The main rules page has been locked. As they impact every contributor, rules are not something that should be changed regularly, regardless of how small the changes may be. Changes to the rules will only be made after extensive discussion. Feel free to discuss the rules on this talk page, all members are welcome to voice their opinions on either the existing rules, or propose alternative rules. Sylvanelite 13:15, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
Archive and summary
The above link contains discussion prior to the time of this post. Some noteworthy points are:
- Reiteration that:
- The naming rule only applies to the title of a page, not the content, and only when conflicts arise;
- The naming rule applies to ALL pages, not just models alone, characters alone, Zoids alone, etc;
- Popularity is to be cited by evidence of consumption (for instance, sales figures, number of re-runs, etc), and should not be biased to any particular media (specifically, internet forums are a very poor gauge of popularity); and,
- All specific examples should be brought up on their talk page, not here.
- Clarification that:
- Gauges of "amount of information" or "relevance" are usually very hard to quantify and are hence subjective;
- Many pages have not been kept up-to-date. This is not because of exemptions in the rules, but rather simple lack of manpower;
- The rules may be vague at times. This is intentional, to allow flexibility;
- The wikia is an English wikia. It should be inherently targeted toward English audiences, even when the original content is targeted at Japanese audiences; and
- The ONLY purpose of the rules is to provide a way to resolve arguments. All alternative proposals MUST accomplish this.
The above link contains some discussion about naming conventions and the like. No clear consensus was reached, as such the rules were not amended.
New Rules: Categories
Recently, there's been a lot of edits over categories. We do not have explicit rules for categories, so I'd through I'd lay down the history and see if people think rules need to be updated:
- Fan terms are allowed in categories - this is the only place in the wiki where fan terms are not just allowed, but encouraged. The community has a lot of fan terms, and it's not the wiki's place to scrub them out. However, the wiki doesn't have a way of validating fan terms. As such, it was decided many years ago, to allow categorisation of Zoids by fan terms, and to use those category pages to explain the terms. The most notable examples are the terms "NJR", "NAR", "OJR", etc. These lines aren't well-defined, but are commonly used so are useful for categorisation. Another common use case for this kind of categorisation, is to group Zoids into roles as would be seen in RPGs.
- For official categories, an authoritative list should be maintained elsewhere in a "List Of" page.
- False information should not be in categories. Even with the above comments, objectively false information should be kept out of categories.
- There is no upper bound on the number of categories a page should be in.
- Categories should focus on completeness. There is no point making a "Liger" category and applying it to only one of the Ligers.
- My comments: we need to allow fan terms into categories. This is based on the overhaul done a few years ago. There is more gained by retaining fan terms, than gained by forcing their removal. It obviously has led to a situation were some users may think a category is useful, while others do not. My personal opinion is to allow these, provided they are limited to categories only (and not to main articles). The overhaul threads, although dated, go into more detail on the need for this. (so I'm saying stay with the status quo) But I'm willing to see if people have a different view on rules around categories. Sylvanelite (talk) 00:08, February 27, 2019 (UTC)
So saying that Zoids use Karate is still a no go and calling Zoids Mammals, Saurischians, sorting them into Tribes that one user seemingly made up, labeling them invertebrates, carnivores, herbivores and generally using Earth's taxonomic system is still not okay? I ask because it's not accurate; Zoids are mecha on the other side of the galaxy in-universe. I also feel that redundant categorization is to be avoided, otherwise users can badge edit with impunity and keep cluttering the wiki.
I'd also like to add this page to the Policy category linked in the header/navigation. It would improve the rules visibility and remove any possible ignorance of them by making them easier to find. Only six pages link to the rules as of now. Zane T 69 (talk) 01:28, February 28, 2019 (UTC)
I also would like to avoid redundant categorization. It also might be better if we move this page either in the project or the forum namespace, as pages about rules rather don't belong in the mainspace. Moviejunkie2009 (talk) 01:37, February 28, 2019 (UTC)
- I would support a move to the project namespace, but what are your opinions/ideas on improving the pages visibility. Would adding the rules page to the Policy category still be valid then? I don't personally see a reason not too. The simplified rule set is already in the project namespace. Zane T 69 (talk) 01:52, February 28, 2019 (UTC)
For categorisation, we need a clear criteria. In other words, we need to post the exact text of a proposed change, and try to break it here. For example, the current naming convention is black-and-white, there's no discretion involved aside from common sense, since names can be cited and there's a clear order of priority. There are issues with the naming rule but these are well documented (Zoids Legacy).
There's no such case with categories. To say no "made up" categories is fine, but that applies to nearly all the current categories. Here are some easy iiues that any proposed rule would need to solve:
- NJR, NAR, OER, etc - these are all "made up" and have no official citations. But they are widely used by the community - how would these be affected by a new rule?
- Karate - This is the cause of the current proposed change, it's obviously too specific for a category, but it's not far off a valid one. You could easily make a "melee" category and provide it with citations to that effect. Would new rules accept or reject this category?
- Video Games - Currently we have Anime categories for Zoid appearances, but not games, would new rules consider this over-categorisation or not?
- In a similar vein to above, "Aquatic" is another case. It might sound made-up, but there are official categories for it. In fact, this applies not only to things like "Wolf" but also "Insect", "Small", "Reptile", "Flying", "Swimming", etc. The list is not based on earth-like classification, but are official categories.
- "Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My" - This is another hairy situation, there are many categories that are counterintuitive, and seemingly officially wrong (so the made-up terms are allowed because that's what people know) The most prominent example is the Liger category. Most liger Zoids are not actually Liger-type, they are Lion-type. They are merely called Ligers in their name. Which raises an issue on how to categorise: based on the name of the Zoid, or the type of the Zoid. Or to be even weirder, you can even boot up Zoids Legacy, and see that the Saberlion is officially categorised as a Liger-type in the game's DB, but is neither called liger, nor liger type.
There has never been a sound resolution to these issues, which is why the categories do not currently have a "no fan-terms" rule. It's too hard to actually use this as a rule. Some things which seem like a fan is adding at random, might actually be an official category, and something that looks official, might actually be a fan-term.
The only proposed change I can think of that would resolve the issue, is to set up a master-list of categories, and tell users that they can't add new categories beyond what's on the list. If someone has a new category to add, they would need to propose a change to the master list, and we would judge it on a case-by-case basis. It's cumbersome, but would work. Sylvanelite (talk) 01:39, March 16, 2019 (UTC)