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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 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 foul language. You will probably not be blocked for swearing a few times, but you may be warned if your use of language is considered excessive by an admin.
 * No spamming, which can be defined as excessive posting of the same message over and over, or posting 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.
 * If an admin tells you to stop doing something, stop doing it

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)