Anonymous user
Forum:Discussing notability and establishing a notability policy: Difference between revisions
Forum:Discussing notability and establishing a notability policy (edit)
Revision as of 13:01, 24 March 2013
, 11 years agono edit summary
imported>Nikel23 |
imported>Lost Labyrinth No edit summary |
||
| (29 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Forumheader|Community discussions|archive}}
Hi,
Line 57:
OMG, forgot to sign, my bad.... <font face="Albertus">[[User:NikolaSims|<span style="text-shadow:black 0 2px 2px;">Nikola</span>]] ([[User talk:NikolaSims|Let's talk]])</font> 14:11, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
:I see a lot of mentions of a new namespace... my concern is what I'll call 'creep' - where we create a namespace, for instance ''Real-world'' (so ''Real-world:Name of article'') and say that real-world content gets added to that namespace. So this would catch pages about YouTubers and other well-known simmers, Sims series websites, and popular modifications. But you could argue that an article like [[The Sims 2]] (or about any game or EP) is itself about a real-world thing, and should be placed in this new namespace as well. The point I'm trying to make is, this stuff is all relevant to The Sims Wiki, so it should be within the main namespace. I'd support the categorization and review of real-world articles, but I don't see a whole lot of positive coming out of a new namespace.
:On the subject of review... I think it's important we specify what kind of reviewing we're doing. For starters, would it be reviewed by admins-only, or could any user assist in reviewing? Would it take more than one user/admin to review something? Would it be a ''passive'' review process or an ''active'' review process?
:A passive review would allow a user to create an article about real-world content and the article would remain unless it was flagged, in which case it would be reviewed (under whatever process is established based on the other questions above). Under active review, each new article would need to be checked by the pre-determined person(s) immediately after the article is created, or perhaps before the article is allowed to be added in whole.
Line 100:
1. Articles about real-world content must be properly categorized, and must feature a template at the top of the article mentioning that it concerns real-world material (this is to clearly separate it from canon).
2. There is no limitation on creating real-world content articles'', as long as they are related to ''The Sims'' series of games. <s>However,
3. If a notability discussion occurs, a consensus will be necessary to determine that an article is not notable. An article with questionable notability should not be deleted until it is established that the article is not notable. It is the discretion of the community to decide whether an article is or is not notable, basing this decision on any given guidelines or established precedent on previous issues of notability.
Line 113:
::I say we need to restrict some subjects anyhow, give an example of limits that fan articles from YouTube is restricted from creation. When someone creates a page concerning this, it'll be worth pointing out why the page deserves to be made (maybe because it really '''is''' notable). By this, we will be able to tell that some subjects are noteworthy (or worth discussing), instead of letting ''anyone'' create ''any'' RW articles about Sims. Note that this is conjectural and may not work anyway especially if an editor never found out about this discussion. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Talk''</sub></span>]] <sub>–</sub> [[The Sims Wiki:Featured Media/Voting|<span style="color:red ; text-shadow:#E97451 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Vote!''</sub></span>]] 12:51, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
:::I agree more with what Wogan is saying - I can make the second point more specific as far as Sims-focused content is concerned. As for what Nikel is saying... I disagree. The situation I really want to avoid is one where a user has to get approval before they can create an article. I think having a specific list of things allowed or not allowed makes it more likely that a user will be prevented from creating an article that ''may'' be relevant. The whole idea of relevance can be established after the article is created, so in my opinion there should be little limitation on what that is - unless of course we decided that certain things, like YouTube channels/personalities, are automatically irrelevant.
:::So, I'm going to go ahead and make the addition to the second point above, as Wogan suggests. The new text reads:
::::2. There is no limitation on creating real-world content articles, as long as they are related to ''The Sims'' series of games. Any user may question whether an article which has been created is notable enough to remain. If a user believes an article is not notable, they should tag it with the {{t|Notability}} template and begin discussing notability in the Community Discussions forum.
:::- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LiR</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">speak</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">read</font>]]</sup>''' 17:32, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
==Bumping/Jumpstarting==
This topic has fallen by the wayside, but I don't think it's ready to be buried just yet, because I think we're ''pretty close'' to coming to a community agreement. The only really big question that stands is whether or not we want to host stuff like Youtube channel creators, custom content creators, etc. at all. To get a general range of how we're working here, I'd like to suggest that everyone 'cast a vote' below in the following manner:
I'll re-list some of the more debatable criteria that Lost_labyrinth stated in his original post, and using the {{t|VoteFor}} or {{t|VoteAgainst}}, show whether or not you think this sort of material should be allowed to be posted on The Sims Wiki. For example:
::Games, expansions and stuff packs {{VoteFor}}{{clr}}
::Worlds/Neighborhoods {{VoteFor}}{{clr}}
::Canon Sims and Families {{VoteAgainst}}{{clr}}
{{clr}}
Obviously the criteria above are examples... vote on the following below:
* Pages about custom content - Ex: Player-made worlds, custom objects, etc
* Pages about game modifications
* Pages about fan websites
* Pages about creators or custom content or modifications
* Pages about fan media creators (and their creations), or fansite creators
Please note that you can include a qualified response; in other words, you can say that you support inclusion, but only under certain criteria.
For the sake of keeping things moving, I'm going to put a week-long countdown on this vote. We can use the results of the poll to determine where consensus does or does not exist regarding what should or should not be hosted, then we can formalize any sort of guidelines/policies about how to judge notoriety within each criteria, etc.
-- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 06:15, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
----
===Voting===
''To avoid posting issues, include {{t|clr}} in between every line of your vote. Countdown: {{Countdown|time=6:15 February 8, 2013|zone=UTC}}''
----
I'm going to jump right in and cast my vote:
{{VoteFor}} Custom Content - So long as it meets notoriety through the system I described above.{{clr}}
{{VoteFor}} Game Modification - Ditto{{clr}}
{{VoteFor}} Fan Websites - Ditto{{clr}}
{{VoteAgainst}} Content and Mod creators - I think the info about creators can be included on their creation pages, ''unless they have made multiple notable mods/c.c. items.''{{clr}}
{{Neutral}} Fan media creators - I could go either way on this one.{{clr}}
-- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 06:15, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
----
{{VoteFor}}'''Custom content''' - per LiR.{{clr}}
{{VoteFor}}'''Game modifications''' - As long as they meet the notoriety requirements.{{clr}}
{{Neutral}}'''Fan websites''' - Bit of a yes or no situation but can be good to have provided it meets notoriety.{{clr}}
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Content and Mod creators''' - Per LiR. Will only support creating them for those who have multiple mods that are notable, i.e. Twallan.{{clr}}
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Fan media creators''' - We're not a "biography of YouTube users" wiki. Mentioning your channel/site/creations on your userpage is fine but I believe going this route will cause more problems than we have the patience to deal with. {{LabSig}} 12:16, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
----
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Custom Content''' - I don't have strong point on this. Mostly, custom contents are just visual or cosmetic changes of any existing items. They most certainly don't appear in everyone's games, and I don't see any purpose if they have their own articles other than showcasing themselves, which might end up in people asking "Where can I get this?"{{clr}}
{{VoteFor}}'''Game Modifications''' - Mods are different from CCs, as they add, tweak, and/or fix the actual gameplay. Sometimes, it's even recommendable to use certain mods (sometimes at own risk). I'd say it okay if it fixes the gameplay, but doesn't add additional gameplay.{{clr}}
{{VoteFor}}'''Fan Websites''' - Some fansites may be unique on their own.{{clr}}
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Content and Mod Creators''' - Other than Pescado and Twallan, I don't see any other than "other modders."{{clr}}
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Fan Media Creators''' - Like above, I can't see them other than "some other Simmers."{{clr}}
-- [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Talk''</sub></span>]] <sub>–</sub> [[The Sims Wiki:Featured Media/Voting|<span style="color:red ; text-shadow:#E97451 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Vote!''</sub></span>]] 16:24, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
----
'''Relisting for a second week due to the lack of consensus'''. Three users with varying opinions isn't enough to reflect the views of the ''entire community''. Countdown: {{Countdown|time=15:52 February 17, 2013|zone=UTC}}'' {{LabSig}} 15:52, February 10, 2013 (UTC)''
----
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Custom Content''' - I don't really see why do we need articles about Custom Content.{{clr}}
{{Neutral}}'''Game Modifications''' - Some well-known and recommended mods can have their own articles.{{clr}}
{{VoteFor}}'''Fan Websites''' - There are some really reliable and well-known fansites that should have their articles.{{clr}}
{{Neutral}}'''Content and Mod Creators''' - I don't really see how this is relevant on the wiki. Though, some famous mod creators should be noted. {{clr}}
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Fan Media Creators''' - per Nikel23. {{clr}}
[[User:Vss2eip|<font face="candara" size="3"><span style="color:#00CCFF;">'''Vss2eip'''</span></font>]]<font face="candara">[[User_talk:Vss2eip|<span style="color:#00CCFF;"><sup>'''talk here'''</sup></span>]] </font> 17:05, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
----
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Custom Content''' - There are lots of custom content, so that would mean we would have to create articles about the most important, but how can we determine which content is relevant and which is not?{{clr}}
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Game Modifications''' - same reason as custom content.{{clr}}
{{VoteFor}}'''Fan Websites''' - Yes, this one seems good. It would direct users and would allow them to know more about each website. I think it would be pretty useful.{{clr}}
{{Neutral}}'''Content and Mod Creators''' - Perhaps, but again I'm not sure. There should be some important to note, others not so much. {{clr}}
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Fan Media Creators''' - I agree with Lab and others above. {{clr}}
--[[User:RoseGui|<span style="color:orange">RoseGui</span>]][[File:Thanks rose.png]] <small>([[User talk:RoseGui|<span style="color:orange">talk here</span>]])</small> 23:45, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
----
{{VoteAgainst}} '''Custom Content''' - Per others who voted against, and it seems a bit useless to me. There are other sites for Custom Content to be shared on. {{clr}}
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Game Modifications ''' - Would be easier just to create a page for the creator of the mod and explain them there. {{clr}}
{{Neutral}}'''Fan Websites''' - Not really sure. These are ''kind of'' like Fan Media Creators, but could be useful in a way. {{clr}}
{{VoteFor}}'''Content and Mod Creators''' - Would be easier than creating many pages for one creator's mods, but they would have to be well-known. {{clr}}
{{VoteAgainst}}'''Fan Media Creators''' - Per everyone else. {{clr}}
Wow it looks like I'm super against this but I'm not! :D ~ [[User:Waikikamukow|<font color="6a2286">Waikikamukow</font>]] <small>([[User talk:Waikikamukow|<font color="00b0f4">Anyone wanna chat?</font>]])</small> 05:15, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
----
{{VoteFor}} '''Custom Content''' {{clr}}
{{VoteFor}} '''Game Modifications''' {{clr}}
{{VoteFor}} '''Fan Websites''' {{clr}}
{{VoteFor}} '''Content and Mod creators''' {{clr}}
{{VoteFor}} '''Fan Media Creators''' {{clr}}
[[User:Auror Andrachome|Ѧüя◎ґ]] ([[User talk:Auror Andrachome|talk]]) 05:56, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
----
{{VoteAgainst}} '''Custom Content''' - Too hard to decide what CC would be notable, do not want{{clr}}
{{VoteFor}} '''Game Modifications''' - Fine with this{{clr}}
{{VoteFor}} '''Fan Websites''' - Fine by me, they are a prominent part of the TS community{{clr}}
{{Neutral}} '''Content and Mod creators''' - On the fence, depends how influential they are. If it's someone like the guy who made AwesomeMod, sure. {{clr}}
{{VoteAgainst}} '''Fan Media Creators''' - We ain't TVtropes or some other site, we're dealing with facts and we are not an advertisement place which is what the articles would act as imo.{{clr}}
{{WHsig|06:23, February 11, 2013 (UTC)}}
----
{{VoteFor}} '''Custom Content''' - Specific custom content shouldn't be covered here, but in my opinion, a general feel of the CC community (such as covering the main websites for CC, like we do in the [[Custom content]] article and talking about specific types of it, like hairstyles, skin tones and alike).{{clr}}
{{VoteFor}} '''Game Modifications''' - The most well-known ones (like AwesomeMod and the Master Controller) are worthy of having pages.{{clr}}
{{VoteFor}} '''Fan Websites''' - Just like I mentioned above in the CC point, and they are also important to the community.{{clr}}
{{VoteFor}} '''Content and Mod creators''' - Just like the mods criteria. If it's well-known in the community, then go for it.{{clr}}
{{VoteAgainst}} '''Fan Media Creators''' - Per the users above.{{clr}}
{{DanPinSig}} 11:48, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
===Results===
Well... some compromise might be necessary here in order to reach a point we all can agree with. There is a wide variation in answers and explanations, but generally it looks like it boils down like this:
{{VoteAgainst}} '''Custom Content''' - 4 vs 5{{clr}}
{{VoteFor}} '''Game Modifications''' - 6 vs 2 (1 neutral){{clr}}
{{VoteFor}} '''Fan Websites''' - 7 vs 0 (2 neutral){{clr}}
{{Neutral}} '''Content and Mod Creators''' - 3 vs 3 (3 neutral){{clr}}
{{VoteAgainst}} '''Fan Media Creators''' - 1 vs 7 (1 neutral){{clr}}
So, generally speaking it is agreed that we want to cover Game Modifications and Fan Websites (as long as they are notable). We're split right down the middle on Content and Mod Creators, so we'll have to settle that matter. And it looks like Custom Content and Fan Media Creators are out.
Is everyone more-or-less comfortable with the list above? -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 23:51, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
:I find it very well fine. We might as well assume that staying quiet means we won't object the result? Unless someone states otherwise. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Talk''</sub></span>]] <sub>–</sub> [[The Sims Wiki:Featured Media/Voting|<span style="color:red ; text-shadow:#E97451 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Vote!''</sub></span>]] 15:12, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
::The only compromise I can see with Content and Mod Creators is essentially what the opposition stated in their reasoning: only do it for the notable ones. One of the supports gave no reasoning whatsoever so that really does help a lot here. Other than that I'm cool with the list above. {{LabSig}} 12:26, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
==Proposed policy==
I've [[The Sims Wiki:Notability Policy (Proposed)|drafted a proposed policy]], trying to sum up what has been discussed as best as I can. Please give it a read over and discuss at will. To start off, notice the categories of articles I've listed... this is based on the vote we took above, though in the case of the neutral decision we reached on Content and Mod creators, I chose to err on the side of allowing rather than disallowing that content.
I'm looking for any way to refine this proposal, and I'd really like a full examination of the draft and its strengths and weaknesses before we consider putting it into force.
Also, I'm not crazy about the title. So, yeah. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] ~ [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 01:16, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
:Overall the proposal is adequate enough to be legitimate. I find it difficult to find anything wrong with the proposal. Kudos to you, Liron. [[User:Auror Andrachome|Ѧüя◎ґ]] ([[User talk:Auror Andrachome|talk]]) 01:40, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
::We haven't pretty much changed our mind, I suppose. But I can't tell if there's loophole in the proposed policy yet. Either way, it's a good policy to handle this kind of issue. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Talk''</sub></span>]] <sub>–</sub> [[The Sims Wiki:Featured Media/Voting|<span style="color:red ; text-shadow:#E97451 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Vote!''</sub></span>]] 03:07, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
:::Looks cool as it is. {{LabSig}} 20:36, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
::::I think it's good. ~ [[User:Waikikamukow|<font color="6a2286">Waikikamukow</font>]] <small>([[User talk:Waikikamukow|<font color="00b0f4">Anyone wanna chat?</font>]])</small> 06:13, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
:::::Sounds good to me, can't see any huge problems with it. {{WHsig|23:23, March 16, 2013 (UTC)}}
::::: I agree with it.[[User:Hurshbr|Hurshbr]] ([[User talk:Hurshbr|talk]]) 19:15, March 17, 2013 (UTC)Hurshbr
'''Closed''' - With unanimous support of the aforementioned draft, this thread passes as successful and the policy shall be implemented. {{LabSig}} 13:01, March 24, 2013 (UTC)
| |||