This Forum has been archived

Visit the new Forums
Forums: Index Narutopedia Discussion Policies, Narutopedia and Wikia ACG
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3325 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Now that Wikia ACG has grown, with the Narutopedia being the largest wiki in organization and community (Though, ^_^ that is probably going to change pretty soon... This may only be the 2nd largest wiki once discussion on the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wiki joining is finished; I haven't checked size yet, but the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wiki is one of the largest wiki on Wikia that fits in our scope, if not the largest.) I think policies should be revamped.

The current Rules page and Standards page that is put on all new Wikia ACG wiki just as a base was actually created for the most part by using the pages from the Gaiapedia as that's the first wiki I adopted.

But they were originally created in a state where there was no active community besides me, and were focused more along the lines of getting people to follow them instead of randomly editing with no standard or common sense on how to do something. But the new focus is to try to make the project more newbie friendly. So it's probably time to create a good set of Policies/Guidelines/Principles. For the most part, one which basically takes the stuff we commonly agree on how to do and turns them into a readable page so new people can understand the views of the community that effect how things are done on the wiki. Some of them can be made Wikia ACG wide, and some of them will just be for the Narutopedia.

Since the Narutopedia is the largest, I thought we'd start writing them here, and after we've got something good we'll move them to the Animepedia where global stuff is currently temporarily put and the entire community can chip in on finishing them up.

Rather than Wikipedia's set of Ignore/Civility/EW/NPOV/Original Research/Verifiability/Protection/Blocking/Copyright/Non-free/etc... I was thinking of a different set that would work better for the smaller scope, and different outlook of the projects here.

  • Common sense
    • Covers things which should be considered common sense when on the net or a wiki. This would be a Policy
    • Civility towards other users
  • Validity
    • Covers things related to the content of an article. This would be a Principle.
    • Cascading list of what sources the community considers more heavy than others.
  • Dispute
    • Covers things related to disputes and how to deal with them. This would be a guideline on how to deal with them.
    • How to deal with an edit war.
    • When should you block, and how long. What's the reason for those points to.
  • Legal
    • Covers things related to protecting all the wiki from legal issues, and things on legal points of the wiki itself.
    • Cite something, don't copy it. (Excluding GFDL compatible resources)
    • Fair use or free use? How to find out what one is, and how to know if it's ok to upload something.
    • Ownership (Tied in with below)
    • Info on the GFDL and how that affects how people can use the content.
~NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Dec 11, 2007 @ 05:41 (UTC)

Well starting off suggestions... I think we should have a small part saying something like:

If you are going to argue for a side, please remain civil and do not treat the other side hostilely. If you are not going to treat other people in the discussion with respect, then there is no point to having you in the discussion and your opinions made while acting hostilely will be ignored in decision of the topic.

~NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Jan 11, 2008 @ 06:31 (UTC)

Adding on to Dant's suggestion, we should have something stating like "debatable topic", as to discourage random people jumping with a bunch of edits on topics that have been debated already. *points to Haku page* --Dubtiger 18:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Dubtiger's idea. Too many people keep editing articles that are already consummate--they don't need anymore info. By opening up debateable topics, people can pick and choose new articles (approved first of course). This might improve the wikia's popularity among individual fans and participants. Good idea Dubtiger. I'll try to come up with some of my own ideas. --Ikijime Koorimusha 01:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Do I have jurisdiction to remove those offensive posts?
Yup, those posts would be considered vandalism so anyone is allowed to revert them.
The idea does seam interesting, we could have a Forum for debatable topics (With large notices reminding users to remain civil or be forcibly removed), and have a talk header template list debatable topics for that page linking to where they may be discussed. And that would leave us to enforce a policy of "Keep the talkpages discussions on topics only to what citeable relevance should be reflected int the article and not speculated debate on the topic". ~NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Apr 9, 2008 @ 07:34 (UTC)