Macha Revisions

Talk:Cessair's Heart#Macha?

This was way before someone removed that line.

Hm, could use a link in your edit message or on the discussion page there, still.

Either way, you even admit it's just a coincidence in that thread, so why keep it? You know, not everything you notice needs to be in the trivia.

Well, Pyrus said we can't be sure if its coincidental because of DevCAT screw ups to the cutscene animations. Also, the appearance is way too similar which heavily implied that they were the same person, like Akule and Lelach, and look-a-like NPCs are extremely uncommon.

That doesn't heavily imply anything besides the fact that they supposedly look alike. You're drawing conclusions based on circumstantial evidence.

You also really have to weigh if it's useful or even interesting information. In this case, it's a conclusion someone can draw on their own. It makes for an interesting discussion thread, which is just as viable as an offering of information as the data on the main page.

Do consider it.

If an information has to be useful, what's the point of a trivia section?

That's exactly the point, trivia sections are useless.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections

Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined.

So it has to be interesting AND useful, not interesting or useful?

If all information had to be useful, we wouldn't have anything on the story at all.

You should note that Ikkisuki linked a policy page from Wikipedia, and not here.

However, it's becoming increasingly evident that we need to adopt a policy specifically regarding trivia sections, external comparisons, and other weird, currently poorly defined areas.

We will notify users of the policy update when it takes effect.

Might as well just make trivia sections against the rules than make a policy for it. . .

That would be a policy either way, wouldn't it? Personally, I like some of the trivia, and would rather not do away with all of it.

I say either barely touch it or do away with it altogether, no need to step over toes; in my opinion.

I think the line Kevin quoted from Wikipedia's policy would be the best way to handle it.

I'd rather Trivia sections not be allowed than that, to be honest.

They wouldn't exist if you were to follow that guideline; all "trivial" information would be incorporated into the article in a way that would make it relevant to the article.

It's not so much tiptoeing as it is that we're trying to find a way to keep certain information that would otherwise be lost, as it has no place in the article.

For instance, comparisons to the Celtic myths or original Shakespearean plays are not really viable content for the main article because they frankly don't matter - people read those articles for help with the questlines. However, it's interesting content that many people might want, perhaps because it may even inspire someone to read the original stories. Therefore, it has a place somewhere on the wiki, and the goal of the new policy is to specifically determine where.

This of course applies to other information, as well.

So what you're saying is, no information will be lost, more that it is about what deserves to be wear? Because frankly, nothing angers me more than the loss of information over time, no matter how unimportant one may think the information is.

I'm not saying "no information" but I can't tell you what information will and won't be. However, it's not something to fret over.

Any information that is deemed to be otherwise fully removed may go on your user page, of course.

Then what's the point?

...?

The reason for needing a policy on it is for: cleanup, usability, readability, professionalism, less is more, etc etc. Also clearer yet hopefully less rules regarding content to make things friendlier for new contributors, and still keep current users out of the revert wars they seem to be constantly stuck in over this stuff. So I hope to reduce arguments and increase contributability. Surely, there are plenty more reasons...

“	Any information that is deemed to be otherwise fully removed may go on your user page, of course.	„

My post was about that.^

What's the point of adding it to the userpage? Nobody cares, nobody reads it. If it's not on a main article, it might as well not exist.

(And yes, I do consider the Bread of Nao thing an oversight, but I do think it's valid to stay on the Trivia section, in my opinion.)

I agree. I don't think anyone reads my User:Infodude575/Vindictus page anymore.

So then don't make a user page about it. It is an option, though. If your concerns were really with "not losing data" rather than "people need to see my contributions" I would suspect that you would be okay with using a user page to store such things.

The fact that no one views these pages may very well be because it is less interesting information than you thought.

It's not about "my contributions", if it was, then there would be a point to the userpage vanity. But if people don't see it, information might as well be lost. I do not think 90% of trivia should be removed, at most, moved to other sections of the same or different page.

Or maybe because only my page directs to it and I doubt most non-users on this wiki would want to read userpages.

There are people who read userpages.

@dude575: Since you brought it up, your page about Vindictus is poorly organized and much of the information is speculative and/or incorrect.

Care to elaborate, on my talk page?

May I suggest a direct vote-like policy about whether or not a pierce of trivia should stay and/or be added, rather than adding things like "do not post __ in a trivia section or anywhere else in the wiki".

It's there in the case that a user needs to see it. Regardless, you're fretting. We will not be losing 90% of our trivia or any other dramatic number, which is why I originally told you not to worry about it.

And no, a policy like that cannot work, Pyrus. There are a total of maybe 5~10 people who actually speak on the wiki that would ever involve themselves in these votes, and I do not want such a minority deciding the direction of the wiki.

Quality assurance is best done absolutely, not relatively.

I don't really see how an absolute policy is any better, it's just a flat non-negotiable decision, even if only two people out hundreds agree with it.

It is non-negotiable, but we take input from the experience so far as well as the site's users. Mostly the former, admittedly. Obviously the goal is to find a happy medium, so that more than two people out of hundreds agree with it.

In that respect, there will obviously be parts of any policy that you personally don't like. Considerably because I get the impression that you don't like change in general. However, for all parties, it's worth it to put up with a few limitations to create a peaceable and beautiful experience overall. Because should we be able to provide that, the community should be better able to grow and mature.

I admire your ideals, but what I'm worried about is the type of judgement you might use. It's not change that I don't like, otherwise what's the point in me contributing to a wiki. It's loss that disturbs me. I can't really think of any, there might be ways but I can't imagine any at the moment, policies that won't immediately remove the rights of some lines being on the wiki without first being negotiated. Something should be negotiated before it is removed, not negotiated before it's allowed to be readded without even discussing removal in the first place. Can you please give an example of what this policy would entail

No, we need to design it first. Ideals and goals is all I can offer for now.

However I find your opinion on data incorporation a little backwards. If information is contested, it shouldn't be on the main article, because most people will read that article assuming that its contents are true. I would rather not litter the pages with "Some of this article is contested" or "[Citation needed]", so it's best to leave it out until the discussion is resolved. The data is available on the discussion page during the dispute for those who need it.

I understand, just please provide an answer when you can, and hopefully before the decision is final.

If the policy were to say that some things should be decided by a vote, I think the number of people actually discussing things on instead of having revision wars. And even if it is still a small minority voting, it's not like those decisions would be final; if a lot people who didn't vote end up hating a change that was made, the talk page is still there.

Wouldn't an absolute policy on something like trivia have to be insanely long to cover everything?

If the wikipedia page is any example, not really. If we strip out the legalese that article isn't too long.

It won't be a listing of specifically allowed or disallowed things, of course.

The policy in that page isn't very absolute.

I think Bread from Nao should be moved because I feel that's it's lost its status as trivia and should be removed or moved else where. It was funny when only a couple NPCs had it but now it's just...bring up all sorts of crap.

Actually, I kind of think the opposite. We should remove the Bread from Nao from the trivia, then add it in the equipment section, along with other items they possess. If not that, at least do so for the mission page.

^^^ pretty much that. I'd hate to see the day someone joins and suddenly kills off trivia sections. at least keep it as a place to put interesting information (subjective yes, but if it's interesting enough with something to back it up...maybe.) and maybe something to poke fun at, like uhh...Heart's age.

Also I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere when trivia isn't interesting anymore...like Bread from Nao. kinda sick of going to every other page to find that "[NPC] has Bread from Nao in their inventory." Maybe it was a developer oversight or something automatically generated...or maybe cause you're the Milletian and you basically have the bread and just happen to take it with you in the RP. blah blah blah...

“	kinda sick of going to every other page to find that "[NPC] has Bread from Nao in their inventory."	„

Amen.

Subjective no. Subjective discussion is meant for discussion pages, not trivia sections.

I think trivia sections got a bit out of hand from their original intention. It was originally something like Ikkisuki said, then someone read "trivia" and thought "okay yeah I can put trivial information here in a poor effort to contribute something".

Also yes I would assume the bread from Nao is an oversight as well, resultant of copypasting. Theoretically, whoever does want to maintain that information should start a User:x/NPCs_with_Bread_from_Nao page to list those NPCs in, rather than placing the mention of bread on the NPC page. I would even allow a link to that subpage on the Bread from Nao page's trivia section, but not every NPC's.

I hope that gives some idea of the goal, here.

Maybe the policy should say that new users who aren't allowed to have user pages yet are also not allowed to add trivia that might cut down on people using trivia as a "poor effort to contribute something".

Except most of the people who manage trivia are regular users.

Err... So you're saying the Macha trivia is not fine?

I'm not giving you an easy way out on this by giving an absolute judgement. I want you to really think about it.

Is this something that should be on the main page? Or is this something that's better expressed in a discussion thread?