This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rules article.
Strongly suggest adding this rule
8. No inappropriate or foul language may be used, under any circumstances. (only exception would be an article for the artifact shiny metal ass)
i believe that this comes under rule 6 - no spam or vandalism. do you think it should read no spam,vandalism or foul language instead? i think the current rule is fine myself.
the word 'ass' is not foul language. nobody in history has ever shouted at their kids for saying the word 'ass'. do you think that if it were actually foul language that you should worry about, that the admin would allow it to be in the game? really? this is far too pedantic, stop it, really. --Spode 19:52, 4 October 2012 (BST)
That change would be good, as a clarification. If you go back through the history, someone created a one sentence user page with language in it, and I'd appreciate it if you reported them. Thanks!
rule appended, the person who used foul language has been warned, single paragraph guild pages are fine - they just need categorizing, all done!
this may be a no-brainer but there are people out there who might do this
9. No pages not about the game Godville
thats obvious, thats why its called godwiki. also, pages about other things which relate other things to godville are ok if in the backstage category (see the 'farmville' article as an example. --Spode 12:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
If almost all edits should be considered minor, is there any way to change the "This is a minor edit" field so it's checked by default? --OhMG 14:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed that personal preferences includes the option "Mark all edits minor by default" Can that be turned on universally? --OhMG 14:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The minor edit rule is a bit confusing and goes against the entire purpose of the minor edit option. Wikipedia has a vastly superior use for minor edits and we should be following that. What does "majorly expanded" even mean? How many sentences does one need to add or delete to be considered "majorly expanded?" I say, we redraft the rule #1 as follows: "All changes to guild, god, and hero articles must always be marked as "This is a minor edit". All other changes must follow Wikipedia's guidelines for minor edits. available here." --BlueStapler 03:26, 29 September 2012 (BST)
Good idea, ill change it, adding something in from wikipedia. that minor edit things been getting on my nerves for a while how nobody does it. the point of it was that before you came along the only edits ever made were virtually all guild edits of the type which fulfill wikipedia's definition of minor edit material. they really got in my way when trying to view recent changes so marking them as minor edits was a solution. at the start it was only guild edits but then it got changed because people starting doing small things to other articles too. never mind, will change now. --Spode 20:04, 4 October 2012 (BST)
Well the minor edit thing isn't really ever paid attention to anyway. It is a bit nice though to see if you want to see the changes when lookin at the recent edits page. I have always thought of it as more of a guideline. Thankfully no one who has been adding towards artical quality has been banned for that. fred
New Rule 1: There is no Rule 1? (A proposal)
So, personally, I'd really like to do away with Rule #1, for a number of reasons.
- There really isn't enough activity here that it's necessary to filter out minor edits when viewing things like Special:RecentChanges, or that it makes any useful difference if you do filter them out.
- These days, Guild article edits make up the majority of edit activity here (by a comfortable plurality!), and those are very infrequently marked as minor edits. The policy isn't being followed anyway.
- The Rules page is not nearly visible enough to expect people to follow it, which explains the previous point. How would they know? But regardless, since most people don't know about or follow the rule, there's little point in pretending it is a rule.
- Primarily, though, because the proscribed use violates the spirit of the minor edit flag, which has a common definition shared by the majority of MediaWiki-driven wikis. That means the rule disadvantages both:
- Users new to MediaWiki editing (who are generally unaware of how to use it, and then get taught practices which are wrong for nearly any other wiki they may edit in the future), and
- Experienced MediaWiki editors (who have to unlearn how to use it, and then keep track of whether they should follow our semantics or the normal semantics).
- To re-state the above more plainly: I think it's a bad rule. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I remember reading this rule earlier this year and actually laughing out loud. I wholeheartedly agree with your observations, and would add (with respect to the now-absent) that the historical era of somewhat surly moderation of the wiki where this kind of rule was enacted and patchily enforced is rightfully behind us. It needs replacing (though not deletion, because there are enough historical references to the rules by number scattered around that it might confuse people who stumble over them).
In an effort to draw a line and counterdict the grumpiness of the past, I'd suggest something explicitly positive and encouraging good behaviour, in the vein of "Be positive and assume good faith". Or, alternatively, encouraging greater participation, in the vein of "Be bold". --Djonni (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)