Forum:Wiki format and policies

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091227230730/adventuretimewithfinnandjake/images/archive/b/bc/20100401212842!Wiki.png

This topic contains discussion of possible changes to the wiki's overall format and policies (stuff like standards for articles, the wiki's theme, changes to templates, new rules, etc.). Think of it as a centralized talk page for things that affect multiple pages or the whole wiki.

Top navigation bar
Soon, I'm going to try turning on the new-style top navigation bar on the wiki. Please let me know if you like the new or old one better. Also, let me know how it could be improved, and if there's other stuff you'd like to see on it. --Cornprone 05:59, January 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh did you already do this? [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]]  ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 14:58, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Chat
OK, there's been some requests, so I've turned on he integrated Wikia chat. Let me know if there are any problems. --Cornprone 06:10, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

There is a problem. In a way, I guess. People are making accounts just to chat. A reason why this a problem is becuase people are being very rude and constantly curse, and talk about innaproppriate things. Someone even tried pretending to be an admin, and everyone would beg to let him make them be promoted to an admin, even though they do absolutely nothing on the Wiki but... chat. Everyone constantly spams, and it's barely even chatting. Should I block them from chatting if this goes on any longer? A few people have been banned already. Sky Monster 23:02, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we should come up with some specific rules, so moderators know when to warn/ban people. But the larger question is, does chat actually add anything positive to the wiki? Do you guys actually want to keep it? It can be turned off. --Cornprone 23:33, February 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * I want the chat to stay on, so yes, there should be rules. Sky Monster 23:34, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, here's some initial ideas about rules. Once we've set them, we should put them on a page that you can point people to if they need to see them.


 * No personal insults (insults directed against other users on the wiki), threats of violence, or bullying
 * Don't use multiple accounts to get around bans.
 * No spamming. We can't make "saying dumb things" against the rules, but I'd say intentionally flooding the chat with nonsense or spam is a clear violation.
 * I wouldn't ban someone just for swearing a couple of times. But excessive swearing or other adult content should not be allowed.


 * For most of these, moderators should issue a warning first. If the user fails to heed the warning, then they can be blocked.
 * What do you think about those rules? Anything to add? --Cornprone 23:53, February 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think these rules are consistent with the problems we have been facing with many users on the chat. Marshall Lee 00:00, February 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the rules are good. I always warn them to stop what they are doing, first. If I think of any rules, I'll tell about it here. Sky Monster 00:11, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought of a rule. Lately, people have been role playing. I'm okay with this, I guess, as long as things don't get crazy with it. A few people took it too far, so I think there should be a rule for it. Sky Monster 00:13, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and what do you think about all these people making accounts just to chat? Sky Monster 00:48, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding role playing, I guess it's OK, as long as people are not breaking the rules (i.e. no personal attacks, adult subject matter, etc.) Making an account just to chat is also fine. However, making multiple accounts to pretend to be multiple people or to get around bans is not OK. Those accounts should be blocked. --Cornprone 02:31, March 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I would just like to say that these rules are good and they apply to what some users have been doing, but I think we should make sure that everyone knows and understands these rules. Since many new users do not know them and I don't think we really made them official. Marshall Lee 20:31, March 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I am sure once the rules get finalized and whatnot we will have a link to them on the main page with the regular rules. felinoel  ~  (Talk)  20:18, March 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't believe I forgot to sign my name :P Marshall Lee 20:31, March 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * I have someone claiming that they were banned from chat for no reason, to prevent further of this, maybe we should request screenshots for when someone gets banned to be posted on their user page? shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif 20:01, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that would have to be on the part of the Ban-er rather than the Ban-ee, though I assume this is what you meant? Also, Other wiki's have rules that people need x number of edits before they are allowed onto the chat. I think we should do that to, but they have to be mainspace edits that aren't reverted for any reason. I was thinking 10 to start off for now, but that may be too small. What do you all think? -- [[File:Mew.gif]] Legendary  Dark   Knight [[File:Latias.gif]] 00:09, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with having that kind of exclusionary rule is that it's hard to enforce. Wouldn't the chat moderators have to spend all their time checking the contribution histories of users who come into chat, counting up un-reverted main namespace edits, constantly ordering people to "Get out!" and then issuing bans to those who don't? Do you really want to be doing that all the time? I wouldn't want chat to be like that. --Cornprone 01:45, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what Special:Editcount is for. It separates the edit numbers into categories. As for the other thing, that might be problematic, but we have way too much arguement in that chat. I'm sure that the people that actually decide it's worth the time to make edits to the wiki will be the ones that aren't as hot-tempered, although there are exceptions. Other wiki's have that sort of stipulation to being able to use the chat, but I wouldn't be able to tell you how effective it actually is. -- [[File:Mew.gif]] Legendary  Dark   Knight [[File:Latias.gif]] 01:54, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Bumping... -- [[File:Mew.gif]] Legendary  Dark   Knight [[File:Latias.gif]]  05:12, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, after reading this I see that what you are looking for is the code of conduct I proposed down a bit on this page. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 12:46, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

Quote at top of character pages
I've noticed people have added a quote at the top of some character pages. First off, is this cool? Do you guys like having them there? And if so, should we transition them to use Template:Quote? --Cornprone 01:05, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on them, but I have seen the same things on other Wikis I checked out, so I guess that it is something people like on the pages. I'm not sure why it would need to be there, though. Sky Monster 01:20, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Now I do have an opinion. I removed a quotes from a few pages. One of them from the fionna page, was, like, a minute from the episode. Most of the quotes don't even come from the character, and they push down info that is actually important. I say that they should be removed. Sky Monster 23:01, February 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, yeah, that quote on the Fionna page was long and awkward. Anyway, let's wait a bit and see if anyone really wants to keep these. If we don't hear from anybody, we'll go ahead and say quotes at the top of character pages shouldn't be there. --Cornprone 23:11, February 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * No objections yet... I'll just wait a little longer to see if anyone has something to say before removing them. Sky Monster 00:13, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm probably going to start removing quotes soon. I have seen quotes on 2 pages that take up a minute from the episode, and no one seems to really care about the being deleted, for some reason... Sky Monster 00:37, March 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe I requested this a while back, yay for forced integration! lol felinoel  ~  (Talk)  12:51, March 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I misread this, I am for keeping them, they are fun and can be informative. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 03:49, April 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with felinoel, I think they're an interesting way to introduce an article. I'd suggest criteria such as:


 * The character shouldn't have enough quotes for a quote page already.
 * The quote must be relevant to the character in every episode the character is present.
 * The quote must not excess two lines on the page.


 * Those are the main factors that i'd like to see in them. Admittedly I came up with them after only a few minutes of thinking, but I think that any quotes that follow these guidlines (with amendment if necessary) could make some articles more interesting. Flame Prince Finn 00:41, April 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think quotes at the top of pages defining characters should be exclusive, I think all characters should have them. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 01:50, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be nice to have them on every character, but with Finn or Jake how is it going to be decided which quote of all of them is best? Flame Prince Finn 02:54, April 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * This is what the quote pages and actual character article is for. We don't need those quotes. Sky  Monster 02:56, April 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * Finn is easy, "I'll slay anything that's evil, that's my deal!" but Jake idk... oh and a good one for Merceline is, "She's a radical dame who likes to play games!" but maybe not. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 04:59, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Admittedly that's a good one for Finn, but you see my point that characters with a lot of quotes could be difficult to agree on? At any rate, if we're talking specifically about necessity I agree they aren't needed, but a meaningful snippet can only serve as an interesting introduction as far as I'm concerned. I think it's nice to not have to go to a quote page to find the (hopefully agreeable) single most valuable thing a character has said about themself. Flame Prince Finn 20:39, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Quotes at the top of the page are for describing the character, not just for being a random quote. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 21:09, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Quotes pages
See Talk:Cosmic_Owl/Quotes for the start of this discussion. How many quotes are needed before it gets split into its own page?--Cornprone 00:28, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

I think more than 5 should be enough to have their own page. Less than 5 would be useless and redundant. Sky Monster 00:39, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more than 2 or maybe more than 3? We'll see if anybody else has opinions about the number. --Cornprone 06:53, March 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe this was discussed before and that the general consensus before was 3, but I can see having four quotes on a character's page being something that wouldn't break it too much, and then when they have five quotes they get their own page... felinoel  ~  (Talk)  12:52, March 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I have a better idea. Why don't we make quote pages for characters that where the main characters of an episode? That would make more sense, since the quote pages for minor characters are too short, along with their actual character page. Major characters usually have a lot of quotes, so they would need their own quote page, since their character page would already be too big, right? Also, reccuring characters should also have their own quote page, too. So, to shorten what I said, I mean that characters like the Magic Man and Dr. Ice Cream should have their own quote page, while a character like the Stump shouldn't. Sky Monster 02:19, April 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * I wish, but in order for that to work people would have to stop posting everything someone says instead of just the notable things they say which is what quotes are for... [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 12:47, April 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * We could easily delete them, right? Not a lot of people actually edit quote pages. Sky Monster 22:09, April 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes we could, but... should we? Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter to limiting quotes to just things that are relatively iconic? Then for characters like Rock who has a few quotes just the most iconic quote of his would be used and perhaps even used at the top of the article so for Rock, "Hey I'm alive!" would likely go at the top of the article, the quotes section would be removed, and the quote article for the character would be deleted. Thoughts? [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 02:07, April 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * About the quotes at the top of character pages... we decided to get rid of them (sort of). Maybe we make rename the quotes section "iconic quotes" or even make a "quotes heading" template for each quotes page, like the one for the gallery pages, where it explains that only iconic quotes should be written? Sky Monster 02:32, April 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh oops I misread it then... [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 03:49, April 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * Here, I made a header for quote pages (change as you like) if you do want us to start cleaning up and policing quote pages. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 13:37, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, cool. I might want to change its appearance somewhat so it looks less like our maintenance tags. --Cornprone 13:48, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it, though on a few wikias they have these as headers for every talk page. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 13:51, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed its style to look more like the gallery page header and added a line. Feel free to keep adjusting it if you can make it look better. --Cornprone 14:07, April 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Just got an email about the change lol, I like it, so should we start policing quote pages then? Once a page gets down to three or less votes delete the page and move the quotes to the main article, right? [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 14:12, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah that plan sounds good to me. I might not be eager to jump into more policing personally at the moment, but go ahead. --Cornprone 14:20, April 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Quote pages are one of the very few pages I don't get emails about edits, once I set that up for those too I should be able to handle policing after the initial cleaning. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 14:56, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I need a permission to make an article about Clarence's quotes. He has, in my thinking, the best quote ever: My life is like a fart.Afliador8 00:59, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh... was that supposed to be a funny line? I never understood it...
 * How many quotes does he have? The general consensus has been if there are more than three notable quotes then its gets an article, though I just now added the word notable to the general consensus. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 01:51, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Potential Code of Conduct Content
Curse words and ignoring admins are abundant here, I just saw a blog response where someone called someone else a fat rat's scat, while humorous really shouldn't be done here. What are thoughts for potential content for a future Code of Conduct here?


 * No foul language directed at someone (a definition of foul would be needed)
 * No excessive use of foul language (already a rule, can be implemented in the CoC)
 * If an admin tells you to stop doing something, stop doing it
 * Talk pages are to be used for only about improving the article itself
 * (add more here) (See below for updated CoC list)

 feli noel  17:50, March 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't necessarily consider swearing a serious violation unless it's pretty extreme. That's a judgment call. Maybe we should crack down on that more. However, if name-calling is directed at another user, I consider that to be worse and will issue warnings against it. --Cornprone 13:39, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Will alter it then, this is why I put a definition of foul is needed. Limiting it to name-calling makes sense since Natasha swore and is being directly quoting while swearing on the Rainicorns page. How does the change I made above sound? shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif 13:44, March 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, "excessive" use of foul language (even if not part of name-calling) is actually already a violation of our current written rules. I just haven't enforced that, yet, but it could be part of the code of conduct. Also, I want "trolling" added to the list of conduct violations, with "trolling" defined as "anything done for the purpose of provoking angry or negative reactions from others." I've let those kinds of things go on for too long because I didn't want to police what goes on in user blogs and chat. But now I realize that if we allow user blogs to be part of the wiki, then we ought to be responsible for preventing the level of discussion from being dragged down into the mud. This wiki is for people who want to gather and share information about the show -- not some random message board. --Cornprone 14:22, March 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I dread coming here to see blogs by users because there is so much negativity.
 * Opinions, debates, and some arguments I can understand. But the blogs are just full of 'trolling', even the images uploaded by some are just used to troll and cause anger. -- Bunai82 (talk) 14:43, March 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * Not only that but some of those pictures are uploaded here and then only used once, while they mostly are just uploaded here to incite anger. shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif 11:51, March 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, you're talking about image macros, those pictures some people use instead of writing a message. I dislike them, but should we officially ban them? Anyway, let me have a try at rewording/expanding what's written in the code of conduct:


 * No personal attacks, threats, or name-calling directed at other people
 * No excessive use of adult language. You will probably not be blocked for swearing a few times, but you may be in violation of the code of conduct if an admin considers your use of language to be excessive.
 * Do not post images with adult language or offensive content. Because images appear in our new files gallery, it's important to keep them clean. Further, offensive images are often used for spamming, trolling, or vandalism, so they will not be tolerated.
 * No spamming, which can be defined as excessive posting of the same message multiple times, or posting numerous messages of gibberish with no legitimate meaning.
 * No trolling, where "trolling" is defined as performing actions for the purpose of provoking angry or negative reactions from other people.
 * Do not impersonate other users.
 * Do not spread false information about other users.
 * Do not support or encourage vandalism, on this on any other wiki.
 * If an admin tells you to stop doing something, stop doing it.

Privacy and safety
 * For your own safety, it's recommended that you not to post personal information about yourself, such as your school or home address. Remember, anything written on any page of this wiki can be read by anyone on the internet. So please consider that before posting.

Let me know what you think. (The thing about talk pages I agree with, but it should be added to our manual of style instead, since it deals with page format.) --Cornprone 23:24, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * On the subject of image macros, idk if we should ban them per se... maybe require them to remove them after short while after if they aren't in use or even I guess we could leave that to the potential FFF team...
 * I altered the wording tiny bit and added an oxford comma in your list, so I like how this sounds now... though should the last one be changed from admin to moderator? We can then define that further and put that mods can only do this in chat or something like that? shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif 23:50, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, chat moderators have authority over chat. Admins have authority on the whole wiki. If that needs to be clarified, we could note it somewhere. --Cornprone 01:45, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in these? [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 11:59, March 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Here, I made a conduct banner to use for those conducting in a manner against the code.
 * Politely trolling people is still allowed, I hope? For without trolls the wiki-expierence would fall back greatly. The glorious First Consul of Rome 18:59, April 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * why!? why does everyone love trolls so freaking much!?
 * " [[File:Staraptor.gif]] Fear  the   Demon [[File:Weavile.gif]] " 19:01, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * "Politely trolling" is an oxymoron, though it would appear that it could be, to a certain extent. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 19:01, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's either trolling or it isn't. And if it is, it would be a violation of this code of conduct, if we implement it. I added another point to the proposed code, saying that encouraging or supporting vandalism on any wiki is not allowed. felinoel, the template looks pretty good, although I'd rewrite some of the awkward grammar in the second sentence. Anyway, I'd like to push this code of conduct forward, so if anybody has further changes, additions or arguments, post them here. --Cornprone 09:01, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * With the above definition of trolling, yes any form of trolling won't be allowed, huzzah. Did you already rewrite it? If you feel it is good enough then it should be made into an article now, we can continue editing it after anyways just in case. Also what should the punishment be for breaking these? I assume minimal until several offenses have been reached, I've mentioned before (elsewhere) that we should have a page for those who get banned (temp or perm) so we can keep track of it, it would also list when someone's ban gets lifted (since the chat mods can't set a timer on a ban). This way we could keep track of how many offenses someone's accrued. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 12:53, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, regarding punishment, violating the code of conduct would be the same as violating any other rules. It would be up the admins to determine the severity of the violation and respond accordingly. I wanted to propose a rewrite of a section of the rules page to explain everything more clearly. I'll do so on this page in the section below. --Cornprone 04:01, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * That lack of consistency though is my issue, where one admin may block a user for three days for breaking a certain rule, another may block that same user for that same rule for two months. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 12:51, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a couple of things that might be important (in the gray box above). First, I want to ban images with offensive language on them. Reasons are stated above. Second, I also added a rule about impersonating or slandering others. Also, I added a "safety and privacy" section which contains not rules, but some advice. Let me know if you agree or disagree with any of the above. --Cornprone 07:13, April 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * My opinion on stolen identities are posted here. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 17:00, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

OK, it's up at Adventure Time Wiki:Code of Conduct. Just because it's up, doesn't mean it can't still be revised, though. I encourage anyone with suggestions to post them here. --Cornprone 03:21, April 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, and I will add it to the header navigation bar thingy. [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 12:35, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Rules page proposed rewrite
Proposed rewrite of a section of Adventure_Time_Wiki:Rules to explain how to deal with rule breakers more clearly. It basically codifies the rules we've already been using.

The following are warnings and responses that admins may use against users who break the rules, policies, or code of conduct. They are listed from least serious to most serious:
 * 1) A polite first warning explaining what the user did wrong and asking them not to do it again.
 * 2) One or more additional warnings. These may be accompanied by up to three vandalism template tags but only for vandals, not for people acting in good faith. Warnings can also include conduct tags for violations of the Code of Conduct.
 * 3) Blocks of a duration of 1 to 7 days for minor violations, if the user has continued to break rules after receiving one or more warnings.
 * 4) Blocks of 1 to 4 weeks for more persistent violations and/or serious violations.
 * 5) Blocks of 1 or more months for numerous, persistent violations and/or very serious violations.
 * 6) Permanent blocking is usually reserved only for the following:
 * Users that engage in persistent, serious vandalism, especially if the account is used only for vandalism
 * Users who have come back from multiple temporary blocks in the past, but still continue to break the rules.
 * Accounts that are confirmed to be sock puppets can be blocked permanently. Also, it is against the rules to create a new account to get around an existing ban. Such accounts should be blocked permanently, but only if it is known with certainty that the account is used by the same person who used a currently-blocked account.

Generally, if a user continues to break rules, they will incur progressively more serious punishments from this list. For minor violations, users might receive many warnings without necessarily being blocked. However, for very serious offenses, administrators can skip directly from a first warning to a long block. Admins can choose the response -- including block duration -- based upon their judgment of the severity of the violation.

Administrators should provide a clear explanation when performing any block. If a block is neither permanent nor for vandalism, the admin should leave a polite message on the user's talk page explaining why they were blocked and asking the user to return if they can follow the rules in the future. This is just a first draft. Thoughts? --Cornprone 04:01, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds pretty good imo. [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 12:47, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit: I like the warning system, but the disparity in "1 to 7 days" and multiple "weeks or months" is pretty big. Maybe short block should be 3 days, longer block should be 3 weeks? The rules in the above Code of Conduct though seem spot on, I'd definitely like to see them added. If the talk page suggestion felinoel had is listed in the manual of style, I also think it should be noted that you should read the manual before posting. Flame Prince Finn 01:07, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * Haven't we always had a warning system? It is just that people stopped using the warning templates so lately I've been using them more lol.
 * As much as it pains me to realize, people don't read the manual of style. So I've just been telling people how they've been messing up instead of giving them warnings for it, if you want a place full of people ignoring the manual of style check out the voting for the featured articles for one, few seem to actually sign their votes for some reason... [[File:shinx.png]] feli noel [[File:Scraft.gif]] 01:56, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * If you guys want more granularity in block lengths, we could add an in-between amount. Originally, I left a lot of leeway for admins to use their judgment. When I'm blocking a vandal, I might choose anywhere from 2 days to infinity, depending on a lot of factors, like the quantity, content, and persistence of the vandalism, and whether it seems like there's any hope that the user could learn their lesson and come back as a legit contributor. --Cornprone 07:22, April 15, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm probaby just being nitpicky here. If all the admins are known to have good judgement then leaving flexibilty in block length is most practical. Like you said, there are a lot of factors. I don't have any complaints with the system above that are valid enough to slow down its implementation. Flame Prince Finn 20:25, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I revised what I wrote a little to try to provide more guidelines, while still allowing admins flexibility. Let me know if you agree with these guidelines. If no one objects, I'll integrate this into the official rules page soon. --Cornprone 14:31, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it. [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; ">f e l in o e l [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 15:21, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I added this revised section to the rules page. --Cornprone 04:19, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Woo, now about the Code of Conduct, should it get its own page or should it be tacked below the Rules? [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 04:09, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking a separate page, as the rules page is already getting quite long, and it'd be easier to point users to the code if it was separate. --Cornprone 02:26, April 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * kay I will put it together tomorrow at work if you think that should be fine. [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 02:33, April 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm working on it right now, because I said I'd finally implement it today. But feel free to revise the formatting if you think it needs any work. --Cornprone 02:49, April 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea I saw where you said that like five minutes after I made this post. [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 12:34, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Manual of Style clarifications
I think we need to clarify a few things on the Manual of Style... <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel. 15:55, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Article Titles
The article title must be the subject's official name, e.g. "Finn" instead of "Main Character". The article title should be official but also concise. For example, even though "Princess Bonnibel Bubblegum" is the character's full name, her article should be titled "Princess Bubblegum" because it is the most commonly-used, accurate version of her name.

Article titles must also be written in singular instead of plural, e.g. "Book" instead of "Books" - exceptions are only when the article is about a species or a list, e.g. "List of books".
 * The above is what is currently stated for Article Titles, I feel we should include how a name is determined for a character, like how we always go by the model sheets. Though a list of the order for what name is the 'official' name for a character, like say the lowest is speculation where we speculate the name of the character, followed by what is said in the show as a better name than just speculation, followed by what is said by the staff as a better name than just what is mentioned in the show, followed by what the model sheers as a better name than anything else. Or do we feel that model sheets are more accurate names than any other source? Like in the case of Lemon Horse, a staffer said they had no clue why that camel was marked as a horse when it is a camel. [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 15:55, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first part. However, if a character's name is unknown, I think it's okay to go with what it says on the character design sheets from federator blog.  For the second part about plural titles, many pages work best, plural like Goblins-- Tavis  ource  16:51, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Character design sheets are what I call them but this wiki seems to be leaning towards calling them model sheets now, so when I said model sheets I meant character designs sheets. [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 16:54, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I actually think that word directly from the Adventure Time staff should outrank the model sheets as long as more than one person calls it the same thing. Like the case of Lemon Horse, the model sheets can be "incorrect" for one reason or another. But that's just me. -- [[File:Mew.gif]] Legendary  Dark   Knight [[File:Latias.gif]]  17:42, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree but our current standard is that the model sheet/character design sheet trumps all other sources for the name. [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 18:53, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that statements from the staff should overrule character design sheets, if they clearly and definitively make statements that contradict it. --Cornprone 00:15, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.formspring.me/skronked/q/243202805509136103
 * http://www.formspring.me/skronked/q/283772159581501587
 * What do you take from these statements then?


 * So then the order goes speculation, show, model sheet, then staff? [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 03:15, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds good. Of course, that's only if the statement from the staff is a clear, certain statement. In the case of the formspring links you posted, yes, the second one seems quite clear that the design sheet is named incorrectly. --Cornprone 20:06, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

The article title must be the subject's official name, e.g. "Finn" instead of "Main Character." The article title should be official but also concise. For example, even though "Princess Bonnibel Bubblegum" is the character's full name, her article should be titled "Princess Bubblegum" because it is the most commonly-used, accurate version of her name. When an official name is not available, one that fits the subject's description should be used, e.g. "Intestine Bird." Though if the character is given both a name on the show and one in a model sheet, their model sheet name will be used, e.g. "Gnome Ruler" instead of "Grand Master of the Gnomes." Though if a member of the staff makes a comment on how wrong a model sheet names a character, what the staff calls them will be used, e.g. "Lemon Camel" instead of "Lemon Horse."

Article titles must also be written in singular instead of plural, e.g. "Book" instead of "Books" - exceptions are only when the article is about a species or a list, e.g. "List of books".
 * How does this sound then? 13:46, May 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh and hey what should be done about these instances? 03:57, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

What should an article have? (For characters)
Each character gets an article, as long as they are important enough.
 * What defines important enough? Over here Corn once set rules for what defines important enough and I feel this Manual should include this. [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 16:04, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I still agree what what I wrote on the page you linked to. Of course you'll want to add the part about background characters being merged into their species pages that you've been working on (Forum:Merged_articles). The rule for that I would guess would be that characters defined as "Background characters" (according to the category definition we're working on) can be merged into an article covering their species, if the same species has appeared more than once. This is similar to the group characters rule, except that this covers characters that did not necessarily appear together in a group. --Cornprone 00:15, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I see, just being sure that that hadn't gotten outdated since you said it so long ago. [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 03:17, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * How does this sound then? Edit as necessary. [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 13:51, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Each character gets an article, as long as they are important enough. What defines important enough are shown in the three standards below.
 * 1) Every character that visually appears on the show is allowed to have a page, except for characters that only appear in a group and don't perform any unique individual actions.
 * 2) For the above group characters, a character page about the group should be created instead. (Example: Bears)
 * 3) Unseen characters should only have their own page if they are specifically named or play a role in an episode's plot
 * 4) Characters with very minimal information can be grouped by their species and listed on a species page with all the other similar characters of that species. (Example: Rat)

Each page of a character should have the...


 * Yeah, sounds good. --Cornprone 20:06, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well how about redefining the rules for Species articles, for things like Slime People where we only know of one character of the species, should we make it so that Species articles are not made? 17:13, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Spelling
There have in the past been edit wars over the territorial spelling of a word (i.e. words spelled differently in between Europe and the United States). We're not arrogant and we have no intention on starting a territorial war over something stupid like spelling. If you come across a word spelled the way it is in another country (for example if you see "color" spelled as "colour" or vice versa), leave it as it is. I.e. the person who inserted the word initially will decide how it's spelled.
 * While this is an interesting route to take on this matter, idk if we should go about it this way... thoughts? [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 16:04, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, but unless you find the starter of the page spells it one way, and then a heavy contributor of the page does another, what then?
 * Having a consistent way of spelling works better overall (imo), the ATLA wiki's head admin is from the UK, I believe, and he even set the standard that since the shows origins are North American then the spelling should follow. -- Bunai82 (talk) 18:21, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * That does sound like a good standard, plus it makes sense... [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 18:52, April 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * That particular paragraph was borrowed from the way other wikis handle it. However, since this show is also North American in origin, I'm okay with changing it. I don't think we've ever actually had a conflict over different regional spellings anyway. --Cornprone 00:15, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * So a rewriting is in order then? [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 03:31, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. It could say something like: "For the purpose of maintaining consistency, and because the subject of this wiki originates from the United States, words on this wiki should conform to the spelling used in U.S. English. This applies only to main namespace pages, not talk or user pages. Although no user should be harassed or punished for using other regional spellings of words, editors are encouraged to conform text in articles to U.S. spelling." Is that OK? Feel free to revise it. --Cornprone 20:06, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * So... [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 03:31, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

There have in the past been edit wars over the territorial spelling of a word (i.e. words spelled differently in between Europe and the United States). For the purpose of maintaining consistency, and because the subject of this wiki originates from the United States, words on this wiki should conform to the spelling used in U.S. English. This applies only to main namespace pages, not talk or user pages. Although no user should be harassed or punished for using other regional spellings of words, editors are encouraged to conform text in articles to U.S. spelling. If you come across a word spelled the way it is in another country (for example if you see "color" spelled as "colour"), just change it to the U.S. English spelling and be done with it.
 * Yeah, that sounds fine with me, though I've never acctually noticed any one use the European spelling of anything before. -- [[File:Mew.gif]] Legendary  Dark   Knight [[File:Latias.gif]]  16:01, April 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I recall some but someone changed it to the US spelling and no war ensued, but it is best to be ready anyways. [[Image:Shinx.png|link=User:felinoel|User Page]] <span style="background-color: green; ; padding: 3px; padding-left: 5px; "> ƒel inoel  [[Image:Scraft.gif|link=Special:Contributions/Felinoel|Contributions]] . 16:10, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Trivia
Hey, I had some ideas for defining what trivia sections should contain. Here's a proposal of something to add to the manual of style. The wiki supports trivia sections on articles. Trivia should include only interesting facts that do not fit into the other sections of the article. It should only include facts, not fan opinions. The definition of "interesting" is subjective; if there's a conflict over trivia, the community should discuss it on the article's talk page.
 * Trivia

If a piece of trivia fits better into another section of the article, it should be placed there instead. If a piece of trivia pertains more to the subject of a different page, it should be moved to that page. For example, the trivia statement "It is revealed that BMO plays soccer," does not belong in the trivia section of "In Your Footsteps". This information already belongs in both the plot summary and in BMO's character article, so it does not have to be repeated in a trivia section.

To avoid "wall of bullet points" syndrome, very long trivia sections can be divided into subsections, with trivia points organized into logical groups. For example, episode trivia can be divided into sections such as "Cultural references," "Errors," "Episode connections," and "Production notes." Thoughts? Additions or subtractions? --Cornprone 07:48, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well idk about the talk page thing since doing that with mergings proved to be very ineffective as few people actually check a random page's talk page but I do like the idea, also I've noticed several different kinds of trivia subsections being implemented, maybe we should also add that here? 13:25, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Chat Rules
Okay, so we've finally gotten around to making a set of Rules specifically for the chat, which can currently be read here. So, two things. First, is this set of rules okay? Do we need to add anything at all? Secondly, should we just add it to the current CoC page, or should the Chat Rules get their own page? --  Legendary  Dark   Knight  17:31, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned elsewhere that I think it should be a part of the CoC because the chat was the main reason for the CoC to come to be and plus we don't want to have too many articles to intimidate the handful of people who might actually try to read our rules. 17:39, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * ...Bump. -- [[File:Mew.gif]] Legendary  Dark   Knight [[File:Latias.gif]] 23:01, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * idk if bumping works like that on this kind of forum... 00:05, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, I was just trying to get it on the more recent part of the Wiki Activity page :P -- [[File:Mew.gif]] Legendary  Dark   Knight [[File:Latias.gif]] 00:33, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think incorporating this into the current code of conduct would be fine, and probably most effective seeing as chat/blog/talkpage rules would be most well understood if they were defined by a single list of rules. The only thing is that some points overlap - spam, harsh language, and adult content are addressed by both sets. In addition, the "sentences that people can't understand" seems to be redundant of spamming in my opinion. The first point on the chat rules list is also very similar to "no trolling."
 * Furthermore, ASCII art, excessive caps, and excessive emoticons are far more problematic in a fast moving chat than they are in a blog space. I have no problem with adding that to the Code of Conduct anyway given that both things are inane, but I can definitely see where others might have a dissenting opinion about something that is so not-problematic in non-live features. I'm assuming people wouldn't take to it without a fight, so I would also be totally okay with having most of the proposed chat rules added to the Code of Conduct and those three specifically added as "additional chat conduct," or something similar. Flame Prince Finn 02:43, May 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oddly, I seem to have changed my mind over the weekend... I'm okay with the chat rules being on the same page as the CoC now... -- [[File:Mew.gif]] Legendary  Dark   Knight [[File:Latias.gif]] 03:30, May 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I see, so now let's decide on what the rules should be, the linked to ones are as follows... 12:27, May 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * If saying or doing something will make others upset or angry, then it's best that you avoid such behavior. This includes stating personal affiliations and beliefs. When requested to drop the subject, drop the subject.
 * Refrain from speaking about such controversial topics as religion and politics.
 * Please speak in sentences that people can understand.
 * No spamming, which can be defined as excessive posting of the same message multiple times, or posting numerous messages of gibberish with no legitimate meaning. This can also include song lyrics and copy-pasting.
 * Do not use uppercase excessively.
 * Do not use emoticons excessively.
 * Do not post ASCII artwork.
 * Do not use harsh language in the chat room, even if you censor it.
 * Do not talk about sex, drugs, violence, or real world weapons.
 * Do not advertise other wikis.
 * Do not excessively advertise other websites.
 * lol they were added, so I guess that means no one has any problems with it as is? Oh well, if anyone does end up having any, note that this would be the place to discuss it. 13:26, May 10, 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not advertise other wikis.
 * Also, do not advertise your blogs in chat.
 * Do not excessively advertise other websites.
 * Currently the rules there say this, I think it should say this...


 * Do not excessively advertise other websites.
 * Do not excessively advertise other wikis.
 * Do not excessively advertise your blogs.
 * Thoughts? 18:44, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Chat emotes
On the forum post here, we have clearly come to a general agreement that emotes need to be cleaned up.

Should users have emotes, and if so based on what criteria?

Should there be non-Adventure Time emotes?


 * I personally think removing all non-AT styled emotes is the best course of action. I think users that reach a certain edit count (regardless of what type of edit) and amount of time on the wiki should be allowed to have an emote, and I would suggest that limit at 100 edits and one month of being on the wiki. The emote would then be submitted to admins for approval based on whether it will resize well, is acceptably AT styled, and is appropriate in all other necessary ways. In addition, each user could only have one emote that can be changed only after a month. It is not the obligation of admins to put in the emote because it is requested; it will be implemented at leisure.


 * This would mean the removal of all default, pokemon, irrelevant, and user emotes - except for Marcaline's emote, BLAUGHUM's emote, Katari's emote, and a few others that are already AT styled and meet other requirements. FlippenAwesomeFinn's emote would be an example of a non-AT styled emote by my considerations. I'll link the emote page for reference.


 * In addition, I think emote input needs to be clearer and the emotes on the page need to be more organized. I would suggest all emotes have no spaces and using multiple inputs only for characters with multiple formal titles (pb, princessbubblegum). Characters that appear in multiple emotes should be done numerically (marceline, marceline2). Finally, emotes with characters should be next to one another. LSP1 and LSP2 would go sequentially on the list.

Once we address what parts of this are going to be contested and what is agreed on, we can begin voting with the voting templates if necessary.  Flame   Prince  Finn  02:00, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree with FPF in every way. Yours always,  DoomyWoo &lt;3    01:19, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

My agreement will also lie with FPF True Sephiroth 01:24, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything FPF said  Vampire  Queen   of Ooo  01:43, June 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * idk I mean you apparently get edit counts when you respond to blogs and whatnot... 12:48, June 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * I realize, and I don't see a problem with that. Chat is an equally unimportant part of the wiki, after all. I'd rather the system be suited to users who are consistently active on the wiki than have them fit a system similar to badges, too. If people had to do mainspace edits to get an emote and wanted one, we may wind up with low quality edits in the mainspace. FPsig1.png Flame   Prince  Finn FPsig2.png 21:01, June 21, 2012 (UTC)