This changing shit is fucked up bullshit roll it back and keep doing it always
What's on your mind?
For those of you are familiar with the struggles that this wiki has faced with regards to fan theories, I'd like to call to attention one of core policies that Wikipedia operates by:
- The basic idea is that any material presented as a fact must be explicitly stated by a reliable source. It explicitly forbids "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". This means that you can't read into the intentions of the source materials, derive your conclusions, and present them as fact. IMO, the majority of disputed content on this wiki fails to meet this standard.
- When considering the disputed AlexShepherd contributions through the lens of "no original research", the arguments fall apart completely. As such, I think adopting this standard would be a good precaution towards preventing a reoccurence of this editing style in the future, whether it be due to Alex's bans being allowed to expire again or an editor with a similar viewpoint stepping in to fill the gap.
- We would not be the first Fandom site to incorporate "no original research" as a content policy. A quick search not only confirms this, but among the most prominent Fandom sites to adopt this stance is the Attribution policy of the Star Wars wiki .
It should be noted that most content policies do not soley rely upon "no original research". Wikipedia's three pillars are no original research, neutral point of view , and verifiability . While I'm leading into this discussion with the topic of no original research, it's probably worth visiting the topic of our content policy as a whole with regard to other wiki sites.
Here's how the infamous Chu-Chu Beastiality Example would look through the Wikipedia method:
- Verifiability: The fact that Chu-Chu has a romantic interest in Fei is directly supported by the in-game material. Despite this, there is no sexual context to the interactions. No direct citation of this fact is available.
- Neutral point of view: Does not strongly apply. Dissention is mostly related to whether the game materials actually support the conclusion.
- Original research: Fails, big time. It takes the nature of the desired relationship a step further than what the cited material supports. It requires that the supporter of the opinion put forth the idea that it was "implied" without being explicitly stated.
Am I making any sense here? Do others feel that policies like these would have helped to drive a lot of structure around why "fan theory" edits that the community has struggled with are unwanted? I wanted to shop this idea around a little bit and see if there was interest in formally adopting similar strategies.
Hi folks. I want to steer some attention over to a discussion on the Xenoblade wiki regarding how to handle content regarding the unofficial tie-ins between Xenoblade and Xenosaga.
While we could have a similar discussion over here, I think we would achieve the best results if our users engaged in the existing discussion over on the Xenoblade wiki and worked toward adopting a shared strategy. Some of the discussion also touches on the best cases for linking to this wiki when discussing topics, so overall it's a good set of topics for promoting the health of both wikis.
Someone uploaded a full playthrough of PP.
I dunno if there's something more that can be added to the wiki and if someone in here understands Japanese, but just thought I'd share. :)
I'm sure everyone already knows this, but GameShark breaks the storyline and allows Infinity Mode Attacks from the beginning of the game :)
That being said, Heimdal's Infinite Attacks look like he's fighting a ghost :D
I'm a little concerned at the unprofessional approach in the changes to Episode 3 reception section on its page. It goes into very harsh graphic descriptions focusing excessively on the "over sexualization" argument. Like a LOT. It also needs a glitch list badly. As well as solutions to glitches if any. I'm kinda disappointed in some of the changes really. I've thought higher of this community in the past. But it seems the bar has been lowered sad to see it. I've seen the prior description and it was adequate enough. We all feel they over sexualized Kosmos and really it was the devs fault by placing a fetishist artist in charge of design. I dont fault Choco intirely hes a very well rounded artist but...he's a lolicon. May I note that Momo's designs in Ep3 are tame compared to her constant blatant underwear shots and epically short uniform made by Tanaka. So he wasn't much classier. Also theories and misconceptions about plot should really not be in the article! Theory is theory not canon only canon belongs. Needless to say I think things need to be tidied back up. It only makes the wikia community for this series look bad.
If you're reading this, new user, we need your help!
This wiki has almost a thousand articles now, and we suspect a user to have inserted significant amounts of speculation and personal views (religious, political, sexual, racial and other) into those articles. It is a daunting task to say the least to attempt to clean up all of those articles, but I'm, at least, going through all of the Xenogears articles one by one trying to do just that.
If you have sufficient knowledge of Xenosaga or Xenogears, please, start looking around! And if you spot anything that seems out of place or that could really use a citation before being on a page, mark it or edit it out, or post about it on these forums.
Let's get this wiki back on track!
Edit: This thread is no longer needed as Shockstorm has returned and is actively looking into hiring an additional admin. I'm leaving this thread for the sake of documentation.
Do I have your attention now? Good.
This wiki is currently on a death spiral due to the following factors:
- No active admins. Shockstorm is the admin who was most recently active, and he has vanished for over a year. This directly contributes to the largest problems this wiki has, as there is no one who can act as an arbitrator between parties when content is in question.
- There have been attempts to give fans a way to provide speculation and personal theories in a way which does not present them as fact, but without an admin to rule on disputes they are effectively dead in the water.
- The Wikia adoption process is typically used to resolve the problem of inactive admins. It encourages the promotion of a highly active user to admin status.
- Our most active user is a controversial one who has been banned from several other Wikia communities. In my opinion: AlexSheperd holds strong opinions about the subject matter of this wiki which can frequently diverge from those of others, and rolls back attempts by others to excise his contributions (in part or full). This is frequently accompanied by an assertion that material should not be removed without a discussion, which can be problematic due a track record for both parties being unyielding in these debates. In the absence of a third party with executive authority, the effective end result is that his editing viewpoint prevails. In my opinion this is not fair to the larger community, and in the worst case might be contributing to some of our problems with keeping users active.
- Wikia's administrators cannot arbitrate in these matters as they are not subject material experts, nor can they be appealed upon to reinstate bans previously executed by absent admins. (prior art cannot be cited in these matters)
We need an active administrator. Given the controvery of voting in our most active user through the community adoption process, I see two alternative solutions:
- We internally elect a different user of this wiki to be an administrator and reference the outcome of this poll to Wikia's staff in support of the decision. I see this as being somewhat problematic due the overall inactivity of the wiki, and it being difficult to establish someone other than AlexSheperd as an active contributor. Such a vote would probably boil down to who makes the best case for their candidacy, but any past history of contributions to this wiki should be considered to strongly weigh in that candidate's favor.
- A reputable third party from another Wikia community volunteers their services as an interim moderator. This is the best solution if a clear majority on who to elect cannot be reached.
Format of this thread
This is not an election thread. We need candidates before we can have one of those. My intent is to create another thread two weeks from now for the vote proper, allowing others a chance to select candidates that have been identified in this thread.
- Nominate yourself or someone else as an admin candidate for this wiki.
- Provide any qualifications that you feel you are relevent towards this individual's candidacy. Experience operating other wikis is a plus, as are links to those wikis so that others can make a more educated decision.
- Reply directly to other posts in this thread. This wiki has a pretty clearly demonstratable track record for getting into edit wars over unyielding viewpoints. We really don't need this to be another one of these since the goal is to elect an administrator who will manage those problems in the future. I can't stop you from doing so, but I'm going to put it out there that this thread is what Wikia admins are going to see when using the outcome of these discussions to discern the community intent.
- Campaign against others. This goes hand in hand with the last rule. If you truly feel strongly against a particular candidate, you're welcome to create a thread of your own. Try to keep it to one thread per candidate for everyone's sanity.
- Decide that it's okay to break the last two rules if someone else already has. You stand a much better chance of getting a desireable outcome if this thread is kept in a clean format and easy to follow.
Please do not assume that I am an unbiased party in these matters. I'm not, as I have openly participated in a previous vote to ban AlexSheperd from the wiki, and have less openly petitioned Wikia for a reinstatement of his ban last year. I ask that you look at the revision history of this wiki and make your own decisions on its future. My intent is to drive this matter to a resolution. Whatever it is, I don't care, I just know that we need one.
Well, I finished Episode II in May and I loved it. The internet says it was criticized badly, and I was somewhat concerned according to the reviews on Amazon. But it actually turned out better than I expected! Anyway, Amazon.com doesn't seem to have the American version of Episode III: Also Sprach Zarathrustra. Any leads on how else I might acquire it? Checked the resale shops - stores like that haven't seemed to have it around my area.
At the end of this thread on the Xenoblade forums, Alpha Baymax's reply made me begin to wonder if there's a way to possibly present theories and essays inspired directly by Xenogears and Xenosaga, but in clearly marked areas. I don't know if any other wikias have tried this, but since Xenosaga and Xenogears are old enough that they've amassed some great food for thought. However, I don't know how other wikias have tackled this, if at all. It may be a good way to allow people to present their views.
I've placed a section on the Xenogears main article for AlexShepherd's thoughts, but I'm not quite satisfied with my wording on the title, as well as where in the article it should be. Maybe further up by plot and themes, with combat and mechs being further down? Should it be on the page at all, or linked to a separate page?
Hey, I was on a stream and a question poped up, What is better FFVII Or Xenogears? You Decide
In light of AlexShepherd's recent behavior and subsequent global block from Wikia (resulting from his actions here, also see this and this), I'm proposing to that his user rights be removed on this wiki. Considering the bizarre and incredibly inappropriate way he abused his admins rights on the Silent Hill Wiki (and to a lesser extent on this wiki, he simply should not be in any position involving the use of admin/bureaucrat tools.
Please post your vote (support, oppose, or neutral) and comments below.