Mabinogi World Wiki is brought to you by Coty C., 808idiotz, our other patrons, and contributors like you!!
Want to make the wiki better? Contribute towards getting larger projects done on our Patreon!

Because you won't

Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 17 December 2015 at 10:45.
The highlighted comment was created in this revision.

Don't use the undo feature to question the status quo regardless of what you think of it. If you have questions then YOU make a talk page, don't tell others to, you're not above this. To answer your question, yes there is precedent and that is the conclusion we came to partly because of you (and others like you) in fact. The clearly defined rule of zero speculative material stems from a time when you and some others banded together to discuss whether Aer really was Macha or not, even after it was shown she wasn't but you guys thought it was worth mentioning anyway.

And therein lies the issue, what is and isn't worth mentioning. Wikipedia (which admittedly isn't us and works in a different manner) have a very strong rule regarding notability/importance. For this wiki it remains an unwritten guideline of sorts (again, one that was decided upon by several members including current staff). Don't write dumb/pointless/inane things on the wiki. So yes, to a certain degree that is open to interpretation. Common sense should dictate what is and what isn't important in the context of a game guide. This shouldn't even be an issue but certain users seem to think that Cichol's favourite brand of cologne is important, as opposed to things that are actually notable such as how to participate in the latest event. You once said something along the lines of "All information is important". No, that is not what was decided.

Members have since acted to remove "detritus" and with some zeal at that. But at this stage if you don't like this then what you need to be doing is not being uncooperative and playing mod. If you think something's worth keeping, fine. But you're going to have to present a convincing argument why editors should be wasting time on trivial matters when all good sense of design and quality indicates otherwise.

    Mystickskye (talk)03:28, 17 December 2015

    I would like to begin by saying I did not claim the information in question on the Professor J page is worthy or not, that'd be for a thread. A thread that you are in obligation to make as it is you that are trying to change the page. I can make one for you if you like. I have taken the time to reeducate myself on this wiki's policy.

    First of all

    If a disagreement occurs, a reversion may happen. You must respect this reversion, even if done by another user, and prefer to discuss the issue in the talk page for that page.


    I requested that you continue the discussion on the page in questions' talk page. I would like to hear your argument, and might even agree. I am not strongly in favor of keeping or removing the line. I am against removing things without due process.

    Furthermore, I am not taking the role of a mod. I am following the wiki policy, the guidelines that we are all expected to follow. (And before anyone questions whether I or Mystic have the right to revert eachother's edits, there is nothing stating otherwise. ONly that we may not undo mod's edits.)

    If an administrator or moderator (collectively considered moderators) reverts a contribution or makes an edit as a deciding factor in a tensioned discussion, argument, issue, or etc. it is an offense to revert it. These are to be considered final judgments and an explicit end to the argument. If one takes further issue it must be presented as an appeal to the moderator on that moderator's talk page.


    So what should really be discussed? First of all, what is the wiki's policy on removal? All I found is:

    In main spaces you may contribute only content. This includes corrections to content in meaning, form, and lexico-grammatical ways. You may not completely remove content from a page that is in accordance with our policy, however this does not prevent you from presenting the data in a different or more summarized way so long as all the content is still represented in some way.


    There is no alleyway for content to be removed, as far as I see it in these guidelines, unless something is considered not to be content (or a moderator says so because they have the final say).

    Instead of quesitoning what I'm doing, you should be making a thread in Professor J's talk page argueing whether that line of text is considered content. The policy says:

    Textual content is text written on the wiki within the main namespaces (or also just "spaces") of the wiki. Image content is an image displayed on the wiki within the main namespaces. Video content are videos displayed on the wiki within the main namespaces. Audio content is not currently supported individually by the wiki and would instead be displayed in a video form.


    It goes into further detail on what each type of content is. The line on the Professor J page most clearly matches descriptive content.

    Descriptive content is content such that it describes an object, event, place, NPC, plot, ability, concept, or process within the game. Description is factual in nature and does not use subjective terms or subject matters such as, but not limited to, quality of appearance. It is generally done in words rather than numbers. Descriptions are considered claims of facts present in Mabinogi that should be indisputable. If you are not 100% certain of the authenticity of a claim, seek feedback in the talk space of the relevant page.


    The Professor J page says:

    In Iria II: Episode 1, when the Aces are requested to deliver relief supplies, Professor J holds onto them as he did not trust Merlin. Strangely, upon arrival at the delivery point, all characters and the description of Episode 2 state that Merlin had been carrying and lost the supplies.


    This is factual. It describes the plot. You were not questioning the authenticity of the claim. There is no precedent in the policy, as far as I see it, that allows non-moderators to remove content. You can only improve on it, or start a discussion on it. In the case of improving on it, the only thing, to me, that seems opinionated in the post is the word "strangely", which can better phrased with the word "however".

      Kapra - (Talk)03:45, 17 December 2015