So we've got that image policy, but this may bother me even more.
I'm sick of having to correct people on how to make a good quality page, and I don't like it because if they could just read a policy or guideline for it, I wouldn't have to explain anything and they wouldn't feel so horrible like they totally just screwed up. Because they don't usually know. So I think we need to make an editing policy giving guidelines for what we expect of users when they create or edit an article. I would say (the first two are ridiculously important to me; really hate having to fix this stuff--anything I underline is important):
- The title of the article should be in bold (ex. Mario's page: "Mario is the main...")
- The game titles or any title in general needs to be italic (ex. "Super Mario 64")
- There needs to be at least 2 lines of information (it can't just be "Goombas are enemies in the Mario series"; there obviously needs to be some information)
- This is not to go and say it cannot be a stub. We're gonna have to have those some of the time. Though it would obviously be best encouraged to try to avoid stubs.
- Links. We don't want our dead-end articles! Even though that "Read More" thing is at the bottom, there was a time when it wasn't there. And it just makes the page look better when there are links leading to other places. If someone wants to know more about Mario and his name is in there, they probably just want to be able to click on his name and start reading more about him, rather than having to search it up.
- Correct grammar and spelling. There will obviously be the typos, but spelling and grammar are, most obviously, extremely important.
- Although not really important or essential to creating/editing a page, if an infobox can be used, that would be great.
- This goes the same for images. Images are something that are often needed, unless there isn't really a picture for it (ex. a Mario Kart mode; not really needed).
- Making sure you know the information well enough. Although we haven't really had all that many problems with inaccurate information (unless Conker or Wattz is fixing it all and I haven't noticed any; or users are getting away with it), it'd be good to make sure people know this, so they don't just go around editing things and putting in info that they aren't completely positive about.
There are some things I am forgetting, for sure. But as of now, these are my guidelines. Please give feedback and suggest another guideline or suggest taking out one if you do not believe it is a good guideline. Three I just will straight up say we are putting in the guidelines are the bold title, italic game title, and correct grammar. Everyone should agree those are needed. ;)
Anyway. Talking too much, should probably either go to bed or continue editing this thing I'm doing, so yeah. Feedback is nice.
--Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. (Talk)(Recent finds and updates.) 04:45, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
Support - I'm not always going to be the janitor here, so... (Also, I apologise for inactivity). To make the image naming format neat, we should try having everything named specifically (that's your choice RR6W). Conker's Bad Fur Day (Talk|Contribs|Edits) 14:51, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
Comments[]
Thought i'd put in a comments section to neaten out the page. Supports go avoe the comments section. Also, how about images from Super Mario Wiki? Why not be unique and try getting as many Non-Super Mario Wiki photos as possible, yes? Conker's Bad Fur Day (Talk|Contribs|Edits) 15:04, September 28, 2012 (UTC)
That I do not care about. I don't think we have to be that much of competition against them. Besides, they are 4 times our size. Also, as for the image thing, that's whatever. I don't think we need to make it very specific or strict, though, because people really won't enjoy that. It just should be a to-the-point name; one that easily explains the photo in a few words. I mean, that's what a title's for, right? --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. (Talk)(Recent finds and updates.) 02:40, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
Any objections? --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. (Talk)(Recent finds and updates.) 02:01, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
We haven't really said anything about this in two months. Are we good to go on this? Any objections or suggestions? --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. (Talk)(GCWaves YouTube channel) 19:41, November 30, 2012 (UTC)
- I thought it was already in effect. D: All in all, no real problems here. – Wattz2000 19:52, November 30, 2012 (UTC)
M-kay. Well, I guess we can stick it in. --Rainbowroad6w, the researcher. (Talk)(GCWaves YouTube channel) 01:41, December 1, 2012 (UTC)