m
Tag: sourceedit
m
Tag: sourceedit
Line 83: Line 83:
   
 
Assuming there are no issues/changes anyone wants to make, I'll get that done.}}
 
Assuming there are no issues/changes anyone wants to make, I'll get that done.}}
{{TA|02:05, May 12, 2015 (UTC)|BlueHighwind is largely correct. Any references we have to style are suggestions, and definitely not laws. Even calling them rules would be a little silly. People should feel free to contribute. There are enough OCD people on this Wiki to clean up their mess. It'll work itself out.
+
{{TA|02:05, May 12, 2015 (UTC)|BlueHighwind is largely correct. Any references we have to style are suggestions, and definitely not laws. Even calling them rules would be a little silly, considering they were largely pushed by people with an agenda, and largely ignored when convenient even among those same users. People should feel free to contribute. There are enough OCD people on the internet to clean up their mess. It'll work itself out.
   
 
For the record, I am also not anti-navbox.}}
 
For the record, I am also not anti-navbox.}}

Revision as of 02:06, 12 May 2015

FFWiki forum logo.png
Forums: Index > Rin's Travel Agency > Archive > Policies and Guidelines on the Wiki


Technobliterator.png
BlueHighwind TA.png
Technobliterator.png
RedWizard-ff1-psp.png
Some Color Mage / Talk Contribs / Let's Stream Random PS4 Crap. / 23:27, May 2, 2015 (UTC)
First of all Techno, your link to WP is broken. You forgot to make sure it links to project space.

I agree with the infobox. The only place we've got all the policy pages properly indexed is the category, and forcing readers to navigate via cat is not ideal.

I've been reading through the meta-policy and I've been warming to it on each reading, but I have to make one suggestion: Please do not make policy changes on the whims of IRC discussions only. Yes, most of the staff is there. But the general community is not and making sure they're aware of a change before implementation is important, and just putting "IRC consensus" or whatever in an edit summary is typically not sufficient.

I'll say a few things now in case I forget to respond later today: I want to suggest some revisions to your proposal policy on the procedure of determining policy. It goes on some tangents like the one about staff, which might seem strange for the king of tangents to say but it's easier to recognise when it's someone else doing it.

I don't like how Wikipedia handles this: The page does two things, (1) define what policy is, (2) explains how policy is determined. But neither of these things somehow make it the policy above all other policies, it's just a guideline of a wiki process. I'd put that policy in the nav, rather than just the link that makes it the header.

And as for indexing pages: Project:Returners' Conclave. A navigation template is not substitute for a proper structure. When we tell users where to find the index of policy pages, telling them to first find any random policy page they know of and know the location of and scroll to the bottom to look in the navbox is not the appropriate thing to say.

I'm not totally against a navbox. However it certainly not as useful as they are in the mainspace. Articles are, well, articles. They're structured in a way that you could read it all or just read specific sections. And they're full of links to related articles, and so a navigation at the bottom including all relevant articles is great. -- Policy isn't like that. Policies aren't meant to be read out of interest, you go to them to find the official practise relevant to what you need it for. So why do you need the navigation? If the space is designed properly the portal should take you exactly where you want to be. You might need the navigation if you refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Conclave I guess. JBed (talk) 02:06, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

Revision: [1]

Notes:

  • I don't like bolding on most occasions.
  • Some of the wording sounded stilted and like it was copied and edited to follow another page's format.
  • Remove mentions of common sense (it's a myth). I also don't like harping on about "being bold".
  • The whole sandbox thing is odd, because you don't need to have policy written out in words before you can make a change. The consensus point is otherwise mentioned; consensus is an agreed upon procedure, and then someone writes it out. We do sometimes write out policy portions or pages before we enforce them, but this is usually the "fast-track" method. Ergo, present policy, hopefully you agree or only suggest minor amendments so we can just get this straight in.
  • I don't think naming matters enough to mention. We have no rules to speak of.

JBed (talk) 02:58, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

Technobliterator.png
Woton.jpg

@Techno: Because common sense is a myth; saying "common sense" is a great way to insult someone's intelligence because if you do not agree with something labelled "common sense", or an idea does not actually come naturally to you, you are dumb. Policy is calculated anyway. I saw some mention of "common sense" on Wikipedia, which was a link and eventually took me to a page that says "there is no common sense". Does every WP policy have an anti-policy or something?

I read the policy, and saw the "further the goals" part on both pages. It sounded awkward there too, but it ended up looking forced here. Though if that's the only example then okay.

"this proposed policies and guidelines page could be a base page"

Please no. The page already has two roles, don't give it a third. The page is not a mother-of-all policy page. It outlines one of the wiki's procedures.

"we should forgive editors for not reading the policies and guidelines when they first start"

I agree. But I think there's a difference between just ambiguously telling someone to "be bold" and giving them a free pass. I thought about how we would handle people for not following policy. With new users we just don't give a shit, we'll clean up after them. With minor things like style guide stuff, again, someone else will clean it up. But God, if you've been here for a few months you better license and categorise your files. I guess licensing (and referencing) is a different issue because the one who adds it notes the details they need; but I feel like part of it is "I cba to categorise your files".

"For example, when looking for relevant policies, I'll generally try to read a few of them, and it helps to have links between them."

If policies relate to each other then they'll link to each other. The Naming Policy links to the tags policy so if you go there looking for tags you'll be taken to the place they are covered.

But if want to look through multiple pages, the better thing to do would be to go to the Conclave and read the policy names, and opening the ones that seem relevant in new tabs.

"Another reason is that I sometimes will not remember the exact name of the policy page, and will try to manoeuvre to the correct one from the name of one which I do remember."

You might do that. I try to get pages in weird and wonderful ways too, but it's not up to the wiki to help facilitate odd methods of navigation. If you just used the Conclave like the current structure is designed for then you can get to a policy page a more logical way.

But whatever, as long as people understand the purpose of the dedicated portal and keep it updated having both is not really a detriment in this situation. There is such a thing as excessive navigation but this won't reach it. JBed (talk) 14:53, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

Technobliterator.png
FFVII Cait Sith Battle.gif
Technobliterator.png
Technobliterator.png
Fistpaladinsmall.gif
TacticAngel TALK 02:05, May 12, 2015 (UTC)
BlueHighwind is largely correct. Any references we have to style are suggestions, and definitely not laws. Even calling them rules would be a little silly, considering they were largely pushed by people with an agenda, and largely ignored when convenient even among those same users. People should feel free to contribute. There are enough OCD people on the internet to clean up their mess. It'll work itself out.

For the record, I am also not anti-navbox.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.