Forum:Making Blog Rules

I think its time we finally settle on some real blog rules so DP can no longer abuse his power with locking or deleting them.

First two proposed rules are: 1) No blog rules 2) If not that then anything non-OP related is allowed. This is obviously just a rough draft. Just comment and come up with your own rules. SeaTerror 21:36, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Your hard on for DP is amusing. Cheese Lord 21:37, June 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * But anyways, I think we should have no real blog rules. Unless it's spam or porn or something like that. Cheese Lord 21:55, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe setting up some blog categories is not such a bad idea...

Yes. The time has come for this forum. 22:02, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

I oppose to the "non op related" part because my lessons are non-related, but they're quality blogs. 22:04, June 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just the thing. Your lessons aren't necessarily one piece related but they have content and effort in them. Stuff like the latest blog dp deleted wasn't even a complete sentence. 22:38, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see that blog and assumed it was bad anyway because of the person that made it. An example of him deleting a blog would be when he deleted Calu's boob avatar blog. Also we do not need blog categories. I forgot about porn but that should be against the rules too. The only problem with a no spam rule is what is spam can be subjective. SeaTerror 00:01, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of categories a lot, because while I've seen lots of blogs about personal ideas/analysis on characters, etc that I'd really love to read more of, I never read the blogs. I never read them because there are just so many other blogs about stuff I just do not care about. The sheer volume of the blogs I don't care about just keeps me away from that section almost entirely, and I've been using the wiki for close to two years now. If we had categories, it would be so much easier and more enjoyable to process the blogs. I don't really know the capabilities of wikia to make categories, but I think it would be pretty cool if for example, we could compile all the predictions of the dialogue the next chapter into one category (or sub-category, as I think this example would be a better sub-category) so that it would be super-easy to compare everyone's different predictions. And while many people's blog's wouldn't fit into categories, as long as everyone's ok with having a large "miscellaneous" section, then categories really are a nice idea. Like I said, I hardly look at the blogs, so this is just my opinion as kind of an outsider from them. JustSomeDude... 00:47, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Making categories for the blogs might be good, but by the same token it might be a complete waste of time. I deleted Calu's blog because it was basically telling everyone to find and make their favorite rack into their avatar, which makes us look like a bunch of retarded nymphomaniacal lemmings. If you're going to cite Neo's stuff as a counterexample (and let's face it, you are), she was able to keep her stuff from leaking out onto the mainspace and the comments stayed for the most part pretty clean, as well as few and far apart. You may not like it, ST, but I'm an admin, and as such, I reserve the right to dispose of or disable materials I deem inappropriate or pointless. If you stopped to ask me, you'd know that I don't favor strictly One Piece related blogs, but blogs about the wiki in general so long as they're constructive, which is why I never objected to Jop's lesson blogs. The subject of the wiki is from Japan, and we see honorifics and the like in the manga, anime, and SBS, so why wouldn't I allow someone who is knowledgeable in that regard to share it with the community? Lately I've been viewing blogs as more of an annoyance, even if I occasionally partake in them. How sacred is something with a killswitch? The content of blogs has dropped to such low standards, that I would be doing a disservice not to delete the crap of the crop when they come along. They're a feature that is currently active, and that's all. We're a wiki first, a fansite second, so I can treat the optional feature that makes us a fansite however I choose. For you, this is less about the blogs and more about trying to make me atone for doing something you don't like. How many other people have complained that I've abused my power when deleting blogs like you have? None, that's how many. Anything an admin does that you don't like you claim is an abuse of power. I remember one time you said Yatanogarasu and I were abusing our power for holding a forum about an issue? Really? Trying to be fair is abuse of power? Ask yourself, what is the real issue you're trying to bring up here? 05:12, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

I agree that having some rules (or at least guidelines) will do good for everyone, blog author, reader, and admin alike. The things that an admin does could be seen as good by some and bad by others. If we have some obvious lines being drawn, at least when an admin deleted some blogs or comments will no longer be question as abusing of power, unless what they did does not fit into the rules or guidelines set.

Again I stress that my main point of having the rules or guidelines is to be fair to all - the blog author, reader and admin. Blog author will know what can and cannot be blogged about (e.g. porn or offensive content or spam, etc), readers will know what can and cannot be put down as comment (I'm still feeling bad for indirectly causing a user to be banned for a couple of days in one of my blogs) and admins will not be seen as power abusing if they take down any blog or comments which does not fall under the rules or guidelines. 06:12, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

I think blogs need to be OP or atleast wiki related. The only other things I would request would be, the really short blogs that people make are really annoying, so can you people please elaborate on a subject because it's honestly just a waste of space. The next is the opposite those really long rambling paragraphs about total bullshit, there are exceptions like the funny ones by people like mdm, predictions and summaries are fine too. And the last is the bitching blogs, if people do the wrong thing we don't need a fucking blog about it that's what forums like this are for. 06:43, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

I will just say my piece of mind since this forum is about blogs. Yes there needs to be some guidelines about blogs, they don't have to be detail but at least clear enough to support admin's decision if he/she deleted a blog. I always trusted a admin's decisions and if they delete a blog then I can understand their reason behind it. My blog had their comments closed and I don't mind cause that blog was really going in the wrong direction at that time. Thou everyone was having fun and stuff but we have to remember we are One Piece Wiki, not thubler or something like that >_> .. so if a list of 8-10 blog rules are made then that might really make these issues less complicated and people will understand why their blog get deleted rather then annoy admin over it all the time. My blogs are not always one piece friendly and the comments are notwhere near what people should be discussing but I keep it going cause people are having fun. If someone does feel offended because of my blogs then I aim to take it down immediately. Monkey.D.Me 18:48, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

It seems like there already a few rules that admins already follow and most of the people who wrote here are in favor of them. It seems that anything that is abusive, unhelpful, or damaging to the wiki (and damaging to the wiki's image, ie: porn, spam) shouldn't be allowed. I agree that Jop's lessons are non-OP related, but I also think they're quite helpful for the community, so I think there should be exceptions made not only for his blogs, but others that may be like it in the future. These rules may not get rid of as much as some people desire, but they would definitely get rid of all the stuff that's truly the worst of it. All there really needs to be now is a place where those rules are published and easy to find for all the blog users. JustSomeDude... 13:47, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Since I see major agreement in having some basic written blog rules, should we have some sort of discussion over it or should it be done by poll as well? Just curious and eager :P Monkey.D.Me 21:31, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

There are no rules yet. They just make up their own stuff. Non-OP related blogs should always be allowed unless blatant spam or pornographic. SeaTerror 22:12, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

How about rules on re-posting blogs, re-posting tourney or daily-diaries or chain-fanfric blogs that has no relation to One Piece? We also need a rule on how much content a blog MUST have in order to be considered a blog. At least 50 words if you ask me. SO these little things needs to be discussed as well. Monkey.D.Me 22:24, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

By your 50 word rule stuff like the chibi marines I posted as a blog wouldn't be allowed because it was basically just a sentence and some pretties.

hmm how about 25? or 35? come on Panda, anyone can write at least 25-35 words in introducing the blog, mini explanation and blog closer. I know you can do it .. its just members like LKK I am worried about >_> .. if you know what I mean. *cough*MakinABlog*cough* .. there is nothing wrong with that blog but it just misleads some other new members to make some shitty one-liner blogs. Monkey.D.Me 22:38, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

If there should be blog rules:

1) No non-op blogs. Like announcing something that happened in your real life. There are diaries for that. Or talking for another anime or manga alone. Go to their wiki for that.

2) Blogs that will lead to a spam in the activity. When the 'author' asks for a game that everyone has to comment.

And about the categories in the blogs. I'll say no.

@MDM. DP disabled the comments in that blog, so shut up.

The blog categories are just a way to make it easier for us retrieve and manage the blogs... I mean if we had a category "non op-related blogs" and now we decide to remove all of them you don't have to hunt them down in this category. Mine was simply a suggestion for a better organization, it's not a blog rule. Another advice: we should also decide if the rules decide here will be retroactive (normally they are).

@LPK, .. after 500 useless, worthless and purposeless comments? XDXDXD

Well I agree with Levi on having blog categories. If the Blog is one piece related then it must fall under one of the listed category and if it does not then its non-Op related and should no be there. More organized and straightforward.

Monkey.D.Me 19:13, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

I've already said I'm for the creation of categories. Even if the two categories are just OP-related and non-OP related. I don't think we should be terribly strict about the OP related blogs, as long as we can separate the serious OP blogs from the ones that are made "just for fun". And awhile ago DP posted the rules for the Avatar wiki on SeaTerror's talk page, and there was some interesting stuff there.

http://avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Avatar_Wiki:User_blog_policy

While the vast majority of them would be too strict to impliment here without people flipping out, I did find one rule I thought was really good. "Their intention (meaning the blogs) is not to act only as a conversation starter. Thus, blog posts should present some substantial content and should, at the very least, be one, full paragraph (and not one sentence)." That's not to say I don't want people to start conversations, I just think the forum is a better place for it. That way it's not like one person is responsible for the conversation. (and can be blamed if it gets out of hand.) JustSomeDude...  01:33, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that. 02:08, July 6, 2012 (UTC)

Moving all the discussion to forums and have blogs serve its purpose as presentation content .. That might be tough to astablish on this wiki since most of the blogs are pure opinions that people want to start discussion on. While I agree with adopting some of the key blog-rules from avatar wiki, it's really impossible to maintain it unless strict watch and supervision is kept on the blog activity. Unless this responsibility is divided, all this work will come down on our admins and I am sure they have much more important things to handle the supervise all blogs. Avatar wiki has vast number of active admins while we have only 2 who are more then enough for controlling the wiki activity but I am not sure about this task. So in the end the it's up to DP and YATA .. Weather to make a blog-supervision team or do it themselves.

Monkey.D.Me 04:28, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

I look at all that and all I see is this. 05:47, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

Blog rules would have to be voted on by the entire community. I'm against blog categories 100%. SeaTerror (talk) 20:05, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

@ MDM. I don't think the rule on conversation starting is meant to ban conversation starting, just meant to ban *short* conversation starters. For example, a blog that consists entirely of "Do you guys think Luffy could beat ____?" would be too short for a blog. But if someone wanted to start a conversation about if Luffy could beat whoever, and made an entire paragraph explaining their own opinion or different points that would affect the outcome of the fight, then that is totally ok. It's just a matter of thought. If someone wants to start a conversation with thought (and length) then they can do it with a blog. If they want to do nothing but start the conversation (meaning there's not much length), then they should do that in the more public forum. As to where the line should be, I'm not really sure. It's hard to put a number on what's substantial or not, especially if there's picture involved in it, because a picture speaks a thousand words. In the end, it's very subjective, in my mind at least. If something is on the fence, instead of just deleting or moving something right away, the admin could close the comments and give the person several days to either a) add content to the blog or b) move the blog to the forum themselves.

And MDM does bring up another good point that if the blogs become more regulated, that is more work for our dear admins. If we look at the avatar wiki, they use an administrator noticeboard, and a user reporting system to manage them. Take a look: http://avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Avatar_Wiki:Administrator_noticeboardIt seems that it works fairly smoothly for them, and they have more strict rules, and what looks like more users than us. It also looks like they use it for more than just blogs, banning vandal anon editors, deleting pages, anything that needs admin attention, etc. Basically a lot of stuff that we use the admin's talk pages for, but centralized. I think the benefit of it is that while the admins would have more to examine/delete, if the rest of us report well enough, then at least the admins don't have to go reading everything to find the stuff themselves. But again with what MDM said, it's more work for the admins, and I'm completely ok with it if they don't want to manage the blogs more than they already do. It's their work, so it's their call. JustSomeDude... 14:40, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

What about controlling the images of the blogs but not minding the text? I see the thing that worries some of you the most is the possibility of having lots of images non-op related.. That might be a point. By the way, the argument "I'm an admin and I erase what I think is pointless" is horrible! Power abuse? Let's take this peacefully, people! ^^ Khaliszt (talk)

This needs a bump, because it is still very unresolved. 22:12, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

BUMP!! Indeed this is a un-resolved issue and we have yet to create a list of rules, policies or guidelines for blogs. Make it short with around just 5-10 rules but we should have a solid control over blog-posts to maintain blog-quality. So, since everyone has nothing else to do then troll ST's blog .. lets get thid issue resolved ^_^ 01:22, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

Since no one is taking the lead except me and dude .. I will start on a Rough Guidelines draft myself .. reply if you disagree or want to add a guideline rules:


 * 1) Blog MUST be more then 20 sentences. 2 Intro, 2 Ending and 16 sentence of elaborated text of whats your blog about and what do you require the readers to do.


 * 1) (LPK's Idea) Blogs that will lead to a spam in the activity. When the 'author' asks for a game that everyone has to comment.


 * 1) (LPK's Idea as-well) No non-op blogs. Like announcing something that happened in your real life. There are diaries for that.


 * NO, re-posting old already-discussed blogs, re-hosting tourney or daily-diaries or chain-fanfric blogs that has no relation to One Piece.

well these are some that I came up with but I would request Admins to add few of rules they judge the blogs by to decide either to keep the blog or delete it. 18:55, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

'ADD

No misleading or False-Advertisement Titles that are aimed toward bringing in more readers. The title of the blog must be related to the Blog content.

(Looks at LPK)

Don't make me repeat myself Mister =_=  19:08, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need any blog rules if a admin finds a blog is spam or anything like that he can remove it and that's all, we dont need any rules for blogs. 13:09, August 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's something that people want, then we should at least have some list of things that DP finds "removable." If only so that people can have something to refer to in order to know if their blogs are ok. If there are already are rules that DP follows, the rest of us should probably know what they are. 14:05, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

BUMP!! The goal is not to make new blog rules .. its to have the current blog-rules that Admins judge the blogs by written somewhere for reference purpose. If you are against making new rules then thats fine but how about having the current blog-rules written. Oh trust me, if not now then in future people will want to know the Blog, Chat, Comment and Edit rules and policies. This is just a early walk-up call. 02:53, August 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is: Only Blogs on either One Piece in general (predictions, reviews, news, nitpicks etc.) or about this wiki (e.g. for site news on the main page, or reasonable critics) should be allowed. And there has to be some sense in the blog posts or else they should be deleted as spam activity and troll posts (e.g. "OP is shit!" stuff from narutards and bleachheads - regular fans are still welcome of course.) Blog authors may decide whether or not to allow comments. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 17:40, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

I call for a rule that don't allow blogs bitching about whatever, including accusing people of lying to other people. 06:40, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

BUMP DAT FORUM!! 02:13, August 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * My BUMP brings all the guys to the Forum,


 * And damn right, Its better than yours. 02:08, August 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * ^^^BUMP^^^

Well, since I can't seem to get a response out of anyone other than MDM, I propose we start a poll. Let's keep it really simple for now and have the only question on the poll be "Should there be blog rules, yes or no?" Does that sound ok? 04:08, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I would have to see what rules we would be putting down before I vote on anything. Right now, I would want some order, but if later someone decides to go over-the-top with the rules, then I wouldn't be able to revoke my decision. For now, we just need a conclusive list of rules, based off of MDM's list above and with the other suggested ones added on. Then we can decide whether or not to add some, then we can vote about whether or not we can add the rules all at once. 04:24, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

The rules we would vote on would be most of the ones people have discussed in detail here. If a rule hasn't been discussed here, then we simply wouldn't have it until a discussion about it occurs here. I think the issue is better handled through separate polls for each rule. There probably won't be too many rules to vote on. (And we wouldn't vote on any obvious rules, like spam/porn/anything that violates other rules of the wiki.) And this way, if there are any new rules that you don't agree with added later, you can vote against them, and you can still get the order you desire. I just wouldn't want people voting against the idea of any rules at all because they really want non-OP related blogs to be allowed. I don't want zero progress just because some people are opposed to one rule. I think the more simple system is to just find out if people really want rules at all, THEN find out which rules they want. 04:48, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

You have to list which rules were discussed first before making the poll. Then we decide if we really want them or not. SeaTerror (talk) 05:00, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

You have eyes, don't you? Read the forum, it's not terribly long.

But if you really need a summary of all the possible rules that have been proposed by everyone (not just me) in this forum so far:
 * Whether or not non-OP, non-wiki related blogs should be allowed.
 * Putting a minimum length requirement on blogs. Possible exceptions to blogs centered around images, provided what content there is sound.
 * Preventing the re-blogging of other people's ideas/content.
 * No game/tournament blogs that lead to spam in the wiki activity.
 * Blogs should exist not as merely short conversation starters. Short conversation starters would take place in the forum.
 * No false advertising blog titles.
 * No swears allowed in blog titles. Titles only, not content.
 * Any other rules that admins follow when they delete blogs, but have yet to tell us in this forum. (These are possibly not optional and will not be voted on. I just don't know what they are, because nobody's told me.)

There were also some proposals that are not rules to the blogs, but some changes into the way they are organized:
 * Possibly adding blog categories. Blogs would not be required to fit into set categories, as a large "uncategorized" or "Misc." category would exist. (is it possible to give blogs a table to organize them, like we have for the forums?)
 * Adding an admin noticeboard so that people may notify admins of blogs that need administrator attention.

That's all that's been discussed so far, and more can be added or some can be taken off that list with more detailed discussion. I am not proposing we vote on these rules right away, I am only making a summary to satisfy ST. The only thing I want on the first poll is "Blog Rules, yes or no?" 15:33, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Before opening the poll, I suggest to post a preview of the actual poll to see if anyone has critics about the options, the wording or whatever. This way we will avoid changing stuff mid-way.

^BUMP!!^ mmmmmmm what's up doc?

I think the preview of the poll will look something like this ..

This Poll is to decide if we should have Rules for blogs on this wiki or not and also which blog-rules should we have and which not.

The voting close at BLAHBLAHBLAH. You must have been on here for at least three months and have at least 300 edits to vote on this poll.

SHOULD BE HAVE BLOG-RULES ON THIS WIKI?

Yes

1.

No

1.

WHICH RULES SHOULD BE HAVE AND WHICH NOT?

Should Non-Op Blogs be allowed?

Yes

1.

No

1.

and then similar polls for every single rule the Dude posted above in his post.

So that it, if you want something fixed, let me know ..

  ☆ MDM ☆   ♡♥♡(･ω･)♡♥♡   23:57, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

That looks ok to me, I would just change it to non-OP and non-Wikia related blogs. We should allow blogs that are related to the process of editing/managing the wikia. Other than that, the poll looks fine to me. Make sure UTC is specified in the poll time too. 01:43, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Poll One: Should There Be Rules?
The poll is currently closed. The voting closed at 05:00 September 19, 2012 (UTC). You must have been on here for at least three months and have at least 300 edits to vote on this poll.

The only question being asked now is if the wikia wants to have any rules for blogs at all. If it is decided that rules will be made, separate votes and discussions will occur later for those. Please do not vote against rules if you dislike only a few of the rules discussed in this forum.

Should the Wiki have clear rules for Blogs?


 * Yes, the wikia needs rules for blogs.
 * 1)  04:42, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)   04:49, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 04:51, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 05:38, September 5, 2012 (UTC) (Not like super-super strict, like you can only have a certain amount of edits or something like that.)
 * 1) -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 07:36, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)  08:06, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3)  10:45, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4)  13:21, September 5, 2012 (UTC)Zori
 * 15:39, September 5, 2012 (UTC) Only certain rules.
 * 17:48, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  23:41, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)    23:47, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3)  23:36, September 6, 2012 (UTC) nuff said.
 * 4)  Rainelz 03:19, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 04:28, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * 04:28, September 17, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the wikia does not need rules for blogs.
 * 1) ( i know i cant win but i still support no rules
 * 2)  15:32, September 5, 2012 (UTC)

Post Poll One Discussion
The poll is now closed. It has been decided that blog rules shall be made.

So, where do we go from here? I propose that we create separate discussions for every rule that's been discussed in the rest of the forum (and leave a discussion section for new proposals as well) and after about a week or so of discussion, we start polls in them. If any of the proposed rules don't have any substantial support, then we won't waste time with a poll for them. Does that sound reasonable? 05:11, September 19, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. 02:22, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Me too Galaxy9000 (talk) 02:24, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Then it shall be done. Below, I'll put a bunch of new sections for the rules mentioned before. We'll start polls in about a week then?

Where should we post new blog rule ideas, though? A new section? The first discussions? I don't really know, myself... 03:26, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Once we figure out what should we do in each section you created, then we'll start several polls for each decision. If we don't get more people to talk it over in these sections then we'll make the polls because we can't wait for ever. I'd give it like 2-3 days..

New Rule Proposals
The following sections are PROPOSALS ONLY. Each rule will get a poll eventually.

'''PLEASE NOTE: Many of these topics have been discussed in part in the original discussion. If you have some questions about a topic, read the original forum discussion to see if you can find your answer.'''

Non-OP Blogs Discussion
I think blogs that are related to the wikia and it's functioning are fine, and helpful. But I don't see any need for blogs unrelated to OP or the wiki. We're a wiki first, and a fansite second, and we shouldn't be a social media site too. If people really want to talk about non-OP/OP wiki things, do it in chat. 03:26, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Blogs that relate to the function of the wiki should be allowed as well. However, I am in opposition to the whole "community" blogs because those are too "social-media-ish" to me. 03:32, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Requiring clarification, what's the definition of "community" blogs? Are this and this "community" blogs? 04:36, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

This is good. Guys, it's the One Piece wiki. The blogs should be about One Piece and nothing else. Fiction stuff that are made up by you should go to another wiki or your own computer.


 * Yes, this is the One Piece WIKI, the Wiki has a community, and blogs are made by the community not necessarily to discuss OP-related stuff. Just think about your League Of Nations, Great Editor Event, etc blogs LPK...

In my opinion, the only blogs that should be accepted should be about One Piece and the real life around it (like if a new movie/game was announced), something about the Wiki's production, or a giant announcement for a regular user, like vacation or leaving permanently or something, sort of like Cheese Lord's recent "leaving" blog. 16:49, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

No, MDM's casual community blogs are always things to look forward to, for example the Koolaid (blood type) blog, nothing wrong with that, right?

I'd say if you're gonna leave/stop editing, a blog is ok. It's how you relate to the wikia, so I'd say that's wikia-related. But if you're just going on vacation and gonna be gone a few days, just edit your user profile. Nobody needs to respond to your vacation, people need to respond to your leaving forever.

And as far as non-OP blogs, if people want to talk about things unrelated to OP, I know a great place: It's called chat. We really don't need to have blogs for idle chatting too. 19:58, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

There are so many differences to the chat and the blogs, the proof is the amount on non-OP related blogs with tons of success.

BUT are those blogs really helpful to the wiki? Chat can be helpful and productive, but I just don't see non-OP blogs as being helpful or productive. They may be fun, but that doesn't mean we should have them. A lot of bad things are fun. 20:08, September 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Dude, I have to disagree with you on this one. You are arguing whether blogs are helpful / productive to the wiki. I see the blogs as 1) a place to discuss ideas, theories, predictions and stuffs relating to OP 2) a place to chill out and just relax for article editors to just take a break off editing, hang out with the rest of the community.


 * p.s. Some may say "just go for chat" for the second purpose but chats are meant as an online (live) talks / discussion for immediate "on-the-spot" decision / thoughts. Blogs serves a different purpose than that. Take for instance my blog about most look forward character. If I were to pop into chat and just talk about that idea, if I'm lucky, there will be about 10-15 people in the chat room (at the time) and people may (or may not) be interested to talk about it in the main chat. However in putting it down as a blog, more people gets to read, digest, think about it and respond.


 * Back to what I am trying to say here, you cannot expect each and every blogs to be productive for the wiki. Unlike article editing which needs to contribute positively to the wikia, blogs must not be treated as a positive contributor. Many of you are still underage but if I may, I perceive blogs similar to real life bars or pubs while article editing is to office (business) works. I'd pop into a bar just to chill (take mind off work) and watch football / soccer, talk and have a nice time and enjoying the company of friends. That is exactly how I treat blogs, I would pop in from time to time to see what latest interesting blogs are there, add in thoughts / opinion or just correspond with the many people's comments posted (be it seriously or just joking).


 * Hope you get the point of what I'm trying to put across. 02:10, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

What's so negative about them? They don't need to be helpful and they never did anything wrong..

I think your blogs have value, AYET. I was even the first one to comment on that one you mentioned, I believe. I find that blog (and many others) to be valuable and fun. But I do think some blogs are bad. The main purpose of this wikia is to be a wikia and have articles and stuff. The blogs are a nice side-thing for the community, but they aren't necessary for the community. I think yes, we should have blogs. But blogs that are unrelated to One Piece or the Wikia shouldn't be here. They can just lead to over a hundred comments about nothing that relates to the wikia. And that can be harmful. I try to always watch the wikia activity to make sure nobody is vandalizing the pages (part of my responsibility as a user with rollback rights), and I always find that to be much more difficult when there are a lot of blog comments. As an active editor, I'd like to have an easy way to do my "job" (even though the job is self-imposed) especially if the reason for my job being harder is just people having fun. Fun that is unrelated to the one topic that should bring us together (One Piece) too...

In the end, the thing that should be common across the wiki is a dedication to One Piece. Is it really too much to ask to have that? 03:10, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

So that's what you meant by "helpful" or "productive". Thus basically if the blog talks about OP or the likes and is not a too-obvious troll, then its fine, yes. This is what you meant, yea? I can agree to that, its justifiable. Blogs unrelated to OP or the wikia shouldn't be here and this should be one of the general rules applicable. I get your point now, my apology for earlier. 03:46, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

Once again, this is a WIKI, a community, it makes no sense to delete a simple fun community blog... for example http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:LuffyPirateKing/The_Great_Editor_Event and http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:LuffyPirateKing/League_of_Nations and http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:JustSomeDude.../Since_there_is_no_chapter_this_week..._Let%27s_resolve_some_forums! etc.

THT, I think those examples you provided are all ok and allowed (if I'm understanding Dude correctly), as in a way, those blogs are related to the wiki community (both LPK's) and the wikia itself (Dude's). I don't think they will object (i.e. delete) to these kinda blogs. 07:08, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

Why not? It's a community blog and not related to OP, so this is obviously delete material (according to this rule)...

I think all 3 of those blogs fall under the category of "wikia related" blogs. Read the forum (particularly the original discussion way up top) carefully and you will find that we want to eliminate blogs that are unrelated to One Piece and blogs that are unrelated to the One Piece Wikia. So if someone came along and made a blog about Naruto, it would be deleted. Or if someone made a blog about their day in school or some other life "changing" event that doesn't affect their presence here, that would also be deleted. 15:32, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

JDS, I wasn't specifically arguing against you, my comment was directed more towards PX's statement.

This section seems to be mostly done. Unless people want to debate a little bit more about what exactly "Wikia-related" means exactly, we should probably start the poll in this section soon. 21:25, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, since nobody has responded to this section, here's a look at what the poll I will start to tomorrow will look like:

Should the wikia allow non-One Piece related blogs?

Yes, the wikia should allow non-OP blogs.

No, the wikia should not allow blogs that are unrelated to One Piece or the Wikia.

If nobody has an problems with that (or doesn't say anything) I'll start the poll in this section tomorrow. 06:56, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

I am against this, Non-OP blogs should be allowed to stay. Blogs are something personal no-matter where they are, whether a wiki or a cooking site. The fact that we make blogs on this site on our own profile pages gives dues to that. By definition blogs are- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blog. If someone is going to go against blogs because they don't pertain to this particular wikia, then why have blogs at all. Just get rid of the blog feature and have everyone make a blog on another site. But if blogs are allowed to be a function of this site and they are created on personal pages, then the content of the blog has a right to be of a personal nature, like a thought or idea. Not saying that blogs like those are fun to read or even "good" but then again, no one is forcing me to read them, I would have to choose to read them.

Now there should of course be some rules on blog content. Can't have people talking about inappropriate things and stuff like that. LostandOld (talk) 03:27, October 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * This is the One Piece Wikia, not tumblr. If you want to say something, say it in a place that's relevant. Nobody is going to care what's happened in the latest chapter of Lucky Star. These are One Piece Wikia blogs that should only be related to One Piece Wikia. Why blog something nobody will have interest in? 03:37, October 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * Precisely the point. Why does this wikia have a blog function? Its purpose is for information which no-one has to become a member to read/see. I say delete the feature in its entirety. But because this is also a community if you do join and edit, then the fact there is a blog feature leaves way for those members to be able to put there thoughts or what have you into a personal journal (blog). And you can't say no one will be interested as we can't speak for everyone. If someone sees a blog about how someone just read the latest chapter of a series and decides to comment on it, then why should someone else care about their discussion? LostandOld (talk) 03:58, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * That fills up the activity feed. There's no reason for there to be blogs that are unrelated to One Piece or the Wikia here. If you want to say something, say it in your own personal blog. There's more than one blog website. We didn't invent it. If you want to say something, say something relevant. If not, move somewhere where it is. 04:03, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the context of how you are using the words "you" and "your", is it directed at me? To respond; The fact that there are blogs already makes them personal by definition, I already said this in the first posting I made. I do have to question your remark, "we didn't invent them"- Do you mean that literally (cause I am aware of the answer) or is your meaning, the site can't discard of the feature? Either or, whats relevant is up to the one reading it which is why it is a blog. Other sites that you mention don't even limit blogs, even if the site is specified to tv, film, anime or books (if you like), because a blog is a personal journal not limited to just thought on the subject of the site. The individual may get more responses if they kept it to the site but that doesn't change the fact that as blogs, they are made on each users personal page and the fact that this is a community, everyone has a right to put down their thought on a subject whether it pertains to what is on the site. And since the blogs that some find "dumb" to read aren't even able to be read by those just looking up information on the wiki, how does that harm the wiki as a whole? You said it fills up the activity feed, though I see a few more useless things that take up more space and users that use monobook can't either ways. LostandOld (talk) 04:39, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

If you want to keep a journal, try a diary. This is not the place for any random thought that floats into your head. This isn't Twitter. 04:50, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Twiiter is a social networking site dedicated to only that. They have no form of encyclopedic fact-pages. The basis that this site does plus has a blog-function for its community (which I have stated is odd) more than suggests that users here have the right and ability to make a blog of their choosing as long as it follows the Terms of Use. LostandOld (talk) 05:38, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Poll Two: Non-OP Blogs
The poll is currently closed. Result: All blogs that are unrelated to One Piece and/or the Wikia are not allowed.

The only rule being polled now is whether or not Blogs that are unrelated to One Piece and/or to this wikia will be allowed. Blogs about the community of users on this wkia fall under "wikia-related" and would still be allowed.

Should the Wikia allow blogs that are unrelated to One Piece and/or the Wikia?


 * Yes. The wikia should allow blogs that are unrelated to One Piece and/or the wikia.
 * 1)  01:24, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The wikia should not allow blogs that are unrelated to One Piece and/or the wikia.
 * 1)  01:23, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 01:24, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 01:24, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 01:25, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 02:05, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 02:08, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 02:32, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 02:36, October 18, 2012 (UTC) (quite an obvious choice)
 * 02:39, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * 04:01, October 18, 2012 (UTC) This shouldn&apos;t even be a vote.
 * 16:23, October 18, 2012 (UTC)Zori
 * 1) -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 15:10, October 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)  21:39, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Minimum Content Requirement Discussion
I think that this rule's discussion should be a combination of the "Blogs should not exist only as conversation starters" and "minimum length requirement" rules. Does that sound reasonable? They're both restrictions on the minimum content blogs should have. If anyone has concerns about combining them, and thinks they should be separated, say so. 03:26, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Blogs, to me, are nothing but glorified conversation starters. A good blog is one that provokes thoughtful discussion and makes everyone consider an idea or issue and cover every aspect of it. Minimum length requirements, maybe, but "conversation starter" is unnecessary. 03:39, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Of course blogs are conversation starters, but sometimes people write them so that they are ONLY conversation starters. They don't add any of their own opinions or ideas, and only ask a simple question (ex: Who is Vergo? etc) with very little else. I think if someone's going to make a blog, they should have enough content to make it rich. They should have enough content that they can "own" the conversation. If they don't have enough content, let them make a forum. 14:45, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Hence the minimum word count. If we have that, then there is no need to worry about the other one. 17:30, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

The minimum word count might not be a good idea. I've written blogs that were a couple pages and ones that were maybe two smallish paragraphs. Length will have to be up to discretion based on breadth of content presented. Basically, they should have some substance to them and make sense at least grammatically. I say at least since I'd like to hope that logical sense isn't too much to ask for, so long as people check their facts before publishing. 22:36, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

I think "two smallish paragraphs" is an acceptable blog. It the ones that are one sentence (or even worse: One question) that are really not worth it. I personally think that if a person is going to make a blog, they should at least have an opinion or viewpoint on the subject first. If they don't have that, they should be forced to go back to the drawing board and try again, or make a forum.

Blogs about the wikia should be exempt from this rule however. It's hard to to make a paragraph about some wikia problems, and sometimes a blog is the best way to get an answer to a quick question.

It is important to note in the rules that forums are an acceptable way around this blog rule. Short blogs just lead to people being mean/nasty/sarcastic (or just people having their own conversations in the comments) and a large amount of spam in the activity. Short forums usually just die, or become an at least somewhat-productive conversation. There's never 300 posts of memes in a forum.

Another thing to consider, is if this rule goes through, should we make it retroactive and delete all old short blogs too? I'm normally not opposed to people reviving old blogs, but when the blogs weren't very worthwhile to begin with, I do have a problem with someone adding a single "lol". As I write this an AWC is going around commenting on most comment threads in this blog and he's being annoying and insulting. I don't see how leaving a bunch of unworthwhile blogs up can help the wiki in any way. I think it's too easy to revive these blogs, and nothing that's said is really worthwhile. ALL short, meaningless blogs should be deleted. 19:50, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

How about a four-five sentence minimum? That sounds pretty easy to me, and it rules out all the idiots who can't form real thoughts. About the old blogs, we should go ahead and lock commenting on all blogs three or so months old (just my opinion on this). 23:16, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

4-5 sentences is just asking for making blogs unnecesarily long and to add lots of filler stuff. Many things can already be said in just 1 sentence. And since not all of our blogs are theories/predictions/other bigger blogs and can be something like Ryu's chapter 5 comic notifiction I think this rule must be specified to theory/review/such things blogs.


 * Whenever I need to say something short, I sometimes just use it as a comment in the latest non-serious blog or the chat. As for something like Ryu's chapter comic announcements, that's why I proposed the "fanfic table of contents" blog thing. 16:45, September 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * Just putting a notification at random in someone else's blog is just like Luffayking12's blog advertising.

No, it shouldn't be retroactive. 00:17, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't it be retroactive, DP? 01:44, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be retroactive. Those old blogs could have some value, like something to look back on. A part of the blogs history. If you delete those, Robin would totally kill you. 02:35, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

I still see those old blogs as a problem though. They are still technically alive and could become a problem again very easily. I normally don't hate the resurrection of old blogs, but this is the one case where I do think it's bad. If the blogs were never worth it to begin with, I don't see how resurrecting them could somehow be worth it. But if people really want to keep them "for the records" what about just locking comments on all of them?

And I wouldn't necessarily want to hunt down every blog in a day and have it deleted. Let's just find some (I already know of a couple users that made only one sentence blogs) get rid of those, then only deal with the ones that get revived later by AWCs, new users, etc. 15:47, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

Get rid of blogs? Like hell. If this rules somehow gets through, just lock the comment section of those old blogs.

Ok, we'll lock the comments. And what if we used template and category that can be added as a comment in order mark the blogs that need to be locked? That way non-admins could locate the blogs, mark them with a comment, and then an admin could come along and lock it. Then the admin should also delete the comment with the template in order to keep the category empty. Does anyone think that would be a good way to deal with this stuff?

Also, I think blogs that relate to the sharing of a picture or video (For example, some of the several blogs related to news about Z, of people wishing to share a picture related to OP) should be able to get away with having less text content than a blog that is all text. Also, I do think it's hard to put a number on how much content is "enough" (either in word or sentence count) and we need to discuss more deeply about how much really is "enough". 06:39, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

This section needs a lot more discussion, as we haven't zeroed in on how much content is enough.

Also, as I said about, the amount of text can vary if images or videos are involved. Look at this blog. It only two sentences of its own text, but I would still classify this blog as "valid". So that makes things very fuzzy. 22:05, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, three sentences. I think at least three sentences must be required for a blog. That is quite enough to tell your opinion on whatever. 22:08, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be retroactive since they were written before the rules were in place and therefore had no way of knowing so it would be unfair to count them. Since they existed before the rule was passed, it doesn't apply to them, kind of like certain building codes. 18:38, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

One paragraph consisting at least 5 sentences each 10 words means total of 50. thats my opinion. 20:21, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

What about locking comments on old blogs with minimum content? We're making the rule, so we can do it however we want. I'd want to eliminate the possibility of people adding "lol" to blogs that are one sentence. 06:55, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good, JSD. But something has been chewing on me, and that is DP locking the blogs only because there are two users flaming at eachother. Even if its BS what they're commenting l still don't think this should be done. 13:34, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

''This section still needs serious discussion. It's clear that several users do want minimum content restrictions, but we still do not have a number that we've settled upon.''

Personally, my biggest problem is with blogs that only ask a question like "who would win in a fight? Character X or Y?" or "Who's the best/hottest character?" or "Who will join the SHs next?" I think we should make sure that bloggers at least attempt to answer their own questions in blogs such as those. They don't have to have a clear answer, but they should at least try and give a rundown of their opinion(s).

Otherwise, I think 1 solid paragraph (~5 sentences) is adequate.

For blogs with images/videos, I think we shouldn't give them a text content restriction. However, I would trust DP and other admins to know what the right amount of content is for blogs with Images/videos and delete them their discretion.

If nobody responds to this in a week, I don't know what I'll do, but I'll do something about it... 05:39, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Game/Tournament Blogs Discussion
Umm.. If the tournament or the game is about One Piece, then I agree with this one...

Meaning you support games in blogs being carried out here? 19:53, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

After some thoughts, I support this one (games / tourneys). Some tourneys are just plain fun (like the fav character tourney or alphy's chain story game) while some others are quite interesting to follow (like the blog wars). Generally if the community finds a game / tourney interesting or fun, you can see lots of people participating in it. If its not well received, the lack of responses will surely discourage the host user from continuing (assuming its a lengthy tourney). 02:21, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know enough about this topic to be well informed enough to really talk about it. But what if we decided this on a game-to-game basis? Some games are probably more worth it than others. What if we just left the call of which games are acceptable up to an "Admin's Discretion"? As it would be very hard to predict what kind of games people can come up with. 16:26, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with your recommendation. 01:45, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

By tournament or game I meanlike favorite character which is an annual thing and like many others that we had so far.

Does anyone else have anything to say on this topic? And do we need a poll if the general idea is to leave games up to an "Admin's discretion"? 21:27, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

Nothing else for me to say, but that I agree with you. If the majority say yes, then no need for a poll. 21:34, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

Agree with whatever discussed above. 20:21, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

If there are no objection to this, I'll take this as a closed discussion and that the games/tournaments blogs are up to the admins' decision. 00:36, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I added the "admin approval" rule to the page One Piece Encyclopedia:Blog Rules. It is now an official rule.

"Re-Blogging" Discussion
What exactly is this? Like remaking old blogs? If that's the case, then shame on you, but if there is new information about the topic of the blog that something thinks should be hashed over, we should not prohibit that. I think part of this coincides with "necroing" blogs, which I absolutely despise. I think it's kind of one-or-the-other. 03:39, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what this is either. I didn't propose the rule, someone else did. I take this to mean things about pretty much any redundant/repetitious blogs.

But I think originally, it has to do with people re-posting things about other people's tournament/games etc.. I don't really know much about that though, because no games have been played while I've been here. There's also been a couple blogs where people do nothing but ask very similar questions after chapters come out in their blogs. 03:47, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

I think its as Dude stated "re-posting things about other people's tournament/games etc". In my opinion, people who have been here longer are more easily annoyed over this matter, as they may have seen this topic once (or multiple times) in the past but still new blogs are created on the same matter. Example: Roger's ability to hear the voice of all things. Perhaps a year or two ago when this topic has just surfaced, someone has already created a blog and discussed about it. After a year, a newer member unknowingly recreated this blog for duscussion. Then another year passed and yet another newer member (like me) again recreated this topic for discussion. Thus older members may feel annoyed for seeing such topic one too many times but to be fair, the newer members would not have known such existed. 04:48, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

I feel bringing back old topics, especially ones that didn't close, aren't necessarily bad things. They probably just want something to talk about or see what we think on the subject. A "revisit", if you will. We still talk about things that happened over a hundred years ago, so what's wrong with talking about something from one year ago? We may already know the whole thing, but what about the new user? 16:28, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Repeated topics are fine if they're from awhile ago. But when 2 nearly identical blogs come out in the same week, I think that's not as ok. Anyone remember when some new user (I think it was Alison309) nearly copied some veteran user's (I forget entirely who that was, sorry) theory blog exactly? It got deleted, so I can't link it here, but for those of you that do remember, it was pretty bad, right? That's the kind of repetitious blogs we should have rules about: Two very similar blogs that are created around the same time. 16:39, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

This wiki has blogs since at least 2008, of course some blogs will appear again. There isn't really much new to discuss but only the recent chapters/episodes. And about reviving old blogs, even if it annoys me personally, it's not wrong.

Repeated topics of discussion: ok. Repeated blogs of the same damn topic within a few days: not ok. Repeating tournaments and stuff like that: not ok (in my opinion). Reviving dead blogs that are a year or more older: not ok. I personally think commenting should be automatically locked on a blog after 3 months or so. 17:28, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

I think if the topic is old (and not done to death already) then two topics that are the same are fine. As far as two blogs that are the same in recent weeks, how about we just leave that up to an "Admin's discretion"? 21:43, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

So, to get this over with, should there be a poll to decide whether or not a blog should be locked from reviving and after what time? 13:41, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about a poll in this section yet, as it's unclear what the rules would be.

Though, there should be restrictions preventing people from essentially re-making a previously deleted blog by another user in order to continue the discussion. Also, repeated power-level blogs would be annoying. 19:22, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Blog Titles Discussion
This is about the proper etiquette for blog titles. Ex: allowing swears in titles, misleading titles, excessive symbol use, etc...

Personally, I don't think we should have any of that stuff. 03:26, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Blog titles doesn't matter at all. Unless they are offensive.

They can't be misleading or offensive and must have minimal use of symbols (personally I'd go with none at all). Actually, screw it, no more symbols from now on. 15:40, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Normal punctuation is fine, but let's keep it to only one exclamation mark, please. 15:53, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Misleading? Like LPK's blog titles? I doubt that is really something we should be concerned about. No offensive titles and no symbols is good enough. 17:23, September 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Misleading as in trolling titles, etc... 17:57, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

And blogs with emoticons or whatever in their titles are a bitch to locate since you can't type them into the search field. Aside from one or two specific users who can't write a blog without using them in the titles, I don't think anyone will object to this. 18:11, September 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not to mention how annoying they are to see in the wiki activity... 18:30, September 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Exclamation marks and other forms of symbols like that are all pain in the asses to locate, since they all have specific code like things in the search bar. And why are emoticons titled blogs annoying in the WA?

And, while we're at it, the titles cannot be the same as an article already on the wiki, because it becomes confusing if that blog gets on the most edited list. I see Dawn Island, click on it, and suddenly I'm at a blog. Like wtf? The names of articles can be in the title, they just can't be the only thing. If the title were "Dawn Island and its People", that's fine. But it has to be more than just the name of an article. 18:40, September 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * That is also very intelligent. I think that if we make a poll, that should not be optional. That should just not be allowed under any circumstances. 03:01, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has commented on this section in awhile... Is anyone deeply opposed to these rules? 06:33, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

There are 2 rules really, and I'm only opposed to the first one.

I am apposed to no symbols for blogs rule, how can a symbol be irrirating. 08:51, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Excessive punctuation and symbols (like emoticons) make it hard to find the blogs in the search bar. That's the main argument against them. There are some people (myself included) that find the use of symbols in titles just looks unintelligent and uncultured. That second part isn't the best argument against symbols, but that doesn't make the first argument any less valid.

And how do we feel about using ALL CAPS in titles? Personally, I say no to the entire title being caps, but a few words can be all caps, since there's no other way to highlight certain words in titles.

Also, to make this clear, we should not vote on the "No blogs can have the same title as an article" rule. That should actually already be in effect, and should apply to forums as well. 21:40, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

well its obvious to not have swear words in blog title but I am confused about the no emoticons thing but meh >_> so I am cool with whatever gets decided. 20:21, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

So, to get this over with, should there be a poll for each of the propositions made? Like:

"Blog titles should have no caps.

Yes:

No:"

13:43, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a poll about EVERY option is necessary. We should do them only for those that are truly opposed by several people. 21:27, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

Also, the rule about blogs not having the same title as article should also apply to redirects. Someone made a blog today that was named "Luffy" which made me realize this. 19:15, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, we should. 19:32, October 26, 2012 (UTC)

Speaking about blog titles which may be misunderstood as article titles, how about if I proposed that when we do find such blogs, the author should be contacted to change the title of blog. In the absence of or no response by the author, an admin will have to step in to amend the blog title. In DP's example of that "Dawn Island" blog, someone (or anyone) to contact the author either via talk page (or make a comment on that blog) to change the name to something like what DP said, "Dawn Island and its people". In Dude's example of "Luffy", in the absence of or lack of response by the author upon being contacted, an admin can change it simply to "Luffy (blog)" or something which can be easily distinguish from the article of the same name. 08:13, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the rules against swears in titles, trolling/misleading titles, and having the same name to the page One Piece Encyclopedia:Blog Rules, making them official policy. Nobody has stated that they are opposed to these rules in this section yet, if you are opposed, please let us know. And I did add that Bloggers will be asked to rename the blogs themselves, and if they do not rename them, then an admin will rename them. As to what they get renamed too, I think it's fine to leave it up to the admins.

And is anyone seriously opposed to rules against symbols, excessive punctuation, and titles that are all caps? If yes, we'll start polls about them, if no they'll become rules. I will wait 1 week before they're made into rules. 14:48, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Blog Categories Discussion
Should we add categories for blogs? The categories shouldn't actually be a rule, as I don't think the categorization would restrict blogs in any way.

That said, I support blog categories. 03:26, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

How would we denote blogs of a specific category? Anyways, I don't think it's necessary and further complicates the creation of blogs. I don't know too much about this, so I want to hear what some other people have to say before forming a full opinion. 03:39, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

No blog categories, it's really redundant.

Read the first part of the forum for more detailed description. But basically, we could use categories (I'm not sure how, exactly. Nobody has answered the technical questions yet) to separate blogs like Fanfics, Chapter reviews, theories, etc. This would make it easier for people to to find what they want, and ignore what they don't want. A large miscellaneous category would probably be made. 14:55, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Categories can be used in blogs as in articles. And as an example, in the German wiki those categories help making up a small news system for the mainpage to keep readers informed either about the wiki's status (new rules, article count mark) or about random OP information (infos on breaks or TV specials, reviews or other topics on OP etc.) for example. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 08:36, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone with the technical know-how know if it would be possible for us to make a blog table, like with what we have for the forums? 16:29, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would. The main problem about blog categories is that (except for admins) only the author of a blog can categorize it or change its categories, AFAIK.

This rule can to applied to active blogs and blogs that are yet to be made cause its impossible to categorize the old blogs. Unless, admins agree to do all that shitty load of work which I think will take ages >_> 20:21, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Bot work. Categorize all the old blogs into one massive category. We'll only worry about new and active blogs. 20:36, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

So, to get this over with, should there be a poll to decide whether there should be Blog Categories? 13:46, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Are everyone fine with blog categories? If not, then please voice the objections. 18:59, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Article Categories in Blogs
To me this one seems fairly obvious, but I just want to make sure other users agree before it gets added to the rules:

We don't allow article categories (Like Category:Male or Category:Marine Admirals) in blogs, right?

Because that seems like a clear violation of the rules for categories, even if it seems like not so much of a problem for the blogs themselves. I just want to make sure before I add that to the blog rules page. 06:37, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, obviously. Article categories are only for encyclopedic content.

Memes as Comments
Comments must have actual text, not just an image with text, in order to stay in the comments section. Also the image must be relevant to the text written. It's gotten to the point that the comments section looks like a trash heap because most people just post memes or gifs and nothing else. Use actual words, people, they make you and the community as a whole look a lot less stupid. 21:32, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm down with that. Memes aren't sentences. 22:52, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

I'm for getting rid of most of photoshoped trollface and meme posts and comments. They're fine and funny occasionally, but in masses they're simply dumb and retarded as any other spam. DP has been much too liberal IMHO. ;P -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 08:26, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

I admit I feel responsible for this. I sort of brought memes to the chat and used them often, and now it's being whored out by everyone. I'm honestly tired of it all, and I fully support a "put more than just a picture in the comment you stupid dumbass" rule. 06:33, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I probably wouldn't be against these posts if it wasn't for that rude-ass "Scumbag AWC" image. That's a piss-off anymore. 06:41, September 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't even used anymore, let it go >_>

I am of the opinion that unless the comment(s) posted were highly / obviously offensive, others (incl meme, trollface pictures) should be allowed. I thought this forum here discusses and agrees to certain guidelines of what blogs are generally allowed to create, but not to dictate what can and cannot be in comments as well. Too much restrictive rules kills the fun in blogs and comments and all. Not every blogs are meant to be discussed on a serious note, in my opinion. 07:15, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ay.

If you insist on posting a meme, just write something to go along with it instead of just posting a worthless picture. Any idiot can post a meme, but it looks better if you write somethnig because that show that at least you put some thought into what you are going to say, instead of not saying anything at all. 16:22, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Meme's are intended to be funny, not really smart (in most cases). For example http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:AYET/Who_do_you_most_look_forward_to_in_New_World?s=wl#WikiaArticleComments Nada's comments in here aren't exactly smart, yet funny, and that's not something I think should be taken away from the blogs.


 * When only a meme and nothing else is posted, though, that's a problem. I don't necessarily agree with removing them completely, but it shouldn't make up 99% of the comment. 17:05, September 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * 99% of a comment?? You mean of total comments? And in that case I doubt there has ever been a blog with even 40% pure meme's/pictures


 * I said A comment, not EVERY comment. 17:13, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

All we're asking for is memes to be posted with 1 sentence or phrase with them. When the ONLY content of a comment is a meme, that's bad. When a meme is posted with a short comment/phrase/sentence written by the commenter, that's ok. 17:20, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

How can a comment possibly be 99% meme's...? >_> anyways, @Nada what's wrong with posting a meme on a blog? And JDS, please specify what kind of sentence you mean, like in the meme itself? That's pretty obvious then


 * Nothing's wrong with posting a meme in a blog. Something is wrong with posting a meme in a blog when it's the only thing you write. And I don't consider text in the image as the 1% that isn't a meme. Like DP said, comments should be more than just an image with text. It should at least be an image with text AND text. 17:29, September 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * But why? Sometimes a meme is everything you need, and especially you should know Nada! Once again referring to Ay's blog


 * Because it just looks bad when that's all there is in the comment. It may as well be considered spam. It looks like the person who posted it took no time to actually reply and just slapped a picture on and pressed publish. I would almost say it looks immature. If a meme is all you need, then why not just write a comment and not look like a lazy douche? If you comment and post a meme that exemplifies that comment, that's fine. But it can't be a meme alone. 00:12, September 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * THT, I think what they are up against are "just meme" comments which has no positive message to convey across but just meant to 100% troll. However if that "just meme" comment (without words) smartly hits the message perfectly to convey, I don't think they will object to it (correct me if I got it wrong). 02:28, September 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments with memes need actual words typed into the box in order to stay, regardless of how fitting the meme is. Even if the meme somehow transcends the message the blog is trying to get across, it must have a comment with it in order for it to be exempt from deletion. 03:28, September 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Whitout the text it isn't a meme anyways, and would you seriously delete a comment because it's a fitting picture only?


 * Hmm... for me, its back to basics - unless its offensive or obviously insulting, hence worth deletion, memes with comment(s) or not is not a critical matter (for me), thus I can accept it going either way in the end. No further opinion. 01:55, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Y'know, I think I'm more against this now. If only for the fallout of actually enforcing this rule. An admin would have to monitor all the comments, because nobody else could edit the comments. Then, after the comment that gets deleted is gone, all the replies will still remain and make no sense (assuming the meme isn't the first comment in a thread). The intent is nice (getting people to communicate in a better way), but I don't think applying it to the real world would work out very well at all. 06:30, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

I've been deleting them when I find them and it's been working out fine. How hard is it to just comment along with the meme? It's not like I'm asking you to transcend the illusion of being with what you post, just write something to go with it. It's not that big of a deal. 15:06, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

If it's "not much of a deal" then why are you proposing to make rule of this >_>? Because that, on the contrary, seems like making a big deal of it.

Totally against memes as comments. It's ridiculous and it looks awful. THT and MDM and whoever posts them all the time have to stop that immidiately. Nowadays blogs are shit and the memes spamming all over the comments doesn't help at all. If you want to comment on a blog say something to continue the blog not start your own shit that you actually say to the chat.

Some people like meme's, others don't, do we need to make a rule to not allow them? No, because it's purely an opnionbased subject, if you don't like them, ignore it FFS.

It doesn't go like that. You know that only you and MDM communicate with memes, right? And some by DarkSkullPirates.

-if you don't like them, ignore it- What? It's like some anon spams the whole wiki. The anon likes it, we have to ignore it then, right? Doesn't make any sense.

Ahaha good joke LPK, there are tons of other users as well, just think of Nada, Multimte Panda, Panda, Zori, Ay, GM, etc...

and an anon spamming is something that has negative consequences, while using meme's does NOT...

I agree with the spamming of the memes on blogs it makes the comments section look a bit lame at times but they should still be allowed their fun to use just dont overuse them. User:X-RAPTOR 16:50, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking to get rid of memes altogether. Just type something in the comment when you post it. Is that so much to ask? One measly little blurb to accompany a stupid picture is not a huge demand. 17:06, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what DP is trying to say like writting someting along with the meme, but isnt deleting a comment because some only posted a meme is a bit too harsh. 08:54, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, especially if it helps to get the message across. 22:01, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Along with the meme, picture or gif .. a set of words or sentence sounds good. nothing much to say >_> but if there are texts in the meme like a sentence .. I say its good and legit. A picture says 1000 words but it will be great if there are some texts in it too. 20:21, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

No. The text must actually come from you. If you are so lazy that you can't take the fifteen seconds necessary to write a decent comment, then you don't deserve to post anything. Either type an actual comment, or don't bother smearing crap in the comments. It could be worse you know. I could just say there can't be any externally uploaded pictures at all and can easily make it so, but I'm not. So, since I'm being so charitable and allowing you to continue to smear memes everywhere, you can at least have the decency to enter an actual comment when you post them (Insert username here: Oh no he didn't. Me: Check it again, because I just did). 06:03, October 17, 2012 (UTC)

If its charity, I don't need it. Check if anyone else wants it maybe >_> ever since that Zori incident I been attaching a legit and related set of texts with my gifs to avoid that mess, can't think of anything better to improve than that. 02:45, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

I didn’t think it was a big deal that DP deleted my meme, but I wanted to know the reason to avoid it in future and he did explain it, so that works for me. It is good to have some rules and guidelines, after all this is a wiki! But I hope that we don’t have too many restrictive rules that will kill all the joy of blogging! I will try to behave myself! 19:06, October 18, 2012 (UTC)Zori

I guess this proposal is done,

You can't post a comment with only a meme.

13:56, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

I saw you added this rule to the final page, JSD; shouldn't it be voted beforehand? It's one of the most controversial rule proposals…

Well, after reading the end of this forum, nobody seems deeply opposed to this. Plus, AoD's post above clearly stated that this was going to become a rule 2 weeks ago, and nobody has objected yet. If they wish to object and start a poll, they should post here. Since nobody objected yet, I stuck it in the final version. It's not my responsibility to object for other people who ignore forums. But IF people do object here, the rule should be removed until after a poll takes place. 14:48, November 1, 2012 (UTC)

Power-level Blogs
Not really a new rule but I recall DP putting his foot down on power level blogs. Perhaps this should be enforced? 01:24, September 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I think no. But if everyone thinks that it causes too many flame wars (like we don't have any of those on any other blog, right), then yes, it should be made into a rule. To be honest, DP does too good of a job right now, so I doubt we really need to worry about it. 01:30, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think power level blogs shouldn't be inherently banned. But if they go on too long (~100 comments or so) then we should state that comments will be closed. 02:38, September 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Nah, that's the mark of a successful power level blog....but if the conversation gets out of hand with flame wars and stuff, then the admin can shut down commenting or whatever. 02:50, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * In reading the previous blogs written, I actually find myself enjoying the conversation and factual debate taking place in a power level blog. The (information and facts) exchanges were healthy and a lot can be learn in reading these good exchanged. What's generally disliked were those nasty offensive remarks posted by one who "could not lose but does not have a good valid point to continue the argument".
 * Personally (if possible) I would not want power level blogs to go, but if that's the choice made then I'd abide to it. 07:28, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we don't inherently ban them, but leave the amount of time until their locked up to an "Admin's discretion"? 16:02, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

(This was moved from a different part of the discussion)I can't believe I forgot to add this, but no power level blogs. Any blog asking if one character is stronger than another always leads to flame wars. That is the one bit of specific content on which I am absolutely putting my foot down. 05:19, October 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * Someone already added this topic above. Anyways, I think it's fun to actually have thought-provoking discussion and arguments that make someone actually have to defend their point. If you are concerned about the flame wars and people yelling at each other, I can say that I have seen plenty of hate on non-power level blogs. 12:16, October 18, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, no blog is perfect, but power level blogs are practically guaranteed to devolve into flame wars. The patterns don't lie in this case. 04:57, October 19, 2012 (UTC) (End of the moved section.)

Other Proposals
This section is for people who have ideas for new rules. If a three people (the idea originator and 2 others) users agree that these proposals are solid, then discussions about them will be made into new sections (sections above this one). Try to keep your responses isolated to one rule at a time, so that it's easier to move them later if needed. Proposals that have been moved already:
 * Memes as Comments - Proposed by DP

1 week blog maximum: I had the idea a couple days ago to make a rule limiting the number of blogs in a week one user can make. I'd expect this number to be somewhere around 3 or 4. With 3 blogs in a week, that's enough for a review/summary blog, a prediction/theory blog, one more miscellaneous blog (ie, fanfic, countdown, etc). 3 blogs in a week is a lot, so I don't expect this rule to be used a lot, but I think to be safe, we should try and limit the amount of blogs one user can make. 20:14, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm... were there any users who frequently did more than 2 blogs per week in the recent past? If there were, then I'd guess this rule will make sense but I could not recall seeing many (if not at all) users doing so, even from the frequent bloggers like MDM, Neo, DSP and the likes. 01:24, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I don't see any of our regular bloggers doing this. It's more likely that some over-eager newbie would do this. 02:38, September 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * What purpose would that possibly have? Why do we even need blog making limits?


 * I agree with THT. There isn't really a point to this rule (I don't think I have ever seen anyone make more than 2-3 blogs in a single week), and there should not be a limit on the amount of blogs one can make. 12:33, September 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * The only member I remember making more than 3 blogs in a week was "cool dude 2011", but that was obvious he'd get banned anyways. I would be for this rule if blogs were a great problem, but they're really not (at least, not to the extent of limiting the amount). 13:34, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * l completely agree with THT. If noone makes more than 3 blogs already, why bother to make a rule about it? 18:52, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with letting rule die here, because it really isn't a problem now. Let's just remember the idea if it does become a problem in the future. 19:42, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Locking Old Blogs: I proposed above that we lock commenting on all blogs three months or older. I for one don't like people reviving old blogs (let sleeping dogs lie is my motto) and after three months, the conversation is basically dead and all relevant points have been made. If new information is released, then a new blog can be made. And this would put a stop to the "Scumbag AWC" meme which seems to be showing up more and more and getting staler and staler. 02:50, September 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit against this, as sometimes commenting can open up new ideas. Besides, that's what the comment section was made for. Something like this would be more effective in forums, but we treat blogs like forums here. Also, some blogs like the "Red Hawk Attack" blog got new comments because it was just done in the anime a few days ago. Of course users are going to want to talk about a new attack and they shouldn't have to make a new account to do it. Blog comments are for commenting on a blog, not for a quick conversation. That's why I don't lock any of my blogs; I want people to contribute to a topic. 06:52, September 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm neither for nor against comment locking, as I am not annoyed at all about people necro'ing old blogs. But if I had to make a choice, I'd choose not agreeing to comment locking. 07:28, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

I actually support letting old blogs be resurrected in most cases. The discussions could be potentially intelligent, particularly if the blog itself was intelligently written (like PX's Blog Wars winning entry). But I don't support the resurrection of old blogs in the case where the blogs would violate the "minimum content rule" we're discussing above in a separate section. My reasons are there if you care to read them. 16:02, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

Fanfictions: I, and many other users, have written fanfiction blogs in the past. But I now think these shouldn't be in this Wiki itself. It doesn't quite have to do with One Piece very much, and it's too "community-like". Plus it also completely ignores Wikis like Ship of Fools and Fanon. So here's my proposal: If you want a fanfic as a blog on here, do it as an archive or table of contents blog. You can include a summary and such, too. Then link "Chapter 1" and so on to the fan Wiki or website. To get attention of your fanfic again, if you write a new chapter or something, update the blog so people can see more of it without having to subscribe to the other Wiki or website. This will not only reduce the amount of excessive blogs here, but also let the other Wikis get the attention they don't have yet. As for one-shot fanfics, I think you can either make a blog here with the full story, or a summary/preview of it then link to where it's actually at. However, this can make spam or redundancy. Tell me what you think of this rule. 07:05, September 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * What defines a fanfiction exactly? I mean predictions are some sort of/partly fanfictions as well, right? And even if they aren't, I don't think we should really delete blogs just because of that and rather just advise them to take it to SOF or something.


 * Fanfictions would be your own personal adaptation or direction of the storyline, and predictions would be what you think is going to happen next. Fanfics are false and you know it, and predictions might not be false but it's moreso a "guess". 14:41, September 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * I see, thanks for sharing. Doesn't take away we can possibly delete a blog/ban the blogger just because he wrote a fanfiction, just advising him to go to SOF (as we usually do) is already fine. No need for a rule here.

I don't really see why we shouldn't have the fanfics here, actually. I support their presence here, even though I never read them myself. But if we do make some kind of rule against them, we should make sure that the blogger has the fanfic saved elsewhere before the blog gets deleted. Because erasing all their work forever would be really, really mean. (just lock comments until the user contacts the admin saying they have everything somewhere else) Also, banning a user for making a fanfic seems a little ridiculous to me. I would only ever say ban if they are clearly aware of the rules and continue to break them. But just referring all of the fanfic writers to SOF wouldn't be the worst end of this story. Although, I still don't see why they shouldn't be here... 16:02, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

General Discussion: Aren't we making a bit to many rules here? I mean we actually made this this whole forum in order to make rules so the admins don't decide on their own wether to delete a blog or not. Mainly because it was annoying if your blog got deleted for a seemingly subjective reason. But now we're just making more and more (pretty useless in some cases) rules.

Now we're just emphasing the amount of potentially future deleted blogs because of the many blog restrictions. This is turning into a rule-frenzy...


 * l agree. l'm for blog rules, but they should be kept simple. And if l look at these rules they dont seem simple at all, and even useless in some cases like THT said. An example of simple rules can be found on the Fairy Tail Wiki. 19:08, September 27, 2012 (UTC)


 * I got to admit those rules are really good..
 * Second. General guidelines like those are straight-forward and easy to implement and enforce. Perhaps we should take a step back from current and restart with generals first. We can take references from Avatar and FT wikis 02:42, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with THT & Aurora 02:35, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

I hate to kind of sound like a dick about this, but you guys had plenty of time and opportunity to change how this forum was going. Pretty much since August 29th, I had stated how this forum would be run, and nobody objected then, so I went ahead with that format. Not to mention all the time before I proposed any formats. (The forum has been around since June...) And after the first poll, I gave it pretty much another day before I went ahead with the current format. I understand that you guys don't approve of the format, I just think it's far too late to change it, especially since you were given a fair opportunity to do so. 16:16, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * And the rules in this section (New Rule Proposals) don't yet have enough support to become rules anyways. I'm going with a 3 people in favor before any of these rules get their own section and the chance to become a rule. 16:21, September 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying we have to drop everything, I'm just saying we are going way to far and detailed in all those rules, which isn't even needed.


 * Dude, please don't be offended, its not your fault. In fact, you have done a great job in organizing and managing this forum this far. Its just that somehow along the way things get complicated and turned out as it is currently. I think I will take a step back and revert my thoughts back to the very basics of why I think blog rules are required in the first place, starting today. 02:05, October 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with AY, THT and Aurora , I think we are taking the rules a bit too far , we should take the simple rules from FT wikia as an example and make simlpe rules ( I think rules can make thing less fun ) . 08:58, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I have a few propoles for simple rules here:


 * 1. The blog has to be one paragraph (2 sentences at least). It also has to make sense whats there.


 * 2. The blog can't be just a copy pasting from Wikipedia or an article


 * 3. Obviously nothing offensive or sexual.

So..l feel like l forgot something but still, what do you think of these?

20:45, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

BUMP >.> is anyone even reading this section 06:21, October 17, 2012 (UTC)