FANDOM


Replacement filing cabinet
Archived discussion
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new thread.
Forums: IndexCommunity discussionsDiscussing notability and establishing a notability policy | Forum new Post

Hi,

Branching from this deletion nomination, I seriously think we need to discuss what content related to The Sims series constitutes as notable enough to feature on The Sims Wiki and establish a formal notability policy as we literally don't have one at all.

I can say from the offset that these things are obvious enough that not deeming them as notable is detrimental to the purpose of the wiki:

I may have missed some off but you can see it's a no-brainer to deem the major things as notable.

The real point of discussion comes at the existence of related content which is outside of the series, such as YouTube accounts, fan sites, people and mainly The Sims community, and whether or not we should cover them, which is what the deletion nomination of TheQuxxn brings up.

I do have an opinion on this but to maintain neutrality, I'll keep it to myself for now. Before we consider establishing this as a policy, I would like that this is discussed so that when we do get to that stage we have something to work around.

I'd like to emphasise that this is a very important discussion as it brings a fair bit of the content on this wiki into consideration and I would very much appreciate maximum community input where possible. I look forward to the development of this discussion. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 12:38, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Most of the content you've listed above is, obviously, relevant. I think that real-world articles can have their place here, but there needs to be some criteria establishing what is and is not relevant, as well as what constitutes notability. There's a few big things this should probably include:

  • Pages created about real-world content would need to be written in a neutral point of view. The purpose of the article needs to be to inform readers, not to advertise.
  • Persons associated with the real-world content being written about should refrain from editing those articles or starting the articles.
  • Including a page about real-world content is not an endorsement of the content or its creator.
  • If it can be argued or questioned whether a particular piece of real-world content is not notable, there needs to be some citation of the content's notability. This could include Quantcast or other internet traffic measurements, number of download hits on a modification, number of page views, etc. Basically, if something is not obviously notable (like ModTheSims, which virtually everyone within the community has heard of), there needs to be some objective proof of its notability or the article will be deleted. Custom content/modifications creators should be noted if they are responsible for multiple notable pieces of cc/mods, or are otherwise very notable within the community.
  • Real-world content must be related to The Sims series of games. For instance:
    • A fan website's main focus should be on The Sims games.
    • Game modifications and custom content should be for The Sims games.
    • Fan media creators (YouTubers, bloggers, etc) should focus primarily or significantly on The Sims games.

Note: I'm using the term "real-world content" to collectively refer to custom content, modifications, fan websites, custom content creators, and "fan media" creators. Some or all of these types of content could be allowed or prohibited based on discussion.

What I've listed above isn't perfect, but I think it's a start. -- LiR speak ~ read 17:06, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

LiR proposes a sound policy. However, I myself am not too concerned about policy itself, and I am in support of having real-world content and creator pages. Perhaps we should make a new namespace for the said contents to separate it from the canon materials and those that are directly related in development? MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 22:02, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea. If the wiki decides to go forward with it, I think it may be useful to have some sort of criteria, or a page that people can ask to create a page on a particular person (like nominations for a battle or adminship requests), so that we don't get accounts of people that nobody has heard of. However, if this isn't a good idea, maybe the users could just ask a bureaucrat instead. Meh. Overall, I think this is a great policy and that it would only affect the wiki for the better. ~ Waikikamukow (Anyone wanna chat?) 22:45, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

I like the policy, but it's the case of the articles involved with the Sims, but it's outside the actual series. Surely articles based on famous YouTube users would be/are on Wikitubia (which covers most YouTube-related people and groups)? I also think, to prevent a whole wave of various unknown players, I'd go with Waikikamukow's idea of the voting page. I think this policy clearly outlines what content the wiki should have. I'm in support of it. AsherÉire I'm a lonely person, so please talk to me... 23:09, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little cautious about the idea of this new policy. Mostly about how the community will react to the new pages and content coming in. However, your argument is a good one and this sound like it could help the wiki community in some ways. You have my support but the policy should be revised by an admin or bureaucrat to help it gain some stability. Freedomtalk 00:05, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

I like all the ideas that Freedom, LiR, and Math put up, and I think this page should stay. If it has a separate category, then maybe it would be easier to differentiate and not provoke argument about it. But it was stated that it might be deleted due to not being relevant to anything specific on the wiki, but then doesn't that technically discourage users from creating Fanon? Technically Fanon isn't relevant to the wiki either, so that proposes a problem. But it's obvious that this discussion is about real world content, so maybe adding a category like [[Category:Real-World Content]] would be helpful when dealing with these types of pages...? SalazzlePGR7 (parler - entendre) 00:29, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
Categorization might help. There has to be some way to determine whether the real-world contents (e.g. fan sites) are relevant and notable enough for their own article, like what makes them distinct from others. Personally, I'm opposed to the creation of fan (person) pages that people don't take account of. It's rather difficult to get the neutral point-of-view without being too subjective for a real-world person/fan article, unless they're unique from somebody else. They need to have evident reasons why a fan should have a page of its own. Nikel Talk Vote! 04:16, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
I've seen some good ideas here, mainly the ones regarding caterogising it and maybe making a separate namespace. Here is my 10 cents - notability is a hard thing to define, what is notable to me may be very different to what is notable to someone else. I'm sort of on the fence here, but I am leaning to some sort of system where maybe every article is assessed on a case-by-case basis. While I've never watched any of Quxxn's videos, or that of any other sims-based youtuber for that matter, I would say that she would be considered as a notable figure within the sims fandom, ergo I think we should keep the article. I suppose due to this it is kinda logical that we restore that one on Curtis Paradis that was binned a while ago as well.
tl;dr version - categorise the fan made stuff, maybe make a namespace for it (wikis can have up to 3 custom namespaces irc, and we've only got 2 - fanon and tutorial), and make it so that each article is reviewed on a case by case basis. ђ talk 05:16, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
I think if there is going to be pages about simmers, They need their permission, I have a E-mail adress and I know TheQuxxn's which is: emailquxxn@gmail.com.  I agree with Lab and the rest of the comments made above.I like WH Idea, we could make a new mainspace and it is reviewed on a case by case basis. We could also make a rule about creating page's about YouTuber's like only users with an account can edit the page (Protect it against New and unregistered users). 🌹Deathbee1000 07:43, December 23, 2012 (UTC)
We don't need their permission to make a page on them, and I don't really want to bother people with e-mails if we don't need to, not to mention some people barely check them (i.e. me) ђ talk 09:39, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with LiR, too. Plus, it's a good idea to make a namespace for the real-world content related to The Sims series in any way. And I agree with what Wogan said, if needed to make a page for e.g. a Youtube-user who posts TS-related videos and is notable for that, it's not necessary to have their permission. And when writing articles about real-world content, the article should be objective and neutral, not to be a place for somebody to speak his mind about a specific matter (that's why we have the Forums). We'd need more votes, but I think that this is a really important matter to discuss about. There should be a policy related to this, too.

OMG, forgot to sign, my bad.... Nikola (Let's talk) 14:11, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of mentions of a new namespace... my concern is what I'll call 'creep' - where we create a namespace, for instance Real-world (so Real-world:Name of article) and say that real-world content gets added to that namespace. So this would catch pages about YouTubers and other well-known simmers, Sims series websites, and popular modifications. But you could argue that an article like The Sims 2 (or about any game or EP) is itself about a real-world thing, and should be placed in this new namespace as well. The point I'm trying to make is, this stuff is all relevant to The Sims Wiki, so it should be within the main namespace. I'd support the categorization and review of real-world articles, but I don't see a whole lot of positive coming out of a new namespace.
On the subject of review... I think it's important we specify what kind of reviewing we're doing. For starters, would it be reviewed by admins-only, or could any user assist in reviewing? Would it take more than one user/admin to review something? Would it be a passive review process or an active review process?
A passive review would allow a user to create an article about real-world content and the article would remain unless it was flagged, in which case it would be reviewed (under whatever process is established based on the other questions above). Under active review, each new article would need to be checked by the pre-determined person(s) immediately after the article is created, or perhaps before the article is allowed to be added in whole.
If I think of more to chime in with, I will do so -- LiR speak ~ read 23:40, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as I have managed to get some input on this thread, I'll come out of my hidey hole and formally give my opinion.

If we do choose to host "real-world" articles then I can see an issue popping up with how notable something must be in order to warrant an article. For example, I could upload a video to YouTube and then create an article on myself saying "I make Sim videos, give me an article", which can easily be applied to virtually everyone and their YT channel meaning that unless we formulate some sort of guidelines on this, we'll have an influx of articles that we don't know if they're warranted or not and even then the process isn't entirely satisfactory.

As far as a review process goes, if we were to do this then I'd be more for a passive review process as it eases the workload but has the fatal flaw of virtually everything I mentioned above. To me, an active review process for articles would add more scrutiny to the wiki development process, create a possibly hard-to-manage workload and it undermines the purpose of a wiki: to collaborate in order to develop - having an active review system where someone has to give a green light for something to happen breaks the whole collaborative effort saying that goes around here and it's much easier to help each other bring things up to standard.

To lay my cards on the table regarding a namespace, I'd say it's pointless per LiR's reasoning above. While I'm not sure if we're strictly limited to 3 custom namespaces (for the record, the MediaWiki software actually doesn't have a limit, it's just a few lines added to LocalSettings.php although some extensions, like Forums or the Message Wall, use up namespaces in themselves, which may be why Wikia imposes a limit) but if it's true then I'd rather save namespace #3 for something more useful.

tl;dr? Ultimately, I'll say I'm generally against adding "real-world community" articles, such as YT channels and community figures (this doesn't include Will Wright, Rod Humble etc.), to The Sims Wiki per the issues it may bring up but if it does happen per community consensus then I'm okay with a passive review system and no new namespace. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 16:14, December 24, 2012 (UTC)

What actually constitutes "real world" content? From the discussions above it only seems to be videos and pages relating to simmers, thier videos, thier pages, thier fanons etc. Everything else seems to be pretty much on the site already, information about the games, news about updates etc.

So should we be discussing whether information about simmers is relevant to the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sims2addict9312 (talkcontribs) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~

FocusingEdit

Ok, I think the discussion so far has been pretty good, but I think we need to focus our attention on one question at a time. Before we determine how we'd control real-world articles, I think it's important to establish whether or not we'd even want to host these articles in the first place. So I think we should make sure the community generally supports hosting that information, before we spend a lot of time drafting up policies and ideas and such.

I personally support the addition of this content, with limitations (which we can work out if we choose to pursue this). How does everyone else feel about the idea of hosting this information? -- LiR speak ~ read 03:12, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

I'm in support of adding the information onto the wiki, as long as there is some sort of review process involved. ђ talk 03:17, December 26, 2012 (UTC)

For now I'll backtrack on what I said above and go neutral (keywords: for now) on hosting this content as while it could be beneficial for the wiki in its entirety if we do go this route provided we do work out the guidelines, limitations etc., the potential concerns I stated in my initial opposition are still there. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 14:01, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

I shall post a 'qualified' support position: I do buy the Lab's concerns, and personally believe that youtube channels and other personas not directly involved in creation of custom contents shouldn't belong there in general. However, those who do create custom contents, such as the nraas Industries or J. M. Pescado (developer of Awesomemod), but not limited to them, do have a place in my opinion. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 23:08, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

Next StepEdit

Alright, the (mediocre) response we've gotten generally supports, in basic principle, the idea that this content is relevant. The question we now need to sort out is which we want to keep and which we don't. Additionally, there is the matter of how this information will be handled. I think that question may be simpler to answer, so I'd like to suggest that we now focus on the 'how' of this discussion, rather than the 'what'.

As I stated above, I think we need some system to establish notoriety. This much I think we all agree on, so I won't go into the specifics of why this is needed. There are several issues that remain however. For starters, how do we define notable? How are reviews initiated?

I want to provide ideas rather than questions, since asking questions seems to get a lot of misdirected answers. So I'm going to propose a couple specific criteria on the process, then we can decide whether to throw out what I've proposed or to modify it.

My suggested criteria: 1. Articles about real-world content must be properly categorized, and must feature a template at the top of the article mentioning that it concerns real-world material (this is to clearly separate it from canon).

2. There is no limitation on creating real-world content articles, as long as they are related to The Sims series of games. However, aAny user may question whether an article which has been created is notable enough to remain. If a user believes an article is not notable, they should tag it with the {{Notability}} template and begin discussing notability in the Community Discussions forum.

3. If a notability discussion occurs, a consensus will be necessary to determine that an article is not notable. An article with questionable notability should not be deleted until it is established that the article is not notable. It is the discretion of the community to decide whether an article is or is not notable, basing this decision on any given guidelines or established precedent on previous issues of notability.

4. If an article is deemed to be notable, the matter of its notability should not be re-discussed unless new reasoning is given for reconsideration. If a discussion for notability fails to reach a consensus due to poor turnout, it can be reconsidered.

You'll note that I still do not define what is notable - since that idea is so incredibly difficult to put a definite definition on, I think our best course of action is to simply let the community decide it on a case-by-case basis, taking into account previous decisions as well. Regarding article review, any user can start a review under my proposal, but a review would not be automatic and it would not be required that every article be reviewed (unless such a review was triggered).

Please don't hesitate to suggest revisions or to propose your own versions of criteria. -- LiR speak ~ read 08:05, January 3, 2013 (UTC)

Just a slight revision to your second criteria: I think you should mention that there are no limits on creation of real-world content as long as it is in some way, shape, or form relevant to the sims. So, no articles on Minecraft on a wiki about the Sims. SalazzlePGR7 (parler - entendre) 03:08, January 4, 2013 (UTC)
I oppose with the idea of (2) saying there's no limitation on creating the real-world article. Basically, we'll give freedom to what is created, no matter how un-notable the RW article is (i.e. random RW article). This will usually lead to immediate deletion, which will make it more difficult to moderate, not to mention if we miss any unworthy articles somehow.
I say we need to restrict some subjects anyhow, give an example of limits that fan articles from YouTube is restricted from creation. When someone creates a page concerning this, it'll be worth pointing out why the page deserves to be made (maybe because it really is notable). By this, we will be able to tell that some subjects are noteworthy (or worth discussing), instead of letting anyone create any RW articles about Sims. Note that this is conjectural and may not work anyway especially if an editor never found out about this discussion. Nikel Talk Vote! 12:51, January 5, 2013 (UTC)
I agree more with what Wogan is saying - I can make the second point more specific as far as Sims-focused content is concerned. As for what Nikel is saying... I disagree. The situation I really want to avoid is one where a user has to get approval before they can create an article. I think having a specific list of things allowed or not allowed makes it more likely that a user will be prevented from creating an article that may be relevant. The whole idea of relevance can be established after the article is created, so in my opinion there should be little limitation on what that is - unless of course we decided that certain things, like YouTube channels/personalities, are automatically irrelevant.
So, I'm going to go ahead and make the addition to the second point above, as Wogan suggests. The new text reads:
2. There is no limitation on creating real-world content articles, as long as they are related to The Sims series of games. Any user may question whether an article which has been created is notable enough to remain. If a user believes an article is not notable, they should tag it with the {{Notability}} template and begin discussing notability in the Community Discussions forum.
- LiR speak ~ read 17:32, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

Bumping/JumpstartingEdit

This topic has fallen by the wayside, but I don't think it's ready to be buried just yet, because I think we're pretty close to coming to a community agreement. The only really big question that stands is whether or not we want to host stuff like Youtube channel creators, custom content creators, etc. at all. To get a general range of how we're working here, I'd like to suggest that everyone 'cast a vote' below in the following manner:

I'll re-list some of the more debatable criteria that Lost_labyrinth stated in his original post, and using the {{VoteFor}} or {{VoteAgainst}}, show whether or not you think this sort of material should be allowed to be posted on The Sims Wiki. For example:

Games, expansions and stuff packs
Icon yes check v
Worlds/Neighborhoods
Icon yes check v
Canon Sims and Families
Red x cross uncheck bad

Obviously the criteria above are examples... vote on the following below:

  • Pages about custom content - Ex: Player-made worlds, custom objects, etc
  • Pages about game modifications
  • Pages about fan websites
  • Pages about creators or custom content or modifications
  • Pages about fan media creators (and their creations), or fansite creators

Please note that you can include a qualified response; in other words, you can say that you support inclusion, but only under certain criteria.

For the sake of keeping things moving, I'm going to put a week-long countdown on this vote. We can use the results of the poll to determine where consensus does or does not exist regarding what should or should not be hosted, then we can formalize any sort of guidelines/policies about how to judge notoriety within each criteria, etc.

-- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 06:15, February 1, 2013 (UTC)


VotingEdit

To avoid posting issues, include {{clr}} in between every line of your vote. Countdown:


I'm going to jump right in and cast my vote:

Icon yes check v
Custom Content - So long as it meets notoriety through the system I described above.
Icon yes check v
Game Modification - Ditto
Icon yes check v
Fan Websites - Ditto
Red x cross uncheck bad
Content and Mod creators - I think the info about creators can be included on their creation pages, unless they have made multiple notable mods/c.c. items.
Neutral
Fan media creators - I could go either way on this one.

-- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 06:15, February 1, 2013 (UTC)


Icon yes check v
Custom content - per LiR.
Icon yes check v
Game modifications - As long as they meet the notoriety requirements.
Neutral
Fan websites - Bit of a yes or no situation but can be good to have provided it meets notoriety.
Red x cross uncheck bad
Content and Mod creators - Per LiR. Will only support creating them for those who have multiple mods that are notable, i.e. Twallan.
Red x cross uncheck bad
Fan media creators - We're not a "biography of YouTube users" wiki. Mentioning your channel/site/creations on your userpage is fine but I believe going this route will cause more problems than we have the patience to deal with. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 12:16, February 1, 2013 (UTC)
Red x cross uncheck bad
Custom Content - I don't have strong point on this. Mostly, custom contents are just visual or cosmetic changes of any existing items. They most certainly don't appear in everyone's games, and I don't see any purpose if they have their own articles other than showcasing themselves, which might end up in people asking "Where can I get this?"
Icon yes check v
Game Modifications - Mods are different from CCs, as they add, tweak, and/or fix the actual gameplay. Sometimes, it's even recommendable to use certain mods (sometimes at own risk). I'd say it okay if it fixes the gameplay, but doesn't add additional gameplay.
Icon yes check v
Fan Websites - Some fansites may be unique on their own.
Red x cross uncheck bad
Content and Mod Creators - Other than Pescado and Twallan, I don't see any other than "other modders."
Red x cross uncheck bad
Fan Media Creators - Like above, I can't see them other than "some other Simmers."

-- Nikel Talk Vote! 16:24, February 2, 2013 (UTC)


Relisting for a second week due to the lack of consensus. Three users with varying opinions isn't enough to reflect the views of the entire community. Countdown: Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 15:52, February 10, 2013 (UTC)


Red x cross uncheck bad
Custom Content - I don't really see why do we need articles about Custom Content.
Neutral
Game Modifications - Some well-known and recommended mods can have their own articles.
Icon yes check v
Fan Websites - There are some really reliable and well-known fansites that should have their articles.
Neutral
Content and Mod Creators - I don't really see how this is relevant on the wiki. Though, some famous mod creators should be noted.
Red x cross uncheck bad
Fan Media Creators - per Nikel23.

Vss2eiptalk here 17:05, February 10, 2013 (UTC)


Red x cross uncheck bad
Custom Content - There are lots of custom content, so that would mean we would have to create articles about the most important, but how can we determine which content is relevant and which is not?
Red x cross uncheck bad
Game Modifications - same reason as custom content.
Icon yes check v
Fan Websites - Yes, this one seems good. It would direct users and would allow them to know more about each website. I think it would be pretty useful.
Neutral
Content and Mod Creators - Perhaps, but again I'm not sure. There should be some important to note, others not so much.
Red x cross uncheck bad
Fan Media Creators - I agree with Lab and others above.

--RoseGuiThanks rose (talk here) 23:45, February 10, 2013 (UTC)


Red x cross uncheck bad
Custom Content - Per others who voted against, and it seems a bit useless to me. There are other sites for Custom Content to be shared on.
Red x cross uncheck bad
Game Modifications - Would be easier just to create a page for the creator of the mod and explain them there.
Neutral
Fan Websites - Not really sure. These are kind of like Fan Media Creators, but could be useful in a way.
Icon yes check v
Content and Mod Creators - Would be easier than creating many pages for one creator's mods, but they would have to be well-known.
Red x cross uncheck bad
Fan Media Creators - Per everyone else.

Wow it looks like I'm super against this but I'm not! :D ~ Waikikamukow (Anyone wanna chat?) 05:15, February 11, 2013 (UTC)


Icon yes check v
Custom Content
Icon yes check v
Game Modifications
Icon yes check v
Fan Websites
Icon yes check v
Content and Mod creators
Icon yes check v
Fan Media Creators

Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 05:56, February 11, 2013 (UTC)


Red x cross uncheck bad
Custom Content - Too hard to decide what CC would be notable, do not want
Icon yes check v
Game Modifications - Fine with this
Icon yes check v
Fan Websites - Fine by me, they are a prominent part of the TS community
Neutral
Content and Mod creators - On the fence, depends how influential they are. If it's someone like the guy who made AwesomeMod, sure.
Red x cross uncheck bad
Fan Media Creators - We ain't TVtropes or some other site, we're dealing with facts and we are not an advertisement place which is what the articles would act as imo.

ђ talk 06:23, February 11, 2013 (UTC)


Icon yes check v
Custom Content - Specific custom content shouldn't be covered here, but in my opinion, a general feel of the CC community (such as covering the main websites for CC, like we do in the Custom content article and talking about specific types of it, like hairstyles, skin tones and alike).
Icon yes check v
Game Modifications - The most well-known ones (like AwesomeMod and the Master Controller) are worthy of having pages.
Icon yes check v
Fan Websites - Just like I mentioned above in the CC point, and they are also important to the community.
Icon yes check v
Content and Mod creators - Just like the mods criteria. If it's well-known in the community, then go for it.
Red x cross uncheck bad
Fan Media Creators - Per the users above.

DanPintalkcontribs 11:48, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

ResultsEdit

Well... some compromise might be necessary here in order to reach a point we all can agree with. There is a wide variation in answers and explanations, but generally it looks like it boils down like this:

Red x cross uncheck bad
Custom Content - 4 vs 5
Icon yes check v
Game Modifications - 6 vs 2 (1 neutral)
Icon yes check v
Fan Websites - 7 vs 0 (2 neutral)
Neutral
Content and Mod Creators - 3 vs 3 (3 neutral)
Red x cross uncheck bad
Fan Media Creators - 1 vs 7 (1 neutral)

So, generally speaking it is agreed that we want to cover Game Modifications and Fan Websites (as long as they are notable). We're split right down the middle on Content and Mod Creators, so we'll have to settle that matter. And it looks like Custom Content and Fan Media Creators are out.

Is everyone more-or-less comfortable with the list above? -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 23:51, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

I find it very well fine. We might as well assume that staying quiet means we won't object the result? Unless someone states otherwise. Nikel Talk Vote! 15:12, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
The only compromise I can see with Content and Mod Creators is essentially what the opposition stated in their reasoning: only do it for the notable ones. One of the supports gave no reasoning whatsoever so that really does help a lot here. Other than that I'm cool with the list above. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 12:26, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Proposed policyEdit

I've drafted a proposed policy, trying to sum up what has been discussed as best as I can. Please give it a read over and discuss at will. To start off, notice the categories of articles I've listed... this is based on the vote we took above, though in the case of the neutral decision we reached on Content and Mod creators, I chose to err on the side of allowing rather than disallowing that content.

I'm looking for any way to refine this proposal, and I'd really like a full examination of the draft and its strengths and weaknesses before we consider putting it into force.

Also, I'm not crazy about the title. So, yeah. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 01:16, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Overall the proposal is adequate enough to be legitimate. I find it difficult to find anything wrong with the proposal. Kudos to you, Liron. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 01:40, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
We haven't pretty much changed our mind, I suppose. But I can't tell if there's loophole in the proposed policy yet. Either way, it's a good policy to handle this kind of issue. Nikel Talk Vote! 03:07, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
Looks cool as it is. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 20:36, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
I think it's good. ~ Waikikamukow (Anyone wanna chat?) 06:13, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, can't see any huge problems with it. ђ talk 23:23, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
     I agree with it.Hurshbr (talk) 19:15, March 17, 2013 (UTC)Hurshbr

Closed - With unanimous support of the aforementioned draft, this thread passes as successful and the policy shall be implemented. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 13:01, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.