Forum:Chat rule

Some of you are probably rolling your eyes right now, and that's acceptable, considering that this isin't that big of an issue, it's just something that I find really annoying.

1. Basically, I don't agree at all with the fact that you must have at least 100 edits (50 mainspace, my biggest problem) before you may go on chat. I feel that it completely contradicts the purpose of this Wikia. Aern't we supposed to making this the best resource possible for anything pertaining to the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise?? So why on Earth would we make that a rule?!? I mean, yeah, there are a lot of articles that need help, but what about the people who get their information from this Wikia, aka what if we did exactly what we set out to do in the first place?!?!?" They wouldn't know about the obscure stuff, and would be forced to make mostly minor edits, which rely on 'messing up. Sure there are a lot of them to be made, but that's not the goal, and is basically saying: "We have already done enough, so just get out. There's nothing you can do to help. Oh, and if you decide to stay, and make pathetic comments on talk pages or blogs, then treat other users with respect." WHY RELY ON OTHER USERS SCREWING UP??? IT MAKES NO SENSE!!!!! One thing that would make it better, but not by much, would be to make it so you only need 50 edits, for anything you like. Sure, I can see some problems with that, but not for Sonic fans who act in good faith, something we're supposed to always assume, right? Let's say a good Sonic fan really want's to get on chat, so they start leaving comments everywhere because of this. I don't see what's so bad about it. How could you really tell the difference between a genuine "Wow, great job!", and a forced "Nice job!!", unless you checked their contributions list??

2. I seriously think that the rule needs rewording if it's going to stay; the wording really sounds like a reccomendation rather than a rule. I feel that you guys should try something like: "The chat system is for Sonic fans only, and a minimum of 100 edits, 50 being on our main articles, is required in order for you to have permission to join."

Again, it's not that big of a deal, and I don't believe that this is what you set out to do, but please at least consider it. TheAwesomefroggy (talk) 12:48, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

I oppose. This has already been discussed before. The rule needs to stay. We also cannot reword it to seem like a recommendation, as it is a rule. -- 12:51, July 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry i've wasted your time. The sentence at the very top was supposed to be a warning, but I guess I wasn't clear enough.:( One thing I do have to "say", howeven, is that you misinterpreted my second point. I know it's been discussed before, but you never know, it could change, but I didn't think it would, so that's why I made the second point. I didn't say make it sound like a reccomendation, but the opposite. It already sounds like a reccomendation, and is probably the reason that most people are banned from chat in the first place.

TheAwesomefroggy (talk) 13:10, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

In what possible way are we telling people to "get out"? There's always something to contribute towards on this wiki, be it through typos, grammar, punctuation, and by the fact that we're overall usually missing important information on various articles, or non-existant articles to begin with. We aren't relying on users to "screw up", they simply need to figure out what is good information and what isn't, and everyone here is always willing to help with any new user! The chat is not a freeware device, it's a privilege, and keeping it that way is highly important to maintain a busy wikipedia with contributing users. 12:55, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, I worded the "get out" part too harshly. I stated that it wasn't purposeful, and I know that there's always something to contribute to, but i'm talking about the users who get their info from this wikia. I don't know if a majority of them are, but a lot of them are relying on minor edits, which count on things like no links, no punctuation, fonts, ect. That's the screwing up part, as minor edits don't add any information. TheAwesomefroggy (talk) 13:10, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

We've had three forums on the subject of the underedit rule, all of which were in favor of implementing the rule, keeping it, and raising the editcount. We even now had a forum about an Underedit Chat Program that immediately kicks them out of chat. No one really has a problem with the rule, and it's saved us a lot of trouble with spammers and users who don't edit the wiki whatsoever. It honestly needs to stay. Users who cannot make those edits can't come on chat. Simple as that. It's not difficult. You fix errors in grammar, you can add images to articles that need them, you can expand stubs, you can cleanup pages, you can contribute toward merges, you can italicize game titles, you can add references to articles, you can add images to a gallery, and many other things. It's not that difficult, and can take less than an hour with constant editing. -- 13:26, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

I'll address your points individually:

1) If new Users acting in good faith and making useful contributions is what we're aiming for (which we are), then we should be encouraging them to do that by taking the time to edit articles which they can add to. They don't need to be able to access the chat in order to accomplish that. In fact, the 50 mainspace edit requirement was created for that very purpose.

2) I believe the rule is worded so it sounds like its giving recommendations because part of what its supposed to do is suggest to new Users how they can do to access the chat room. I don't think it needs to be reworded if its giving off the message its supposed to give.

So, I oppose the suggested changes, as I feel there isn't really any need for them to be carried out. Besides, as it was pointed out by Bullet this topic was discussed several times before, so I doubt the edit requirement is going to change anytime soon, if ever. Also, I find your claim that the chat rule "contradicts the entire purpose of the Wiki" to be really inane. Lloyd the Cat "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  13:41, July 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice style! I'll counter the same way

1) Encouragement's great, but why?? It's to improve this place, for users who want knowledge, which reenforces my harder to make edit's point. Also, why use Chat as a motivator, and not the Acheivements feature?? 2) It gives the message, but it seems too loose. Like a reccomendation. AKA something that isin't required, but better nonetheless. TheAwesomefroggy (talk) 14:20, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

I oppose. I'm sorry, but I don't see how the chat rule contradicts the purpose of the entire wiki. The chat is a reward for those who want to get the required edits, and actually contribute to the wiki. And they don't rely on users to "screw up," as there are plenty of things to do one the wiki that you can contribute to. There's making articles, editing the mainspace, adding images, adding templates to articles, commenting on blogs, commenting on forums, categorizing pages, categorizing images, leaving messages on talk pages, etc. And if you keep at things and edit consistently, you can be able to get to the chat in less than a day, or even less. So I honestly see no purpose in this. --<span style="; -webkit-border-radius-topleft:12px; -webkit-border-radius-bottomright:12px; -o-border-radius-topleft:12px; -o-border-radius-bottomright:12px; -khtml-border-radius-topleft:12px; -khtml-border-radius-bottomright:12px; border:4px ridge blue; background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(top, orange, red); background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(top, orange, red); background-image:-o-linear-gradient(top, orange, red); background-image:-khtml-linear-gradient(top, orange, red); background-image:linear-gradient(top, orange, red); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em #000000; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em #000000; -o-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em #000000; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em #000000; background-color:#000000"> Metal ' Mickey ' 272  14:09, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

The entire paragraph at the top of this page makes no sense.  Myself  123  14:14, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we improve a rule and then delete it? Regardless, I oppose, Per Metal. 14:30, July 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope, I'm just saying we should change it, or improve the wording.

TheAwesomefroggy (talk) 14:34, July 25, 2012 (UTC)