Forum:Continuing from Roxas (talk)

Forums: Index > The World that Never was > Continuing from Roxas (talk)

Continued from here

This isn't the first time this conversation got brought up between two users or more (e.g. The picture in the trivia section"), so let's settled this once and for all civilly instead of edit warring. User 71.222.103.177 and KrytenKoro (and maybe a couple more users) have been having this edit war about the promotional artwork where Roxas depicted looking older from how Nomura-sensei typically draws him. Take a look at the old debate and the points addressed. I agree that Roxas does look older, having more mature features as listed in the old debate. And aside from that, the placement of where that info belongs to was brought up, and I think it should belong in the Trivia section instead in the main body of the article.--NinjaSheik 18:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Ninja on this one. It's not related to any of the "meat" of the article, it's not ultimately related to the games. His actual appearance drawn before and after is not at all in line with this one, so it doesn't make sense to pretend it was some sort of "early concept art" or anything. Just a random drawing, Nomura choosing to make him out older than usual for no apparent reason. At best, it belongs in Trivia. KeybladeSpyMaster 18:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Reading the previous discussion and the comments of the current users involved, both sides make good points. I'm no artist, but whether Roxas looks older or not, whether it was unintentional or intentional on Nomura-sensei's part, is unknown, and as an encyclopedia, we need to remain objective as possible. We need to revisit the topic if the artwork itself is noteworthy to be mentioned at all?--NinjaSheik 18:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This really is all anyone against the inclusion of it is saying. It doesn't work because there's nowhere in any related media suggesting it was ever a thing and I don't understand why it's been a bigger issue than it needs to be. Sometimes a person is drawn off model or different then usual, it doesn't mean it's necessarily something meaningful. The reason I proposed, though, to make it a Trivia entry is because it best fits there. And I'm perfectly willing to just let it stay there, because some people really like the information for reasons I don't understand. To me, as an artist myself, it really does seem like a non-issue, but clearly plenty of people think otherwise. When I went to delete it the first time, I legitimately didn't realize that it was a bigger issue and that people were deleting and then re-adding it, so I didn't mean to start an edit war or add into one. It was only when I actually got a message from the person pretty much saying "no, you're wrong" that I got irritable. However, I will stand by that it doesn't belong in the main body of the article and if it stays there, that's good enough for me.---71.222.103.177 18:46 3 August 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion this really is a non-issue and has no place on this wiki. Whether Roxas looks older or not in that picture is not an objective matter, it’s a subjective one. Nomura does not have one defiended art-style. Roxas on the cover of KH2 looks drastically different from how Roxas appears on the cover of 358/2 Days. We aren’t mentioning Xehanort’s face looking warped on the cover of 2.5 because it’s a stylistic choice. Same with Roxas. - JTD95 (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The way Roxas looks in the image isn't that different from how he usually looks to warrant a mention on the page. I think we should just move the image to the gallery. TheSilentHero 19:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The trivia should be removed and the image goes to Roxas's Gallery, if it isn't there already.--NinjaSheik 19:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not trivia because it's covering his appearance in officially published material. The design section is the correct location for that. The design section is not required to focus solely on the games, or the "canon depiction". It's meant for the topic overall, which does include information about the out-universe design process, marketing decisions, and depictions in non-game material. We are not wikipedia. "Notability" is not a requirement, citability and accuracy are.

This issue isn't about "liking" or "not liking" information, this is about following wiki policy-- and it's inappropriate behavior to frame a discussion about article content in that manner in the first place. If you are framing a discussion based on what somebody "wants" rather than what policies and consensus dictate, you have lost the plot. In addition, if you don't want to start an edit war, don't push your edits after they've been reverted, unless you've achieved policy-coherent consensus.

Neither the discussion nor the article ever claimed there was some deeper significance to the distinction, and it's not required for there to be any deeper significance in order to be in the article in the first place. All that's necessary is that it be accurate, demonstrable, and a published part of the franchise -- and it is: Roxas is drawn differently from Ventus, which is unusual, in a major piece of artwork used to publicize three different games. It does not matter how he was depicted in other games -- what matters is that in this artwork he is noticeably off-model. As a reminder, Kingdom Hearts The Story So Far includes coverage of a smudge, much more clearly accidental than the drawing of an entire, control-arted character.

Xehanort on 2.5 cover, or Goofy-Riku and Donald-Kairi in KHUX, are absolutely fair game to be covered on the wiki, specifically in design sections, as Key Arts are official parts of the franchise (and for what it's worth, have frequently appeared within the games themselves). The design and origin sections are both ones in which we cover the topics from an out of universe viewpoint, which means including information that would not be part of the "inner truth" within the setting.

As a reminder to all the recurring editors involved: long-standing wiki-policy is that information should not be placed in trivia unless absolutely necessary. If a relevant section on the article can be found, the info must be placed there. Information about the design of a character in a piece of official material falls under the Design header, ergo it is a violation of policy to move the material to the Trivia section -- as I've explained several times, including directly to the IP. Policy is also that in the event of an edit war, the article should be reverted to its pre-edit war state, and that consensus should be derived based on wiki policies, not on personal preferences. It's pretty troubling that this issue has even gotten to this point, as there are a multitude of wiki policies that should have been followed preventing this, and that the previous consensus discussed earlier in the article, with clear references to wiki policy by trusted users, appears to have been wholly ignored."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 12:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

No policy, no matter what how old it is or how significant it may have once been, should trump the consensus reached by the community in the present day. The Kingdom Hearts Wiki is written and run by its editors and contributors, not its policies and procedures.

Having said that, you've cited many different policies in your argument, and have explicitly called the staff out for failing to uphold them in favor of a "non-consensus-demonstrated version" of the page. So I'll bite. Your post (including your previous post, which you significantly altered and removed content from, in violation of site policies) boils down to at least four matters of policy: what qualifies as trivia, what the "Appearance" section of a character article's page covers, whether there is a policy on notability, and what the Kingdom Hearts Wiki's scope covers. I throw in here my once-a-year-or-more plug that, because many of our policies are not written down somewhere easily-findable, we ought to do something to make them more easily referenceable so that new editors can become familiar with them, rather than belittle them when they make repeated edits that violate a heretofore unfindable policy.

What qualifies as trivia?: Only the Manual of Style defines trivia. It is defined as "information that is not significant or vital to either the game or gameplay, does not fit in other places of the article, and is of interest to note. Examples include seemingly unintentional recurrences, real-world references, or seemingly unintentional but marked similarities between two subjects. Trivia must be true and verified; neither speculation nor opinion-based conjectures are trivia." It's also of interest, in my search today through the wiki archives (for which I'm now very dusty, thank you), that you once defined trivia as "notable oddities and uniqueness, as well as purposeful references". Whether this artwork counts as trivia is up for debate: it is not vital or significant to either the game or gameplay, and it is odd and unique. But it could potentially fit in another place in the article, namely, the "Appearance section.

What does the "Appearance" section cover?: Again, we refer to the Manual of Style, which states: "Explain the character's physical appearance". Pretty straight forward. This would be considered describing Roxas's physical appearance in a single piece of artwork.

What is the policy on notability?: Fact is, we don't have one. However, several previous discussions cite notability as a limit for coverage, including that earlier quote of yours. Fact is, though there is no official policy that limits the wiki to notability, we do in fact limit the wiki's coverage and content to notable information. I should point out that comparing the significance of a piece of art to the significance of enemy articles (the latter of which are prescribed, per the Manual of Style) is a false equivalency. That's like saying that because Sora has an article, so, too, should Sora's raft from the first game. Of note, the Manual of Style uses the terms "minor" and "insignificant" to identify items that should not have their own page. Additionally, you employ the same concept of notability in determining whether content should allow to remain on a page, as seen here. So clearly, while there's no explicit rule about notability or significance to determine coverage, the concept of such a limit is certainly employed throughout the wiki (see multiple discussions seen here)

What is the scope or coverage of the wiki?: The About page states that we "document all things related to Kingdom Hearts, from elements of storyline to gameplay." TheFifteenthMember once said we are the "most comprehensive database and [we aim] to document almost everything Kingdom Hearts" the last time we officially considered our coverage. I suggested, as a result of your own feedback to updates to the Manual of Style in 2017, that we should have a discussion on "how broad we want our coverage on the wiki to be and come to a consensus on that", but we never did. Still something we ought to consider. While it certainly seems like we have a huge breadth and depth to what we cover, it's clear that there are limits on what information warrants a place on the wiki and what information does not, no matter if all of it is official or not. Previously mentioned as a limit is the concept of notability. Another limit pertinent to this discussion is the one found in the Manual of Style for Character pages, where it states that "Coverage in an article should focus on appearance in the Kingdom Hearts series." 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.

None of the other things you cite, like policies on edit-war procedures, viewpoints to be taken in Appearance and Origin sections, or the procedure for justifying trivia, are to be found on the Kingdom Hearts Wiki. I checked. Frankly, for all I know, you're pulling them out of your butt, but I'm sure they were part of a discussion at some point sometime ago. Again, I push my belief that we should have such policies and procedures more easily findable rather than in the memory of whoever was there at the time and is still here today, a group that is getting increasingly small. In any case, you know what is in the policies, though, aside from the ones I already cited? This: "Should exceptions occur [to the Manual of Style], these should be discussed in the article's talk page." In other words, even if your points were in the Manual of Style or some other agreed-upon consensus, the process of discussing them on the article's talk page and reaching a consensus as a community has been carried out. With the exception of your post, the decision was reached with unanimous consent. I think we've upheld the most important policies of allowing the community's voice to determine what and how a topic should be covered on this site, how this site is to be run. KeybladeSpyMaster 23:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Aside from the points that KSM addressed, which I agree with, Kryten, you need to drop the attitude. It's true that while you're the user on the wiki with the most seniority aside from Neumannz, you have a very long history of resorting to insults and being hypocritical in your arguments whenever something doesn't go your way. Despite being a long-time editor here, you constantly engage in heated debates instead of defusing the situation and display disrespectful behavior towards others. Telling someone "okay, well with all due respect, your opinion is wrong" is not appropriate since we advocate to keep things civil and professional, and does not give an impression that you open to dialogue but rather forcing your own rules onto the community. Using shaming tactics to guilt the editors for not living up to your expectations and ideas of the rules are like instead of what they actually are is insulting. I advise you to watch your tone and understand that policies/rules change over time, and that is something we need to decide as a community. I agree that we should revise our MoS and make things a lot more explicit as KSM recommended.

Until you can be open to dialogue and behave civilly regarding this matter, the majority of users here agreed that the passage should be removed since it's far too subjective and it should be removed.--NinjaSheik 02:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

"The Kingdom Hearts Wiki is written and run by its editors and contributors, not its policies and procedures." -- that consensus consists of more than four editors and an anon over a weekend.

"which you significantly altered and removed content from, in violation of site policies" -- that refers to altering other editors' posts, not rephrasing your own content. I rephrased what I had written, without removing any of the actual meaning, in order to deescalate.

"I throw in here my once-a-year-or-more plug that, because many of our policies are not written down somewhere easily-findable, we ought to do something to make them more easily referenceable so that new editors can become familiar with them, rather than belittle them when they make repeated edits that violate a heretofore unfindable policy." -- I am not staff. I have experience and memory, but it is the staff's responsibility to codify and concentrate the wiki policies if they feel they are not suitably publicized. You are staff. You have full ability to update the MoS with said policies, or open up a forum on whether they should be obsoleted. That being said:

• The policy I referred to regarding what counts as trivia is already in the MoS.
• The definition of the Appearance section is already in the MoS.
• The lack of a notability requirement is inherent in there not being a stated requirement for notability, as well as stating that we cover everything that is an official part of the franchise.
• The scope is already in the About page.
• The edit war policy is already on the vandalism policy page (i.e., discussion before controversial change to existing state of article). In addition, the wider wiki community policy on edit warring is covered here, which we base a lot of our behavioral policies on.
• The out-universe nature of Appearance and Origin sections is displayed in the consensus formats, as called out in the edit window every time you edit a mainspace article.
• The move-trivia-at-all-costs explicit policy is covered on the trivia template, here and in the previous version of the MoS. Granted, it looks like you revised the MoS in 2017 to remove that rule. It looks to me like no one caught that, as it's not discussed at all on the talk page, but granted it could have been something everyone else saw and agreed with and just failed to call out, so I've opened a thread on the MoS talk page to confirm that. However, it was a longstanding rule of the wiki that you personally rewrote, so I most definitely did not make it up.

So I really don't get where you're basing the accusation that I belittled anyone for things that are "unfindable".

"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.)

"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 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.

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?"We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 12:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Guys! Pause. What the actual hell? If I get a warning/banned/whatever for this, so be it. Seriously though. What the actual hell? This supposed-to-be discussion has turned into such a cesspool and mess that the original issue is lost. Before I get to that, and I'm so inactive what I think/say/do/did probably doesn't mean a damn (which is fine, because I AM inactive/old/outdated/"you-kids-get-off-my-lawn"), but I'm really disappointed. ...And I'll just sum it up with that. But, seriously. I don't know whether to be disappointed or ticked off with you guys. And THAT hurts and sucks. Ridiculous.

Regarding trivia: We spent a long time getting rid of trivia sections and incorporating them into the article a long time ago, mainly because we deemed it better to have in the appropriate main sections instead of tacked onto the end. In truth, the literal definition of trivia is common sense enough to merit what should be in that section...except this now creates a problem- which lead to the mess we're in now. It talks about appearance (which means it goes in the appearance section), but it's also an irrelevant/"cool" tid-bit (which means it goes in trivia)? What TSH has proposed is a fine compromise. The image deserves to exist on the article somewhere/in some namespace because it is a published piece on something related to Kingdom Hearts. In my opinion, it belongs either in a gallery (to compromise) or be incorporated into the appearance section (if we agree that published/confirmed artwork counts in this realm), but definitely not trivia because it can be added somewhere else that makes more sense- it has more value. THIS is what we should be discussing.

My biggest issue is how this wasn't discussed or handled properly. No one created a forum post. No one started tagging on user talk pages. No one started tagging on Discord until it became the ridiculous mess it is now. If you tag people and they don't respond in the agreed upon or mentioned/respectable amount of time, then fine. Because then you can say "I tried, they didn't respond." We do all of this for two main reasons: 1) So we give people [the community] time to think and then respond, and 2) Cover our asses. However, when you fail to do this, this does not mean this is the set-in-stone, confirmed, we're doing it. You need more people for that. If they don't respond, then that's a different story. La-ti-da to them. Even when more people tag in on this, it doesn't make it set-in-stone, permanent for all time either...because we're a Wiki and people and times change! Which is fine!

However, going about it how this issue was handled was unprofessional and immature on everyone- and, as a staff member, I'm more embarrassed not because we're trying to figure this out, but how people went about voicing their opposition/thoughts. Especially other staff members.

Regarding policies of all kinds (behavior, edit warring, editing, etc.): Most of those are unwritten things assumed to be known by most people. I got in trouble with this a lot when I was first starting- didn't have a clue until I asked older staff members/users and they redirected me to Wikipedia policies, old discussions, etc. I am in complete agreement of formally writing up a central page linking Wiki-behavior. The MoS is for articles, do those revisions/discussions on there/on the forums. Hell, BebopKate is the one who pushed writing out what/who administrators and staff members are because we were having so many problems with non-staff vs staff arguments/who qualifies as staff/what does staff have the power to do and not to do/etc. So...Let's do it! Someone start drafting, post it on a forum, recruit other people to help, keep drafting, spam people that forum for improvements/discussion, let's revise, let's confirm, let's publish it- let's do it!

These passionate arguments about feelings and personal attacks on people are over. Not because we're not the Jerry Springer show, but that they're counterproductive to everyone and a waste of time. In truth, we should copy this discussion onto a forum and continue it there. Not because Xion4ever says so, because she is both literally and figuratively a Nobody, but that this is becoming more wordy and sidetracked than we want on this talk page. If/when that happens, someone needs to post the link to said forum here so future people know where to go/what happened. The part on what warrants the trivia section needs discussed on the MoS talkpage that Kryten opened. Xion4ever 19:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for chastising me, Xion, and I second your suggestion to move the policy discussion to forums for wider community discussion."We're werewolves, not swearwolves." (KrytenKoro) 20:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Based on the instructions from Xion, a forum has been created here for dealing with our lack of clear policies and processes on the wiki. There's yet to be any actual argument in favor of removing the Roxas image from the gallery and placing it back in the article where it was previously located, but if anyone's to make such an argument, that discussion can be continued on the Roxas talk page. So, I guess only one topic is left to discuss here that was brought up in this discussion, and it's Kryten's behavior. And to be frank, I agree with NinjaShiek here, it's become very hostile, very toxic, and very inappropriate for an editor with as much experience as he's had here. I mean, sure, we have a lot of policies that are just kinda known in the heads of some, and that's why we're trying to do something about it now, but that doesn't justify someone, anyone, no matter the experience, contributions, or time here, to come over, claim we should have known better, and reprimand us like we're some sort of ignorant children who should know better just because we're staff. And frankly, the belittling behavior has been constant. It's happened time and time and time again, where people make edits that, definitely are wrong, but he handles them as if they've committed a serious sin. And decisively, that last line about how he's stood up for Ninja personally is 100% over the line and inappropriate. It's manipulative, suggesting that somehow, because of whatever he's done for Ninja, he's entitled to the behavior she's described.

I realize I'm biased in that I'm on the opposite side of Kryten in this argument, but I don't think it's biased to say that the behavior I've highlighted is wrong, and we would not accept it from any other editor on this site. In fact, we've banned users in the past for this kind of hostile, toxic behavior. We can discuss policies, we can discuss how things should be done, heck, we can discuss how the staff can improve. But if that discussion is going to be held on a "You're all doing it wrong and should know better" kind of attitude, then this isn't going to work for anyone long term, and you can bet we will continue to hear people complain about not feeling like they can edit or contribute without fear of having their edits reverted inexplicably or rudely. KeybladeSpyMaster 05:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)