Forum:Updating policies, guidelines and the wiki

There was an idea to bring together a collection of proposals and projects, so when we needed them, they could improve the wiki in a longer term that we never could achieve in our present time...

An overview
The wiki's current policies and guidelines was based on an outdated model (2010). It was based on the notion that Bungie would still retain creative control over the franchise. It made sense at the time, but not in the present. There have been numerous calls for these policies and guidelines to be updated, but it keeps getting swept under the carpet once the discussion dies out. So, this is an effort to bring this update into action.

MoS and Layout
On the standards to be employed in articles, the Manual of Style requires more clarification on what would be the best standards as you edit an article. I've added a small change to this on my sandbox page; I added a section on styles that clarifies the wiki's position on measurement and spellings as well as linking it back to Layout guide.

The Layout Guide is in serious need of updates. Numerous points and concerns have been raised, such as what is required of an introductory image for characters, for individual ships and general ship class. Appearances also became an issue; while it has been addressed and solutions have been provided (with some implemented), it has not been recorded in the guide.

Furthermore, we should also consider the issue of accessibility for mobile and tablet users; simply put, a focus to reduce the data load on images (which is also what Wikia is doing but their sites is currently horrible to navigate via mobile). I've undertook the task to ensure that the move relevant images should go into the article whereas others should be in an image category. This category is of course viewable via link placed under a specific section in the article. This would appear to be in conflict with Nicmavr's image tagging competition but I'm sure that would not be a problem.

Canon
The canon policy needs to have a proactive role in educating readers and editors on what is canon and what would be the correct interpretation. Too many users have their own interpretation of the content and a significant few have misinterpreted the content.

The hierarchy of canon, specifically the Tier system, needs to be replaced with a hierarchy of Media Type system. To put things simply, no parties would be superior than the controller of the franchise, games would be superior to all other media in so far that it makes sense. Essentially a system of compromise to allow content from novels and other media to prevail over game canon. It would mean that Halopedians would need to employ some quality control over what is canon and what is not, but it does not mean that Halopedians is the ultimate authority. This is done through consensus; one general/collective agreement. Looking at the wiki's history track, the community has been quite on the spot most of the time.

What else?
That's essentially a recap on what has been proposed and recorded in the policies and guidelines. If other proposals have not been mentioned in this thread, please list them out. :) — subtank   12:19, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

Changes/Introduction

 * Changes to the Manual of Style ✓
 * Changes to the Canon Policy ✓
 * Changes to the Layout Guide
 * Changes to the Notability Policy
 * Changes to References guideline
 * Introduction of Gallery
 * Introduction of the User Manual
 * Introduction of the FAQ ✓


 * * denotes c finalised update; still require administrative review.

Comments
Alas, my own attempt to wage a similar proposal had fallen wayside. Commendations to this [understated-armored-transport] for exceeding my initiative!

The only further amendment I would add would be the consensus recorded in this discussion, where your users agreed to have the wiki's data reflect the most recent canon in the timeline, versus merely reflecting the most recently released. In their words, "Halopedia is kind of like a document made by ONI, recording everything in Halo.". That seems to be a worthy standard to add (though I do not see why my own Archives would not record better than those naval agents.)

The rest, however, is suitable. Now to inspect the delay in my facilities' functions... 12:34, 13 May 2012 (EDT)


 * We could do a Gallery namespace like this instead of the current category method for better image organization, plus the images wouldn't be tagged as unused. -- 12:56, 13 May 2012 (EDT)


 * I was thinking of that, but thought that having an image category works as well. If you can enable it, I'll make the necessary changes to the template... and hopefully others can assist me in reorganising the images accordingly. :P — subtank   13:00, 13 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Should be no issue. I can always use Nicbot to change the template in all the articles if necessary. - Major.png Nìcmávr  ( Tálk  ) 13:30, 13 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Nicbot is still operational? Yay! Perhaps it can also update the Challenges article? The previous bot is no longer in operation and its handler cannot be contacted as to ask why this is so.— subtank   13:58, 13 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Nicbot never went out of operation :P As for the Challenges table, I've no idea how I could do that but the source code of Matt's bot is available so I could try figuring it out... Is he definitely out of contact? - Major.png Nìcmávr  ( Tálk  ) 14:46, 13 May 2012 (EDT)
 * I created the Gallery namespace. The current method is supported through, and when a subject's gallery page is complete, switch to to link to the new page. -- 14:43, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

The source for 31stCenturyBot is located here.-- KEEP IT CLEAN  Comm Line  Transmissions 16:40, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

Just to let you all know that I'm putting the proposed amendments in the above section. Feel free to discuss in their relevant talk pages on what should be improved on and what should be changed.— subtank   14:27, 23 May 2012 (EDT)
 * To make it more easily-accessible on what has been altered, the proposed changes/improvement will be in a yellow box. :) — subtank   14:29, 23 May 2012 (EDT)

I think we need to decide on the article naming convention. For example, we have the ARC-920, the abbreviated name of the Asymmetric Recoilless Carbine-920, as the article name. But, we also have the M41 Surface-to-Surface Rocket Medium Anti-Vehicle/Assault Weapon (pant) as the article name for the rocket launcher. One uses the abbreviated designation, while the other uses the entire designation. There is a similar problem with vehicles: AV-14 Hornet (designation + nickname) and M12 Force Application Vehicle (designation and no nickname). These are just some examples. There are a lot more. — S331 (COM • Mission Log • Profile) 00:56, 26 May 2012 (EDT)
 * So, I guess we should use the following naming convention: just short abbreviation for weapon articles (i.e. ARC-920 over long-title-here-yay!) and designation with nickname for vehicle articles (i.e. M12 FAV Warthog instead of M12 Flalala-Alalala-Vlalala)? Of course, ship articles won't follow this style.— subtank   06:40, 26 May 2012 (EDT)


 * In general, I think it would be more apt to keep article titles as concise as possible, while the full title of the subject would be spelled out in the introductory paragraph in bold. This would come in extremely handy in cases like the M41 SSM M-etc... This could also be applied to other overlong titles we have alternate names for, like the United Nations Space Command Emergency Priority Order-numbers - why not just call it "Cole Protocol"?
 * Similarly, I've been thinking we should follow Wikipedia's general format when it comes to characters, using the name the character is most commonly known as in the article title instead of the full name - e.g. "Catherine Halsey" instead of "Catherine Elizabeth Halsey" or "Preston Cole" as opposed to Preston Jeremiah Cole. Much easier to link, since the full name is barely ever used in normal contexts anyways. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 08:12, 27 May 2012 (EDT)


 * Agreed and yes. — subtank   08:15, 27 May 2012 (EDT)


 * Not always. I've seen "Catherine Elizabeth Halsey" used much more than "Catherine Halsey" in articles. And since we're writing from an in-universe perspective, wouldn't it be better to go by their in-universe designation rather just their informal name? Otherwise we'd have to do things like rename John-117 to be "Master Chief" because he gets called that so much more often. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 15:32, 27 May 2012 (EDT)
 * Obviously, this wouldn't mean renaming John-117 "Master Chief"; basic titling standards would still be followed when it comes to the distinction between titles and names. In addition, I'm not proposing we should abandon the use of in-universe titles, only that we'd use a more common and concise (in-universe) title whenever available. "Cole Protocol" is still very much an in-universe term, since it's what most people in-universe called the protocol outside of formal contexts.


 * As for "Catherine Elizabeth Halsey" being used in articles more often, I think it stems from the simple fact the article is currently titled as such, despite the fact the use of her full name isn't all that common in the novels. Besides, the article title isn't everything - the full name of the subject can just as well be conveyed in the introductory paragraph. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 16:31, 27 May 2012 (EDT)

The content in Quote pages needs to be limited to only worthy quotes. As of now, there's a significant number of unnecessary quotes that holds no "worthy" quality as to constitute a "worthy" quote. The UNSC Marine Corps/Quotes page, being one of the best example, has redundant phrases such as "Thanks" (when given a decent weapon) and "Sniper!" It should work similar to how Featured Quotes are decided but at a lower threshold. Not all phrases should be recorded into the page; simply the "worthy" ones. — subtank   09:45, 28 May 2012 (EDT)

Also, feel free to add any changes/new policies you (users in general) think should be made. This is a community effort, not just one single user.— subtank   09:52, 28 May 2012 (EDT)