User:QJ Lincoln/Sandbox

From eRepublik Official Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Please review these policies below. We have pretty much been using these as guidelines all along, but some editors wanted to discuss. Each section has a policy statement and the rationale. Please vote and/or discuss.

Nav Boxes

Navigation boxes should be used sparingly and only on pages that are in the "Playing the Game" category. These boxes can be used in the "User" name space. Navigation box templates should use the standard template Template:Navboxes.
Rationale: Most times the nav box isn't needed because it duplicates what can be found by clicking category. They can be ugly. They are not helpful to readers on citizen pages because readers don't care about your sandbox, signature, user page, etc. Most of those things are linked to in the article.

Navbox placement is in the nav template, the "playing the game category" is Category:Playing the Game--QJ Lincoln Talk To Me 22:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Then I am definitely not going to agree with this. Just because the Wiki as it stands right now does not have enough content to expand to other areas where naviboxes would be useful does not mean you can dictate how to hamper further development. For instance, USA might decide create a navibox to associate all of its country's government, political, and military articles into one big navibox like how they do it on Wikipedia all the time. Even if this is developed to produce a productive and useful internal link library, this policy would bar these developers from doing so. It is not fair and it should not be passed. Icon-USA.png - Jameson L. Tai talk/United States Rangers 23:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • +1--I consider that "navigation boxes" should be an "unnoticeable at first glance" addition to pages. Also, from my experience with this Wiki, their best and only relevant use is on pages which are related to game play features (because they allow citizens to read all the relevant pages about a topic very fast, in an given order, without having to jungle the web structure of the wiki). Plus, taking a simple standardized structure (in this case, "nav boxes") and tweaking it in order to have the coolest page is not all right, in my opinion. If you wish to have the coolest page, you can do that trough its content, not using visual "tricks".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Belea2008 (talkcontribs)
  • +1 Ok, after I saw my Wiki God AgentChieftain doesn't have the navbox on his citizen page, but on every other - yes,I agree that we can remove them for citizen page.
    However I disagree that we should use Template:Navboxes, everyone has his style, and it should be good enough for me,if we leave people to take care of how their page looks.(They can always be moderated)--DanielDimow||Speak to me. 07:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • -1--I disagree with this! I need my box to help me keep my pages organised and maintained! Without it, my pages would be a mess and be completely out of date! Icon-Australia.png Rowan Quigley 10:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • -1 Ok, after reading all comments I have decided to be against this policy. The main reason is that the policy is unclear, especially in the view of what are in fact navboxes? Jameson said what if USA would like to create navboxes for its own structures? Than I have decided to review USA article and found two different templates - Brolliance and Countries... Are this nav boxes? Or are they different templates? How would a regular editor knew the difference? I think that we should add information about what are in fact navboxes in this policy so it could be more easily understood. --AndyCro Icon-Croatia.png Click here to talk with me baby! ;) 10:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • +1 for this. --Icon-Poland.png Grzechooo drop a line 10:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • +1 Agree. --Icon-Finland.png sampo555 | Talk 16:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • -1 There should also be room for User Pages to have Navigation Boxes, or for other countries, etc. Other than that, I am, in fact, in favour of this. --Icon-Australia.png Timeoin|Say G'Day 15:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes

5-3, For the policy. I have updated the policy to incorporate the suggestions by the No voters.
Navigation boxes boxes on pages that link related articles. For example:


Health and what influences it

Health · Food · House · Hospital · Health kit · Training · Working · Fightinh · Moving ticket

Navigation box templates should use the standard template Template:Navboxes to maintain the common look of the wiki. Navigation boxes should be used sparingly and only to link related concepts. Navigation boxes should only be used on general interest pages, such as those describing game concepts. They should not be used on citizen pages. However, these boxes can be used in the "User" name space, if the editor desires.
Rationale: In most cases, a navigation box isn't needed because it duplicates what can be found in wikilinks throughout the article or by clicking the category. Instead of creating a navigation box, editors are encouraged to work these links into the text of the article or create a "See Also" section.

Citizen Pages

Vote: 8-1 for the policy Citizen pages are about the citizen/character/game entity from the game eRepublik. At minimum, the citizen page should have the citizen template (with avatar image) and text describing the citizen and his or her activities in the game. Citizen pages, like all other pages in the wiki, should be factual, neutral, and link to other wiki pages. The page should be written in the third person. Citizen pages should refrain from including details that change often (skills, employers) that are readily evident on in game citizen pages. The only exception to this is the Achievement Templates. If a wiki editor has a citizen page, he or she is welcome to place a link to his or her user page. However, the editor should not describe contribution or wiki activities on the citizen page, this information is for the user page.
Rationale: Regularity and common design. Keeping pages relevant instead of having to update as often.

  • +1--QJ Lincoln Talk To Me 19:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • -1 No mention of article structure conformity, enforcement neutrality standards, enforcement of factuality standards, how many or how often internal links or if relevant internal links need to be used to qualify of this section. Instead of using vague descriptions of what "changes often", just list the ones that are not allowed and move on. Icon-USA.png - Jameson L. Tai talk/United States Rangers 21:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
We are not going to dictate how people structure their articles... that is it. This is not wikipedia. We have always allowed a certain amount of leniency to what people want to write about. I refuse to place people into little boxes and stifle creativity. every eRepublik:Fictional content policy and eRepublik:Reference policy. I don't understand the need to state how many links a page should have. I am not going to further explain things that change often because it explains why it isn't a good idea to put skills and employers on a page.--QJ Lincoln Talk To Me 22:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Then you are contradicting yourself to the fullest. Your rationale states "Regularity and common design." but you then say in your own explanation that you "are not going to dictate how people structure their articles". Which one is it? You are saying that people need to have a common design, so that design would naturally have a specific structure. Your wishy-washy attitude towards this does not positively contribute to a be-all-end-all policy, rather create more bureaucratic bullshit where whichever direction sysops want the wind to blow would be right without specifying what exactly is the precise intent. Therefore it bears no purpose and thus, I strongly oppose. Icon-USA.png - Jameson L. Tai talk/United States Rangers 23:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • +1--Pretty clear to me: different namespaces, different purposes! --Belea2008 22:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • +1 I don't see why not --DanielDimow||Speak to me. 07:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • +1 After reading all comments I have to agree. Jameson, there is one word that is probably the most important - MINIMUM. These policy is a guideline of what should be AD LEAST on citizen articles. --AndyCro Icon-Croatia.png Click here to talk with me baby! ;) 10:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • +1 on this --Icon-Poland.png Grzechooo drop a line 10:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • +1 - I totally agree! Icon-Australia.png Rowan Quigley Talk to me! 08:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • +1 I like this. --Icon-Finland.png sampo555 | Talk 16:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • +1 Agreed with this. Makes sense (also - sorry for the delay - im back again now though!!) --Icon-Australia.png Timeoin|Say G'Day 10:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

Vote: 8-1 for the policy Citizen pages are about the citizen/character/game entity from the game eRepublik. At minimum, the citizen page should have the citizen template (with avatar image) and text describing the citizen and his or her activities in the game. Citizen pages, like all other pages in the wiki, should be factual, neutral, and link to other wiki pages. Citizen pages should not use details that change often (skills, employers) that are readily evident on in game citizen pages. The only exception to this is the Achievement Templates. If a wiki editor has a citizen page, he or she is welcome to place a link to his or her user page. However, the editor should not describe contribution or wiki activities on the citizen page, this information is for the user page.

User Pages

User pages are for the the wiki editor to talk about his or her real life or wiki contributions. The user talk pages are used to leave messages/have conversations with wiki editors. The user namespace can and should be used for the development of articles or templates. Pages in the user name space should not have categories or be linked to as a way to avoid the regulations of the wiki. The exception to this is when a template is being used with automatic categories.
Rationale: to keep citizen stuff on citizen page, editor stuff in user space.

  • +1--QJ Lincoln Talk To Me 19:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • -1 Usage of categories is unavoidable on Sandbox articles that are being developed for the main article space or other acceptable article spaces and should be left alone to the developer to continue working. Icon-USA.png - Jameson L. Tai talk/United States Rangers 21:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Lets rephrase this as "if possible." The issue is that when you categorize a page in your sandbox, it puts the article in the category. So lets say someone is browsing through articles in a category, your unfinished sandbox page will be there too. I would think that you would want your unfinished page to stay a bit private. So if you are writing an article in the sandbox, it is best to put the categories on once it has been moved to the main space. --QJ Lincoln Talk To Me 22:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Then a more practical compromise would just to use the [[:Category:Sample]] technique and remove the colon when the article is deployed. Icon-USA.png - Jameson L. Tai talk/United States Rangers 23:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but... When you will be testing a citizen template or organization template, or any other template that will have automatic categorization it will cause problems. Neither one sysop will make you problems if you are testing on your user sandbox this kind of templates and it causes and automatic category, for example Citizens category. And I know that you will now say, why then you don't put this notice into the policy? Because this kind of a testing should be done with input of other editors... The only thing that we could ADD to this policy is sentence like this: If you are going to test template with will have option to create automatic categories, use eRepublik:Bar to announce this. --AndyCro Icon-Croatia.png Click here to talk with me baby! ;) 10:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

8-1 for the policy.
User pages are for the the wiki editor to talk about his or her real life or wiki contributions. The user talk pages are used to leave messages/have conversations with wiki editors. The user namespace can and should be used for the development of articles or templates. Pages in the user name space should not have categories or be linked to as a way to avoid the regulations of the wiki. The exception to this is when a template is being used with automatic categories. 0 I believe that there should be some exceptions to this. For instance, the Uber Editor category, and the Wiki Project categories (if they are still being used). Other than the need to include these, I am in favour of this change.

Templates

Templates should be created and used as needed. Templates should be created to regularize content, provide notices to users, or to aid in the navigation of game explanation/instruction pages. Templates not used, not used on multiple pages, or serve the same purpose as the category, will be removed by the sysops. User signatures should not be templates."

Rationale: Management of the template category.

  • +1--QJ Lincoln Talk To Me 19:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • -1 Unclear terms, vague descriptions of what templates are. No mention of usergroup access restrictions of Engineers and above being able to even create templates. "Template not used, not used on multiple pages..." unclear and and awkwardly worded, no regulated control how many pages they are used would be acceptable. Categories are less useful than templates, and should provide less weight than a template. As such, should not be deleted over a mere category created in place. Icon-USA.png - Jameson L. Tai talk/United States Rangers 21:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
This is only directed for the creation of templates, not use. Usage is on Help:Common templates. Templates not used are deleted. A template should not be created for one page only. Templates that serve the same purpose as a category is directed at the tons of nav box templates we got rid of months ago that would have "Regions of Country" and "Parties of Country." These were too much of a pain to keep updated during war or party name changes. --QJ Lincoln Talk To Me 22:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Then what about userspace templates used on main article space pages? Your policy has way too many loopholes for this to be actually useful. Icon-USA.png - Jameson L. Tai talk/United States Rangers 00:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • +1--Templates are templates. Categories are categories. I would not agree with two things serving the same purpose. Also, the same rationale as before: pages should stand out trough the quality of the content (as in, what is written in that page)... --Belea2008 22:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • 0 Undecided for now --DanielDimow||Speak to me. 07:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • -1 Unclear... Can I propose something like: Templates are an useful resource for any surfer to review relevant data in one place. For editors, templates should be created to regularize content, provide notices to users, or to aid in the navigation of game explanation/instruction pages. Creation of templates is a process that has to be done carefuly. If you are creating a bigger template it is useful to discuss it in eRepublik:Bar with other editors. For smaller templates you don't need to talk it with other editors, but have in mind that templates not used on multiple pages (ad least 5 pages), templates that serve the same purpose as the category, or templates that are user signatures will be removed by the sysops. For template usage, please review Help:Common templates. --AndyCro Icon-Croatia.png Click here to talk with me baby! ;) 10:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • -1 Unclear... what do you mean by User signatures should not be templates? --Icon-Poland.png Grzechooo drop a line 10:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • 0 - Very Unclear Icon-Australia.png Rowan Quigley Talk to me! 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • 0 Dunno. --Icon-Finland.png sampo555 | Talk 16:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • 0 I would like more information about this (I think I understand, but would like more clarification!) --Icon-Australia.png Timeoin|Say G'Day 10:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Autoplay

Autoplay of music or videos is not allowed in the wiki. Users may use Template:Video to embed videos on wiki pages.
Rationale.It is annoying to open a page and be blasted by music.

I can read any page in the wiki I want, I don't want to be assaulted by shitty music.... this isn't myspace. If I want to play the video or music, I will click to play it. Don't force it on people.... --QJ Lincoln Talk To Me 22:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Then you should also regulate how these videos are displayed. Sizing of the video boxes so that users may click play/pause, etc. That should be regulated as well. I agree that certain articles where they put autoplay on but make the box size 1px X 1px is wrong, but for those who put the pause button in clear sight, they should not be forced to turn it off. Icon-USA.png - Jameson L. Tai talk/United States Rangers 00:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • +1--Check the "Embed" page to see how "autoplay" is being viewed by the company behind eRepublik. --Belea2008 22:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • 0 I'll wait for other to comment --DanielDimow||Speak to me. 07:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • +1 I would add NOT in caps! ;) --AndyCro Icon-Croatia.png Click here to talk with me baby! ;) 10:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • +1 of course - I too hate when I hear music which I don't want. --Icon-Poland.png Grzechooo drop a line 10:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • 0 - Fix the autoplay and I don't mind the videos at all! Icon-Australia.png Rowan Quigley 13:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • +1 I don't like autoplay at all. --Icon-Finland.png sampo555 | Talk 16:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • +1 Agreed. its annoying. --Icon-Australia.png Timeoin|Say G'Day 10:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • +1 unnecessary, annoying and no reason to be autoplay; if the user wants to watch/listen (to) to the video, they can play it. --Zamrg 10:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

7-1 for the policy, 2 abstain.