:32, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment You never responded to my comment. Because clearly, personal attacks among admins is an issue here. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 19:19, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
    • I know, it's definitely an issue but since you are the only admin around here, there won't be much of a problem, but I'm pretty sure general wikia policy already covers that admins are subject to their wiki rules. If you are still concerned, I'll propose a separate policy that discusses administrator rights. Mr. Anon 20:05, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
  • At the risk of a major war here, I would like the NPA policy to be immediately passed, but MG, those admins who violated WP's NPA are now gone, and the only other one (me) is trying his hardest to not do it anymore. I will do a rewrite of the policy to put it on our own words, and ease your mind about it, MG. --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 20:44, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm going to make one last point. If it wasn't clear to prior admins, then why would it be any more clear to future admins. History tends to repeat itself, so I would like it made clear on every policy we have that admins are not above these rules. And I was about to say that if we aren't going to specialize it to meet Wikitroid's needs (I'm not going to say the horrible joke I thought of here) we might as well be using the WP one, but Roy suggested a rewrite anyways. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 22:11, January 17, 2012 (UTC)
    • As you requested, I added a provision to the proposal that makes it clear that admins are to follow this rule as well. Mr. Anon 01:33, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sorry, I meant I want it clear what the consequences for admins who disobey are. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 03:09, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Anyway... what now? I do think this qualifies for immediate passage, how do we not already have one of these I do not know. However, knowing you, you'll probably say "IDK" or decide to leave it open for a while. --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 03:17, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment There you go. Can we pass this immediately please? It's like high school students being mass vaccinated when there's a meningitis outbreak. You can't ask for permission because we desparately need to greatly reduce the amount of casualties from the outbreak. Similarly, we must greatly reduce the amount of personal attacks which are nowadays nonexistant by enforcing this policy fast. Otherwise, if you're not going to enforce it immediately, can you at least put it up on the sitenotice? And by that, I mean MediaWiki:Sitenotice, because no one will go to the Wikitroid: mainspace subpage. --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 21:51, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
Just added some finishing touches. It is ready to be passed. Mr. Anon 22:14, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

RFA system

As noted by myself several times on this Wiki, the current "80%" rule that's being enforced for RFAs needs to be changed. A summary of my arguments for this can be seen here (http://mibpaste.com/eoQVIX). Mr. Anon 02:53, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Question:" how should Wikitroid decide RFAs

Possible positions: Choose any of the proposals given.

The following are the proposals:

  1. Keep current system
  2. 60% support needed ("compromise")
  3. 50% support needed, in case of tie, Bureaucrat will decide based on arguments from each side.
  4. No specific number needed, Bureaucrat decides based only on arguments provided

Default: Wikitroid will instate the first proposal in its rules

Discussion

  • Keep current system - Don't fix what ain't broken. There are very few close RfA's. The problem with Roy's is mainly that he keeps getting opposed by socks/people evading blocks. This is obviously a problem with sockpuppet detection. The only other one was Constant Cabbage, who would have had less than the necessary amount of votes if my vote came in in time anyways. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 21:13, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Your only reason is "this doesn't happen often" and you ignore the inherent flaws in an vote system. 1. A candidate that's just popular with the masses but doesn't appear good at disputes can get adminship even when they don't deserve it. 2. A candidate who has demonstrated good ability to be an admin but has made a fair bit of enemies (possibly because he or she tries to be as objective as possible when voicing his or her opinions) will not get it. Even your excuses for the existing close RfAs only makes more clear the flaws. Roy's RFA demonstrated the fact that all it takes to prevent a possibly good administrator from getting powers is a sockpuppet who is good at evading blocks. Regardless about how tough you go, there will always be people like this who manage to sneak in a vote in an RFA. As for Constant Cabbage, your reason only shows that if a single user forgets to vote, even if they are not contributing much to what is being argued, the RFA can fail. You have not given a reason why a system where the supports/opposes are only valuable in the quality of arguments they give does not work. The only possible problem I see is bureaucrat abuse, but even then if a bureau makes a bad decision they can be questioned on the RFA's talk page, and if it is clear that they are abusive they can be taken care of. Mr. Anon 02:09, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment For the record, I was going to vote against Constant Cabbage. Also, the quality of an arguement is very subjective. It honestly depends on the person who looks at its' views on things. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 02:30, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment My point still stands with the Constant Cabbage, as in my system the arguments alone would have decided the RFA. Arguments may be subjective, but the Bureaucrat is chosen to be able to objectively evaluate arguments. It is often clear which side has the better argument. Under your system, 4 users can all have different, really good reasons for supporting a candidate, when all it takes is 1 user who votes on some irelevent reason like "you don't seem to edit mainspace a lot". You have not responded to this theoretical scenario, which came up in Royboy's RFA. Alternatively, I could get a bunch of guys from SmashWiki to all vote for me as admin, and out of sheer swarming of supports, I'd win, regardless of whether I was qualified for adminship or not. Mr. Anon 02:36, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The current system puts no emphasis in quality of support/oppose reasons. For example, on one user's RFA, one vote just said "Support - A good friend, a good editor. Definately!", while another only said "He seems to have mastered the basics of wikis. Hopefully, he is aware of the nightmare that is RC patrolling." Both of these are completely irrelevant reasons, since the main quality looked for in an admin is ability to solve disputes, not knowledge of the wiki or ability to make friends. Furthermore, other votes in the same RFA only said "Has good knowledge and personality. His style fits for an admin.", "What [user who made the RC patrolling comment] said. :P", "Above comments, plus thanks for helping out with MP2:E. That's one of those games that nobody on this wiki really bothered to thoroughly cover.", "Make that three! Hah, but no seriously, it's not so bad. You should make a great sysop...", "Absolutely, He fits the bill, in my eyes.", and "Hard choice. You haven't been here that long, but you sure work hard. You'd, erm, I mean, you'll be a good admin. *coughcough*". In addition, one user didn't even give a reason for his vote. Note:I am not commenting on whether the candidate in this example should have been promoted, merely that relying only on popular opinion isn't a very good way to decide RFAs. Mr. Anon 02:40, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • No specific number needed, Bureaucrat decides based only on arguments provided: Exact percentage=fail. I could have a ton of people from other wikis support my RfA, or oppose the RfA of someone I dislike, and the current rule could do nothing to prevent such a thing. Sure, a bureaucrat could call foul on such matters, but if a bureaucrat is going to call foul on such maters, having an exact percentage required to pass an RfA is useless in the first place. Don't fix what ain't broken? Well, it's unquestionably broken... Just because you were going to vote against CC or w/e doesn't mean the system is good. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 04:43, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • No specific number needed, Bureaucrat decides based only on arguments provided: If a user garners a large number of support votes that carry no weight and a small number of oppose votes that have proof the user has a definite character trait that would prevent them from being a good administrator, it should be up to the bureaucrat to decide which argument is more valid. Taking into consideration the number of votes and their reasoning is crucial. Shotrocket6 10:46, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • No specific number needed, Bureaucrat decides based only on arguments provided: I don't believe I need to say much more than what has been said by Anon, DP and Shotrocket. --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 14:54, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment My main reason for supporting a percentage based system is that I don't trust that level of power with bureaucrats. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 20:47, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: If you don't trust that level of power to a bureaucrat, you are either extremely paranoid or the bureaucrats are very untrustworthy. Bureaucrats are supposed to be respected, trusted members of the community who can handle such decisions. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 00:20, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment Power corrupts. I'd prefer for the members of the community to have a direct voice in who recieves admin. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 01:14, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
        • (Writing Comment all of the time is mental) How would the community not have a direct voice in who receives rights? They can still comment just the same. The only difference is that a straight 80% is not required to pass an RfA. Instead, b'crats will weigh what the community thinks of the candidate, whether or not they're qualified for the job, etc., and make a final decision. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 01:18, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
          • In addition, if a bureaucrat does not appear to make a decision based on a good reason, they can be questioned about it. After questioning, if they appear to be clearly corrupt, they can be reported to Wikia. Mr. Anon 01:20, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
  • (UNDENT) You are honestly underestimating the weight admins and the like carry on the community. People often have a mentality of not questioning authority (see the Milgram experiment). While you would do so, future users might not. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 01:31, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
    • You indirectly bring up a good point. Other admins and ever other b'crats are users who will be voting on RfAs, and will probably carry the most weight. They can easily cry foul if they see something closed unfavourably. SmashWiki has always had this policy, and we've never had to revoke an admin or b'crat of rights. You've had the 80% rule, and have had to revoke rights twice. Which is the better policy by the numbers? DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 01:37, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
      • Um... it sorta helps to have those other b'crats and admins. And also, those two admins both received 100% support, so the results would be the same under either system. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 01:46, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
  • (UNDENT) Tbh, DP is right. --ROY~~BOYX 16:25, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment A point I don't think I brought up is that administrators tend to represent the users of a wiki. You can argue whether or not this should or shouldn't be the case all you want, but this tends to be true. Who do you want to talk to when dealing with inter-wiki relations? The admins. Who are you typically directed to when you need help? The admins. The community should have a direct say in who represents them. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 19:16, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment True, admins are representive of a wiki. Remember the earlier point about crying foul? Just pick and choose who is best at solving or at least keeping disputes on track to deal with off-wiki problems that tie into Wikitroid. However, I don't see how this is relevant to whether or not we should have an 80%. --ROY-BOYX 19:20, January 29, 2012 (UTC)

Reverting

I've noticed that adminisrators have been enforcing a nonexistent "3 revert rule". I disagree with this, and instead propose a "1 revert rule, similar to SmashWiki's policy on the matter. Mr. Anon 03:15, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Question: Should Wikitroid adopt a "Three revert rule" or a "One revert rule"?

Possible positions: Three Revert Rule, in which after three reverts, a user may be banned for edit warring, or One Revert Rule, which prohibits any reverts of reverts, and mandates talk page discussion rather than edit warring.

Default: Wikitroid will adopt a 3 Revert rule based on Wikipedia's policy.

Discussion

3RR zzzzz. What if there are more than 3 bad edits? 1RV, while not perfect, is a better policy to implement to prevent edit warring. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 04:47, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm just going to make this clear to people who may be confused. 1 revert rule does not mean that you will be banned if you revert a revert just once by accident. Users will be warned several times before they get blocked for violating this rule. Mr. Anon 04:57, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment That wasn't the imperfection I was referring to (and that may not be what you're referring to), but that is a good point to add. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 05:01, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment I was not replying to you. Rather, I was clearing up a possible misconception that might arise, since the userbase of this wiki is familiar with the 3 revert rule, where users can be blocked after only one violation. Mr. Anon 01:24, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Question: Shouldn't it be up to an administrator what counts as edit warring and what doesn't? I can imagine a scenario where two users disagree on something, yet after several edits find something they can both agree on; however, if a strict rule regarding a number of reverts were in place, they would have to be punished for an already resolved situation. Shotrocket6 10:50, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

  • Shotrocket, if there is a dispute regarding an article, it should immediately be brought to the talk page. Edit warring refers to any time two users revert each other several times without bringing it to a talk page. Mr. Anon 01:24, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
  • I do know what an edit war is, but thank you. I was referring to the fact that if an edit war does take place and it is not discussed by the users involved on the articles talk page, but rather via edit summaries or on their talk pages, it may not be appropriate to block them when the situation has already been resolved. Shotrocket6 07:56, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've edited Wikis for a long time now and have seen many times where user(s) will not compromise and will keep making their edit despite being reverted. It happened today on SmashWiki. 1RV is a good rule of thumb that we could link to as a warning when users edit war. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 17:39, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Neutral. I honestly don't see enough edit wars on wikitroid in the first place to really see if it would affect it or not. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 20:55, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

You are Valuable

This RfC was closed at 17:39, January 29, 2012 (UTC) by The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} with the final resolution of allowing the policy to be implemented. Please do not modify it. Proposing Wikitroid:You Are Valuable, in response to concerns MarioGalaxy has had with possible admin abuse, and to address his concerns in my RFA reform proposal. Mr. Anon 01:40, January 27, 2012 (UTC)

Question: Is the possibility of admin abuse a large enough concern to have a policy made to address user equality?

Default: Wikitroid will not have any policy on this matter.

Positions: Agree, Disagree.

Discussion

  • Agree Is there any doubt on this policy? After PH and all that... I don't think so. The MarioGalaxy2433g5 {talk/contribs} 16:27, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree But I'm not very sure that it needs to be RfC'd in. --royboyX (Complaints Board • Resume) 16:51, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
  • Request to be immediately closed as passed: For the reasons given above. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} (talk • e-mail • contribs • count • logs) 23:39, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree I'm surprised this doesn't already exist. Shotrocket6 07:56, January 29, 2012 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement