Editing Rules: A recent CRT mistakenly removed some rules plus other stuff

[Bobsican]

After browsing around for a certain rule, I've noticed that it was removed since the application of this thread, which while productive, it seems to have also done some mistakes, so let's fix them, shall we?

For starters:

- The main rule outlining the criteria for valid verse-specific powers and abilities is gone, and after browsing the thread that reformatted the page and the first one, no reasoning was brought up or anything to remove it.

-

...Yeah, either we rewrite the rule to account for this or we remove that one template for the sake of consistency.

-

• It is preferable that the profile pages are named what the characters they represent are commonly referred as. The order of the name of Japanese characters is reversed, as their family name comes first, and then their first name, for example Monkey D. Luffy. Given that it would be confusing for visitors if we refer to him as Luffy D. Monkey, it is preferable to attempt to use the most commonly known English order for each individual character's name, whether that is the Western or Eastern version.

This section should be removed from the subgroup of paragraphs it currently is merged to, aka, the one going over naming a character page with parenthesis over their own series or just their debut entry, as this doesn't really fit as it's a separate standard that doesn't abide by the introductory sentence:

The titles of character pages should be the respective character's name and nothing else, but in cases when there is one or more characters with identical names, a parenthesis that clarifies the entry in the series that a specific character has debuted in, rather than the title of the verse itself, should only be applied in cases when:

So I'd suggest to just move it above, it requires little editing and solves that issue:

• It is preferable that the profile pages are named what the characters they represent are commonly referred as. The order of the name of Japanese characters is reversed, as their family name comes first, and then their first name, for example Monkey D. Luffy. Given that it would be confusing for visitors if we refer to him as Luffy D. Monkey, it is preferable to attempt to use the most commonly known English order for each individual character's name, whether that is the Western or Eastern version.
• The titles of character pages should be the respective character's name and nothing else, but in cases when there is one or more characters with identical names, a parenthesis that clarifies the entry in the series that a specific character has debuted in, rather than the title of the verse itself, should only be applied in cases when:

Something like the above would work

 

[FinePoint]

I was told specifically to apply these changes which removed the following:

*Regarding [[:Category:Verse-specific Powers and Abilities|Verse-specific Powers and Abilities]], keep in mind that these pages should only be made when a significant number of characters possess the relevant ability, and that said ability should cover several other powers and abilities, in order to avoid redundant repetitions in character profiles. Some examples: [[Puella Magi Physiology]], [[Nen]], [[Haki]], [[Servant Physiology]]

−
**Before creating this type of page, please make sure to have its addition accepted in a thread in the [[vsforum:forums/content-revision.11/|Content Revisions forum]]. This is because verse-specific powers and abilities often tend to be controversial and they should be scrutinized by the staff and the community before being published.

The third section:

#**Verse-specific powers and abilities that have several subtypes for certain kinds of characters should only have them if the power as a whole is related enough to them, as such it is inappropriate to merge several verse-specific powers and abilities into a single page if separate pages would be a better alternative, especially if this is being done to bloat a page in content to qualify.

Is still part of the page, at the bottom of explaining statistics.

 

[FinePoint]

As for the name part, you are right that it seems the first part of the list should be moved up to above the introduction of the list of exceptions.
My apologies for this. I did ask that someone thoroughly check my work, but I suppose things can slip through regardless.

 

[Bobsican]

May you link the post where you were told exactly? After reading the CRTs that readjusted the Editing Rules I don't see any part of discussion that specifically pertains these removed parts, that could just have slipped by from a general agreement to the proposed changes by mistake if anything as far I can tell.

It was also agreed in the CRT that made those standards in the first place to specify what was removed, I'd be more open to reword it to fit the current formatting better if anything.

 

[FinePoint]

May you link the post where you were told exactly? After reading the CRTs that readjusted the Editing Rules I don't see any part of discussion that specifically pertains these removed parts, that could just have slipped by from a general agreement to the proposed changes by mistake if anything as far I can tell.

It was also agreed in the CRT that made those standards in the first place to specify what was removed, I'd be more open to reword it to fit the current formatting better if anything.

Sure, friend.

Here is where Ant told me to apply the changes.
I even had someone double-check that I did it right.

 

[Bobsican]

I suppose this may have been accidentally skipped then.
In any case we'd need more input to do much here as it directly pertains rules on the site.

 

[FinePoint]

I suppose this may have been accidentally skipped then.
In any case we'd need more input to do much here as it directly pertains rules on the site.

Well, I do believe something was missed, since it wasn't listed as a change in the revision page sent to me.
The following was removed:

*Regarding [[:Category:Verse-specific Powers and Abilities|Verse-specific Powers and Abilities]], keep in mind that these pages should only be made when a significant number of characters possess the relevant ability, and that said ability should cover several other powers and abilities, in order to avoid redundant repetitions in character profiles. Some examples: [[Puella Magi Physiology]], [[Nen]], [[Haki]], [[Servant Physiology]]

However, reading down, it seems that the page also contained this other version of it:

*Regarding [[:Category:Verse-specific Powers and Abilities|Verse-specific Powers and Abilities]], keep in mind that these pages should only be made when at least 5 characters in total possess the relevant ability or a resistance to it, while also being indexed with them in this wiki, and said ability includes at least 10 other powers and abilities, in order to avoid redundant repetitions in character profiles. The required number of powers and abilities for qualifying can be lowered to 5 for cases that require particularly large explanations for their powers and abilities, without bloating with information unrelated to our purposes. Some examples: [[Puella Magi Physiology]], [[Nen]], [[Haki]], [[Sword Logic]].

I simply saw the "regarding verse-specific" part was deleted, and so I deleted it, and glossed over the second version, since the revision page doesn't list it as a change. I believe that is where the error came from.

I believe it should be amended to the explanation pages section, as the intro to the one paragraph already there.

 

[FinePoint]

I have applied both corrections in this sandbox, for review.

 

[Bobsican]

An earlier version of the page had that redundancy, yeah, I did point it out and that got fixed.

Anyways, I'm fine with the proposed changes in the sandbox.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, I seem to have simply made mistakes in not noticing that certain rules were removed. Thank you extremely much for paying attention and bringing up these issues, Bobsican.

Would you please be willing to thoroughly examine all of the recent changes to our site rules and editing pages, so nothing else was also accidentally removed, and preferably FinePoint's current revision thread for suggested changes to our discussion rules and versus thread rules as well?

 

[Antvasima]

I have applied both corrections in this sandbox, for review.

@FinePoint @Bobsican @Just_a_Random_Butler

Should we copy-paste the contents to our Editing Rules page?

Yes, I seem to have simply made mistakes in not noticing that certain rules were removed. Thank you extremely much for paying attention and bringing up these issues, Bobsican.

Would you please be willing to thoroughly examine all of the recent changes to our site rules and editing pages, so nothing else was also accidentally removed, and preferably FinePoint's current revision thread for suggested changes to our discussion rules and versus thread rules as well?

I would also greatly appreciate help with this.

 

[Bobsican]

Sure...

@FinePoint @Bobsican @Just_a_Random_Butler

Should we copy-paste the contents to our Editing Rules page?

For now yes

I would also greatly appreciate help with this.

I'd rather the above being applied first before evaluating.

 

[FinePoint]

I have not made any changes to this particular sandbox since my last comment, so assuming no errors were found, it should be fine to apply.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. I will copy-paste it then.

 

[Antvasima]

I handled it:

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Editing_Rules?type=revision&diff=7853029&oldid=7836006

 

[Dereck03]

After a discussion with @Bobsican I decided to re-add a rule that was removed accidentally in previous edits which is the Verse-Specific P&A rule.

Edit. Neither of us realized that the rule had already been added, so I removed my edit but added a piece of the rule that had not been previously added to the page after its removal.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much to both of you for helping out.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump. Is this resolved yet?

 

[FinePoint]

I believe so.

 

[Bobsican]

Oh no, I still have to check, sorry, I got busy with school exams.

I'll get to that in the following hours.

 

[Antvasima]

@Bobsican @Dereck03

What do we currently need to do here?

 

[Antvasima]

@Bobsican @Dereck03

What do we currently need to do here?

@FinePoint

Your input would also be appreciated here.

 

[FinePoint]

@FinePoint

Your input would also be appreciated here.

As far as I remember, the mistakes were addressed in the sandbox, and we were simply waiting for Bobiscan to double-check that it was all done correctly.
It has been a long time, though, so I'm not sure if any other external changes happened in regards to this page that have yet to be considered.

 

[Antvasima]

As far as I remember, the mistakes were addressed in the sandbox, and we were simply waiting for Bobiscan to double-check that it was all done correctly.
It has been a long time, though, so I'm not sure if any other external changes happened in regards to this page that have yet to be considered.

@Bobsican

Can you clarify please?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

@Bobsican @FinePoint @Dereck03

What, if anything, is left to do here?

 

[Dereck03]

I don't know, Bobsican is the one who should know.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

 

[Bobsican]

Oh sorry, I've been busy IRL, especially as I had to be inactive last week out of getting a new PC as the old one stopped working.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem. I hope that things will work out well for you.

 

[Bobsican]

For the record so I don't forget about this, perhaps the parts currently mentioning Imgur should mention that scans relying on such website require being tied to an account made over there? Namely as per site policy changes over there, content not tied to an account will be deleted. TBH a site-wide announcement may also be worth doing as I'm sure this compromises a good chunk of content currently used, but that's besides the topic.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that is a good idea that should preferably be applied quite quickly.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

@FinePoint @Just_a_Random_Butler @Dereck03

What currently needs to be done here, and are you willing to help out?

 

[Antvasima]

You as well, @Bobsican .

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

1. After browsing around for a certain rule, I've noticed that it was removed since the application of this thread, which while productive, it seems to have also done some mistakes, so let's fix them, shall we?

Done by Bob, pretty sure.

- The main rule outlining the criteria for valid verse-specific powers and abilities is gone, and after browsing the thread that reformatted the page and the first one, no reasoning was brought up or anything to remove it.

Done by Bob

This text in the Editing Rules, needs to be rewritten [Link to the text]:

• Article List Templates may only be used for character profiles or verse pages, other cases should rely on a category to group them and/or a disambiguation page on a case-by-case basis.

Reason: The reason for the need for a rewrite is that templates of this nature are also utilized for instructional pages and similar content, so we have to change the text accordingly.

Status: Not yet done.

• It is preferable that the profile pages are named what the characters they represent are commonly referred as. The order of the name of Japanese characters is reversed, as their family name comes first, and then their first name, for example Monkey D. Luffy. Given that it would be confusing for visitors if we refer to him as Luffy D. Monkey, it is preferable to attempt to use the most commonly known English order for each individual character's name, whether that is the Western or Eastern version.

This section should be removed from the subgroup of paragraphs it currently is merged to, aka, the one going over naming a character page with parenthesis over their own series or just their debut entry, as this doesn't really fit as it's a separate standard that doesn't abide by the introductory sentence:

The titles of character pages should be the respective character's name and nothing else, but in cases when there is one or more characters with identical names, a parenthesis that clarifies the entry in the series that a specific character has debuted in, rather than the title of the verse itself, should only be applied in cases when:

So I'd suggest to just move it above, it requires little editing and solves that issue:

• It is preferable that the profile pages are named what the characters they represent are commonly referred as. The order of the name of Japanese characters is reversed, as their family name comes first, and then their first name, for example Monkey D. Luffy. Given that it would be confusing for visitors if we refer to him as Luffy D. Monkey, it is preferable to attempt to use the most commonly known English order for each individual character's name, whether that is the Western or Eastern version.
• The titles of character pages should be the respective character's name and nothing else, but in cases when there is one or more characters with identical names, a parenthesis that clarifies the entry in the series that a specific character has debuted in, rather than the title of the verse itself, should only be applied in cases when:

Something like the above would work

Also done already, I think.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for the evaluations.

I think that you can apply your suggested changes now.

 

[Just_a_Random_Butler]

Thank you very much for the evaluations.

I think that you can apply your suggested changes now.

Wait, we still have to replace this text in the Editing Rules:

• Article List Templates may only be used for character profiles or verse pages, other cases should rely on a category to group them and/or a disambiguation page on a case-by-case basis.

This statement merely indicates that Article List Templates should be limited to character profiles or verse pages and does not explicitly address their usage on instruction pages, which is currently being done.

I don't have any text prepared for this yet. Do you have a good suggestion on what to replace this text with?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, we could technically replace that rule with something like the following text, but it does seem like a rather strangely worded and redundant rule.

"Navbox templates may only be used for character profiles, verse pages, or instruction pages. Other cases should rely on a category to group them and/or a disambiguation page on a case-by-case basis."

What do you think, @Damage3245 ?

 

[Antvasima]

And the rest of you as well of course.