53,710
edits
Talk:Roxas: Difference between revisions
→Promotional Artwork - Older Roxas?
KrytenKoro (talk | contribs) (→Promotional Artwork - Older Roxas?: per TSH's recommendation to ask on the talk page before making the change) |
KrytenKoro (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 224: | Line 224: | ||
::::::"That's like saying that because Sora has an article, so, too, should Sora's raft from the first game." -- [[Highwind (raft)]] | ::::::"That's like saying that because Sora has an article, so, too, should Sora's raft from the first game." -- [[Highwind (raft)]] | ||
::::::"I frankly doubt that a particular artwork, no matter how official, counts as being an appearance in the ''Kingdom Hearts'' series in the spirit of this sentence." -- This is not correct. The wiki's scope has long been agreed to include all pieces of the series, including the Key Arts. That's why we have articles on the toys, the manga chapters, the novels, and even the facebook minigames. That's why we cover Key Arts to begin with. The community has for ages agreed that we cover ''everything'', and if you want to change that, you owe the community far more than your own four-person discussion over a weekend. (to be clear -- moving the image to the gallery falls within policy. ''Removing the notation entirely'' is not justified or required by policy, and therefore a new evaluation of the ''existing'' discussion, either relying on existing policy or reaching out to the wider community to ensure that the obsoletion/deviation from policy is consented to, should be sought. To that end: '''I'm on board with moving the image to the gallery, and I would even be in agreement with moving coverage of non-canon depictions to the gallery in a general sense. But it is still completely valid commentary to note that the depiction is nonstandard, and in fact our own caption policy behooves us to give more prose justification to the image's existence on our servers beyond "this exists". Gallery pages should not be treated simply as image folders, they should still contain commentary.''') | ::::::"I frankly doubt that a particular artwork, no matter how official, counts as being an appearance in the ''Kingdom Hearts'' series in the spirit of this sentence." -- This is not correct. The wiki's scope has long been agreed to include all pieces of the series, including the Key Arts. That's why we have articles on the toys, the manga chapters, the novels, and even the facebook minigames. That's why we cover Key Arts to begin with. The community has for ages agreed that we cover ''everything'', and if you want to change that, you owe the community far more than your own four-person discussion over a weekend. (to be clear -- moving the image to the gallery falls within policy. ''Removing the notation entirely'' is not justified or required by policy, and therefore a new evaluation of the ''existing'' discussion, either relying on existing policy or reaching out to the wider community to ensure that the obsoletion/deviation from policy is consented to, should be sought. To that end: '''I'm on board with moving the image to the gallery, and I would even be in agreement with moving coverage of non-canon depictions to the gallery in a general sense. But it is still completely valid commentary to note that the depiction is nonstandard, and in fact our own caption policy behooves us to give more prose justification to the image's existence on our servers beyond "this exists". Gallery pages should not be treated simply as image folders, they should still contain commentary.''') | ||
::::::"the process of discussing them on the article's talk page and reaching a consensus as a community has been carried out. " -- no. It hasn't. They were performed (by performing a revert war), and ''then'' discussed ("However, when it is apparent that an edit war may take place, immediately suggest the use of the article's talk page, and avoid editing the article itself."). And it was performed between four editors and an anon, over the course of ''two days'', without dealing with | ::::::"the process of discussing them on the article's talk page and reaching a consensus as a community has been carried out. " -- no. It hasn't. They were performed (by performing a revert war), and ''then'' discussed ("However, when it is apparent that an edit war may take place, immediately suggest the use of the article's talk page, and avoid editing the article itself."). And it was performed between four editors and an anon, over the course of ''two days'', without dealing with the points raised in the previous discussion on the matter, or seeking comment from the editors involved in the previous discussion, or even ''the other party in the dispute''. | ||
:::::::"being hypocritical in your arguments whenever something doesn't go your way" -- I'm going to ask you to either provide evidence or retract that, because I have ''personally requested'' to be banned from the wiki or had my staff powers revoked when I saw that the wiki policies disagreed with my actions. I have had people literally follow me around the web harassing me because I stood up for ''you | :::::::"being hypocritical in your arguments whenever something doesn't go your way" -- I'm going to ask you to either provide evidence or retract that, because I have ''personally requested'' to be banned from the wiki or had my staff powers revoked when I saw that the wiki policies disagreed with my actions. I have had people literally follow me around the web harassing me or speaking ill of me because I stood up for ''you personally'', NinjaSheik, even when I disagreed with what you were saying. | ||
::::::"the majority of users here" -- ...the four editors and anon over a weekend, in ''this specific conversation thread alone'' ('''''not''''' including the viewpoints expressed by other editors higher up in the page) agreed. And did so without seeking a response from the other party in the dispute. | ::::::"the majority of users here" -- ...the four editors and anon over a weekend, in ''this specific conversation thread alone'' ('''''not''''' including the viewpoints expressed by other editors higher up in the page) agreed. And did so without seeking a response from the other party in the dispute. | ||
::::::'''I want to make sure I fully understand what you | ::::::'''I want to make sure I fully understand what you are saying: are you saying that we can disregard or throw out previous decisions and policies based on a discussion between four editors over a weekend in which the other party in the dispute isn't even asked for a response?''' Is this correct?{{User:KrytenKoro/Sig}} 12:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC) | ||