Warriors Wiki talk:Operations

Replacing Essay Policy
So there's an essay policy, but... it's very outdated and was created before blogs existed. No one ever does that whole essay index thing, which is essentially the basis of it of all anyways. What we do have now is blogs and guidelines for those - but our rules for them aren't all clearly documented in one place. I propose replacing the essay policy with a blog policy, and I've drafted one here using a few points from the essay policy, and what we generally already enforce when it comes to blogs. Kinda an update/replace type of thing - thoughts? 03:48, December 26, 2018 (UTC)

What would people think about removing the blogs all together? They are obviously a hotbed of drama, and remember this is an encyclopedia, not a fan based wiki. 22:47, December 29, 2018 (UTC)

I think we should remove blogs, but perhaps set up a side site or even an Amino/partnership with the main Warriors Amino for people to post their analysis stuff and theories. It's a big part of the fandom as a whole, and I think it would be best to possibly set up a place where people can have these discussions, where they can be better modded. 23:03 Sat Dec 29

I am not sure if I like the idea of collaborating with a site that 1.) is not Wikia, 2.) is not an official Warriors affiliated site, or 3.) ...pretty much hates the Wiki. 11:44, January 2, 2019 (UTC)

Hmm meh I don't think we need any other affiliates, other than Wish. However, yeah we should remove blogs imo, and in that case we wouldn't need the essay or blog policy.

I agree with removing blogs, a lot of them honestly just cause a lot of unnecessary drama which we don't need. 23:07, January 5, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this, since generally most blogs either a) don't follow the essay policy entirely, b) are hotspots for drama, c) not even related to Warriors, or d) all of the above. It would eliminate a lot of drama and would free up time admins might use to delete these unnecessary blogs.

Hmm.. I'll be sad to see them go since I adore writing blogs, but I do have to agree with all this. New and younger users aren't always using blogs for what they're intended to be. —

Voting
Due to the possible need of a forum vote in PCA (and due to past experiences with dupes), it is probably safer to come up with a voting eligibility policy rather than hunt out dupes. I have coined something of that sort here: Voting Eligibility Policy. What do you guys think? 23:01, December 29, 2018 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me. It would help cut down on drama too. 23:04 Sat Dec 29

I definitely agree^^ This'll ensure legitimacy of votes, and provide an extra layer of security. And, ensure a vote reflects the opinion of the current community, in cases where people would want to flood back just to vote.

This sounds like a good idea^ 00:23, December 30, 2018 (UTC)

Fair. 00:25, December 30, 2018 (UTC)

Changed it to 3 months. Will allow some other new users. Is this better? 00:37, December 30, 2018 (UTC)

I believe 3 would work better^^ We do want to have something of that sort there, but 3 months is a fair quarter of a year, and enough to ensure the results needed without being too restrictive

All right - so, I wanted to be more specific on what this would include. So this would not include any silver/gold/FA nominations, because that excludes people who would like to contribute to projects but simply cannot because of their account age. However, this would include votes that affect the Wiki sitewide. Any other thoughts? 06:03, January 2, 2019 (UTC)

Social media cites
We use a lot of Facebook and blog cites here, but do we have a clear guideline on what we can and cannot use? I think it would be nice to institute a wiki-wide policy concerning it, which would outline exactly what counts and what doesn't. Our standards are largely informal to the eye, kinda of one of those things people just all come to know about, like having to archive talk pages (which isn't really mentioned anywhere clearly either). So I think it would be nice to have a policy stating the wording needed for these statements to be taken as cites: that it needs to be a firm yes, not an "I think so" or an "I imagine"; so we'd all have a clear baseline for what counts, and we can weed out any that don't meet said standard after if this is implemented. Thoughts?

Good idea, think it should be added. There seems to have been some confusion over what counts and what doesn't. There's no where mentioning it in any guidelines that I know of. 23:13, January 5, 2019 (UTC)

A social media policy would be nice to straighten out exactly what can and cannot be used for cites. This would clear up any unclear issues and such.

I support that. If there is a "I think so" and it comes from more than one author, then maybe put it in the trivia, but we really should put some rules in place as to what can and cannot be used as a definitive cite. 01:59 Sun Jan 6

Some of the policies
Wanted to suggest a revote on this. I'm completely aware of why we cut the vote short when we did, and it was the right thing to do. However, now that that's a non-issue, for these to stand as wiki policies indefinitely, they need to have the consensus of a community through a vote. Pretty sure it's in the bylaws somewhere, and it's in the policy template itself. Anyways wanted to suggest we review this batch again and take a re-vote on it that'll go the full time-slot, if only for paper trails. Thoughts?