Talk:Main Page/Rules reform discussion

A growing number of users have expressed a desire to rewrite the wiki's rules, which have been in place since the wiki's Wikifoundry era. Some of the concerns that have been brought up include, but are not limited to, an aggressive and in-your-face tone with how the rules are written that may also be seen as unwelcoming to editors, rules pertaining to issues that are not as relevant to or entirely no longer reflect the current state and direction of the wiki along with its experience with our host Miraheze, and mentions of former users from the Wikifoundry era who have not rejoined the Miraheze wiki that additionally appear to vaguely shame said users. Additionally, a proposal to merge both the Site Rules and Policy page due to being too similar in function has also recently passed, meaning that any content unique to the Policy page will need to be transferred over to the Rules page.

To allow the community to have a say in how the rules will be rewritten, a discussion has been opened to allow users to propose their ideas on how to rewrite the wiki's rules. After one week has passed since the opening of this phase, the discussion will be moved to a voting phase where users may then vote for which proposed changes to be implemented additionally for another week before voting closes and the suggested changes that pass will be implemented into the revamped rules.

In order to easily sort each suggestion, three categories have been provided below for each type of suggestion, and we would like to ask editors to make sure to list their suggestions in a bullet-point format (type "*" before your suggestion in the Source editor) to keep the lists organized and neat. To suggest a rule to be added, make your suggestion under the Additions section. To suggest a rule to be removed, make your suggestion under Removals. To suggest any modifications to existing rules, make your suggestion under Modifications. Remember to sign any suggestions made with "~" and to be civil to others and their suggestions.

Additions

 * Maybe some more rules related to the forum could be added. ifyoudarethenpizzait aka Compooper (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Make it very clear that the "Legacy" section shouldn't be used like the previous "Editor's Note" (i.e. no opinionating or rethemed Scare Factors or Cheesy Factors). T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 21:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That seems more like something for AVID:Tutorial Guide IMO sig.png Talk ·&#32;Edits 22:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. T807sig.png · Talk · Edits 22:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not a rule directed towards redirects? Specifically, no redundant redirects. This includes slight variations of a company's name (i.e. Ragdoll Productions' redirected page is simply called Ragdoll) or those that has a country name next to it. Some admins have took note of this and removed many as this has clogged up the search engine. To add on that, it makes navigating between pages more confusing, especially now that some lead to dead pages that were deleted a few days ago. I think only former names of a company or their acronym are acceptable, but not those that are too similar to the original page's name. Camenati (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say grammatical variations should be accepted too, like if a company has a hyphen in their name we should be able to have a hyphenless redirect to make it easier to search and link that page. sig.png Talk ·&#32;Edits 22:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Mature (NSFW) images and videos should be restricted or hidden behind spoiler tags. There should be no videos for entries that involve shocking content like jumpscares, for safety reasons. Further reading: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/ExampleSectionectomy --Pingu (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some rules that used to be on the old wiki that were oddly removed from this version's rules, which I still feel could be of use on here. The two I'm thinking of are no predictions (i.e., say, if NBC got a new logo, and somebody added "This will be first seen on [random show] on [random date]") and only add that IF/WHEN it actually happens, and no low-quality pictures (so nothing with Bandicam watermarks, YouTube artifacts, etc.). --CooleyBoy10 (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's possible this rule might be too restrictive or whatever, but I feel like we need a rule about sourcing your claims. What I mean is, if you say "This logo's jingle was composed by this person" or "This company helped produce this logo" or etc., you should add a source backing up that claim. Also IDK if we have a "citation needed" tag like Wikipedia does but we REALLY need that. --CooleyBoy10 (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Removals

 * No Espionage: When has THAT ever happened? In any case, I feel it isn't relevant to this wiki in today's world. ifyoudarethenpizzait aka Compooper (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It did happen once that I recall on the old wiki, though making a rule for such an obscure situation was for sure an overreaction sig.png Talk ·&#32;Edits 22:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bans Apply On All Sites: No longer needed as Company Bumpers has merged with AVID and Dream Logos no longer exists ifyoudarethenpizzait aka Compooper (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say the rule about add-ons and toolbars should go. When was the last time anybody ever used toolbars, or got tricked into downloading one? As for the add-ons that change text (including the infamous MLP one), I'd say those have mostly gone the way of the dodo bird as well. --CooleyBoy10 (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Modifications

 * Irrelevant Content: I feel like it should be rewritten to provide more relevant examples, such as about the off topic discussions, maybe we can allow that under certain cases. I also think politics discussions should be added to the list. ifyoudarethenpizzait aka Compooper (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Allow the star wars logo and similar logos Anticritic12 (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No Fake Logos: I wonder why it has randomly a mention of rule 5. It is not really necessary. This rule in general could use an update as it relates to the terms used "fake reports on real logos" does not exactly mean "fake logos". ifyoudarethenpizzait aka Compooper (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * TBH I think it should be titled "The logo must be legitimate." ★ Nova (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No Blank Pages: I feel like we're not enforcing this one enough. This could really use some changes. ifyoudarethenpizzait aka Compooper (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How about something like this? "You may not write descriptions where every section is marked "TBA" either. You should make an effort to describe at least one logo." --DisneyInternationalFan (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Some additions about the draft system should be included.  Logohub   (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * BOTH - Don't edit with text extensions & No personal commentary: Remove the mention of a WF-era user ifyoudarethenpizzait aka Compooper (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * actually, no need to reference past drama overall, like the SSF thing on Klasky-Csupo.  Logohub   (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No Drama: This rule needs a complete rewrite, it clearly talks about a different kind of drama instead of the one most would typically expect. ifyoudarethenpizzait aka Compooper (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Personal Attacks should be renamed/repurposed to: Please respect all users: Similar to how the current AVID discord rules writes it, it should mention "No bigotry, racism, lgbtq+-phobia" and also mention no saying any related slurs. ifyoudarethenpizzait aka Compooper (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And no ableism, either. I am so sick and tired of people using "autism" as an insult. As an autistic person myself, I find that highly offensive. Buzzfan120 (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, to be fair, that IS kind of written in there with "bigotry" but we could specifically add that to that list too. --CooleyBoy10 (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Finally, the rule page should be organized in sections with similar rules, for example group all account rules into one section, all article rules into one section, and so on. ifyoudarethenpizzait aka Compooper (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm all for this.  Logohub   (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "One Account Only" Instead of this, I would suggest modifying the policy so that A. Users are required to disclose alternative accounts, as there are several reasons to allow them (see this page for examples), and B. block users who actively abuse them. Using an alt account isn't always abusive. On the flipside, you could also make it so only autoconfirmed/autopatrolled users can use alternative accounts. Blad (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)