Recent Forum Posts
From categories:
page »

Regarding the inclusion of tale series for tag considerations, I think it might be best to have a conversation regarding them separately. Until now, the creation of new tale series tags has remained defunct for years, and any "tale series" that have received tags in recent memory have been pitched as canons. As UE said on the site mirror to this thread, actual tale series are usually written by a single author or a closed group of authors, and are usually distinct from canons.

Personally, I think it might be valuable to consider reintroducing tale series tags, albeit with substantially different requirements. It would not only assist in navigating individual tale series, but allow for a slight boost in tale exposure (although exposure is not the direct purpose of tags). I am not on tech team, and am only JS, so it's not my place to make a direct pitch for this, but I think it is at least worth bringing forward for potential discussion.

I can swallow pills without water.

I agree here. Tags are almost entirely for navigational/organizational purposes, and I don't see why codifying a tag would be any threat to author autonomy or author vision. Tags are primarily a technical tool more than anything, and as such are neither under the explicit purview of their respective authors nor are threats to the content, tone, or state of a creative work. Proposing a tag against the original author's wishes is a lot different than, say, posting a hub for said content; the latter is a creative work that can very much infringe on an author's vision or freedom for the work they've made (this is in no way calling for action on permissions for hub creations or anything like that; I simply bring this up for the sake of comparison). I can understand the consideration of an author's wishes in this regard, to some degree (such as requesting that a tag have more relevant content before it is pitched), but at the end of the day tags are not part of the actual creative process; they are a staff tool, and should be treated as such.

I can swallow pills without water.

We currently allow vetos out of respect to author autonomy. The 20x5 standard was suggested as a compromise between potentially allowing tags and still allowing some measure of disallowing them, but changing that section to be something along the following would be easily done.

Section 4: Defining Authorial Autonomy

We have previously allowed authors to veto any tags that they had a major say in the creation of. However, this is unpopular and we currently believe that this runs counter to the ideas of the tag system as a whole. Going forward, we will end this practice as such. Authors will be allowed to object to a tag, and their objections will be considered, but will not be taken as absolute and totally block a tag from creation.

I would appreciate further discussion on this point.

can I get some nice "no signatures on my forum"
sigma-9 css machine broke
understandable have a nice day

(note: am JS)

I'm inclined to agree here. Author request should be taken into account when deciding whether to approve a tag, especially if the author in question is a major contributor, but IMO it should never be a blocker. Tags which can be requested are intended as a reader tool and aren't really a thing where author autonomy is relevant.

Posted with permission from ZynZyn

GardenRedGardenRed (Account age 15 days, Joined 14 days ago) recently posted 3 threads to Idea Critique, the first thread was posted on 27th of September and the last two were posted today 3 hours apart.

All three had to be edited by staff, as the first one included the entire draft violating Draft Forum Guidelines, and needed to have its summary trimmed as well.

The second and third ones were locked for being duplicates, and were staff-edited as well to collapse them due to length, as well as violating the idea forum template.

The threads can be found here, here, and here

Non-Disc Record - GardenRed by MomBunMomBun, 28 Sep 2021 20:48

this is almost all good. HOWEVER

However, this is unpopular and we currently believe that this runs counter to the ideas of the tag system as a whole.

entirely accurate assessment here

Therefore, we are proposing a system in which authors are allowed a veto, but the Tech Team can override the veto if the tag reaches a 20 by 5 standard

weird solution to this problem though. this is better than having a single author be able to overturn a tag request, but the better alternative is not allowing them to at all. tags aren't page content and it's somewhat unreasonable to consider page tags a threat to author autonomy. i say cut this entirely and don't let authors veto tags - you can't have an accurate tagging system if people can simply choose to not have certain tags on their pages

Welcome to the fourth iteration of the tag request thread. For explanations and information on each tag category, please see here. When proposing a new tag, consider skimming the previous tag suggestion threads to see if it has been submitted before.

Please use the following template for tag approvals. Stating what category the tag you are requesting falls under is mandatory. Do not use a collapsible in your post.

**Tag Request:** //TAG-NAME-HERE//

**Tag Type:** //TAG-CATEGORY//

**Description:** DESCRIPTION HERE.


# [[[first-article]]] by [[*user AUTHOR]] (if author is applicable)

X articles by Y authors.

After you make a post, the Technical Team will review your tag and either approve or reject it. Review of tags happens in the #tagging room of the Tech Team Discord Server, which is publicly viewable. Contact a member of the Tech Team if you would like an invite to the server, or if you would like to read excerpted logs of your approval/rejection. If your tag is rejected, a member of the Tech Team will reply to your request to explain why the tag was denied. You are allowed to appeal a denial once, if you disagree with the Team's decision.

For the Groups of Interest, Canon, Characters, Tale Series and Locations categories: Authors are allowed to veto the proposal of a tag if they are the originator of the concept. This veto may be overriden by the Technical Team if the tag would be applied to 20 articles. Authors are allowed to veto the inclusion of one or more of their articles from a tag proposal, reducing article and author counts. These rules do not apply to any other category.

can I get some nice "no signatures on my forum"
sigma-9 css machine broke
understandable have a nice day

This thread has been mirrored on the mainsite here:

This is a proposal to revisit certain elements of the tag approval process, including tag standards and the general process of approval. This is a follow-up thread to an earlier thread posted by RounderhouseRounderhouse, although adjusted to account for input the Tech Team received from the Community and to cover a few other areas of the tag approval process.

This proposal contains the following four points of note:

  1. Change the process of approval to be more codified and clear for both staff and users who are applying for tags.
  2. Add an exception to the rules surrounding collapsibles long posts in the forums for the tag approval thread specifically.
  3. Codify and set article/author minimum and recommended counts for every tag category, as well as define if each category can be requested.
  4. Define the limits of authorial autonomy when it comes to tags.

Section 1: Codifying the Approval Process

This section, technically speaking, does not require any staff approval and could be put forward by the Tech Team as is. However, we are bringing this up at this time to better explain the process, and make things clearer.

The first change is that the two currently existing tag request threads — the Character Tag Thread and the general Tag Thread — will be condensed into one, singular tag thread. Character tags will no longer have a different approval process under this proposal, and will therefore not need a separate thread.

The second change is who can approve a tag. Currently, the general Tag Thread requires an Operational Staffer on the Tech Team, while the Character Tag Thread requires a Junior Staffer from Tech. This will be changed to discussion by the Team, rather than singular staff members. We currently already use this as the standard for tag approvals, with them discussed by the team as a whole, rather than approved by individual staffers. This sets this expectation in place, and requires us to discuss them rather than approve on an individual basis.

Thirdly, the acting staff member will be required to post a reasoning for why the tag was rejected as a reply to initial request. We currently have been doing this for years, but this has not been officially codified and we are not required to do so. In the interest of transparency, we will be making this a requirement.

Section 2: Collapsibles and Long Posts

This section asks to make tag requests exempt from the rules requiring long forum posts to be placed in a collapsible. The Tech Team uses collapsibles in the thread as a visual short hand to help us organize the thread to see if we have approved or rejected a tag — we will be asking users to not put their tag requests in a collapsible. However, there is currently a rule that will mandate they do so — so we need this rule changed in order to actually ask users to not put tag requests in collapsibles.

Section 3: Article/Author Minimums and Recommendations

This section goes over how many articles and how many authors are required for each tag approval. Many of these tag categories do not have previously defined minimums — these categories have been marked with a ☆ to indicate the minimum for them is brand new. More information on each category can be found here. None of the changes in this section will be applied retroactively.

Regarding the difference between minimums and recommendations, and when they will be used: We will generally tend to use the minimum for new and rising content, and the recommendation for older and stagnant articles. We will always prefer the recommendation and users giving articles that meet the higher benchmark. This is under the idea that new and rising content will eventually meet the recommendation, and a tag approval will help it reach that point. For older articles, it is less likely that they will get more additional articles. The Tech Team reserves the ability to deny tag that meet minimums but do not pass the recommendations for concerns of notability.

As an example: when the vikander-kneed tag was requested, it met the minimums but not requirements. All of the articles for it were under three months old. It then later went on to easily meet the requirements, and was likely helped by the tag. In contrast, a tag for an the author avatar of an old, retired staff member that happens to have 5x3 is unlikely to ever get another article that would qualify for the tag — would likely be rejected for low notability.

In cases where there is no author requirement, the article count is high enough that it is unlikely that one or two authors alone would generate such a volume of a single, new type of content. Therefore, if a single author does meet such a requirement, we can feel comfortable to recognizing that.

  • ☆ Top Level, Major Page and Content Markers
    • No author or article requirement.
    • Additional Information.
      • Users are allowed to request such tags, but such tags must be useful.
      • This tag will be approved on a case-by-case basis and more stringent than other tags.
      • It is not anticipated that any tags in either of these categories will ever be proposed, but users will be allowed to propose them, if they think that there is an applicable tag.
  • ☆ Object Class
    • 25 articles minimum.
    • No author requirement.
    • No additional recommendation.
    • Additional Information.
      • -J articles are not counted against the 25 article minimum.
      • The previous standard we had use for this was the same as the attribute tag, however, upon consideration this was deemed somewhat low. Object Class tags are paired with what we officially recognize as an Object Class and has many additional benefits beyond being a regular tag, such as listing the tag on all relevant guides. As such, we want to reduce how often Object Class tags are approved. This raises the Object Class minimum to a difficult but achievable goal.
  • SCP Attributes
    • 15 articles minimum.
    • No author requirement.
    • This is unchanged from current standards.
  • Groups of Interest, Tale Series, Characters, Locations:
    • 5 articles, 3 authors at minimum.
    • Recommendation of 10 articles by 5 authors.
  • GoI Format
    • Users are not allowed to request tags of this category.
    • Additional Information:
      • (This is a distinct category from Groups of Interest tags.)
      • Tags of this category are created automatically upon a GoI Format that corresponds to a GoI with a tag being created, or a tag being approved for a GoI that already has a format that was tagged _other.
      • As a note, the name of this format is slightly outdated: location and character tags can also also get a "GoI Format" tag.
  • Canon
    • 10 articles by 5 users.
    • No recommendation.
    • Additional Information:
      • Given that a tag allows a canon to be listed on the Canon Hub, this will help to limit how many new canons are added to that page. We are using a hard minimum without recommendation to help in this goal.
  • ☆ Staff Process
    • Users are not allowed to request tags of this category.
    • Additional Information:
      • This tag may be requested by staff members to assist in their duties.
      • It does not require either an article or author requirement.
  • ☆ Event
    • This section will be placed under the authority of Community Outreach, specifically the Contests Team.
      • They are to create at least new tag in this category for every contest, with the ability to create more as needed.
      • Users wanting to get a tag for an Event or Unofficial Contest should contact Community Outreach for approval, and then communicate this to Tech to actually process the new tag and add it.

Section 4: Defining Authorial Autonomy

We currently allow authors to veto tags based on content they are responsible for initially developing. This has been set as a hard limit — if the author says no, the tag is blocked. However, this is unpopular and we currently believe that this runs counter to the ideas of the tag system as a whole. Therefore, we are proposing a system in which authors are allowed a veto, but the Tech Team can override the veto if the tag reaches a 20 by 5 standard. This number shows a strong interest in the content and a clear benefit to the tag, but allows us to respect authorial autonomy.

Users are allowed to veto an inclusion an article of theirs being included in a tag request and receiving a new tag when it is an appropriate category. This reduces the article and author count of the proposal.

This is relevant for tags in the Canon, Groups of Interest, Tale Series, Characters, Locations categories. Other categories are not covered under this clause.

This discussion will run for one week. This thread is open to staff of all levels.

Below this post is the intended first post, containing the rules, for the new combined tag thread.

can I get some nice "no signatures on my forum"
sigma-9 css machine broke
understandable have a nice day

OptimisticLucioOptimisticLucio 28 Sep 2021 14:49
in discussion Staff Updates / Staff Updates » Luci-

Heya all, so for the next… month~ or so, I'm going to be mostly taking a break from wiki related stuff. I'll still be hanging around chats, maybe doing an occasional staff-related duty, but it's more than likely that I'll just vanish for days at a time without doing anything at all.

Luci- by OptimisticLucioOptimisticLucio, 28 Sep 2021 14:49

Confirming that I have joined Forum Crit JS :)

Re: Junior Staff Appointments by MomBunMomBun, 28 Sep 2021 04:14

Noting that MomBunMomBun has joined Forum Crit JS!

Re: Junior Staff Appointments by ZynZyn, 28 Sep 2021 03:58

Confirming support for a year with appeal.

Re: Disciplinary - ashburystreet by ZynZyn, 28 Sep 2021 02:47

Following discussion and bleep's post on the second page of this thread, this will not be moving to a vote at this time. The following steps will be taken to reassess and return to the proposal following the timer expiring on this thread:

1)Wait for current discussion to time out and allow everyone to say their piece

2)tally a list of viable and relevant concerns from the 05 and 04 thread that need to be addressed before policy can be implemented

3)Speak to every captain about how this would affect them, add results to step 2

4)solve step 2

5)round 2 babey

Re: Age Unraising Proposal by LimeyyLimeyy, 28 Sep 2021 00:45

User was spreading anti-vax disinformation in 19. Chat ops confirmed he was not trolling and he was summarily perma-banned after consultation between myself, Corvus, Lily, and gee, and a few others as well. User's lines are in bold and the ones specifically spreading misinformation are in red as well. I removed a bit of clutter (users that were not in the conversation joining/leaving, people doing .l and .au). Also lily states that it was a 6 month because we had not yet discussed the user's past transgressions, which was part of the consideration for upgrading to perma.

Noting that as of this time the user has not attempted to appeal this ban.

Re: Pizzacougar by Doctor FullhamDoctor Fullham, 27 Sep 2021 21:25

That page is clearly under staff purview, so we could if we wanted. In general we avoid deletions because in Wikidot they're irreversible, and I suppose I don't see what demands deletion in the case of this guide vs archival.

I will emerge from under the rock I've been living under as of late be the requisite grumpy old man voice of total dissent. I echo all of the discussion RE: this proposal being rushed, and add that (in my opinion) the policy we currently have is perfectly serviceable for both the needs of staff and our users.

I don't see a minimum age requirement as something that alienates most of our "fanbase". One must keep in mind that there are literally millions of kids who are only interested in fan games and other creations outside of the site. This is perfectly fine, but it shouldn't be assumed that even a majority of these kids have a huge interest in writing for the site, and those who do can find dedicated groups for their age. I don't really think it's up to us to curate a space for children/teenagers.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies, here, to me — eighteen covers liability and a set age gives us plausible deniability (reason for disciplinary action) if someone comes out and says "hey, guys, actually, I'm 13!" And if they are actually thirteen, are a contributor to the site, mature in chat/on the forums, and nobody ever figures out they were lying, was there really ever a problem?

page »
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License