Forum:Remodelling of the MOS

Forums: Index > The Realm of Sleep > Remodelling of the MOS

I'm picking up from where we left off at the Mensa, and since the suggestions for remodelling the MOS have been closed, I will put up our current stances right here for everyone to see. So these are the issues : Media Usage Videos People have been uploading videos to KHW, when in actual fact, they can just embed the vids by using the <youtube></youtube> code found on Help:User page. And some of these videos end up being deleted. We have to make this code clearer to the rest. The 4-vid rule might have to be switched to a 6-vid rule or even an 8-vid rule, in light of the new releases of Days, BBS and Coded. Video walkthroughs in the case of the Days Missions should be allowed, and possibly the Gummi Missions, since it'll usually only involve one video. Otherwise, videos are only allowed in boss battles, or battles exclusive to the Final Mixes, or the song pages. Images Images without white BGs should be placed inside a thumbnail and a caption must be added, if it doesn't fall in the Gallery section. The same goes for images that have been cleaned and cropped (as in the instance of Vanitas' Keyblade). In case we have to address this issue, the maximum number for a normal Gallery section (not including the character/enemy list) is 12. Or we might reduce this to 8. But more than anything, it's the relevance of the images that counts, not the number. Content General Rules As I had mentioned in Talk:Sora's Heartless, circular definitions are not allowed. The example given there was Sora's Heartless is the Heartless of Sora. It doesn't explain anything. It's just like saying "A brain surgeon is a surgeon of the brain" - unless people do know, for example, what a surgeon is, and what a brain is, it's not going to explain anything. Similar case with this. Where we see circular definitions, we have to restructure the opening sentence. Naming All Heartless or Nobodies or goodness knows what which have been given new names in new releases should not have their names changed. The Watcher is still the Surveillance Robot. Layout of Boss pages I'm talking about Battle Quotes. I believe that we should limit them to 10, and battle quotes should not appear on the character pages. Raise your discrepancies now if you wish the battle quotes to appear for main characters. Grunts and cries do not need to be put up. Number of navigation templates The number is not an issue, though I think it should be that all navi templates (except one-line ones like the Princesses of Heart) must be collapsible. The respective navigation templates should be explained in the MOS, as some users do not know where to put them. Same goes for infoboxes and whatever relevant templates. See Also issue The stance now is that See Also pages should be removed unless there are pages which need to be brought to the player's attention. This, too, is highly unlikely, because for Heartless like Pot Spider, which need to be linked to Pot Centipede and Pot Scorpion, their names can be found in the Heartless Directory (correct me if I'm wrong). The only things which fall into the See Also page shall be things which are closely related to that particular character, or element, or whatever. Spoiler warnings Point number four of KHWiki:Spoiler policy remains in effect. Trivia Our stance has always been that trivia is limited to only seven, though if there are eight trivia bits, we don't mind. If there are nine, we start yelling. The same trivia point shouldn't be on EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE, if such a case happens. Again, as the MOS says, we must try to bring in related bits into the storyline somewhere. As far as trivia is concerned, it shouldn't be redundant or pointless. Categorisation Categorisation shall be enforced, and a Category Tree Help page shall be constructed to guide users on categorising articles and, particularly, images. Wikilinking The MOS has said that we only link to an article once, but I believe that we should now link at least once per section, if the article is long. Say, if you're in Sora's page but you want to link to Axel, one link won't be enough because the page is obviously bloody long. :P For shorter articles, the one-link-per-page rule will apply. User conduct Warning Templates Warning templates should be used by everyone, especially if the user putting the templates to use is trusted. However, reasonable steps must have been taken to warn the vandal before actually whipping out the warning. An Assume Good Faith page shall be constructed. I believe that I've addressed all issues in the Mensa, and I need your final feedback because this coming weekend, I shall proceed to remodel the MOS. Helping others always comes before asking others for help. • TroisNyxÉtienne — 03:15, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Feedback

JFHavoc Talk to Me! — I once took an IQ test and got a score of over 9000. You're all morons. — 05:13, February 8, 2010 (UTC) It all looks good to me. *thumbs up* :)

It looks just fine to me. I think it covers all the bases. Randomnessity Looks like you're already prepared.

LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had? Most triumphant. This should make things clearer.

DoorToNothing — I dreamed last night... I got on the boat to Heaven! And by some chance, I had brought my dice along! — 05:46, February 8, 2010 (UTC) I disagree with allowing the trivia policy to only be enforced once the quantity of trivia bits on a single article reaches nine, and yet our policy is to allow seven. This is in no way different than if our policy was to allow eight trivia bits. When I see an article with eight trivia bits, I immediately add Template:Trivia to the top of the article, or fix the issue myself. It should be noted in the Manual of Style that all trivia is "evil", as BebopKate described it, and should be removed, if it is redundant or repeated content, or merged into the article if possible. Trivia is not exactly "evil", but its inclusion in an article should be prevented if at all possible. Second, I disagree with wiki-linking not being limited to only a single instance. The only exception to this rule is when a world/place article is linked to, and a section-specific link is used to link to a specific area of that world. Plus, this makes judging whether an article is short or "bloody long" difficult; there are no mediums, just two extremes. For example, see Larxene. A few days ago, I completely revised this article, removing all double-links in the article. I also removed the entire "Trivia" section by removal or merging. In my opinion, it looks great the way it is, and should be used as an example as to why the policy on wiki-linking should stay as it is. Other than that, everything looks fine from my skim-over. On the topic of making a category tree, do you mean make a visual category tree in the form of a site image? If so, I would be happy to construct one, if I could be provided the tree in text before-hand.

LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had? I agree that we should emphasize that trivia should be merged with the article/removed whenever possible/necessary (though "evil" seems a bit harsh). I have to say though that I'm for TNE's linking policy. It's more convenient.

@DTN : I'm not sure how an image would look, and I must go through the category tree thrice over, at least - so that I may get a clear guide. We all need to ! ^_^ As for trivia, if someone feels that it's article worthy, I think the first mention it should be given is in the talk page, at least. If it's worth mentioning it, and we get consensus from everyone, then and only then shall we put it into the article. Then again, it must be something that won't end up causing conflict. As for wikilinking, in the instance where if it were not for the one-link-per-page, it would be an orphan page, then we have to proceed with more than one. But we'll wait for more feedback on this issue. I'm as good as new! All my functions have been restored! • TroisNyxÉtienne — 06:27, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

DoorToNothing — I dreamed last night... I got on the boat to Heaven! And by some chance, I had brought my dice along! — 06:32, February 8, 2010 (UTC) Troisnyxetienne, multiple links to one article has nothing to do with an article's status as an orphaned page. An orphaned page is one that is not linked to anywhere on the wiki. Therefore, no articles tie into it, making it an "orphan" of sorts. Do you have a link to where a draft of the category tree can be found?

My bad ^_^' Okay, I'll see where I can find the category tree. Please hold on. EDIT 06:36, February 8, 2010 (UTC) : Nope, the Category Tree page doesn't show anything. I think we have to start from the root category, KHW, and work our way down. I'll handle the first bit, at least. I'm as good as new! All my functions have been restored! • TroisNyxÉtienne — 06:34, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

LevL Fear my mighty instruments! — 14:23, February 8, 2010 (UTC) I agree with DTN about the wikilinking. I don't think we need multiple links to the same article, and how long/short is a long/short article? Other than that, it looks fine to me.

See the Special Pages : the longest pages and the shortest pages are listed. Imagine, thus, if all the links were to be concentrated on the introductory section, and the same articles/elements are repeated over and over again. Wouldn't that call for wikifying ? I'm just curious, but I know that till this day we haven't come across such a case. @LevL : Note that most of what KHW puts into effect will be put into effect on KHFR... Helping others always comes before asking others for help. • TroisNyxÉtienne — 14:30, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

LevL Fear my mighty instruments! — 14:53, February 8, 2010 (UTC) If you want to know more about a character, an enemy, a term or something else in the article, you would probably click on the first occurence of the word in the article, and not on, for example, the eighth one. Things usually don't get more interesting than they were 5 seconds ago. That's why I think one link suffices. About the short and the long pages, I know about that page you linked to, but where do we draw the line between short and long pages?

Point taken. Good question by the way... :P We can't help but make some pages long, as in the case of the main characters, where all the story has to be spoilerific. What worries me now are the short pages. I'm as good as new! All my functions have been restored! • TroisNyxÉtienne — 15:01, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

KrytenKoro - This is the song that runs under the credits; these are the credits, so this is where it goes. 'has nothing to do with the movie so we'll say, "Hey! Hey! Hey hey hey hey hey hey!" TALK - I disagree with the "see also" reasoning. The exact purpose of the "see also" is to point readers towards other pages which are highly relevant to the article at hand - a directory template or category, while useful, are simply to wide to work like this. "See Also" is especially useful for pointing towards "same design" enemies/items or "same theme/world" weapons, where a directory or category would be too arbitrary or impossible to name fairly. However, the See Also sections need much higher policing - they should not focus on anything related to the article, but on things that are "different forms of the same basic thing", like I've done with Fire Ring, or Tailbunker. For videos: I think we should only have one video per separate boss battle. So, no "Part 1" and Part 2". Also, they should be organized in the manner they are arranged on the page, and titled "Boss (#) (game acronym)" (The (#) being replaced with which ever iteration of the boss fight it is, so for Larxene, "Larxene 1 (KH:CoM)", etc. I've also noticed that the ogg files we have can make the browser's crash - this might be just mine, though. I think galleries should include art or sprites of the article subject, when they are different from the presented image, and when they cannot be placed in the infobox (like the Soul Eater for KH1). So, we could have the different forms of Sora, but we don't need an official art or GBA version of each Heartless. Screenshots should be incorporated into the narrative instead. I think trivia should only include stuff like "this is the only one" (but not if it includes any exceptions - so, no "This is the only one, if you exclude x") OR stuff like the Roxas AirWalk shoes. Anything that is relevant to character design or narrative should be incorporated into the main article. I think the categorization needs to be such that 1) The same article is not placed into both a category and its parent category, 2) Categories are nested wherever possible (so Heartless includes only the two subcategories), and 3) An article for a group is not placed into a category unless all of it fits - so, Organization XIII would not be placed in "Characters who use Flowers", for example. Similarly, "List of Keyblade wielders" would not go in "Original characters" or "Disney characters", because of Mickey. The game-based character categories should be inclusive, though, not exclusive. I agree with DTN on the one-linking - only the first instance. However, because of the tabbed nature of our infoboxes, I don't think they should count, since they are not always visible, and I think section-specific links, like "Traverse Town#First District" should count as links to "First District", rather than to "Traverse Town". I think we absolutely don't need Battle Quotes sections. If the quotes are mentioned at all, it should be in the "Attacks/Strategy" section, as the "call" for an attack. Any really important battle quotes should be integrated into the character page.

BebopKate - This one is Zazzles...because he's Zazzy! TALK - Here's your cat...and here's your $20...04:45, February 10, 2010 (UTC) It looks just fine to me; there's some nice revisions in there we've needed for a while and a couple I'm surprised we didn't have before. I do have a couple of comments. The confusing "One-Linking": I think one link per article, plus links per table, template, and/or and picture caption, is valid. The dreaded "Sea Also": Kryten provided two good examples where a See Also would be valid. As I've stated before, the rule on another wiki I've been on is that See Also is for articles that contains an alternate view on the article in question, or adds more detail on something within the article's scope that is better served by having its dedicated own article. It's a good guideline, methinks, and perhaps we need something like it here. The controversial "Warning Templates": I don't mind anyone being using them; I really don't. For one thing, it allows me to slack off spend more time enhancing the wiki. And it seems that with the templates and their use becoming more front and center lately that the issue has more or less disappeared for the time. However, I would like to suggest, especially as we continue to get new editors, that we include a "usage policy" with them on their page, to both help new people understand how to use them properly, and perhaps also serve as a gentle reminder to those of us who should know better. Granted, it won't help if the person doesn't look there before using the template, but it does give us a place to point back to and say, "Hey, I know you're trying to help, but please check this out." The evil "Trivia": Now, don't get me wrong; I like the fun little facts that are usually relegated to trivia. But as I've said before: it's just sloppy writing. It's like writing a paper for class and then slapping a bunch of post-its on the back page saying "Hey, here's some more info, but I couldn't fit it into my paper." Make it fit; if it doesn't it probably wasn't worth mentioning anyway. There are rare exceptions (Kryten again having another good example up there with Roxas's shoes), but generally most of our trivia is better off elsewhere. So if nothing else, think of eliminating the Trivia sections as a process to becoming a better writer and editor. Ah, there you guys go...the Kingdom Hearts wiki is educational! ^_^

KrytenKoro - "I'm the doctor, I'm the patient. Don't forget that - it's important! If you love me like I love me, everybody will be sorry." TALK - We really need to finish this discussion, especially on the matter of Battle Quotes. I still believe that there's absolutely no use for them as their own section, since they provide no real context, and that they're only real use would be as telegraphs for the strategy section.

Keep those which are vital to the strategy alone ; the rest should be taken out. I know that some people have more than 10 battle quotes, once we take out the grunts and cries, it should be sufficient. Helping others always comes before asking others for help. • TroisNyxÉtienne — 12:21, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

KrytenKoro - And when you see me standing there, you'll know you've got a friend with a rock, I mean a big-ass rock. TALK - I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. Do you mean "Merge battle quotes with strategy" or "Keep unique battle quotes as their own section"? I still support the first, and I'd be willing to do a write up for Seifer's strategy section if anyone is unsure what I mean.

I didn't know, but now that you mention it... I think I'll go with the first. It sounds like a good idea. ^_^ Helping others always comes before asking others for help. • TroisNyxÉtienne — 14:37, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Category Tree (Someone please continue from where I left off ?)

I am exhausted. Can someone please continue for me ? Thank you. ^_^

So here's our category tree. The further the bullet from the margin, the smaller the sub-category. Kingdom Hearts Wiki Archives Articles for Deletion Articles in need of de-wikifying Articles in need of expansion Articles in need of images Articles in need of improvement Featured Media Featured articles Forums Stickied threads The World that Never was Twilight Town Library Images Images With Bad Names Main Game elements Abilities Drive Forms Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days abilities Magic Summons D-Links Drive Forms Characters Enemies Items Jiminy's Journal Songs Worlds Plot elements Characters Allies D-Links Princesses of Heart Summons D-Links Characters With Unknown Worlds D-Links Disney Characters Princesses of Heart Enemies Final Fantasy Character Images Final Fantasy Characters Groups Princesses of Heart Keyblade Wielders Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days Characters Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep Characters Kingdom Hearts II Characters Kingdom Hearts Characters Kingdom Hearts coded Characters Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories characters Neutral Characters Organization XIII Original Characters Princesses of Heart Replica Princesses of Heart Replica Summons D-Links Supporting Characters Villains Enemies Real-world articles Games Kingdom Hearts Kingdom Hearts Final Mix Kingdom Hearts Final Mix Images Kingdom Hearts Final Mix Artwork Images Kingdom Hearts Final Mix Enemy Images Kingdom Hearts Final Mix Heartless Images Kingdom Hearts Final Mix accessories Kingdom Hearts Final Mix enemies Kingdom Hearts Final Mix weapons Kingdom Hearts Images Kingdom Hearts Enemy Images Kingdom Hearts Heartless Images Kingdom Hearts Heartless Artwork Images Kingdom Hearts Artwork Images Kingdom Hearts Final Mix Artwork Images Kingdom Hearts Character Images Kingdom Hearts Weapon Images Kingdom Hearts Ally Weapon Images Kingdom Hearts Keyblade Images Kingdom Hearts Final Mix Keyblade Images Kingdom Hearts Shield Images Kingdom Hearts Final Mix Shield Images Kingdom Hearts Staff Images Kingdom Hearts Final Mix Staff Images Kingdom Hearts Items Kingdom Hearts accessories Kingdom Hearts Final Mix accessories Kingdom Hearts characters Kingdom Hearts weapons Kingdom Hearts Final Mix weapons Realm of Darkness Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep Kingdom Hearts Final Mix Kingdom Hearts II Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix Images Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix Artwork Images Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix Character Images Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix Enemy Images Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix Heartless Images Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix armor Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix enemies Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix bosses Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix key items Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix weapons Kingdom Hearts Mobile Kingdom Hearts Mobile Images Kingdom Hearts V CAST Kingdom Hearts V CAST Images Kingdom Hearts coded Kingdom Hearts coded characters Kingdom Hearts coded Images Kingdom Hearts coded Artwork Images Kingdom Hearts coded Character Images Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories characters Merchandise Kingdom Hearts TCG Dark Cards Friend Cards (TCG) Heartless Cards Magic Friend Cards Player Cards Merchandise Images Album Covers Boxart Clothing Images Manga Images TCG Images Dark Card Images Magic Friend Card Images Player Card Images TCG Attack Card Images TCG Friend Card Images TCG Magic Card Images World Card Images (TCG) Music Music Media Songs Soundtrack Templates Users Videos Walkthroughs Please note that there are some categories which I have typed in a different colour, and I believe these categories should be merged into one higher category. (Full description to come soon...) Helping others always comes before asking others for help. • TroisNyxÉtienne — 06:38, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

---

What all this means :

• Red text means that there's something wrong with the placement of that category.
• Black text means that the category is empty.
• Yellow text, or whatever colour I'll be using other than red and black, means that the categories can be merged into a bigger category. Say, for instance, the ones in yellow can be merged into "Articles in need of maintenance", just so that they'll at least know where to head to.

---

Comments:

KrytenKoro - "Punch your lights out, hit the pavement. That's what I call entertainment. Causin' problems makes you famous - all the violence makes a statement." TALK - The TCG categories should be deleted, since the card infobox system uses the subcategories here. The image categories should be similarly renamed.

Other Additions

Article Related

Eternal Nothingness XIII - You have to be strong. Strength of heart will carry you through the hardest of trials. TALK - What I do, I do for friendship. — 05:26, February 10, 2010 (UTC) So I had no clue what I was supposed to do with this, but here's where we can post other concerns we find that need be listed in the MoS. I listed my major concerns a while ago in TNE's mensa, and we seem to have built off of/resolved those crises. For now, one of the biggest issues I have is the lack of the word "the" in the beginning sentences of articles. True, we're meant to bold the articule title in the sentence, but stating "Shadow is a Heartless appearing in..." is false. The way that is phrased makes it seem more like that's a single being, rather than a "breed," considering we are being non-sepcific, in which the proper sentence would be "THE Shadow is a Heartless appearing in..." Obviously Shadow would be bolded, and the "the" would not be. This same issue holds true for weapons and items, in which the same issue is found. "The Ultima Weapon", "The Dusk", "The Crisis Gear". Terms such as "an" or "a" would be used rather than the if nedded, such as "An Elixir".

LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had? For breeds of enemies like Shadows and Dusks, it should be "A Shadow is..." and "A Dusk is...". For boss enemies (i.e. enemies that only appear once) it would be "the", for example "The Stealth Sneak". For named weapons like Lunatic and Jungle King, I don't think an article is necessary, since they are single weapons. Ultima Weapon, even though it has multiple forms, probably wouldn't need an article either.

Eternal Nothingness XIII - Ven, Aqua... I'll find some way to make things right. TALK - This light... it's so warm. — 05:55, February 10, 2010 (UTC) Time to put my "forum face" on... I'm honestly not a huge fan of "A Shadow" or "A Dusk", because "the" just fits better. As for weapons, we say the Soul Eater, which would be the same case as the Kingdom Key, and to remain consistent (same for "the" with enemies, as this has been stressed before), should hold true for all other articles.

LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had? It doesn't matter if it sounds better or not, "A Shadow" is gramatically correct, since it is referring to a group, the Shadow "breed" of Heartless as a whole. I agree that there should be articles at the beginning of the...articles... but we shouldn't be useing whatever ones sound better or the ones that match those used in other articles. We should use ones that are correct. As for the weapons, either way, with or without "the" at the beginning is fine.

KrytenKoro - "Because I knew something he didn't. I knew that I was lying. Seriously, sir. 'No silicon heaven'? Where would all of the calculators go?" TALK - How about "The Shadow is a type of Pureblood Heartless."?

We generally refer to a specific subject with "the" at the opening sentence, except for general terms like "Sleights" and stuff. If there's only one of the particular subject, we have to use "the". Helping others always comes before asking others for help. • TroisNyxÉtienne — 13:09, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Related

LapisScarab - You accept darkness, yet choose to live in the light. So why is it that you loathe us who teeter on the edge of nothing? We who were turned away by both light and dark - never given a choice? TALK - That may be... however, what other choice might we have had? Recent events have shown that we need a clear statement of our policy on edit warring. How many reverts until it is considered an edit war, and what should be the response of those who hand out warnings. I personally think that, in terms of warnings, we should go by the policy we have for normal warnings, that is just telling someone to stop before resorting to a warning template.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it ! In other words, if it isn't heated, and someone is trying his best to undo what he knows is vandalism, for example, then don't slap it ! Then again, just as Lapis put it, we need to tell the users first. Helping others always comes before asking others for help. • TroisNyxÉtienne — 05:50, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Anything else ? Can someone please continue from where I left off ?

I managed to put in some of the new issues in the MOS (where there was unanimous agreement). I'm not sure how to word the Trivia thing right, I want it to be easily understandable. I'll handle the Linking and the See Also sections too, perhaps later. Anything else I missed ? Helping others always comes before asking others for help. • TroisNyxÉtienne — 12:19, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

KrytenKoro - "Space Corp Directive 195—In an emergency power situation, a hologrammatic crew member must lay down his life in order that the living crew members might survive."  "Yes, but Rimmer Directive 271 states just as clearly: 'No chance, you metal bastard.'" TALK - We really need to make a final decision on the Battle Quotes issue. If I'm not supposed to be removing those sections, I'd like to know now.

DoorToNothing — I dreamed last night... I got on the boat to Heaven! And by some chance, I had brought my dice along! — 17:54, April 3, 2010 (UTC) I would say that they should all be removed from the boss articles; for most bosses, at least half of their listed battle quotes are simple grunts or shouts, such as "Sora!", "Get back!", or "Take this!". If we want to keep any of the other quotes that we think are meaningful to the boss's character, they can be moved to the character article in the place of less important quotes that do not show the character's behavorial characteristics.