FANDOM


  • Eck, if you're going to remove the quotes section from Void's page then you should go through and delete the quotes section from every page that has one. I can do that if you'd like.

    Communication is an issue here. If a quotes section was NOT going to be featured on articles, then you should have informed Dalek Ubik earlier. He left a message on the General Discussion Board in August (titled "Quote section") asking if a quote section could be added to the articles, and based on your reply I think you misunderstood his message. He asked if a quotes section could be added to articles and you responded explicitly referring to the singular quote at the top of the article, as if he was asking if he could add introductory quotes to the rest of the character articles, when he wasn't. You did not say "no, quotes sections are not a part of the page template, so don't add any" or, if the page template didn't exist at that point (I think it didn't, though I might be wrong, sorry), "no, i'm planning on adding a guide for the page layout soon and I don't see a quote section being featured in there, sorry." As a result, Dalek Ubik has spent the past 2 months combing through the official translation and adding key quotes to articles for nothing, and this could have been avoided if you had said an explicit "yes" or "no" in regards to whether or not a quotes section could be added to character articles when he asked you back in August, which is a regrettable situation.

    We should make things clear to users right from the outset so that they don't go through any wasted effort with the articles, like with what has happened now and previously with Recludam reorganising Griffith's page (which Besty gave him permission to do after I reverted his organisational changes on Skull Knight's page and we had a civil discussion about the matter on my wall) and Judeau's page. (Which was done without permission, but since there were no objections from you at the time to the changes on Griffith's page, Recludam couldn't have possibly known that what he was doing was not approved and should have been reverted.) What should have happened there is a follow up discussion after Rec had finished revamping Griffith's page, and I should have been the one to initiate that since only me and Besty seemed to have communicated with Rec about it beforehand - ideally, though, every admin should have involved themselves in the discussion right from the outset on my wall, including yourself, and Rec would have avoided making layout changes to Griffith's page entirely if you had said "no", as was your stance on the matter,  resulting in no wasted effort. The edit war that that situation devolved into was also really unfortunate and resulted in Rec (seemingly) leaving the wikia, which sucks. It was also completely preventable, which is why I bring it up now, since this is a similar instance of  a communication breakdown leading to wasted effort, but with much less drama involved. (thank goodness)

    Anyway, sorry for making you read all that Eck. Thanks for working hard on the page template and everything. We just need to be clear to users before they expend effort. It saves a lot of potential frustration for everybody.

      Loading editor
    • I did make it perfectly clear to him, based on the way he presented his question. Based on Betsy's reply as well, I believe he also thought the same thing I did. Since I was adding introductory quotes at the time and not sections when he asked this, you can probably see why there was a misunderstanding.

      It is regrettable when work is wasted, I should know. But I can't help it when something isn't made explicitly clear. As for Griffith, I can't involve myself if I don't know the discussion is taking place. In that case, any work lost is saved and can be tracked down again through the history section. I've had to cut and paste pieces of things from there before. Edit wars happen from time to time, Rec is still active on the JJBA Wiki, so maybe he'll come back. I do hope that everyone by now has familiarized themselves with the new Layout rules.

      But anyway, I hope you don't think I'm being dismissive of this matter. I take everything into account and for future instances, we all need to be more thorough in how we explain things. His work won't be entirely wasted though, I'll incorporate quotes he made sections for as intro quotes for pages that don't have one. :)

        Loading editor
    • Eckilsax wrote:
      I did make it perfectly clear to him, based on the way he presented his question.


      But I can't help it when something isn't made explicitly clear.


      Yes you can. If you weren't sure what exactly he was referring to because it wasn't made explicitly clear, then asking for clarification is always an option. "Hey, when you say "quotes section", what are you proposing to add specifically? Are you talking about the quotes at the top of the articles?" Communication issue solved.

      And even then, though you had no idea that he was asking about adding separate sections, that should have become abundantly clear when he added the first one to Zodd's article less than two weeks after communicating with you. Those quotes sections were there for 2 months. Did you not know that they had been added over that time? I knew they were there, and SRicher knew they were there, because we made amendments to them. It's not good that it took you over two months to see this and start removing them, because in that time, Ubik had added quotes to several articles. Going to the recent wiki history and checking edits from users you have recently given permission to do/not do something, just to make sure that everything is okay, might work. But I doubt you have time to do that, because unlike me, you have commitments to other wikias, which I completely understand.

      My proposal to stop things like this happening in the future: I could message you on your wall and direct your attention to an article when a user has followed through with whatever they have communicated with you about for the first time, to see if what they're doing is alright with you. Would that be okay?

      Eckilsax wrote:
      As for Griffith, I can't involve myself if I don't know the discussion is taking place.


      Hmm. Then you weren't active on the wikia when that took place? I'll post on your wall when discussions like that happen in the future. Again, though, Rec was reorganising Griffith's and Judeau's pages for at least a month. You didn't involve yourself in that situation until Frac reverted Rec's organisational pages without consulting - probably because he didn't know that Besty had permitted that. Those organisational changes had been there for a long time. Rec was on the recent wikia activity for ages, and at any point during that time you could have contacted him about his changes. Were you not so active in September? (Again, I understand if so.)

      Eckilsax wrote:
      Edit wars happen from time to time


      Right. And in that case it shouldn't have happened, since it was a direct result of lack of communication.  It was completely preventable and you and I were not good enough in that situation. Saying that they just "happen from time to time" and leaving it at that completely waives the admins of all responsibility in trying to prevent them from occuring in the first place.

      Eckilsax wrote:
      But anyway, I hope you don't think I'm being dismissive of this matter. I take everything into account and for future instances, we all need to be more thorough in how we explain things. His work won't be entirely wasted though, I'll incorporate quotes he made sections for as intro quotes for pages that don't have one. :)


      Aside from your comment about the edit wars, I don't think you were dismissive. I've removed all the quotes sections from the pages he got around to doing. It isn't just a case of being more thorough when we explain things, but asking for clarification from users if what they propose isn't immediately clear, and being involved more in discussions, as well. Hopefully something like this won't happen again in the future. I also don't wish to come across as angry - my typing style can be quite blunt.

        Loading editor
    • I think we should have a proper discussion about the quotes section before you just start removing them in mass. Also eck why do you keep on making unilateral decisions, communication is key to a wikia when will this finally sink in? 

        Loading editor
    • I can put them back easily if needed/ if a discussion ends up with us reinstating them. We can revert the pages and i've got everything copy-pasted on my computer anyhow, so reverting won't be necessary if any of the pages are edited after the quotes were removed. That way we won't need to faff about like with what happened with Griffith's pages. I just removed them for the sake of consistency - I like the idea of a quotes section.

      Also, about Eck's comment on Rec still being active on the JJBA wiki - is he really? I've checked the wikia and I can find no records of Rec ever editing there. 

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.