RBCWiki talk:Specific Case Editing Guidelines
From Ravenblack CityWiki
This is great policy, and I think this will go a long way toward settling disputes and edit wars. I do have a concern about closing the †character pages. Aside from the DFC issue that has been probably been at the forefront of this decision, there are a lot of other things that can be fabricated about a character. For example, A *lot* of players outright lie about things like how long they've been in the city, what clan's thay've been in, who originally sired them, etc., if the †character pages are to be private, and players are allowed to say whatever they wish about their vampires without fear of being corrected (Even honest mistakes happen) what mechanism is in place to prevent these sorts of fabrications? New people who come to this wiki will take whatever is written on those pages at face value. People are free to use their own webpages to showcase their characters, but this wiki should be more like an encyclopedia. To maintain encyclopedic accuracy, I think the †character pages should be a group effort. This prevents honest errors as well as outright fraud. Just my two cents. --Archangel Talk * Welcome * Support 02:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- RP is fabricated as far as I understand. Most of players character images aren't real. The only one who can look into game logs is Mr. Raven Black, so he is the one who knows the truth, but I doubt that he wants to know all he has to look into. This wiki never will be an accurate or realtime information source for game statistics and history. Like I said, anybody out there in every aspect of life lives in her/his reality bubble. Some swing on the same wave, some don't. --Cliff Burton • Marco 03:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ok cool-beans, However I have another question/issue which is not addressed in the new policy (not trying to be a pain), but what about characters whose players are no longer in the game? For example I have a TON of information about EvilBill I'd like to add, but since the page belongs to Bill, can I add it? Personally I think such characters should fall into some "Historical" category, and no longer be the "property" of the player behind the vampire, but if not,how does this work? --Archangel Talk * Welcome * Support 20:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good Q. But as this raises trouble, as for what is fact and what not, and I don't wanna hear about that, this is a hard one to answer and decide. Events written down by anyone might be subjective, even if not intended. How are going to tell the history of a historical character without that happening? --Cliff Burton • Marco 21:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know. There is always bias in history, even real history. All I know is that I hate a vaccuum of information. --Archangel Talk * Welcome * Support 21:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- The more I think about this, and look through my old convos and stuff, the more vampires come to mind. Uncle Snypee, Wandering Fool, Xeneri, Lord Livingston, damn, there are dozens and dozens of vampires who were major figures in the history of this city, all with rich histories, we need a way to do this. --Archangel Talk * Welcome * Support 23:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree to the point that information about historical characters should be put in. If there is a dispute is has to be settled in a mannered way. If anyone feels strange about informations which can't be cited, these informations have to left out for the peace. I understand that you might have even good points and might be feeling bad about some of my decicions, but I tell everyone that you all have to understand in what emotional position this fights bring me. Be like teflon! --Cliff Burton • Marco 00:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I liked your recent decision. It's a reasonable compromise and I always prefer compromise to a fight. I hate fights. I do have a concern about "Historical" figures tho, and how to deal with a situation where two or more folks may disagree on history. I was thinking of a "Historical Figure" category that is separate from the character pages, which are actually now private pages. Historical figures would be public. --Archangel Talk * Welcome * Support 00:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think it might be best by letting them in the Character Category but putting them also in another one, .Category:Inactive Characters as the same with Inactive Groups -> Category:Inactive Groups. --Cliff Burton • Marco 06:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I liked your recent decision. It's a reasonable compromise and I always prefer compromise to a fight. I hate fights. I do have a concern about "Historical" figures tho, and how to deal with a situation where two or more folks may disagree on history. I was thinking of a "Historical Figure" category that is separate from the character pages, which are actually now private pages. Historical figures would be public. --Archangel Talk * Welcome * Support 00:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree to the point that information about historical characters should be put in. If there is a dispute is has to be settled in a mannered way. If anyone feels strange about informations which can't be cited, these informations have to left out for the peace. I understand that you might have even good points and might be feeling bad about some of my decicions, but I tell everyone that you all have to understand in what emotional position this fights bring me. Be like teflon! --Cliff Burton • Marco 00:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Good Q. But as this raises trouble, as for what is fact and what not, and I don't wanna hear about that, this is a hard one to answer and decide. Events written down by anyone might be subjective, even if not intended. How are going to tell the history of a historical character without that happening? --Cliff Burton • Marco 21:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have arrived to this discussion from the DFC discussion which made me think of the question addressed above. I would like also to add to the above that as well as the now completely non-active historical figures, there are also semi-active historical figures, who have been important to the early city history, who have all but withdrawn now from major action and politics. However important they were at the time, unfortunately some players of these figures are unlikely to come here to edit pages relating to their characters.
- I see the category for Category:Inactive Characters. Is there the possibility for another category "Active Characters who have not edited their own page", or similar? Or alternatively a button or symbol or something to be placed on a Character's page to show if it has ever been edited by the Character's official owner?
- Maybe that is too complex though. And even if we had the above in place, editing would still be open to abuse. My head hurts just to start to think of all the possibilities.--TTblood 10:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Image upload
About the image uploads, generally speaking, not addressed to anyone specific. There might be something coming from this side as well. On my server logs, I see a lot of pictures which might be dropped on the server for outside linking, meaning use on other sites then this wiki. Know that I will erase such images without warning. I don't show ads anymore this is pure cost running the site.
- Copyright violating pictures will also be erased without further notice.
PLEASE DON'T COMMENT! --Cliff Burton • Marco 03:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The Clarification
The Clarification spells it out nicely. I took the liberty of copying it here, because I had people asking me if they could edit other character pages, and admittedly I had it slightly off. The clarification kills any chance of misunderstanding. I'm a slow learner, and even I understand it, so nobody else has any excuse. :) --Archangel Talk * Welcome * Support 05:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed & Polished. --Cliff Burton • Marco 05:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Side Note
It might be good to note on the Character page section that if a user asks an admin to protect their page, that they won't be able to edit their own page. Tej and I tested this a few moments ago. I'm certain a lot of people won't know that, so perhaps it should be mentioned. --Archangel Talk * Welcome * Support 04:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ja, sehr gutes Argument! --Cliff Burton • Marco 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
