Kerbal Space Program Wiki talk:Discussions/Fiction
Eligibility
To avoid sock puppetry I added a section of who is allowed to vote. I guess with accounts created prior to “today” everybody should be fine (so supporter of one section don't create many accounts now). But to give at least new accounts a chance I added the condition for them to do at least non-fictional edits in two different articles. Is that fine with you? Especially that “non-fictional edit” might be to fuzzy. — xZise [talk] 11:06, 16 January 2014 (CST)
I generally think that such fiction should be placed on subpages of user talk pages, with only an index of such pages somewhere on the main Wiki. We may even want to make a User/Fan_Works official designation for the sections, and create a category designation so users can get things on the major index without editing it. Minor fiction in the screenshots are OK, for instance names of user designed rockets and stations. However, it is designated that such descriptions should be the responsibility of the authors, and should not extend beyond basic framing of how the screenshot is relevant to said page. This is a good compromise, and compromises really help out. --Ruedii (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2014 (CST)
- Of course “fiction” like naming stations or rockets should be fine. But recently some users wrote fictional stuff, and I was unsure if we should keep it or not. I mean in Talk:Crew the mood was more contra-fictional but that might be biased as pro-fictional hadn't a problem with it they wouldn't notice the discussion on the talk page. That's why I created this here to have at least a centralised discussion or even better at some point a “rule” to ensure everybody if that's what they are doing is accepted or not. — xZise [talk] 04:18, 17 January 2014 (CST)
I generally think that fiction should b allowed SO LONG AS YOU MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT'S FICTION, i.e. put the {{fiction}} thing at the top of the page, and quite possibly put a note at the bottom that's highlighted. Also, you should not be able to link to a section within a fictitious page as it can mislead you into thinking fiction is fact. Basically, I think that it should be allowed so long as the author makes it obvious that it's fiction. - Joseph256 (talk) 3:40, 3 Februry 2014 (GMT)
- That's why here is this poll, because I generally think that fiction shouldn't be allowed. And unfortunately linking to a subsection cannot be disabled and sometimes this isn't helpful either. I'm by the way thinking how to solve that list with your contra contra arguments because currently that is kind of messy and not really useful. For example the current system doesn't allow a “debate” like thing (listing an argument, then listing a contra argument, then a contra contra argument and so forth), but maybe it doesn't need to. I'll try to make it more structured. — xZise [talk] 13:18, 3 February 2014 (CST)
Reworked the arguments
Hi I reworked how the arguments are presented. I hope that I didn't miss anything important and deleted it. I'll just list some things to explain the result:
- Instead of heaving a section for each contra argument (currently) I moved them a level up. So both sides can present their arguments more detailed on the same topic.
- I also added the proposal for a separate section. Now I don't know how this option can be voted. With having three options might be a problem to determine the superiority.
- Removed the sentence that basically repeated that there are other locations.
- Also I completely removed the argument that most readers start from the beginning, because for one nobody without a poll can know if that is true. I for example usually start reading the section and if I want to know more I also read the hole article. And of course if you click on a link and it is doesn't place you at a section it won't count for the argument which only covers links to sections.
- I mostly copied the arguments about the authorship and that the KSP wiki supplies some sort of common ground.
