Macha Revisions

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.