Unreleased Content

This is starting to sound like a bad debate on religion. Lets shift the conversation then if you want. Does it really effect the wiki's interests to censor information in favor of stop people on another website from thinking something?

Yes. If it turns into vandalism and I'm up any day to remove information that is useless to the NA server.

Vandalism is practically completely random and could happen on any page for any reason or even no reason at all. There's no reason to remove something just because some random person might want to randomly mess with a random page on the wiki. They'll do it someway or another, and the only thing we can do is correct it when they do it. It's not an excuse for removing things.

Even if it's 'useless'?

An information is considered useless if it is false, misleading, has too much or too little detail (objectionable), or is in the wrong place (in this case, then you move it to the right place, not remove). That being said, in this case the only thing "useless" would be the name of the section, not the content, so your question is redundant.

"Skipped Content" is misleading.

And I still don't want content that wasn't added that during previous updates because then it's still misleading. "Unreleased" still sounds something along the lines of "Oh, this still hasn't been updated yet."

Then at this point we're making a "Foreign Content" page.

"Unreleased" sounds like something along the lines of "Oh, this hasn't been updated yet" because that is exactly what it is. That is what the majority wants so far. "Oh, this hasn't been updated yet" does not mean it will and must happen, it mean it hasn't happened but could, that's sort of the point.

Most of the people in this thread are in favor of a page specifically for Foreign Content if a section for it is not viable, Rydian for example, as well as Meru I think.

Then you're basically admitting that "Skipped Content" = "Unreleased Content". So now I'm against Unreleased Content as well. Congratulations.

Oh yes, most of these people and you know how many people this is? 5. 5 people, you're basing 'majority' with 5 people. Good job man.

By my definition, Unreleased Content can include but is not limited to:

• Content updates from other servers that we have not gotten (yet).
• Content updates from other servers that we DID get, but did not get the same things of.

By my definition, Unreleased Content does not include:

• Events or cash items from other servers. The Patches page does not cover that, but I wouldn't reject the idea of making a Patches-like page for things like that, but I probably won't contribute or have the enthusiasm to do so.
  • For example, if an item is obtained from an ingame shop like the Commerce Shop, then it is "Unreleased Content" for the patches page. If its an item obtained from an event NPC's shop or from a gachapon or directly from the cash shop, then because it wouldn't be on the Patches page if it were released, it wouldn't be on the Patches page's Unreleased Content section if it is not released.
• Content that NA specifically said we will never get, such as Nekojima.
  • My only exception to this rule is if we are comparing things we do have to things we were told we will never get, such as comparing Doki Doki Island to Nekojima. Though, the patches page doesn't do that so this thread doesn't pertain to that.

So yea, Unreleased Content can include "Skipped Content", but not necessarily the other way around.

And a supermajority of 5 is still a majority. How many people did you expect to respond to your questions? 30?

5 is still an extremely small number comparing to the list of wiki editors. And who on earth said this was based on votes? I asked why for a reason. Ridney or whatever had a terrible reason, which was "All information belong on the wiki." You of all people should know thisbbetter than anyone else considering how much you protected trivia. His vote is as moot as his reasoning.

And if you still haven't noticed, I dont just want the skipped content section to be removed. I want all evidence of "skipped content" removed. Which means all content we didn't get in previous updates with the same reasons i've been repeating for hours. It's misleading and it doesn't belong on the NA wiki

I'm not sure why you keep saying I defend trivia, I cannot remember the last time I advocated for any piece of trivia besides one specific line on the Bread from Nao page.

That aside, I have two things I want to discuss with you.

Rydian never said "All information belong on the wiki." I urge you to please re-read his post, and tell me or him what you think is flawed in his logic.

I also do not really see the difference between "Skipped Content" and "Foreign Content". Why should we have one and not the other? Lets be consistent.

He said the purpose of the wiki is to hold information regardless. It's pretty much the same thing as "If it's related to Mabi, add it." And yes that is completely flawed. Just because something is related to Mabi, it doesn't make it important to the wiki,

When did I say they were different things . _. I also dont want Foreign Content either, it's useless to the wiki. But Foreign Content is possibly the most broad term for "Things we don't have and we're not sure we will get. Because they're foreign." But I repeat this again, I don't want to see that happening because some people may decide to detail it in every way possible. Creating more "Will we get X?" From players and simply because this is the NA wiki. Unreleased and Skipped Content both sound like "Things Nexon didn't release." Thus my issue.

"Just because something is related to Mabi, it doesn't make it important to the wiki."
Why not? Please give me an example of something (that isn't a lie) related to Mabi (that doesn't break the policy) that should not be on the wiki and explain why. (It doesn't have to be something that actually happened before.)

Events on other servers, where to find Mabinogi merchandise and paraphernalia, address of Devcat studios, other providers of Mabinogi. Version number of other services. A lot of information is rather irrelevant in any place on this site. However, we should not feel responsible for, or feel the need to control, the potential thoughts and interpretations of our users. There is never such a thing as fool proof.

The presence of information of unreleased content is not necessarily technically helpful, but also not necessarily harmful if we present it in the formal manner that we usually do. It may not be needed, but there is a non empty set of people who will certainly appreciate it. As Saiyr mentioned below, the "Patches" page is certainly not the best place for it, so we should definitely remove it from this page. Beyond that, it is not entirely harmful to recreate the information intelligently on another page.

-stares at all the deleted trivia-

Shakespeare's plays are one.

@Nise Panda/Sakura (I'm not sure which of your guys' names to use)

I said "related to Mabi".

@Shroom Fonzerelli/WhitePass

It has been suggested in the past to have a page like the Patches page for the release order of NA Cash Shop Items, Gachapons, Events, etc. Of course, this hasn't been done mainly because nobody wants to spend effort on that. If such a page were to exist, then other server's events/etc could be mentioned there if we resolutely agree that other servers' updates could be mentioned here. Merchandise and addresses aren't relevant to the game, unless such merchandise or anything you obtain by going to the address would effect your game (such as getting a prize code for something, which we do do in some cases.) Other providers of Mabinogi, I don't why this is not relevant. But yea, I see your point. Our goal is to not control or persuade our readers, its to inform. Whether or not we think it is helpful, we just need to try to be as helpful as we think we can without messing up the information.

As I have said in this thread and other threads in the past, if the information is not harmful, incorrect, etc; but is just in the wrong place, then lets move it to the right place or make a right place.

Kapra, I don't think you know what Trivia is anymore. Trivia is RELATED but unimportant facts. If it wasn't related, we wouldn't add it.

And if you want me to continue that list, speculation and theories don't belong on the wiki, even if it's related to Mabi. We has plenty of outfits KR and JP has but we don't ever mention them.

We don't talk about the differences between events. KR's balloon event rewards were different from ours and that doesn't belong here.

On the contrary, I do not think you understand what Trivia is. By definition, trivia is important information where relevance exists but is difficult to tie to the subject. Do not confuse trivia with the slang definition of being a sense of insignificance, wikis and the wikipedia do not use this definition. If the reason you keep bringing up Trivia into this thread is because you consider Unreleased Content to be Trivia, then yes, I proudly advocate Trivia. Information needs a place, if we cannot put information in a proper place in a page or give its own page, we should put it in Trivia until we can decide a place for it. Lets get down to what is important and not argue over definitions of a word, please.

Speculation and opinionated views do violate the wiki policy, though.

We do not mention what outfits NA has that another server has due to lack of effort and enthusiasm, not as a rule or norm. Likewise with what other servers got out of events. If nobody is willing to provide information, they do not have to. But if someone is willing to provide information, they should be allowed to. What SHOULD be regulated is where the information they provide is.

https://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/trivia http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trivia http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/trivia http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/trivia http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trivia#English http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trivia?r=66

In conclusion, I disagree.

By definition, trivia is important information

From what god-forsaken dictionary did you take this out of?
In what possible, if any, context would this hold true?

"But if someone is willing to provide information, they should be allowed to."
No they shouldn't, for various reasons. The policy renewal reflects this to certain degrees.