Forum:Decoupling Help from Community Central

Opening Post
I think this proposal is relatively obvious in its basic principle. If we maintain our own Help pages we allow for more specialized advice for editors/users than what they would get from Community Central, and it's not like we can't link to the CC Help pages within these pages. For instance, compare our version of Editing with CC's.

Some level of admin action will need to be undertaken immediately to try to decouple the two, as well as to try to save some of the pages that are lost, if possible. (For instance, T:FAITH seems to just be gone. User:Najawin/Assume good faith redirects to a blank page, and while these redirects on User:Najawin/Sandbox 6 will get you to the pages that are largely inaccessible, you can't view the edit history or edit them as a regular user. Trying to do so sends you to CC.) After that, there might need to be a project to update them, as some of them are quite old, but that's secondary to actually recovering what's been deleted. If y'all like, we can also use this thread to discuss some rewrites for various help pages that have been neglected over the years or can't be recovered. Najawin ☎  02:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Also, as a note to admins: The notice that exists when you make a new post, the little drop down in the editor from the triangle with the exclamation point, it still says "You're also posting to a spoiler-free area. Please avoid posting information about the narrative of any unreleased story — even if that information has appeared in an official press release, trailer or clip." Should probably be tweaked. Najawin ☎  02:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I support this proposal. As a new user, I found it really hard to work out stuff, infoboxes in particular. Having wiki-specific, detailed, factual help pages would be massively helpful. Aquanafrahudy ☎  07:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I support the general idea of reviving our own help pages. One project I have on my long-term to-do list is to create some form of tutorial series on the technical aspects of wiki editing, like template creation. While not exactly the same as what you're proposing here, I felt that it was similar enough to bring up: anything that helps us gain new editors by making it easier for them to learn is good. As an admin, I also cannot view the edit history of our old, CC-redirecting, help pages in the normal way either. However, what I can do is use Special:MergeHistory to merge the edit history of these lost pages into some other page which then lets you view them. As a test, I did this on T:FAITH and recovered the edit history to User:Bongolium500/T:FAITH. I can do this for other pages on request. Examining the edit history shows that there never actually was anything there. We will probably need to create a lot of these pages from scratch. Bongo50   ☎  18:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a great idea, but yeah, the "from scratch" part will be a lot of effort. Seems like something to add to the to-do list, so to speak, while keeping the Community Central redirects in the meantime. – n8 (☎) 21:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable. Perhaps as an ongoing project we either keep this thread open and keep adding sections where we discuss specific Help pages or open up a Help page to rewrite every 2-4 weeks. Or just play it by ear. Najawin ☎  21:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I like this idea. Bongo50   ☎  18:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, if we're doing this, should we just start on rewriting T:FAITH? It's one we tend to reference a fair bit. Najawin ☎  07:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * That seems like a good place to start. Bongo50   ☎  16:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I support this, tbh I'm still a little annoyed that all those help pages got nuked. Over the years there was a lot of effort put into making everything as helpful as it could be (I know we missed the mark a lot of the time however). I think given our unique take on things there needs to be specific to this wiki help pages. --Tangerineduel / talk 06:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

T:FAITH Rewrite
(Feel free to comment or even edit as you see fit, this is a work in progress and fully collaborative.)

This wiki, like most others, is a community based, collaborative enterprise. As such, it's imperative to trust that others have the best interests of the project in mind, no matter what disagreements result. This is even a Fandom level guideline. But there are some specific nuances appropriate to our individual wiki that make our guidance slightly different than the general one.

First and foremost, we're a large wiki, and an old one. We have over 100k pages as of writing, and are one of the first 100 Fandom wikis, created in early 2004. We have a whole host of operating procedures that apply to formatting pages or working with infoboxes or what have you that were decided through informal discussion at some point, or even just tradition. These are considered policy until a discussion changes them, but because of this it's very easy for older users to forget that people might not be aware of these procedures, or for newer users to think that people are making up rules. Please be mindful of the fact that this particular subject can easily cause tension, and that everyone involved is making decisions that seem rational from their perspective.

Secondly, we have a very robust Forum System, as people can change our policies through discussion. But as a result of this, discussion can often get heated, as conflicting personalities, ideological differences, or even just bad days come to a head. It's important in discussions to attack the point, not the person, and to assume that others are using the Forum System in good faith as well. If someone says that you misunderstood their comment, believe them. Extend to other people's comments, and to comments in our Archives, when reading them. Often confrontation can be defused by polite comments or taking a short break.

Thirdly, try to assume that other people are following this principle to the best of their ability. You may gently remind someone of it if the situation has clearly gotten heated, but just as you should assume others are acting in good faith, you should interpret comments other people make in such a way that they are assuming you are acting in good faith as well whenever possible.

Fourthly, don't attack administrators or bureaucrats for giving you an answer you don't like. You may politely disagree and explain why, but at the end of the day try to understand that they're doing the best they can. This is a hard job that takes up a lot of their time, and none of them get paid for it.

Finally, if you repeatedly try to assume good faith in multiple interactions with an individual and continuously are unable to do so - if they keep acting in ways where it's impossible to for you to engage with them constructively, disengage and bring the matter up with an Admin. Again, it's appropriate to gently remind someone of our collective responsibility to behave in a good faith manner and to assume others are acting in good faith - failing this happens to the best of us, but it's not your job to confront someone when you believe they are acting with intentional malice. Let admins make this determination and do your best to focus on other areas where you can be constructive in the meantime.


 * I would change "all" to "most" in the first sentance and I definetly would include something about talking to an admin at the end. Good otherwise Bongo50   ☎  19:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The 30-day mark of this thread has passed, but after reviewing it, I find that it's worth extending it. The basic proposal passes, but there is the probably-wise beginnings of using this thread to plan out the actual implementation, and I would see it expand, if possible; it seems more efficient than spreading out across talk pages. See you all in 30 days for another review. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)