Forum:Policy proposals

Proposal
How do these sound? I noticed no one has put up any proposed guidelines or policies so here it goes. My ideas:

Videos: Videos should only be used in obtaining unique items that cannot be properly explained through the article alone. Video of the said nature should be limited to the scope of obtaining said weapon and/or armor and not to include large amounts of superfluous demonstration of the weapon and/or armor. Videos should not be included in quest articles due to the nature of many outcomes that can be derived from various quests. A video limits the viewer to one point of view and should be allowed to proceed down their own path without due influence.

Bugs: Bugs should have in parentheses which platform they were encountered upon. (i.e. PC, Xbox 360 or PS3) Also of a bug is common to Fallout 3 in general, it does not need to be repeated in several articles. A tag of (unconfirmed) will be added to each bug that is such. After an acceptable time without confirmation, they should be removed.

Strategies, Exploits and Tips: All strategies, tips and exploits should be placed on the discussion page of each article or in the central exploit page.

Format: In no form should the first person writing style be used in articles. Opinions or wording such as "happened to me too" etc, should be ommitted from articles. Information when added to articles needs to have proper grammar and to be free of shorthand (IMHO, OMG, LOL etc.) and other grammatical errors.

Linking: Overlinking in articles should be avoided unless it is in a different section of the article. Also when adding links to an article, linking to the proper place and not to a disambiguation or redirect should be attempted.

Those are a few that are off the top of my head. Juggle it around and let me know what you guys think. Whenever I do something such as reverting edits, when someone confronts me about it I want some sort of policy I can fall back on. Thanks guys and gals.--Kingclyde 00:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Feedback
Sounds good, sounds good. I'm sick of all those unconfirmed bugs. Nitty 13:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, your last two points are already covered by the editing guidelines. There's already a seperate forum thread on videos so we should keep the discussion about that point there in my opinion.


 * Strategies and tips fall under subjective content, so I'd agree to move them over when they are "my favourite"-style suggestions. Exploits are bugs (or rather, exploiting is using a bug to one's advantage) and should be treated the same as them in my opinion.


 * Regarding bugs, personally I'd prefer if unconfirmed bugs went on the discussion page and only in the article when they're confirmed. There should also be a threshold for notability here, we don't really need to list every little subtitle typo. Bugs which are not unique to the article subject but apply to the general group the subject belongs to (say, all characters), should not be repeated in individual articles but only on the general bug pages. On a sidenote, the general bug pages need major cleanup, they are a mess (especially Fallout 3 bugs, the whole proposal process does not work at all). -- Porter21 (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As for exploits, they should be mentioned in the article, but any detailed exploit walkthroughs should be moved to the Fallout 3 exploits page, as they tend to clutter up the articles. Ausir(talk) 04:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

All good points, but Porter's idea of unconfirmed bugs should be on the discussion pages I completely agree with. Also, I like Ausir's idea of moving walkthroughs of exploits to the exploit page. I myself tire of a wall of text that is cluttered with "This user has found.... (unconfirmed on xbox360) SuSpence95 (Talk) 08:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My idea with the bugs, be it they be roaches or whatnot, is that say myself or porter find and article with no confirmation on the bugs. We can add the tag of (unconfirmed) to the end and then check back in aboot 1 or 2 weeks. The ones that have not been confirmed are no longer valid and should be removed. I've noticed that when I add the tags, people begin the confirm the bug and what platform they are on. As for the exploits, we should leave a note stating something similar to "for a detailed explanation of this exploit please refer to the discussion page (or exploit page if that is the option)". I also was thinking about this following thingy:

Speculation: All speculation should remain on the discussion page and out of articles until it becomes a proven fact either through community consensus or verification of speculation.--Kingclyde 16:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)