Forum:Diablo Wiki Rules

Personally, I like not having a list of rules. Rules are too easily circumvented in many cases, resulting in arbitrary and vague rules that nobody really knows what they actually mean, including those who wrote them (by intention). Poorly defined rules that attempt to cover unforeseeable circumstances might make well-meaning people nervous that they could be breaking a rule because they don't quite understand what is or is not allowed.

Unfortunately, the time has come that the Diablo Wiki needs to have a list of rules. We do not need to repeat Fandom's Terms of Use, everyone has to follow it anyway. Our rules must include anything not already in the ToU that someone could be blocked from the Diablo Wiki for. After we have a list of rules, a link to them will be added to the welcome message and in the wiki navigation under Community.

For years, the only rule actually written down anywhere for the Diablo Wiki was the no fansite policy. We can keep this as the first "official" rule and add fan images as well. With two down, now we need to come up with some more rules. ◄► Tephra ◄► 23:03, May 8, 2020 (UTC)

I remembered another rule that is actually written down somewhere, "Do not repeatedly make useless edits to the wiki in an attempt to win more badges." So I guess we really had two rules here. ◄► Tephra ◄► 04:34, May 9, 2020 (UTC)


 * Here are the things we already enforce, but can now write down:


 * Any trivia not having a sourced link must be accompanied by words "probably", "possibly" and the like
 * Any unsourced information about the game may remain, but can be deleted at the admins' discretion
 * Trivia can be removed if at least one admin considers it too vague, too general, or having more than three possible interpretations (i.e. if a particular name can refer to more than 3 works, it's probably too generic).
 * Fan art is not accepted as illustrations, with the only exception being the artwork made by the artists who actually work(ed) for Blizzard (i.e. you can take artwork made by Aaron Gaines and insert it into articles whenever it fits the topic, even if he did not label it as official, but it's made by his hand).
 * What constitutes as fan art is up for debate in case the artwork features nothing but unmodified in-game models / textures (for example, screenshots from the model viewer). Each case is resolved individually depending on how much the image was edited and if any part of it is custom-made.
 * Screenshots and the like not taken by the editor may be added, but need to be credited or used with permission. Otherwise they will be removed on the first notice of the original author.
 * Despite all three Diablo games having a M (17+) rating that allows nudity and gore, any artwork that features nudity and extreme gore may be subject to partial censorship. What constitutes "enough nudity/blood to be censored" may be discussed for each specific case: a major rule of thumb is realism and amount of details.
 * Please try to verify the gameplay information if you can, i.e. launch the game and try out if not sure (I'm guilty of this one, so believe me, it's better to double-check just in case).
 * Cross-console differences must be labeled as such (i.e. X for PC, Y for console). Same applies to differences between versions.
 * If the information is outdated but was once notable, please use the template.
 * If the information is about something not yet released (no matter if it's already in game files, has been confirmed etc.), use the template.
 * Due to Rathma and his supposed Diablo IV appearance, we now allow adding speculation about unconfirmed content if the theory is actually shared by a considerable portion of the community, has no evidence against it, has any kind of evidence to support it, and is reasonably believable.
 * If leaving links to other games/wikis, always prioritize Wikia pages if those exist and contain relevant information (i.e. not stubs). If two or more sources are available, use the one that provides more detailed information on the subject (i.e. for World of Warcraft references, you can use either Warcraft Wikia OR Gamepedia, since some articles are more complete on the former, and some on the latter; similar rule applies, for example, to Warhammer 40000 Wikia VS Lexicanum).
 * Try to refrain from jokes/flowery speech, even on joke articles.
 * Try to avoid the second-tense (i.e. instead of "You die", it's better to write "The player character dies").
 * Try to give context for abbreviations/slang for people who may be not familiar with it, or leave links to articles on that topic.
 * To distinguish lore concepts from game terms, we generally capitalize the latter: i.e. mana is a lore concept, but Mana is an in-game class resource.
 * When describing optimal choices for skills, builds and items, try to avoid the terms like "best choice". Instead, give pro and contra for each variable, explaining why it is a good choice for the given use.
 * If describing controversial topics (for examples, historical events that may be viewed negatively by some readers, cultural references, ESPECIALLY religious ones, real-world controversies such as someone being fired from Blizzard etc), please be neutral and avoid judgmental tone and excessive details.
 * Absolutely no political stuff, only historical context is allowed. Any political information may be removed at admins' discretion as potentially controversial/trolling/debatable. A good example is adding a trivia section about a historical national leader: it's OK to mention them by name and add that they ruled the country from year X to year Y, maybe that they did/had X in their life (if relevant to the reference, for example, the character has a similar appearance), but using a word like "dictator" is definitely not needed (even and especially if it was/is true).
 * You are not allowed to add any source of personal information about people, including Blizzard workers, that is not in the Blizzard official sources and has not been stated as publicly available. This includes their real names, addresses, positions, in-game nicknames and social network accounts (if not sure, ask: while names of community managers are mostly known very well, and are not a company secret, same cannot be said about most other employees).
 * If you leave links to useful sites such as IcyVeins, you cannot use redirects, only the actual link to a well-established website that has actual information on the topic. What constitutes as a useful and well-established website can be discussed individually.
 * Links to google documents / specific charts may be added if they contain non-outdated, provable charts, for example, a table of item drop probabilities. If not sure, ask.
 * Mods, even if they are good/recognized by Blizzard, are NOT part of the main Verse, and links to those will be removed.
 * Leaving links to pictures/videos is not encouraged if you can just add the picture/video itself into the article. If you can't, does it really belong there?
 * If you need to leave an external link, try to go for well-known sources like Wikipedia or a large game magazine article first, and only if not possible, add sources that cannot be verified. (I know Wikipedia is not an academic source either, but it's generally alright).

What did I miss? Pryamus (talk) 13:23, May 9, 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, that's more than I expected. I don't think I would have enforced everything on that list, but that doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be included. I'll need to reread it a few times and consider each point before I could give a complete opinion. I'd like to get Hawki's thoughts as well. ◄► Tephra ◄►  23:49, May 9, 2020 (UTC)

This is more a reaction to Pryamus's rules. If I don't comment on one of them, assume I agree with it.


 * I think fan art can be accepted as long as it's confined to user pages or blog posts. Should specify that it isn't allowed in actual articles.


 * Not sure about the nudity thing. As stated, it's M-rated. There's very little I'd consider out of place on the wiki for that rating.


 * I disagree about prioritizing Wikia, especially since Fandom owns Gamepedia now. I'd just go for the 'better' one. Of course, what counts as 'better' may differ, so maybe this should be left to admin discretion. But at the very least, I think we should treat Gamepedia and Wikia as of equal worth, considering that the latter now owns the former.


 * Not covered, but stuff we need to clarify, is the creation of build pages (this is common for D2) and capitalization. Pryamus has touched on the Mana vs. mana thing, but so far, we've operated on the premise that:
 * Classes are capitalized.
 * Monsters are capitalized (e.g. Balrog)
 * Species/families aren't capitalized (e.g. angel, demon, khazra, skeleton, etc.)


 * Also, the italicization, since we've operated on the basis that a game name is italicized at first, then not - e.g., we'd start with Diablo III, then the rest of the article has Diablo III. Really not fond of this system, but I've followed it, and ergo, it can be listed as a rule as well.--Hawki (talk) 02:46, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

This will be comments on your comments on Pryamus' comments.


 * Yes, blog posts, user pages, etc. will be an exception for many of the rules. I might go so far as to say none of our custom rules count outside of main space.
 * For nudity, I think the issue comes from when Sannse made us censor the Succubus images. I disagreed with her then, and even now that I work for Fandom, I still disagree that those images were in violation of Fandom's nudity standards. I would say I am still annoyed that we have to have troll faces over their breasts, but it seems that female demon breasts on a render are not permitted here whether we like it or not.
 * While it is true that Gamepedia is owned by Fandom, I would still favor Fandom links because they can be linked more easily with inter-wiki links. This may not be a long-term issue though as duplicate wikis are merged. That said, that would be my personal preference, I don't see anything wrong with someone linking to Gamepedia.
 * The italicization thing could maybe be revisited. I think maybe I was too stubborn when that topic first came up from seeing people over use italicization and countered by under using it instead. ◄► Tephra ◄►  03:09, May 11, 2020 (UTC)


 * Makes sense... I would also add that all I listed was added based on existing precedents (Succubus face-censorship just one of them). And I still hold many, MANY grudges like that one, but hey, rules are rules, we're supposed to be exemplars :)


 * For Gamepedia specifically, when we first encountered it, they were far from being interconnected (they were, in fact, at open war), but GP was far more lore-rich and accurate / up to date, so I followed the "wherever it's more complete" rule.
 * Italization is okay for me, it just may be hard to keep track/remember.
 * Let's focus on remembering what else we need to list, especially things to kick people for...


 * We could also expand on rules regarding excessive moral judgement (thankfully no cases so far, but saw on other wikis how people bring their values into fantasy and honestly try to add lines like "this character is apparently sexist"). Since it's impossible to really draw the line, maybe just add the line "Subjective assessment in Personality and Traits/History sections may be removed at admins' discretion".
 * Adding information on how to cheat in game (this is not always in Fandom rules since back in the time of EULA for D1 there was no such concept as "online trainer cheating")
 * War of the edits
 * Overquotation
 * We could also set in stone the following: people are allowed to edit the gameplay articles according to the future patch notes as long as it is listed in the official sources and not just datamined, in advance.
 * Thoughts? Pryamus (talk) 08:50, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

I hope I can review the whole list sometime today, but it is hard finding time for the Diablo Wiki now that I have 80 other wikis to watch over too. Luckily, we don't need to settle on anything until July. ◄► Tephra ◄► 02:30, May 12, 2020 (UTC)

Before I forget, there is one rule I would like to enforce everywhere on the wiki, including forums/blogs/user pages, and that would be no zalgo text anywhere for any reason. ◄► Tephra ◄► 09:01, May 19, 2020 (UTC)

I saw someone pretending to be part of a wiki's local staff recently, so maybe we should include no impersonating or pretending to be a member of wiki staff. The ToU does have "Attempt to impersonate another user or person," but it might be a bit of a stretch to apply that to a role rather than a person and I would like it to be clear that impersonating staff won't be tolerated here. ◄► Tephra ◄► 20:31, May 24, 2020 (UTC)

Rights
Making a new section for this. I think it may be useful to help avoid rule ambiguity to also have rights, or what user *are* allowed to do that may be questionable. Some things I can think of off-hand would be using swearwords and how to create legitimate alt accounts. ◄► Tephra ◄► 09:37, May 18, 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, good thinking. Especially considering user pages and talk pages. Also, considering that famous quote about Diablo 3 release, maybe we can allow any kind of cursing in direct quotes, if the words themselves are partially censored? Pryamus (talk) 09:44, May 18, 2020 (UTC)


 * Since Diablo is a mature-rated series, I have no issues with any kind of swearing on the wiki. Slurs and homophobic type language are ToU violations, so they aren't relevant to what we might allow. ◄► Tephra ◄►  10:27, May 18, 2020 (UTC)

Rules format
Well, I never saw any official announcement on new rule requirements and I think the timeline for them was pushed back. However, since we already started it, no reason to wait around on implementing it.

There are a lot of items listed above, and I think dividing it into sections would be wise. I thought of a few possible ways to divide them:
 * By severity. This may make it easier to read, especially if they just want the most important bits (the fact is, most users won't read any of them, so if we can get them to read 10% before giving up, it's already a win).
 * I believe this choice would maximize user reading retention.
 * By topic. This may make it easier to find a specific rule if a user is curious whether something is banned or not. Although, if someone feels the need to question it, it may be better to just not do it.
 * I believe this choice would improve rule navigation, but reduce reading retention.
 * Sortable table with columns to sort by severity or topic. A table could look really professional and might be very handy to navigate, but may be so unappealing to merely read through that we wouldn't be able to expect anybody to actually read them all.
 * I believe this choice would maximize navigation, but virtually eliminate reading retention.

Technically, the whole purpose of the rules will be to allow us to ban users for disobeying them, so as long as we just have a list, nothing else matters. This means that navigation would be to admin benefit, as we can more easily find the rules we are enforcing and direct offenders to them as well.

The spirit of a wiki is the community however, which means making the rules easier to read is to editor benefit.

I am, obviously, open to any additional suggestions, but I think it is likely that navigation and readability will always be at odds and any possible format will ultimately be choosing a point on a line between them.

Personally, as I've mentioned above, I hate rules, so I suppose I prefer maximizing navigation and not expecting anyone to ever read them. ◄► Tephra ◄► 11:34, June 28, 2020 (UTC)

Redirect
Should Rules be a redirect to this forum or is there going to be a non-forum page for rules once decided upon?

Similarly should Policy point to User_blog:Tephra/Diablo_Wiki's_fansite_policy or will these be merged because it's a close idea?

I didn't remember any "don't cover fansites" or "don't cover webcomics which did diablo 2 jokes" and similar so hopefully we can make these more prominent and accessable, like for example having it be a link on both the dropdown menu and landing page?

Also maybe some kind of "move it to creator's userspace" policy rather than a "delete" policy? Tycio (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There would be a single specific page for rules if it comes to fruition. For some reason, the requirement for wikis to have rules never went out, so this discussion is on hold indefinitely until that changes. ◄► Tephra ◄►  09:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Deadline
Well, with this blog this project has finely been made official and given a deadline; April.

I started making a table on my sandbox page to make the design for the rules. Currently, I just copy/pasted all the rules from this page, and then filled in the top row with fictitious placeholders. To make the rules more easily searchable, I have four columns.


 * 1) Rule should be the most simplified form of the rule, breaking it down to a few words.
 * 2) Notes should have a full description of what the rule covers.
 * 3) Topic is what aspect of the wiki the rule applies to (e.g. real people, fan material, behavior).
 * 4) Severity is how harshly the admins of this wiki should deal with violations.

If anyone has any options on the table design, let me know. We will eventually need to determine the topics and severity for all of the rules too. ◄► Tephra ◄► 18:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Read up the current version, looks pretty good. I think we can go for it. Pryamus (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Gone over the list, these are my suggestions per heading:


 * Fan Art: Specify that it's fine to be included in user pages.


 * Reputable Sources: Could use with rewriting. As in, we wouldn't cite Wikipedia directly, Wikipedia itself is doing the citing of other sources. But yes, it's fine to specify that official source precede other ones (maybe rely on the idea of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources).


 * Personal Information: I'm not sure if social network accounts should be grouped in the same way as others. For instance, LinkedIn. This is publically accessible information, so I'd argue that it's fine to provide a link to it.Hawki (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Since we are on the last day, I have added the link to the Wiki Navigation, but this list can be revised at any time if anyone thinks of something that should be changed. On to address the above:


 * Fan Art: That's what the "Scope" column is for. I added an explanation for it at the top of the page under Severity to make it clear.
 * Reputable Sources: If you are writing a professional paper, you wouldn't cite Wikipedia. Wikis can cite Wikipedia. However, if you wish to rewrite it to downplay Wikipedia as a reliable source, propose how you think it should be worded and perhaps we can replace it.
 * Personal Information: To be perfectly honest, I don't know very much about social media. I don't use any of it myself. I added "personal" to social network accounts, though I'm not sure if that fixes it. ◄► Tephra ◄►  15:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)