Forum:Creating a Manual of Style

As some of you may know, I recently created a VERY basic, VERY rough draft for a manual of style for this wiki. However, since I made it using my own experiences and a few rules, it is far from complete. I included a few personal biases in there, and there is a ton of missing info that I need to add. The questions to be addressed on this forum are:

1) Do we even need a Manual of Style?

2) If we do, what should be on it?

3) Should it be tabbed into several subpages?

4) Who is going to make it if we do?

The actual rough draft is here. Check it out and give me some feedback.

Now concerning the stuff to be added and not to be added. Here is a table for ideas and stuff, add whatever you feel like.

04:32, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion 1
It's good, but you need to add something about linking, which is generally link the first apperance of the word, and only more times if it looks right. (Like hasnt been linked on the page save the infobox) 11:36, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Before anything else, take a look of what we already have. In a manual of style you usually put some guidelines about how use code or how write something. Here some guidelines that I'd like to be added:
 * A template with a lot of paramenters must be well formatted like this:

not like

or (really horrible and also incorrect)

-> not correct;  --> correct) These are some examples to let you get what I mean. The best starting point is to take a peep at other manual of style: Bleach wiki, RuneScape, Avatar.
 * Headings must be used the common formattig, with spaces before the "=" (
 * Deprecated html tags like "font" or wiki code like "width=, align=..." must be replace by  parameters (unless there is a specific reason to not use it)

I see what you mean, I have rarely seen the templates being used to be so organized. I want to bring that out as a problem that this wiki is facing. Will it be fine if I will already start working on it, or is it necessary to wait for the acceptance of the manual of style. (I'm asking this, because the last time I started correcting a template code and started a mass edit, things were not as accepted as I thought they would be).

Please do, even if we don't put it in the manual of style, it's just a matter of order, beside that is the standard of formatting template. Be careful to not break the template though!

I know I havent been here for long. But yes I can see how the manual of style would have its uses, the main (obviously) would be keeping everything in order and organised. But in a way I dont think it is necessary and not sure how to describe it really but If you have every page in order just the one way it would look I guess boring. Also we all no how mass edits go down, apsalute chaos. 04:08, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Bump. We obviously hadn't talked much of this at all and we really ought to resolve if we need a Manual of Style or not and yad yad yad. Let's resolve this as this is pretty important. 01:34, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

I also feel this is pretty important, and I'm kind of shocked the wiki has existed this long without one. And I'm even more shocked that nobody has disscussed having grammar and content rules in a manual of style. There are so many grammatical rules that are inconsistent across this wiki. Amercian vs. British English, the tense of history sections, name spellings, etc. There are also ideas about the content of articles such as the idea of "How much is too much?" Are we an encyclopedia, and do we choose to pursue writing with an encyclopedic style? Or do we have our own style? We don't need to agrue about those things now, I just think we need to seriously consider having a place where we have defined rules to refer back to. I personally believe that as a site with as many non-native English speakers as this one, we should strive to make the whole site an easy and consistent read, both in grammar and content. JustSomeDude... 06:14, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

The one who critic the most never edit anything. You see something wrong, go fix it, instead of bitching about it. But yes, you're right, this forum do need to be bumped. 15:20, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

"personally believe that as a site with as many non-native English speakers as this one," You're implying we should be getting rid of Japanese names like Shichibukai or Yonkou. SeaTerror (talk) 16:51, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

That is nowhere even close to what I am implying, ST. I am implying that we should make the wiki easier to read for everyone by having a defined and consistent policy on grammar. For all the non-native english speakers, the easiest thing to read would be corrent english grammar. As a native english speaker, when I see something with incorrect grammar, I can figure out what's trying to be said fairly easily because I have grown up with the language. For our non-native english speakers, they can't always have the easiest time doing that. Different languages will have different parts that are harder to read. The best way to be fair to all of them is to have correct grammar consistent throughout the wiki. We already have a consistent policy on names, and it is exactly what it should be. I don't disagree with it at all. And that same name policy is something that should be absorbed into the Manual of Style if we do make it. JustSomeDude... 18:17, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Bumping this! Okay, back to serious. We really should resolve this, whether we do need one, if we need it then what to include in it, and stuff like it. 16:30, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Bump... >_< 19:24, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

If anything needs a thousand bumps, it's this forum. I don't think people realize the power of an MoS to stop arguments and edit wars. It can cover just about everything we do on the wikia. And we can have something to refer to when stopping edit wars and the like. Kind of like how the image guidelines have helped with similar stuff, but for images. This is huge, and we really need this, in my opinion. JustSomeDude... 19:57, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what JSD said! And I ain't going to stop bumping this forum until this is resolved. 19:59, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

So, how are we gonna proceed? I propose we copy PX's draft to an actual page, say One Piece Encyclopedia:Manual of Style, then everybody makes the modifs he/she sees fit, using the talk page or this forum in case of disagreement.

Sound like a great idea on reviving the forum. I say let's go for it! 20:04, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

No. Talk page first before creating the article. SeaTerror (talk) 20:40, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

How are we going to discuss disagreements if we don't even know what they are? And we could always just leave it on my page unless it would be more convenient for everyone to move it. 21:47, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

I thought the point of this particular forum was just to decide if we wanted a MoS and what kinds of things should be in it, not specific rules. Once we decide if the whole community wants one, then I feel we should make a brand new forum category just for the MoS. I feel a talk page would just be too small to discuss all the things a MoS would encompass. Plus, the several rounds of voting that would take place on many issues would add even more space. A talk page would get huge fast. Also, the issues for an MoS don't really fit the current categories (Are they site problems? Wikia Appearance?). And a MoS is a huge thing to add to the wiki, doesn't it deserve its own forum section?

And why not just make a draft page in the draft pages section of the forum? JustSomeDude... 23:09, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly why this forum was made. It was meant for discussion what we wanted in. SeaTerror (talk) 00:32, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

So tell me exactly why no one bothered with this forum but at the very beginning and only me and JSD cared about this. 00:33, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

Since when did April 22nd become May 23rd? SeaTerror (talk) 00:37, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

You guys left it unresolved pretty quickly. I attempted to bump this forum a few times. JSD also tried to bumped this as well. =/ 00:43, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

ST: I mean that this forum seems to have been used for more general things about what we want in the MoS. For example, we decide that we want to talk about grammar in the MoS in this forum. We don't decide which grammar rules we wish to have in the MoS in this forum, that debate is for later. We only cover general topics to be covered in the MoS in this forum. At least that's my opinion of the best way to go about adding such a huge thing to the wiki. If we try to decide too much at once, things could get ugly very quickly. Long arguments about tiny specific details would distract us from the main goal, in escense, turning this simple forum into the US Congress. (ZING!)

PX: I've read your MoS in more detail now, I do have many things I would like to change/add. I just would feel weird editing it on your page instead of a public area, that's why I think it should be moved. And back to what you said at the beginning, I do agree that it should be tabbed into several subpages. JustSomeDude... 01:17, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

That's totally fine, but I think we should figure out the page name and tab names before we make them. As for the length of this forum, we could always make a second forum if we need to. If everyone creates a new heading for a new issue, it will be easy to navigate the page through the navbox near the top of the page. 01:46, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

We should not make the article until we debate it. This forum was supposed to be for everything related to it. SeaTerror (talk) 08:06, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well there is most likely going to be a lot of polls, if we only use this forum it'll be cluttered very fast. Anyway I'll propose answers to the basic questions with which PX started the forum:

1) Do we even need a Manual of Style?
 * →The answer seems to be "yes", nobody opposed it I believe. If someone does, I guess we'll have to make a poll.

2) If we do, what should be on it?


 * → This has to be decided on a case-by-case basis and could be the object of a forum (or even several) by itself.

3) Should it be tabbed into several subpages?


 * → We should postpone this decision until we have a better idea of the MoS' length. This is secondary.

4) Who is going to make it if we do?


 * → This is what we should decide now. I think a solution could be "anybody can propose an addition or a change; if someone disagrees and no compromise can be reached, a poll should be made."

If we don't make a decision about the 4th point we'll never make any progress.

I agree that anyone should be able to propose changes/additions. PX seems to have written the bulk of the thing though. I think that unless anyone has objections, we should work off of what PX already has. I intend to make a draft based off of PX's draft later this week. I just want to make some minor changes and significantly expand the writing style/grammar section.

What I would like to know is whereI should put my draft, and where other people put theirs, etc. I was just gonna do it in my sandbox. But if a bunch of people end up making drafts, where will they be compiled where it will be easy to compare? And where will voting on sections be done? And if there end up being a bunch of different drafts, at what point do we say to the community "Ok, here's the one and only Manual Of Style, go ahead and vote on changes."? JustSomeDude... 03:40, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

First of all, sign your posts. Second of all, we don't need to make a ton of drafts. Just take mine, move it to a page where everyone is comfortable, and everyone works on that one from there. Don't try to make it any more confusing than it needs to be. Another idea is to propose changes to this forum and have one or two people that add them for the sake of consistency. But it would be a lot easier not to do that.

@sff Concerning the tabbing of the MoS, I don't believe it is as much of a length issue as one of organization. I believe that it would be much easier to browse and edit if there were several tabs. 03:30, July 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I knew I missed my sig right away, and I thought I went back in and edited it... Apparently that didn't go through. Sorry. JustSomeDude...  03:40, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

No. Do not move it to a page. Discuss it on the forum before making a new article. SeaTerror (talk) 03:45, July 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Nah, we can make a draft of it. Beside, how the heck we'll know the results of this without something to work on? We don't have to make a page, just a draft. 17:31, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've been starting to work on my draft a bit, and while I'm not ready to say that everyone can go take a look at it and eviscerate it yet, some people have given me feedback and have raised some questions that I alone cannot answer. So I've come back to the forum to get some help/suggestions.
 * How does the MoS affect what we already have? Things like the Image Guidelines, the Layouts Category, the help section, etc... Some of these things are already addressed in PX's original draft, and they are also addressed elsewhere on the Wikia. Personally, I think many of these things should be absorbed into the MoS (or a much larger help entity that encompasses the MoS and other things like it). I think it makes much more sense to put these things into one, easy to use and navigate section of the wiki. Moving and combining the older pages is something we should strongly consider. The idea of having whatever this is as a tabbed page has also grown on me substantially. As I find more things I think would be appropriate to add to it, it has become clear that it will soon become very long, and that many of the things won't relate closely to each other.
 * I also want to add the Forum Rules and Blog Rules. We already have Chat Rules and ban/vandalism policies, and I think it would be appropriate to have Forum and Blog rules in the same place. There's a few problems there:
 * 1) The Forum Rules are terribly out of date, and currently they are a Forum Page. I would like to make some substantial edits to it, but not without talking about them first. Since it's a forum page, there's no talk page though.
 * 2) Blog Rules don't exist yet.Forum:Blog Rules is the place to go to get that conversation really going again.

Overall, I think what I've started doing is creating something that is actually larger than the Manual of Style, it's become more like a "Help Section Overhaul." I personally think this is something the wiki needs to have almost more than a manual of style. A manual of style is about helping people write content, and even in PX's original draft, there are attempts to get rules into writing for the first time. I think we really need more of that more than anything. And I don't want to be crazy and autocratic about making this stuff, I just think it's something we really need, and I'm dedicated to making sure it happens. 19:40, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

Bump! >.< 04:05, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Current Discussion
I am a terrible person! I've been as done as I can be with my draft for 2 months, and I never posted it here! I am the only one who can be blamed for this forum being dead... I'm sorry!

Anyways, here it is. Discuss minor changes on the talk page there, discuss major changes here. Let's get this thing done! 03:32, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

I updated JSD's draft to link the template parts to its actual template, as it show how to use it, in greater details. Plus, I think we don't need to explain the templates on the MoS, just give them the links and boom~. I might had use the wrong link for naviboxes in general, so can someone check it? Thanks. 00:45, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

As I explained in another section, nearly all of what is in your draft don't belong in a MoS… Basically, "Section Order" and "Navigation Boxes" belong to a "Layout Rules" page, "Translations and Dub Issues" and "Images" are borderline, and ban/chat rules are totally out of topic. Maybe we should divide the page already, it would be clearer, and easier to discuss.

I completely agree with what Sff said.... If we have to add them to our MoS, then can't we just link to their proper pages? 19:11, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I referenced this in other sections, I just haven't done anything about it yet. I think we do have stuff here that does not belong in an MoS should still be typed up somewhere. This kind of more of a "Help and Guidelines Overhaul". I think the MoS should be 1 tab in a much larger document. Stuff that doesn't belong in the MoS would simply fall under another tab. Let's just pass all the stuff contained here in one poll or so, and THEN worry about where to put it. Policy matters more than the organization. 20:23, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, JSD, about the policy part. About the organization part, I have a suggestion. Why don't we put the Guidelines, Layouts, MoS, and etc, into tabs to link to all of the others, and add the tabs to all of the pages. Kind of similar to the Straw Hat Pirates' tabs, only for the guidelines, layouts, MoS, and etc. 20:27, October 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was talking about, Jade. 100% Agreement. 20:31, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I took a closer look to your draft today. The "Section Orders" and "Navigation Boxes" are more of a layout guideline, so we can make a layout guideline for that. We already got pages for "Translations and Dub Issues" and "Images". The "Ban and Vandalism Policy" and the "Color Schemes", I'm not sure. The "Chat Room" is definitely not editing, and really need to be taken out. We have literally no rules for the chat, except Wikia's general rules for the chat, or morals. In other words, almost all of the current MoS are not what our MoS should be.

So I'm asking, can we make guidelines so these sections can go in their proper places? And if we do, can we make the tabs as I suggested, "put the Guidelines, Layouts, MoS, and etc, into tabs to link to all of the others, and add the tabs to all of the pages. Kind of similar to the Straw Hat Pirates' tabs, only for the guidelines, layouts, MoS, and etc"? It would make people who are looking for rules and guidelines easier. 21:25, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

I've said before I support putting all of our rules/policies into a tabbed format, and the MoS would be just one of the tabs.

As for the stuff that doesn't belong in an MoS, we shouldn't throw it all out just because it doesn't belong in an MoS. Stuff like the Vandalism rules seem a bit out of date, as nobody follows the "level punishment" system anymore, and we consider nearly all user page editing vandalism now. And the chat rules are just what we follow now, so I'd probably just tack those on to the same tab as the Blog Rules once that forum goes through. Let's not completely throw away things that aren't part of an MoS, but rather look to add them into the right place in the larger tabbed entity. 20:20, October 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not mean that we should not put the chat rules in any rule pages. I meant putting the chat rules on another page, one probably more suitable for that. Actually, we could put the chat and blog rules together, as both are means of socializing around, and thus, alike. Possibly forums, but since it is used for problems on the wikia..... Well, not sure about putting forums on the same rule page for blogs and chat. 20:25, October 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think forums are both a social thing as well as a policy thing. I'd say make the Forum & Poll rules as one page, and just link to them from the Blog/Chat rules. 20:30, October 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Yeah, that could work. Oh well. Let's see if others agree with the suggestion. 20:35, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

Made a draft of what the MoS would look, according to my suggestion. Here is it, User:Jademing/MoS Draft. 16:36, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

That looks great to me. Ideally, I think we should eventually have tabs for most of the articles in this template:

Before we can safely do that, we should check and see if all of those pages are up to date and reflect current wiki polices. Some of these have conflicting policies with the old (my/PX's) draft of the MoS, and we should decide which set of rules is superior and change the pages to reflect that. A prime example would be the simpler ban/vandalism polices in the MoS compared with One Piece Encyclopedia:Treatment of Vandalism and the not-yet passed Forum:Forum and Poll Rules Updates. I'm not sure where we should do all that, because it's a lot of pages, but we do need to discuss it all somewhere. 16:51, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

Redirects and linking them instead of the original article

 * "Things like  and   are pointless, only   and   should be used."

Why is that "pointless"? Everytime you link within an article to a redirect, you'll see a "redirected from ..." atop each article once you follow that link - which should be avoided.

Why don't you then not start to forbid  and create redirects for all possible declensions instead?

IMHO those two paragraphs should be replaced by something like: "Do not edit unbroken links." as forcing it either way is pointless. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 03:46, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It doesn't matter what is used but somebody shouldn't make it Monkey D. Luffy|Luffy if its just Luffy. This is why Meganoide got banned for 2 months. SeaTerror (talk) 04:18, August 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * So Meganoide got banned for nothing, and you got away with insulting people. Interesting.
 * If it doesn't matter, no one should be forced to link to a redirect page instead of the original article. "Nope." ain't no reason. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 04:43, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

You have no reason at all for not wanting to use redirects. There is nothing wrong with being redirected. The redirects exist for a reason. If you want to truly be asinine about it then you should just use Monkey D. Luffy as the link instead of Monkey D. Luffy|Luffy. He got banned for edit warring. In fact, he never even responded on his forum once to even try to defend himself. All Meganoide did were those useless and pointless redirect edits. SeaTerror (talk) 06:05, August 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * There are reasons for not using links on redirects:
 * If an article needs to be moved - because articles need to be renamed for example - Double redirects or Broken redirects may occur and need to be fixed.
 * Special:WhatLinksHere is messed.
 * Redirected from ... atop of each original article which takes unnecessary space and may cause irritation to readers.
 * If the name is "Luffy" and not "Monkey D. Luffy", why not having the article then on Luffy while redirecting from Monkey D. Luffy?
 * Redirects can be diverted. Vandalising the wiki is then much easier by editing one redirect. A list of targets is easily provided by Special:Allpages.
 * By their definition from the MediaWiki creators, Redirects are meant be used for alternate spellings.
 * But well, of course the administrators of two other wikias are completely unreasonable or as you said "asisine" because they aren't agreeing with you. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 08:37, August 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, you're missing the point, SeaTerror. As usual. "Do not edit unbroken links." - it should even be increased by "Do not edit unbroken source code." -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 09:26, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

That's an amazing story you got there, bro. I enjoyed it a lot. SeaTerror (talk) 09:37, August 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * And you're still missing the point. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 09:44, August 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * In future I suggest some unicorns and some dragons, always good in a story. 09:50, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Nah. I have a needle. I can't miss the point. SeaTerror (talk) 09:51, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Seems that we're gonna make awesome progress like this. Thanks ST and SHB for your participation.

You're welcome. :) SeaTerror (talk) 11:05, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

We should get this sorted out, this is exactly what Mega got banned over. Because we has no rules about this, I say we should sort this out, decide when to use redirects and when to use direct links. 14:28, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Since I made a lot of edits with this kind of stuff, I feel like I should share my personal opinion. Concerning redirects, I personally prefer, the "less complicated the better" approach, where we use  over. It is simpler, and I think that as long as we have the redirects, then we should make use of them. However, I prefer to use  over   because as soon as the noun is made possessive, the 's is part of the word, like a conjunction (and it looks sloppy otherwise). 14:42, August 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * Then why not create a redirect on Ace's to Portgas D. Ace and use  Ace's  in the article? I don't think we should enforce that as anyone could place the link (s)he wants. With linking the original article through  Ace  you still avoid the "redirected from" atop of the article... -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 14:59, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

PX: While I personally don't really care about your first point, I disagree with you about your second point. I don't think "Ace's boat" looks sloppy, and in source mode it's far better. This format can moreover be useful to separate two links, e.g. Ace's bounty rather than Ace's bounty (which one must hover to discover it's actually two links).

I'd like to talk about what defchris said awhile ago about not "editing unbroken source code" such as in the case he linked to. I support this rule entirely. But we should be strict in how we enforce the rule. I think that if someone is editing unbroken source code, they should be immediately warned on their talk page and/or in chat about it. However, we should not undo the edits that the person made if they don't change/damage how the article reads/the article's layout. I feel like if nothing changes in the article's readability, then edit warring over the source code is a severe waste of everyone's time. If one person changes things, they're pretty much only wasting their time and a much smaller fraction of ours than an edit war. As long as the person is told to (and actually does) stop, it's not a big deal. Edit wars are much, much worse. I think we should consider undoing edits of unbroken source code to be an equally bad (if not worse) offense as editing the unbroken code in the first place. Edit wars suck, let's not have them. Especially over something that doesn't matter too much.

Regarding redirects and links with apostrophes, I think we do need to decide on a standard. And whatever that standard is, we should make sure it is used on all new articles that are created. (and new content on old articles too.) But we shouldn't get too bent out of shape about changing it in older articles. It shouldn't be a priority, because the links aren't really wrong. Nobody should go around changing every redirect ever and nothing else. But say you're in source mode on a chapter article that you're changing something else in, and you see something that's not the current standard. If you see that, then go ahead and edit it. It should be something that can be piggybacked with other edits, but not done alone. I'm sure if someone really wants to go around and edit that kind of stuff, they can find at least 1 other thing wrong with the article and make themselves actually useful.

As far as what we make the standard, I don't really have an opinion. The stuff's too far over my head most of the time anyways. I'll do whatever everyone else decides. 16:14, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Direct links should always be used in the episode character appearance and chapter sections on articles. is wrong to use. makes much more sense and is actually accurate. There's no reason at all to add coding with the Ace|Ace's. We should undo the person with the links unless it was an edit made years ago. It's like how people who switch British English spelling to American English spelling or vice versa should be reverted right away. That kind of stuff should be left alone. SeaTerror (talk) 16:52, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, links to the original article should be used everywhere, as you could hide the full name with a piped link. But if one used the link over a redirect, it shouldn't be replaced unless there are other non minor changes to the page, following the paradigma of using the minimal amount of edits. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 17:50, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Defchris and JustSomeDude made good points, about redirects first I suggest that if we ever decide to make some rules move the discussion in a different forum (since I fear it will just go on forever) and whatever rules we decide, we should make it "negative" ("do not do this" instead of "do this and that and also that"). That said, I'll repost my opinion on the matter:
 * Fixing not canon name redirects is a good thing, for example something like "Jimbe → Jinbe".
 * Fixing short-name or nickname redirects is irrelevant, I don't see it as a task to do, but I don't see a reason to undo it. Some example "Luffy → Monkey D. Luffy" or "Whitebeard → Edward Newgate", just a note some people may prefer to see the actual name in the tooltip instead of a nickname (Whitebeard vs Whitebeard) (and technically the short-name case is a little different from the nickname case, because the latter is more reasonable in my opinion).
 * Fixing redirect to merged pages as well different topic pages is a bad thing, for example "Gear Second → Gomu Gomu no Mi/Gear Second Techniques" or "Shandian Village → Skypiea#Shandian Village". This is because in these cases the redirect works as an anchor for a concept or a topic different from the page which is redirecting to, this is useful because if in future we decide to make the Gear Second tab a page on its own, we don't have to fix the links.
 * About "there is a reason why redirects exist", Sea it's not really for the reason you think of... the main reason the redirects are used is to work as anchor link for merged articles or synonymous, not to correct editors' laziness. And as Defchris said, by purposely using redirects over correct links you cannot check where are the links pointing to an article with WhatLinksHere and you increase the chances of creating broken or double redirects. There is also a reason why the pipe link exists too.

I made a forum of this issue here. We could move this entire conversation there so that we have a basis for it, but I didn't really think that was necessary. 14:43, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Lovely. We can fight over that on another forum. Sound perfect to me. 06:42, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

The issues is decided. Luffy will be used instead of Luffy. Monkey D. Luffy's will be used instead of Monkey D. Luffy's. Add this to the MoS draft and we should be fine. 00:25, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Redundant categories
With the current edit war around the redundant category in Punk Hazard and as I faced the repeated addition of a redundant category I removed, I think we need a rule how to deal with them. It's pretty much unnecessary to list up articles within both categories and subcategories and maybe even their respective subcategories. Those redudancies are quite disrupting the category system misusing categories as mere tags. No one actually needs the redundant categories to find an article. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 15:00, October 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't see this. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 05:23, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

If we make a decision on that forum, how about adding the decision to the MoS? 14:15, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, we'll add that once it's done. 00:17, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

American English or British English
Okay, the rule for it in my opinion isn't good enough. I think we should pick one of them and stick to it. After all, if we use both languages, it will be inconstant which is not good.

By the way, if none of you guys know what is the rule is, here is the rule: If you see either American English or British English, leave it alone.

Personally, I would go along with American English, but since I was raised in it, I'm probably biased in this, though if anyone could tell me why we should use British English, I will change my mind. 02:58, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

The current rule is actually leave it in the original one used in an article. This is what Wikipedia uses too, so it seems pretty fair. Though generally, in new articles we seem to use purely American English. I don't have a strong opinion either way, I'm just informing. 03:08, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but what's the difference? If I don't notice a difference in styles, then there probably isn't much of a difference between the two. 03:10, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

British tend to add an 'o' in pretty much everything. Plus they don't quote things like we do. Americans: "yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda" while British are like this: 'yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda'. But that's the only differences as far as I know. I'm not really educated in British English, obviously. 03:13, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

It's actually a "u", Jademing. Example: American English - Honor. British English - Honour. Here's some other differences. American English - Defense. British English - Defence. American English - While. British American - Whilst. Thing is, British English is also known as International English, so that way of spelling is used more in other countries. However, U.S users who do not know of it sees them spelling mistakes rather than the alternative spelling and can actually cause lots of edit wars. The Narutopedia changed the spelling to UK English, so I talk from experience.

Please see this page to answer any further inquires (enquires in the UK spelling). Okay, point done. Bye.-- Ninja Sheik  03:23, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. Now that you mention it, I have come across those every once in a while, and I have changed them to American English. I personally prefer American English (I live in America after all), but like Jade said, this is purely personal preference. 04:10, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

For the Narutopedia, it wasn't about "personal preference". We decided what was best for the wiki. Because the wiki can be view by anyone and edit by anyone Naruto is a very popular franchise, so we have a wide of audience from all over world, not just the U.S. The wiki is going to get many different editors from the world, too, and when they see a word that is in either U.S or UK English, the other is going to change because that is what they are thought from whatever country they live in.-- Ninja Sheik  17:19, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Bump! Discussion need to be on here. Well, actually, the whole forum >_> 01:17, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that I personally preferred to use American English (hence the "personal preference"). While British English is more common, I think that right now, American English is what is used by most editors on the wiki. I think that these words are easily enough understood no matter what kind of English it is, so I don't really think that it is that big of a deal. 01:36, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with what PX said. If the others agree that we should use American English, without a poll, then by all means, add that we use American English on the MoS. 11:18, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

And when do users reach a ban-worthy level when they don't concede? I mean, if you're used to type British English you're whole life, it's not like you can change that easily, can you? -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 11:30, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

We can warn the user to stop typing in British English. If they ignore it, well, I don't know. Probably a ban. 11:44, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I want a poll. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 11:47, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Alright. But can we wait until a few more users tell their opinion on which English to use? So far, only 5 including me had told what is their thoughts on this. I would prefer to wait for more users. If not, we'll start a poll. 11:50, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

While i'd prefer British English, i'd say we go with Americian English as most users will be familier in using it. Besty17 (talk) 11:56, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

I'd also prefer UK English, as having been raised in Australia (this really applies any English speaking user outside of America, a single country) I simply use it unconsciously. Instead, I'd rather go ahead with JSD's mention of "leave it alone". Neither way of spelling is a mistake, just a variation. 12:23, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Same as Kuro on every point, given I'm Australian and all. Also, banning people for spelling the way they have their whole lives is way too harsh. 12:36, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite like the inconsistency that results, but I think the fairest alternative is "leave it alone"…

As Kuro said, a fair amount of spelling stuff is done unconsciously. I don't know every British English spelling variant, so I'm bound to change some when my spellchecker says it's wrong. No matter what we do, I don't think it should ever be a ban-worthy offense, unless the person is going around with the expressed purpose of changing them all one way.

As far as the actual issue, most articles are in American English. But it would be very unfair to eliminate (and criminalize) the use of British. I may not like the spellings in the slightest bit, but I feel like I have to be on the side of fairness. If we wanted to be creative though, we might be able to come up with a better compromise that favors American English in some ways, but still leaves the door open for British. Ex: all templates & other things tied to wikia functionality using American. Or certain words (such as "colour" "favour" "honour") always using American. I'm not entirely endorsing those ideas, those are just a couple examples I thought of, feel free to make more up. 15:38, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you guys got me beaten. Since UK English is used more commonly throughout the world than the US English, I think I will go along with the UK English, if we do decide on only one type of English being used in here.

I think we should decide on using only one of the languages, or stick to the old rule first though. Then after we decide on that, we can move on which languages to use, if we are not going to keep the old rule. 21:30, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

America, f#%k yeah. I say American since, like JSD said, most articles are in it already and it's just less of a hassle. 21:50, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

But most of the world use British English. American English isn't as used world wide like British English. A lot of users on here are not from America, and we need to think world wide. So if we decide on one language, I'm going for British English. 00:49, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jademing. British English is used all over the world, and the series has fans all over the world that would like to edit on the wiki. So, it'd best for all of the fans if you use the language of the one that is used more.-- Ninja Sheik  01:11, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I actually think the One Piece has more fans outside of the United States than in it, so it would be better. And it would simply take a bit of bot work to fix it I think..... 01:14, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the comments proposing we leave it as it is. Galaxy9000 (talk) 01:15, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

@Pacifista15: It is a lot work, but not that much. Don't worry, it's a lot easier if everyone pitch in. You have a lot of users on the wiki, so no worries.-- Ninja Sheik  01:17, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

I'm for the compromise that Wikipedia follows, or at least something similar. It's unfair to both parties to forbid the use of one over the other. We should think about how we'll compromise over this. 01:21, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

JSD, can you link me to Wikipedia's compromise over American English vs. British English? Thanks. 17:30, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Here it is. To summarize, it basically it means that conisitency of the spelling on the page is what is important, not consistency across all articles. Generally, whatever is used originally on each page is what should be used. One exception to that is for cases with "strong national ties" where the spelling of choice in that country should be used (for example, an article on the American Civil war should use American English, not British). That is the basic foundation of their compromise.

I understand that some users want to change us to International (British) English because most of the world uses International English, and that that is a possibly valid reason. But also, given how most of our pages have ended up in American English, it's clear that most of our editors prefer American English. Isn't the prefernce of the majority of our editors also a valid reason too? This is why I support a compromise, and not the total 100% of either variety.

Another bit of our current policy is that official translations override any page preference. This came to head with Miss Goldenweek's Colors trap, where the page used the spelling "colours" originally, but an official translation overrode that. And one area where we differ from wikipedia is that we are based on translations of a Japanese work. While an international country, in Japan, the preference is actually to teach American English as opposed to International English. This is due to the strong US presence in Japan in the aftermath of WWII, and Japan's isolationist ideals beforehand, and historically a generally stronger relationship with the US than England. That is a fact that should definitely be taken into consideration in this debate.

Also, I don't entirely agree with wikipedia's "original use"policy, at least for the pages that exist currently. Most of them have been switched over at some point to American, and they are currently consistent as one page. It seems like a waste of time and effort for people to go back in, find what was used originally and switch it all back. Also, it wouldn't be very consistent if Luffy's article was in American, but his crewmate Franky's was in British. We should also consider the current state of pages when deciding this issue. 19:17, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I think we should leave it as it is. 06:24, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Look good to me. However, I'm still considering whether to go for Wikipedia's compromise, or full out British spellings. I'm leaning more to the compromise, now.... 00:53, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with using American English. Most of the pages are already using that. It will be much easier. I raised using American English than British English, so I am more bias towards American English. I think a poll could resolve this since we haven't so far. 01:10, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a poll might be the only way to resolve this. The options ought to be:

1. American English only 2. British English only 3. Keep our compromise the same as it was.

I considered adding a fourth option to change the compromise to improve it, or make it similar to Wikipedia. However, there hadn't been enough discussion on that, so if someone want to add that fourth option, then she/he is free to do so. Let's wait for one or two more days and if no improvements had been made on here, we can make a poll. 01:31, October 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the 3rd option should just be to compromise, and afterwards, we'll figure out the specifics of the compromise. 01:36, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Can we start the poll now? 19:09, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

We still haven't came to a decision on weather to use American or British. It's best we start a poll now to finally decied which one to use. 01:10, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'm opening the poll now, due to the deadlock. 19:34, October 24, 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I think no matter what the result of the poll is, pages like One Piece in Australia or [[Madman Entertainment] and other other pages that relate to only to countries should use the local spelling varieties. So if American English wins, those pages from Australia would still use British English. Since it's bot work to change spellings, we should make a category for pages that use the non-dominant spellings. 16:14, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

English Language Poll
This poll is currently closed. The verdict has been found: The Wikia shall use American English.

This poll deals with whether to use American English, British English, or use a compromise. For details about what the compromise might entail, read this section of the forum.

Which variety of English this Wikia should use?

The wikia should use American English.
 * 1)  00:29, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)  00:46, October 25, 2012 (UTC) The fact that Japan teaches American English makes me favor this option.
 * 15:00, October 25, 2012 (UTC) ^would be a good reason.
 * 1)  21:58, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 05:13, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * 05:20, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * 04:54, October 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) (of course...)

The wikia should use British English.

'''The wikia should use a compromise. (The specifics of the compromise will be sorted out later if this option wins)'''
 * 1)  02:37, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)  21:34, October 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3)  16:14, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 17:07, November 5, 2012 (UTC)

MoS Subpages and Tabs
A minor organizational thing for the Manual of Style itself. It was brought up before that we should tab the Manual of Style into a group of subpages. It was also brought up before that this was an issue to be tackled after we determine the length of the Manual, but I think that this is more of an organizational issue. A Manual of Style would be much easier to navigate and search if it was tabbed, especially for a new user who is unwilling to read a wall of text. In addition, we could just rename some of the old wiki pages (Image Guidelines, perhaps?) and update them for the Manual of Style. Some examples of subpages could be an Introduction to the Wiki, Writing, Style, Coding and Templates, Forum Etiquette, Blog Etiquette, Ban Policy, Images, etc.

If we still don't want to attack this issue yet, we could wait until some of the ideas are further discussed. Another idea is to have a search bar that functions within the page so that one could simply search the topic they want to be clarified. 01:30, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

As far as folding things in goes, technically a "Manual of Style" should only refer to the formatting and grammar of a work. So things like blog, forum, and chat rules do not technically belong in a MoS. But I do support the combining of most of our rule-based pages into some kind of larger article with tabs on our various policies, it just wouldn't be called a "Manual of Style".

And it would be great if people could help us update to the Forum Rules and Blog Rules and the various other ones covered in the current MoS draft. 01:42, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, as JSD says, the manual of style is about writing and coding, basically. Blogs, forums, and chat are a totally different matter; introduction to the wiki, image guidelines and ban policy also are another thing; and article layouts are yet another. The manual of style aims at fixing generic, small possible disagreements about formatting, typically English style, typographic conventions, link formatting, etc. At most, I can see two tabs, Writing and Coding, and they wouldn't be very long.

Keep it brief and simple for each section, like this wiki: http://fairytail.wikia.com/wiki/Fairy_Tail_Wiki:Manual_of_Style

Lot of sections, but we can divide our MoS in subpages, as Writing and Coding like Sff said. Then the MoS can be even simpler and briefer, while also making it easy for these who only want to know how to edit properly, or how to use MediaWiki on here. 22:09, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

The idea I had for the Manual of Style was more of a compiled rulebook. If we did this, we could have a bunch of help pages and rule lists in one tabbed page. One of these tabs could be "Manual of Style", one could be coding help, tenplates, forum and talk page etiquette, images, etc. 01:30, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, moving the discussion to here. PX, I followed your suggestion. This draft is what the MoS would probably look like, using your suggestion. Are everyone fine with this proposed draft? 16:28, November 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly down with it. 17:12, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Bump. Are everyone fine with my draft of Manual of Style using PX's proposal? 01:52, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

Bump. 17:40, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Section Heading Spacing
I've recently noticed that while editing images sometimes in source mode, people add spaces to the heads of sections. As in ==Section== and == Section ==. I think the spaces are needless extra coding that don't really add anything that we need. In the actual articles, my browser (Firefox) seems to not add the first space, but it does add the space after the word. I've noticed this mostly on images, but I'm sure it's probably used everywhere on the wiki The current draft states that the version without spaces should be used. I want to make sure that everyone agrees with this (and knows about it) though before a bot goes around and changes them all. 20:06, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've noticed that when uploading new pictures the user is given the option to add the licensing and a summary before the image is uploaded. When this system is used, it automatically adds the section heads with the spaces on both ends. Does anyone know why it does that? Or if we can even change it? 06:15, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

About the spaces, it's the other way around: that's the standard syntax. It's not "needless extra coding" but is meant to make the code more readable, many tools exist for doing just that. Take a look to a Wikipedia page source code for example. As I said in the beginning of the page this should be the standard format:
 * A template with a lot of paramenters must be well formatted like this:

not like

or (really horrible and also incorrect)

-> not correct;  --> correct) and also have a blank line before the start of the section: ...end of section 1.
 * Headings must be used the common formattig, with spaces before the "=" (

Section2
Text (Not correct) ...end of section 1.

Section2
Text (Correct)

(Not correct)
 * List should also use the standard formatting:
 * Unordered list
 * Elem1
 * Elem2
 * Elem3
 * Ordered list
 * 1) Elem1
 * 2) Elem2

(Not correct)
 * Unordered list
 * Elem1
 * Elem2
 * Elem3
 * Ordered list
 * 1) Elem1
 * 2) Elem2


 * Deprecated html tags like "font" or wiki code like "width=, align=..." must be replace by  parameters (unless there is a specific reason to not use it)


 * By the way I was planning to change this already with a bot... but let's discuss it first.

A bit of research into Wikipedia's MoS actually states that both forms are correct. Since I don't know enough about complex coding (merely what I have learned in passing here) I don't know what to think anymore... 18:54, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I beg all of you to start using this format, I'm not saying to make it a rule, just the preferred way. Anyway you can use whatever you want, but I'm sure you can appreciate this syntax in source mode like here, can you imagine that without any spaces/new lines?

As far as that template (or whatever it is) is concerned, it does look much better in source mode, and the spaces don't show up on the page in article form. But for the section heading spacing like I originally described, since the extra spaces do alter the article in the end, I'm not sure that I support the spaces. 19:30, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what spaces are you referring to, but the space between the title text and the "=" is stripped, as well the new line before the heading. Try it, or post an example where this doesn't happen.

Look here: User:JustSomeDude.../Sandbox4

In there, if you look in source mode, you'll see that the two "Sections" are different. But when I highlight them when not editing, I see the space after the second "Section". That's what I mean. 20:15, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

This section needs a bump. 04:53, October 28, 2012 (UTC)

Bump. 01:52, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

Bump..... 17:39, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Stub Template Locations
We've agreed to put all stub (and any other template, "Out of Date", "No Refs.", etc) tags on the top of articles, and not the bottom, right? I think they go better on the top, because then people are more likely to see them and do something about it. Does everyone agree with this? Cuz I'll find a place to put this rule if so. 20:43, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

I think that it makes the page look kind of cluttered and weird when there is a box saying that the page is a stub. I don't really mind either way, but aesthetically it looks better at the bottom of the page. 23:04, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Top is best. I tend to ignore the bottom if i'm not looking carefully. 23:18, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Stubs should be kind of ugly. That way the only way to make the ugly go away is to expand the stub. And yeah, I still the top is best. 23:39, October 22, 2012 (UTC)

Top is better. More people would see it, and they might edit the page to expand it. No one see the bottom anyway. 00:53, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

It kind of looks bad at the top of the pages, and it really clutters the pages. I prefer it if they could be at the bottom of pages. 22:00, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Stubs aren't supposed to look pretty Calu. That's the point of sticking it at the top. 22:02, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

We can also change the format of the stubs so that they fit a little better with the pages when they're at the top. I just think it makes them way more noticable at the top. Aesthetics don't matter too much in this case. 22:04, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine I guess, because some of them are bigger than others. Also, it would kind of look better if they were about the same size. 22:17, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, are everyone fine with moving the stub templates to the top, and changing the sizes of these templates to the same sizes? 03:02, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly ok with it. What size should we make them though? Should they go across the entire top of the article, or stop at the infobox, or somewhere in between? Also, the regular template is really lame in comparison to all our other pretty ones. 01:47, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

We could add the picture of Luffy being short (after he uses Gear Third) for the to "pretty" it up. It certainly show that he is short and need to be bigger xD

What size it is do not matter to me at all, as long as they are the same size. And exactly where they are in the article, I would say the entire top of the article. 18:15, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Bump. 01:52, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

Bump..... I'll give it one week, and if no one step up to complain about it, we'll start moving the stub templates to the top of the articles. 17:39, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Nominations
Apparently Galaxy thinks that there's a non-existent rule about not being allowed to nominate more than one person to chat mod. Can somebody please try to prove we have this rule since he refuses to show any evidence of it? Is it on this page? SeaTerror (talk) 22:09, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall hearing about any such rule. If there is something like that, it would probably be here, where the rule was created. Just remember that since the forum specified two mod appointments, that's all the people we are going to be elected. 22:51, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Chat Rules
Time to fully establish this just so we can get it done with. SeaTerror (talk) 08:37, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

I agree we need a set of rules. 08:41, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Pandawarrior showed me these set of rules that another website used for their forums or blogs, I have edited this a litlle and I know it's a bit silly but it gives us a basic Idea. Oh and some aren't even actualy rules just common sense.

1.THIS IS OUR HOUSE

2.THOU SHALL OBSERVE CHAT ETIQUETTE

3.THOU SHALL THINK BEFORE TALKING

4.THOU SHALL CONTRIBUTE TO THE SITE

5.THOU SHALL NOT SPAM

6.THOU SHALL RESPECT CHAT VETERANS

7.ENGLISH IS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE

8.THOU SHALL RESPECT YOUR ID

9.READ THE COMMANDMENTS

10.THOU SHALL HAVE FUN

 08:47, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

 i doth loveth thine idea and rules^_^

 10:29, February 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) 4 is bad. SeaTerror (talk) 02:40, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the place for it. A "Manual of Style" refers to spelling, grammar, formatting of text. Make the chat stuff its own forum. 05:11, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/One_Piece_Encyclopedia:Guidebook/Blogs_and_Chat tell that to this page. SeaTerror (talk) 05:23, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

We can have the discussion here. It's fine. 05:29, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Bump. 01:30, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Those are the only ones we need to discuss. Obviously 4 is just plain bad.

2.THOU SHALL OBSERVE CHAT ETIQUETTE

4.THOU SHALL CONTRIBUTE TO THE SITE

5.THOU SHALL NOT SPAM

6.THOU SHALL RESPECT CHAT VETERANS

7.ENGLISH IS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE SeaTerror (talk) 01:37, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

I like all of the rules SHB offered, but the fourth rule, I'm not quite sure yet.... 02:10, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Thou shalt respect chat veterans? What's that supposed to mean? And "observe chat etiquette"? Isn't the purpose of these rules to spell out chat etiquette? The only logical things I see here are not spamming and using English as the official languages. 02:13, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Somebody is always speaking a different language when they call for me. 02:16, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

PX: Respect LPK.

02:19, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know what #8 means. #2 and #9 are basically both just saying to follow the rules and read the chat rules. SeaTerror (talk) 02:24, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

"Chat veterans" shouldn't have any more privileges than a new user. That just puts power in the hands of some that may not be responsible enough to handle it. If you're worried about some newbie coming in and being rude, remember that the rules state (or will state something similar) that no users should be rude/disrespectful, including newbies, veterans, mods, and admins. Everyone should be accountable for their actions and words equally. A "chat veteran" should know the rules (otherwise, they aren't really a true veteran) so they should be punished just as much as a new user who is disrespectful. The idea that "our veterans are our friends and they don't deserve to be punished" permeates this wiki, and it's something we should work to eliminate if we ever want the place to be attractive to new editors. 05:31, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

A rule that you have to contribute to the site is stupid. It's like having a club where only members can join. Some users come to this Wiki to only chat. The chat should just be a social gathering. Having strict requirements to be part of a group is something no one wants to do. 05:35, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

We do welcome new users. Usually the ones that are "chased away" are the kind who just try to do a bunch of crappy edits then get mad when people are against them. Nada we will never have that rule. Only like 2 people even want something ridiculous like that. SeaTerror (talk) 08:31, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, an edit requirement to join the chat wouldn't be good, simply because the chat can be used as a tool to teach people how to edit properly. Someone could have a question about their very first edit, and chat is the best way to answer it. 18:38, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed,people don't have to have contributions to join the chat. 20:05, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

We need to establish other rules. Obviously nobody is going to support a "no swearing" rule. Can people please suggest some rules so we can just get this over with? SeaTerror (talk) 20:13, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

1) Be nice. 2) Don't threaten anyone. 3) Don't spam the chat. 4) Stop arguing when a mod tells you to. 5) Only chat mods can idle in the chat for hours.

Most of these are things we already follow. #5 is because as we all know the chat can be quite glitchy sometimes, and having less people in the chat will make it less glitchy. Also, it's just rather annoying when you join the chat on the pretense of talking to someone only to find out they aren't really in chat and won't be until the next morning or afternoon. And it's kind of both eavesdropping and creepy. (and to be clear, idling for 20 mintues is ok, idling for 4 hours or overnight, not so much) 21:06, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

5 isn't happening. You can't control if somebody wishes to idle or not... so terrible idea. That's just too bad for you if you want to talk to somebody that's idle. 21:07, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

The chat glitches when there's a lot of people, if say 3 of those are idle, kicking them out can really help. And if they aren't actually idle, they can just come back in, no harm, no foul. 21:13, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Chat is going to glitch either way. The amount of people means nothing. Your rule is TERRIBLE. 21:14, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

The chat mods have the right to kick somebody, anyway. And since kicking is never permanent, it's not really an abuse of power ever. So I guess even if rule 5 wasn't implemented, mods would do it if they want anyways. Tip for mods: If you think somebody is breaking chat, kick them. Rule 5 is basically a tip, nothing more. 21:19, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

.

21:21, March 5, 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) 4 and #5 are both bad. The only time a chat moderator should say to stop arguing is if the argument gets really out of hand which would fall under other rules like no flaming or whatever. 5 is just stupid and a terrible idea. Nobody will support that. SeaTerror (talk) 21:22, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Yea, about "not staying idle" .. not working out ( ._.) don't know .. just doesn't sound fair. Plus, MODs are already biting more power than they can chew .. lets not blow things out of control >_> .. yea, so kinda against that one. 21:28, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

How is allowing a user to be in chat for hours and say nothing helpful exactly?

Number 4 is just a thing that helps maintain a comfortable chat environment. It's something that we already kind of do, and it should be stated in the rules. If there are 10 people in the chat, and 2 of them are arguing over something, even if they aren't flaming, it's annoying the rest of the chat. Chat mods should have the right to make them either stop or take it to PMs. The rest of the chat shouldn't have to suffer because of a small minority of people.

And if you want people to propose their ideas to help the forum along, don't just insult their ideas, it disinclines others to post. Or you could at least say that you agree with the other ideas so your response isn't completely hostile. 21:33, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Number 4 is basically the job of the mod anyways, but I don't think everybody understands this. There are still people that complain about being banned from chat even if they were warned. Since the chat mod is in charge, number 4 is fine to implement. 21:38, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

It's helpful because people can see if somebody needed them or if any wiki discussion happened. Even if you think talk pages can be used, there is still no reason not to allow people to idle. The idea is bad. 21:39, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason not to kick them, either. If a mod feels the need to, they can. As long as it isn't a ban. Though number 5 in all shouldn't be a rule, and should basically be expected from a mod anyways. 21:41, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Well we should establish an actual warning system. It should be "verbal" warning first, then a kick, then a ban if its really that bad. 4 is bad for the reasons I said. It should not be a rule and if it is then it should ONLY be used if an argument gets out of hand. 5 won't even go on the poll anyway. Its just way too bad for the chat. Also kicking people for idling should NEVER be expected from a mod. That's a really horrible way to think. SeaTerror (talk) 21:46, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

It should never be expected from a mod, because none of our mods are that stupid. 21:55, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

But hey. Kick anybody for saying the word "Hello", just because there's no reason not to! 21:57, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

We're not saying the mod should be rude. A mod needs to be able to watchover the chat. Kicking somebody for saying "Hello" is not what we're talking about at all, because the user is still there. If the user wants to come back because they're no longer idle, they can. It's not an abuse of power to kick somebody because they can't close the window. If a mod feels something is wrong, they can do it. If a mod kicks somebody simply for entering the chat, that's rude and it's an abuse of power. I'm not saying it should be mandatory for a mod to kick an idler. That should be up to the mod. 22:09, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

I just used an idea that's equal in stupidity to yours. Mod shouldn't do it at all, because there isn't a reason to ever. Not now, not later, not then, not tomorrow, not monday, not tuesday, not last week, and not next month. 22:11, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

I guess we'll put it on the poll then just so only two people can vote for it. SeaTerror (talk) 22:18, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying I support the rule. I'm saying the mod can do it anyways whether you like it or not. The user isn't chatting anyways, so what's the difference? If they feel the need to kick someone who is possibly ruining the chat, they can. Galaxy, that idea is completely different from what we're saying. We're talking about a user being on chat for a long period of time, not a user who just entered chat. There's nothing stopping a mod from kicking somebody who isn't there, and you have yet to tell what's wrong with it. They're not chatting, anyways. 22:28, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

They're being kicked for no reason whatsoever. Who cares if they aren't there. It doesn't matter. I'm seeing it as people whining that people aren't there to talk to them when they enter chat, so they should be punished for it. 22:36, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Except the thing is that kicking is not a punishment. 22:41, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Kicking people for no reason is a bad thing. Also, kicking is a punishment since kicks lead to bans if a person is doing something bad. SeaTerror (talk) 23:22, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

If kicks were a punishment, they would be taken more seriously. Obviously, that isn't quite the case. Yes, kicking people for no reason is a bad thing. But they are being kicked for a reason: Idling for hours. A chat mod doesn't HAVE to do this, and a chat mod SHOULDN'T have to do this. If it was or wasn't a rule, the mod would do it anyways if they feel the need. This whole argument is pointless, as we can't stop a mod from doing this. 23:29, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Then we'll make it a rule that chat mods cannot kick people for being idle. Thanks for the idea. SeaTerror (talk) 23:40, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

It's not "kicking people for no reason", it's kicking them because they're idling for an excessive amount of time. Now, you may think that that is "no reason", but I think it is a good reason. if you actually want to argue correctly, please go ahead with the assumption that there is a reason. Otherwise you're just spouting off incorrect information that means nothing to those you are arguing against. And please keep the hyperbolic comparisons out of arguments, they really are a poor, poor form of argument. 23:53, March 5, 2013 (UTC)

Kicking people for idling is for no reason. Your idea is a poor, poor form of an idea. 00:14, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

How could kicking people for idling EVER possibly be a good idea? SeaTerror (talk) 00:38, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

Remember ST? He mentioned that it makes him angry when people don't respond to him. They should be punished for that! 00:51, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a suggestion for any rule, but I would like to remind you guys of something, according to Wikia's ToU (Terms of Use), users must be at least 13 years old to have an account. Since there's a few users on here that are under 13 years old, and there were a few discussions about the age limit thing, I would like it to be banged out: Should we let users that are under 13 years old in the chat, or should we not? Just a reminder, sometime we have conversations that isn't quite proper for children under 13 years old, so this is important. 01:28, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't really matter. People can just lie anyways. 01:32, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

We don't allow people under 13 to be on chat. I've seen mods ban people who admitted they were under 13. However, there is really no solid way to check this. 01:48, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

Of course there's no way to check. We really shouldn't bother. 01:50, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

The 13 year old thing is not just Wikia's ToU, but Federal (and international?) law. The American law is Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. So if we allow the kids, and people find out, there could be serious consequences. 02:29, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

Will somebody call the cyber police? SeaTerror (talk) 02:35, March 6, 2013 (UTC)