User blog comment:Gensui Hime/Kancolle Wikia Policy Draft/@comment-25490263-20150130090833/@comment-1820055-20150201032650

General Artworks and other media should have source and/or credits We really should follow this, but during the time I posted these rules on the General Discussion page, I'm still not an admin and had no power over people's posts. I suggest to enforce this - a reason why we're creating the policy page is not to look back what was wrong, but to determine what should be done. I think linking is also fine and do not need names of artists as long as there is a link.
 * Most people do not follow this, where it be from the anime, pixiv & twitter artists, & so forth. This discounts simply linking.

Do not make this a General Discussion for another topic/game That was under the "Off-topic Discussions are allowed but keep it minimum" bullet, which means it is tolerated to a certain level. Even I, do some DMM Game plugs once in a while.
 * People do it all the time.

My original idea when I wrote that specific rule back then, is to not have, 5 to 10 separate ShiroPro or Kanpani threads. Back then, it was a time DMM games popup like mushrooms and each of their is wikis not yet popular, so people may use this as a Q&A for other games. It was a proactive call to moderate discussions. It even applies even up to now.

Ownership ''Users do not own the pages and/or files they edit. Do not undo edits made by other users just because you "disagree" with them. If you have complaints about an edit, please discuss it with the community before making any drastic changes.'' This can be seen on what we do in Arteria's Anime projects, and Fuji's projects. We comment, we discuss, before re-editing. Never undo, rollback, revamp - without the notice of the original editor. The contents of the pages we create maybe objective, but the "approach" or "execution" is a subjective concept decided by editors. We may have different tastes, thus may disagree sometimes, but never a quick-undo. (Do not mistake this with vandals, undos and rollbacks apply to them)
 * This will require clarification in regards to what constitutes 'disagree'. Examples include alternate translations or extra personality to a page via trivia, notes, & such. In general, many pages contain content that requires a judgement call, especially when it involves translations.

Comments ''Hate comments will be removed, depending on its usage. (e.g. if it's constructive it might stay).'' I think I've seen this line before, remind me? Tho I'm not sure we can call hate comments constructive, that's why we call it hate comments. Constructive ones are what we call criticism, not hate. Though this is just my opinion.
 * How does this even work? Is there going to be guidance as to the amount of leeway afforded to this?

Spoilers There may need to be a patrol in the Anime page comments during the three-days. Currently, there's a still a few that ignore the double notices & Zel-melon can only redirect them by commenting. ehem* AF ~cough cough

Deleting ''Useless redirects, especially when the redirect is subjective. Redirects for common misspellings and typos, however, may be acceptable.'' We can reference the old Suggestion discussion as it was responded to by CDRW
 * Does this include nicknames? And how many can be allotted to translation variations? For instances on the former, Bucky, Airport, Hinata, Sushi, Warawa, & four variations of なのです. Even though the Glossary mentions a few of them, should they really be acceptable redirects? For example on the latter, six-ish for Ryuujou, four for Jun'you, three for Shouhou, & three for Souryuu.

Wizongod I would like to add on that with original research, one should not create a page about it, but should instead create a blogpost about it as a number of members have done, and then link it from the relevant page saying "here is SOME evidence that suggests that this MAY be so", or that "this is suspected due to this".

Research is important to the game since the game mechanics can only be uncovered that way, so we should not discourage the use of it, but this isn't a technical wiki so we should not have pages on the actual research.

Essentially: Pages on game mechanics backed up by links to blogposts of (original) research. I support Wizongod's statements

AF Most situation feels like we have to judge it and it can be hard as we also have our opinions what is ok and not ok, it would be a bit ridiculous that we would need to have a conference for everything, that would be to much for us, so there is a line where we need to communicate together and where we have to act by ourself. Just going to make it clear, this is my opinion alone so more opinion from other admins would be nice.

All this time we have been judging things situation-based and survived, though it won't be harmful to have these policies on existing concerns. We can at least record what we're decided on so far on what to do to these situations in case something arises, either a troublemaker or a logical contributors who are against our current ways - by then we'll be ready to answer them on how and WHY we act.

Notes Though honestly, the root of all this, my suggestion on Wiki Navigation, my purpose is just for formality...