Harry Potter Wiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Harry Potter Wiki
Harry Potter Wiki
21,098
pages
in: The Wizengamot
English

Forum:Policy updates needed

Sign in to edit
Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > Policy updates needed



It was raised here that some of our policies haven't been updated for some time and are now outdated. The policies do not wholly reflect our present day practices and do not properly convey to new or experienced users everything that is expected. These policies need to be modernised so I'm starting this forum to go through them, figure out what is right or wrong and what needs to be added/changed. If you've noticed something in the policy that isn't quite right, or even something that isn't mentioned but should be, please share it here. So far, the known issues are:

  • No Copy Policy: only says that Wikipedia is an unacceptable source to copy/paste from when we exclude every source.
  • Layout guide: has parts that don't align with current layout practices, some could be potentially removed such as Featured Article which isn't something that we do anymore.
  • Notability guidelines: could elaborate on what constitutes a minor article because the policy doesn't actually set a criteria even though many pages are deleted for not being important enough for its own page. It does say it is designed to "prevent the proliferation of articles on low-importance subjects" but at what point is an article considered low-importance?

There has also been interest in expanding our template policy, like putting restrictions on how many personal templates a user can have/how they should be used. - Kates39 (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion[]

I have multiple things to mention.
We can add Selected Pictures and Featured articles page to this forum for review. Looking over the Featured article page, the last entry on the list was the Bloody Baron that was featured from 15 June 2013 to 29 June 2013, as the 100th of a grand list of 100 entries. That is a whole 10 years prior to today. Additionally, I looked at the history of Harry Potter Wiki:Featured articles nominations, the last promotion was January 2013(!), and some nominations with 0 support in 2018, 2020, and 2022. No ones (seriously) bothered to engage with the processes on those pages for literally a decade. Also speaking of the selected pictures page, the final two serious edits were this edit and this edit, with them being 12 years and 7 years ago respectively. So, why bother keeping them as official policy?
Another thing to consider is the User Image policy. It has a size policy (restricted all 3 images in total to be below 500kB) with a strong suggestion for each image size to be below 100kB. That rule does not seem to be enforced regularly, nor not at all. To add a personal thought, I suggest we modify the rules so that any image on user page mush be an official Harry Potter-related image. No exceptions for non-HP images. SeichanGrey (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I would support cleaning the wiki of unofficial and unrelated images, as many seem to treat the wiki as an extended form of Pinterest. Say, only images from HP sources, such as the Wizarding World profile image maker be allowed as user images, and anyone with over the allowed user image limit must have their excess images deleted.
While no discussions of this nature are taking place or have done so, I would completely remove the "seven votes" majority for admin demotion, that ridiculously high threshold I would say was implemented to stifle criticism at the time, which is dictatorial and unreasonable beyond measure. Perhaps the general policy can be evaluated too.
I would also have the "no copy policy" detailed further so it explains that copying from any material is unacceptable plaigarism, not just Wikipedia, which is not even a very good source of information anyway. Maybe the usage of that as a real-world source in articles should be restricted or reduced, since it's unreliable.
There are probably other things I can think of later, but that's about all for now. RedWizard98 (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't really support the idea of having a super harsh user image policy, because these new users who come and go will always upload random stuff to add to their user page regardless, and fighting against it all the time would not really be worth our time and efforts.
I agree with the points about the featured articles and the no copy policy. Harry Potter Wiki:Featured articles is still listed on things like the Community Portal as if it is something we actually do, but in fact, {{Featured article}} is no longer present on the main page anyway, so all these 90 pages claiming to be featured articles are not actually "featured" on anything at all. This may sound strong, but that little golden snitch in the top right corner of those articles is an unintentional lie on every single one of them. So maybe it is about time we did something about that. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  01:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
also applies to {{SP}} on images, imho. SeichanGrey (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The blocking policy also needs a clear state of how long a user will be banned based on their grounds of blocking. On the user policy or/and the user rights policy, there should also be a section that says what user with/without special rights are/aren't allowed to do (e.g. Archiving, removing tags, etc.). - Peregino (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
And I suggest creating sections for each policy (e.g., == No Copy Policy ==) in this forum to make it easier and less confusing to discuss each policy. - Peregino (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I also don't support a really strict user image policy for the same reasons MrSiriusBlack gives above. Users should be able to personalise their pages, so I wouldn't limit their uploads to HP related content only. So long they are appropriate and they only have three as allowed by current policy, I don't think this is a problem. I'm also not sure how the Blocking policy could be more specific on how long somebody should be blocked according to their offence. Do you have any examples, SeichanGrey?
I think having something in the policy about who can archive or remove what is a good idea. There is some confusion for example over who can archive talk-pages like HPW:RFAA, HPW:RFP, Category talk:Candidates for deletion and Category talk:Candidates for renaming. Typically this is left to admins or content mods to manage.
I have put the necessary changes below under the relevant headings. Please discuss these underneath each one if you have something further to say or suggest for them. These changes will be carried out if there are no objections over the next few days. - Kates39 (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Can we formally state that just because one’s edits are opposed, or just because their bad grammar or editing style is pointed out or corrected, this does not constitute a personal attack. People need to take criticism more seriously on this wiki. Castlemore (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

One more thing I wanted to mention: Spoilers. For the longest time, it seemed the tags should be on pages for 1 year. I think there should be a discussion for it to be shorter, since 1 year feels way too long. For reference, Star Trek Wiki has a prescribed two month policy, Star Wars Wiki has the length at 1 month, and the MCU wiki is at 1 month. SeichanGrey (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I support setting up a standard for this. I support 1 month. MalchonC (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Castlemore: that is already covered by the Harry Potter Wiki:Blocking policy with the point that "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks".
SeichanGrey: I agree with this because it has caused problems over the years and the question has been raised. 1 year is a very long time so I would support shortening it to 1 or 2 months. - Kates39 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Another common issues that we find are:

  • {{Comment}} instead of {{C}}
  • [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC ABC]] on [https://en.wikipedia.com Wikipedia] instead of {{Wikilink}}
  • {{Mention}} instead of {{1st Mention}}
  • (See [[:File:ABC.png|this image]]) instead of {{See image}}
  • {{1st}} is missing.

These should be added to our policies (HPW:LG, Template Policy, etc.). I'd also like the layout guide to mention about one blank column/row under {{Reflist}} (I'm not sure whether the space should be there or not). - Peregino (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes a blank line mustn't be added if what follows {{Reflist}} is a navigation template, since that might create a big blank space. I personally dislike any blank line after {{Reflist}}, but maybe it's just me. MalchonC (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Not just you. I don't like those blank lines either. - Peregino (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the policies should have those templates so I will put them on the list below. If there is an interest in adding a point about the line, we could also add it. - Kates39 (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Today I reverted attempts to remove {{FA}} from pages, because it felt a bit jump-the-gun-y, but mostly because I'd been planning to suggest first listing all the articles that had the template somewhere for historical posterity; however, I hadn't realised that there was already such a list at the bottom of Harry Potter Wiki:Featured articles. So, do we expunge {{FA}}, {{SP}}, {{Featured}} and {{Failedfeatured}} from whence they are transcluded? (If so, should a bot do it?) -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  17:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I think when something is no longer active, then having anything for it on main pages is redundant. I would expunge them once they have been recorded which this already. I agree a bot would be more ideal because there are so many pages. - Kates39 (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Come to think of it, there are a few more things that should be reviewed.

I know this is rather tangential and maybe extremely trivial, but since the layout guide mentions infoboxes, I’ll mention it. Currently all are in the format of “Template:NAME Infobox" such as “Template:User infobox, individual infobox” etc. For the sake of consistency, I support renaming them all to the format of Template:Infobox NAME” such as Template:Infobox user, Template:Infobox actor, and Template:Infobox character.

The image policy can be reviewed and rewritten holistically, with two distinct points. The first one relates to the text shown on special:upload, all of which is sourced from MediaWiki:Uploadtext. It was added in 2011 and has not been substantially changed since then. There is even a red link pointing to, a page that was never even created. Then there is a whole mass of content text that no one even bothers to deal with, such as the top half of the text, particularly the phrase “Your file will be deleted unless you provide the following information about your upload" and lists a bunch of stuff.

The second point of mine relating to the image policy relates to the numerous list of unused files that is currently over 1,000. They can serve a use by being placed on articles serving as galleries. The numerous HP video games have numerous files that were uploaded and can be greatly useful if placed on galleries and articles.

Another point are the notices placed above pages, particularly {{out of universe}}, {{conjecture}}, Real world subject}}, and to a degree, {{unreleased}}. They have too many words,, too wordy, and intrusive. To fix them, the templates’ text can be condensed and shortened.

Regarding the automatic creation of user pages and talk pages, we should stop the auto creation of the user pages. Numerous user pages are created weekly, but are not further edited, all in the default state. What can be kept are the talk page welcome notices that can be kept. The individual editors can customise and edit their own page without the need for a template.

A controversial opinion I have is related to redirects after renaming files. When renaming files, some files do not need redirects to be left behind. There are undesirable “initial” file names that could be deleted; files such as the numerous Screenshot and numbers, this extra long file name and this abomination left over redirect are not helpful.

A few other things that deserve attention.

That is all of the items I want to see discussed here. SeichanGrey (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"Currently all are in the format of “Template:NAME Infobox" ... For the sake of consistency, I support renaming them all to the format of Template:Infobox NAME”"
Consistency with what? They are all consistent with each other already in the current naming format, I don't understand the desire for this change?
"Harry Potter Wiki:Talk Page Policy can be merged into User Policy"
That's a bit of a bizarre proposal. Those policies have absolutely nothing to do with one another.
"Userboxes - Most of the active editor base h ave it, but most new editors do not use it at all. It is a legacy social activity from a prior time, and can be marked as legacy content, but not encouraged."
I saw a new user recently asking about userboxes. I see no reason to discontinue it. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  02:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
"Another point are the notices placed above pages, particularly {{out of universe}}, {{conjecture}}, Real world subject}}, and to a degree, {{unreleased}}. They have too many words,, too wordy, and intrusive. To fix them, the templates’ text can be condensed and shortened."
To me, they're not too wordy. Shortening them might affect the idea or/and cause some details to be lost. Can you provide some examples of what will the notices be like if they are condensed and shortened? - Peregino (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I had suggested moving templates to “Template:Infobox example” because all of them are infoboxes and all pages would start with the word. Little bit like Wikipedia, which I assume is the inspirate for the infoboxes? They have infobox starting with Infobox. Its a bit of a preference from me.
Regarding the userboxes, I did say “not encouraged”, and I am not suggesting we wholesale remove the userbox system from people’s userpages. What I meant was, we call it legacy and historical, and discourage people from using it. It seems there are no increase of usage of those userpage boxes, in spite of that one person about them. SeichanGrey (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
This infobox template rename would affect the vast majority of the 20,000+ pages on the wiki, and would be a major case of fixing what isn't broken imho.
I don't think there is any burning necessity to discourage userbox usage. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I also think we need a policy on what is allowed in articles of real-world people. Not sure whether this could be a new policy or added to an existing one, like the layout guide? Anyway, there has been no guidance on how to write these articles, like actor pages, and far too many of them have information that has absolutely nothing to do with Harry Potter, such as their other works. This to me feels like a big problem. We're a Harry Potter Wiki, so shouldn't everything naturally has to do with the Harry Potter franchise? And it also leads to major inconsistency among these pages. Some pages have this kind of information, some pages have that kind, it feels messy and is hard to regulate.

To me it feels like it's only necessary to write out what each person has done for Harry Potter in a single section, then perhaps a BTS section that notes their collaboration with other HP-related real-world people on other projects (if it's really a major focus of people's interests) (EDIT: and also interesting details relevant to Harry Potter, like Daniel Radcliffe's eye colour vs Harry's eye colour and how it affects the production of the films), and then the reflist. No more other things - they do not belong to a Harry Potter Wiki.

I would love to hear other editors' opinions about this. MalchonC (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with MalchonC. This is Harry Potter Wiki, not Wikipedia. We don't need information that is irrelevant to the franchise. People can read it here, not here. - Peregino (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. Every wiki has its own purpose, Wikipedia is about encompassing every kind of knowledge without being overly detailed in any of them, while the HPW is about recording everything about Harry Potter with as many details as possible. We do not need in-universe articles to adhere to this, while letting out-of-universe ones grow out of control and become more and more like what you'd see in Wikipedia. MalchonC (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I have to agree with Malchon on this one. Numerous actor pages have so much fluff on them that is unecessary. The more HP related content on those pages, the better. SeichanGrey (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the articles have to be totally devoid of anything about their lives or other work, but it would be good to streamline/condense how much there is. For example, actor pages like this on another wiki are pretty decent. A short biography about their life, a section about their involvement in Harry Potter, and then just list other notable work without going into unnecessary detail because it isn't relevant to Harry Potter. This should suffice. - Kates39 (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

since Kates39 mentioned bots, I took a look at the listed bots. Two bot accounts, Dr. Ball, M.D., and DarkJedi613 bot, are listed there, but their edit counts have been inactive since 2011. Their final edits are 13 years old, going on 14 years. Regarding their owners, DarkJedi613, made a series of edits in 2009, 5 in 2010, and a final edit in 2011. Grunny is a staff member, but was last active in 2012, with a smattering of edits in 2013, 2014, and 2015. Those two bots can be removed as bots. As for the third one, Ironyak1 hasn’t edited sine november 2023, a few months ago.

My suggestion is to enable more bot accounts by active editor base, so functions can be performed when needed. SeichanGrey (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Previously, I had wondered why date articles had No include tags. Today, Peregino had wondered as well for pages, 5 January, 16 May, and 31 July, and Malchon kindly linked us Forum:Noinclude tags in date pages. The given rationale was a long deprecated feature had necessitated the addition of the tags but no longer exist, and said the tags should continue to be kept/maintained because it may be reused again.

I personally disagree with the statement Its probably best to just leave this extra formatting in place., since they do not serve any purpose, nor do any harm. So I propose that the tags on pages eventually be removed. SeichanGrey (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I also disagree. First, I don't think it will be reused again. Second, having <nowiki> all over the articles makes pages look unnecessarily messy and difficult to edit. For example, when I tried to move "External links" under "Notes and references" earlier today, it took me ages to think about how I should move <nowiki>, and it's not even worth it because it serves no purpose! - Peregino (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I disagree as well. All those tags make editing very hard, and often lead to undesired gaps in pages.
But this is not really a policy issue. There isn't a policy now that says noinclude tags have to exist in date pages, and I don't think a policy should be created specifically against putting noinclude tags. When I said we should post in the forum, I meant just in Forum:Noinclude tags in date pages, as this does not concern any policy. MalchonC (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe the style guide should be updated to include the/a capitalisation policy. I know there is a policy regarding that in-universe things (such as Crups) with no real-world equivalent should be capitalised in articles, but for the life of me I cannot find a mention of this policy in the policy pages. Perhaps I am just missing something, but I also think such a policy should be clearly definined as to what counts as "In-universe", since things like Thunderbirds exist in the real-world, but are very different in the Harry Potter universe. AD Vortigern (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not specifically that in-universe things with no real-world equivalent should be capitalised in articles, it is simply that we capitalise things how they are capitalised in the highest canon source material that mentions them. It's pretty basic stuff that I don't really think we need a policy for. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  11:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Well I still think it would be helpful if you just updated the style guide to include that. Regardless of the simplicity of the idea, if it's not mentioned anywhere, yet is a standard used across the wiki, having no mention of it can be confusing at the very least. AD Vortigern (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with AD Vortigern on this one. Although this is basic stuff that most users likely know, it wouldn't hurt if there is a guide on it to prevent/lessen the chance of the issue happening. - Peregino (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Can the policy inform that it’s not necessary for infobox images to be the most recent images? - Peregino (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to see more interest in updating the policies. It seems that the initial interest petered out by now. SeichanGrey (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Suggested changes[]

Under the relevant headlines below is how each policy will be rewritten/changed from the way it presently is.

No Copy Policy[]

All articles must be written so that they have complete and comprehensive information. At the same time, they have to be distinct from their sources and therefore written in your own words, otherwise it will be considered plagiarism. Some users cut and paste from other websites, including Wikipedia, leaving a whole tangled mess of redlinks and loops in the HP articles.

If you see an article which seems to be a copy of a Wikipedian article or another source, you can either be bold and rewrite the article yourself, or you can paste {{Dewikipediafy}} at the top of the article and wait for someone else to dewikipediafy (abbr. "deWPfy") the article.

Discussion[]

Looks good, but I would use {{Tlx|Dwfy}} here instead of just {{Dwfy}}, so that users would know what template it is. MalchonC (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. SeichanGrey (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I think {{dewikipediafy}} shouldn't be placed on articles with plagiarism from other websites (that is not wikipedia)? I mean, the template clearly says de-WIKIPEDIA-fy, not de-EXTERNAL-WEBSITE-fy. Should there be another template that mentions external websites in general rather than just Wikipedia? - Peregino (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I've also thought of this. We could create a new template for other websites saying something like "This article has information that is copied and pasted from an external website and needs to be rewritten in our own words to conform with the no-copy policy of the Harry Potter Wiki." How does that sound? - Kates39 (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
That sounds good, but I'd personally like it better if we change "copied and pasted" to "plagiarised". - Peregino (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
"This article has information that is plagriarised from an external website and needs to be rewritten in our own words to conform with the no-copy policy of the Harry Potter Wiki" - Peregino (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree it does sound better. I will create the template over the next couple of days and then take it from there. - Kates39 (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I have created {{Plagiarism}} to show what this proposed template for external websites will look like. The policy could have links to both that one and also {{dwfy}} for Wikipedia articles. - Kates39 (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
There are two ways actually of doing this. One is to merge {{Dewikipediafy}} into {{Plagiarism}} and have one template to cover every copy-and-paste. Or have two separate templates and rewrite the policy like this:
"All articles must be written so that they have complete and comprehensive information. The content also has to be distinct from their sources and therefore written in your own words, otherwise it will be considered plagiarism. Some users cut and paste from other websites, including Wikipedia, leaving a whole tangled mess of redlinks and loops in the HP articles.
If you see an article which seems to be a copy of another source, you can either be bold and rewrite the article yourself, or you can paste one of two templates at the top of the article and wait for someone else to rewrite it. For content from Wikipedia, put {{Dewikipediafy}} (abbr. "deWPfy") on the article. For other external sources, use {{Plagiarism}}."
I don't think it is necessary to have Wikipedia separate to other sources, but let me know which you prefer. - Kates39 (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia is a popular source of plagiarism, why not make it a parameter of {{Plagiarism}}? Like, {{Plagiarism|W}} specifies Wikipedia, while just {{Plagiarism}} does not. MalchonC (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I like that idea. It would make more sense imo. - Kates39 (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I like this idea too! - Peregino (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
"{{Plagiarism|W}} = This article has information that is plagiarised from Wikipedia and needs to be rewritten in our own words to conform with the no-copy policy of the Harry Potter Wiki." - Peregino (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Layout guide[]

  • The sections for "Featured Article" and "Selected Pictures" will be removed because they are no longer an active feature. Yes check Done - Kates39 (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
    • After these are removed from the policy, other relevant pages like Selected Pictures and Featured articles will be adapted. These will archived with {{Archivedcontent}}, while pages like Community Portal will have mentions of them removed. Yes check Done - Kates39 (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
    • To avoid confusion, the little golden snitch and badge on pages and files that were featured/selected will also be removed.
  • Update the infobox example by:
    • Switching {{Ravenclaw individual infobox}} to {{Individual infobox}} which is more generally used now because it has the "theme" field. Yes check Done - Kates39 (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Luna Lovegood, the character used in the current example, should no longer have the "ravenclaw" theme because her latest one is "hogwarts-staff". There has to be a point added to the policy that: The theme in the infobox should be the one that more recently represents the topic chronologically. Luna Lovegood has left Hogwarts so the newest infobox theme that fits her is "hogwarts-staff". Yes check Done - Kates39 (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Remove [[File:" and "|250px]]" in "|image=[[File:Lovegood loona.PNG|250px]]. Yes check Done - Kates39 (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
    • Remove "The image may not be larger than 250px". Yes check Done - Kates39 (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Specify that "nationality" shouldn't be presumed and that field should be empty if there is no confirmation. Yes check Done - Kates39 (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Add the "Possessions" section, make the "Relationships" section a level-2 heading and change "Name eytmology" to just "Eytmology". Yes check Done - Kates39 (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Under the Appearances section, state that templates like {{PS}} are used instead of typing out the full name. Add any new works that don't appear in the example. Yes check Done - Kates39 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Update the "succession box" examples to reflect current information, e.g. McGonagall's age. Yes check Done - Kates39 (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Put the translation links before category links. Yes check Done - Kates39 (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Update the clean template to reflect these changes where necessary. Yes check Done - Kates39 (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Further changes include:

Discussion[]

I agree with removing "Featured Article" and "Selected Pictures" and relevant changes, since they're just not a thing anymore. Additionally, I would suggest some other changes to the layout guide.

  • Infobox
    • Individuals generally just use {{Individual infobox}} with themes, so I would switch the {{Ravenclaw individual infobox}} to the former.
      • And also if we're gonna use Luna Lovegood as the example, her newest theme is "hogwarts-staff", so I would update it (and also the point "For example Luna Lovegood is not currently in Hogwarts but the newest infobox that fits her is the Template:Ravenclaw individual infobox, that one is to be used.") to reflect that.
    • The "[[File:" and "|250px]]" in "|image=[[File:Lovegood loona.PNG|250px]]" are useless, the image displays normally with just "Lovegood loona.PNG" without the wrapping, so I would remove the redundant parts, and also the point "The image may not be larger than 250px", since whatever number put there is not going to make a difference.
    • This may be controversial, but I would suggest adding a point about when speculation about nationality is allowed, because in my opinion a lot of pages are inaccurately pointing out someone is "British" or "British or Irish" without any actual evidence. Also if someone works for the British Ministry, can we really then assume they are "British or Irish"? (Has there been any confirmation that magical governments work this way?)
  • Possessions
    • There isn't a "Possessions" section in the policy, but many pages have it, should we add this to the policy then?
  • Relationships
    • Most articles just make "Relationships" a level-2 heading, should we update the policy then?
  • Etymology
    • Most articles just use "Etymology" instead of "Name etymology", and the section is usually level-2 as well, should we update the policy then?
  • Appearances
    • This is where an overhaul is needed to reflect that we use templates such as {{PS}} now instead of typing out the whole title like "''[[Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone]]''", and also add the missing works that are released after the policy was adopted.
  • Succession box
    • Rectify the examples, such as removing the year 1956 (because of COG's retcon) and the whole Deputy Headmaster box (because where is who-appears-to-be-Dumbledore-here confirmed to have been Deputy Headmaster?), and adding new information such as "Unknown, eventually [[Matilda Weasley]]" for the predecessor of Transfiguration professor.
  • Translation and category links
    • The wide majority of pages put translation links before category links, should we update the policy then?
  • Clean template
    • And of course update this as well if there's any other change that affects it.

Thoughts? MalchonC (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, the community went through a Ship of Theseus situation, where the prior community of active editors (sorta the generation of Maurauders) worked on featured articles, but the new generation (the generation of Harry Potter, and the new set of people) didn't work on them. SeichanGrey (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but as long as the current community doesn't work on them, they should be left out of the policy. MalchonC (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
These are great points! I agree with them all and have added them to the list of changes needed. - Kates39 (talk)
The {{agecalc}} should be mentioned too. - Peregino (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes that template should be used for living real people (but not for characters obviously). MalchonC (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be good to get some clarity on what order the sections should be in on pages; I raised this at Harry Potter Wiki talk:Layout guide#Clean template in 2022, but the matter was never resolved. The Layout guide lists the sections in a different order to how they are listed in the clean template at the bottom. The layout guide itself has the 'Relationships' section as a subsection of the 'Personality and traits' section, the 'Etymology' section as a subsection of the 'Behind the scenes' section, and the 'See also' and 'External links' sections below the 'Notes and references' section, whereas the clean template has 'Etymology' as its own section above 'Behind the scenes', 'Relationships' as its own section as well, and 'See also' and 'External links' above 'Notes and references'. Also, the layout guide itself lists 'Category' above 'Translations', whereas on most if not all pages on this wiki the categories are written out below the interwiki language links. The clean template does not mention language interwikis at all, and also for some reason says 'physical appearance' instead of 'physical description'. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  01:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The clean template is the more accurate list so the sections above it should be adapted so that it is the same. It only has a few minor things that need fixing. In addition to "Physical appearance" to "Physical description", it also has to have "Author's notes" changed to "Author's comments". The new clean template, which will also be the way the sections above it are reordered, would be like this:
==Biography==
==Physical description==
==Personality and traits==
==Relationships==
==Etymology==
==Behind the scenes==
===Author's comments===
==Appearances==
==See also==
==External links==
==Notes and references==
{{reflist}}
[[language code:article name]]
[[Category:]]
How does this look? - Kates39 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
You prefer See also and External links to be above Notes and references? I think I am neutral on that particular matter, I don't really mind, but it is worth noting that a few users have been moving See also and External links to below Notes and references on many pages for a while now. Might have to go to a vote. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  21:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I prefer having "See also" and "External links" beneath {{Reflist}} but above Navbox. - Peregino (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't really have a preference per se but it is the way it has been typically ordered. If users are wanting to change it and it is being moved under Notes and references, then it could be done. I agree this might have to go to a vote though because it will change a lot of pages. - Kates39 (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
List of Harry Potter wikis in other languages should also be linked under the [[language code:article name]] section. This will make it easier for users to link articles to their wikis. - Peregino (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I and a few others have indeed been putting "See also" and "External links" beneath "Notes and references" because of how the layout guide puts them, and it appears to be more and more becoming the "correct" way of structuring them. It makes sense, since those two sections are just convenient links that can be separated out of the page entirely, but "Notes and references" are an integral part of the page, even though it can get a bit long. I'd support continuing the endeavour of putting the sections to the end of pages. MalchonC (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Another thing that isn't explained in the layout guide is 'when will the appearance of the article's title be altered' (Title tag). We must ensure that users who know completely nothing can be fully (or almost fully) informed by this guide. - Peregino (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm fully understanding you. Do you mean {{DISPLAYTITLE}}? -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  17:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I mean {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. - Peregino (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
It can't hurt to put a few examples of when {{DISPLAYTITLE}} should be used. This template is needed to change the pagename in these cases:
  • Add bold or italic character formatting to any letters in the fullpagename (e.g. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone).
  • Change the case of any letter in the namespace, such as putting the first letter in lowercase.
  • Add a colon to the title.
  • Change any space to an underscore "_" character or any underscore character to a space.
  • Place the separator character ":" between the namespace and pagename, or between words in the pagename.
With regard to putting "See also" and "External links" under "Notes and references, if there are no objections, then the Layout Guide will have this clean template to represent the order of sections:
==Biography==
==Physical description==
==Personality and traits==
==Relationships==
==Etymology==
==Behind the scenes==
===Author's comments===
==Appearances==
==Notes and references==
{{reflist}}
==See also==
==External links==
[[language code:article name]]
[[Category:]]
Thoughts? - Kates39 (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Looks good 👍 -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  10:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I am glad this is getting resolved. Previously, I've been told rather strongly and somewhere else about one's preference over it, albiet not directly said. SeichanGrey (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I have another proposal: include a point for category links that clarifies what categories can be included. For example, should Desk Into Pig really be sorted in Category:Pigs? It's a spell related to pigs, not a pig itself. MalchonC (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Can we add Category:Appearance templates too? - Peregino (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I have an additional suggested change for an admittedly minor but still necessary update to the Layout guide. The current Layout guide uses Nigel Wolpert as an example for the use of the {{Non-canon}} template under the Appearances header. However, given that Nigel's appearances are no longer labeled as non-canon on his page, he no longer serves as a good example for the use of the template and should be replaced with a different example for the guidelines. Logo8th (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Well spotted - this is now Yes check Done. - Kates39 (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for making the change. However, the link to Bem's page on the Layout guide policy for the non-canon example is incomplete and doesn't actually direct to Bem's page, so there is still a slight update that needs to be made to this section of the policy. Logo8th (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I believe that the HPW's layout guide should state that "unnecessary blank spaces (e.g. edit 1, edit 2, edit 3, edit 4, edit 5, and edit 6) must not exist at the bottom of an article." - Peregino (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree. Unnecessary blank lines in the source editor (unintentionally) lead to undesired gaps in pages all the time, it's best if we don't allow them at all. Not to mention that doing an edit just to add a blank line is a complete waste of time. MalchonC (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Bump. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? - Peregino (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

User image policy[]

  • Remove this line: "The total file size of these images must be below 500 kB. It is strongly suggested that none of these images are larger than 100 kB". It is rarely, if ever, enforced. Yes check Done - Kates39 (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion[]

I agree with removing the line, it's not really necessary and hard to enforce too. MalchonC (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

There should be a line that says "user images must be used or they will be deleted". Also, in my opinion, they shouldn't be deleted immediately after being uploaded, as some users might face some issues that make them unable to add their images to their user pages (e.g. no internet, blocked, run out of battery, etc.). Maybe 3 days (72 hours) after the images are uploaded? - Peregino (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Agreed with mentioning user images must be used, but I personally think 3 days is too long, I'd think 1 day is more than enough. MalchonC (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I also agree there should be a time limit for deleting user images after upload, but the length of time will probably have to be put to a vote in this case. I also think 24 hours is more than enough time for users to put it onto their user pages. - Kates39 (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Image policy[]

Discussion[]

I also think there should be an amendment that images of exceptionally poor quality must adequate quality new versions uploaded or face deletion. For example, this today (File:Puffskein at Hogwarts Puffskein Patch PSG PS1.jpeg), while can be easily corrected, is a photo taken directly of a TV screen, with absolutely no concern for quality. I also believe users need to be informed to upload proper screenshots, not images of screens, which are of abysmal quality. Low qualtiy gifs that I know have not been upgraded yet I think can face deletion after some time, given no attempt has been made to improve their quality. RedWizard98 (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why images should be deleted for quality reasons when it is just as easy to fix the quality as it is to delete them. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  01:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with MrSiriusBlack. If an image is in low-quality, just fix/re-upload it. - Peregino (talk) 02:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Awards policy[]

  • Removing users who have received it. Yes check Done - Kates39 (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion[]

I'd like to suggest for users who have received it to be removed. The lists is constantly changing, and we can find them here in this category. - Peregino (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, such lists should not really be parts of policies. MalchonC (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The formatting is a bit off here, <s> should be after *. I would change it myself, but am afraid it counts as changing other people's messages. MalchonC (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would be in favour of either removing the whole awards system altogether, or either defining how awards are given more concretely such as what are acceptable circumstances for awarding the Template:Prefect award, because at the moment it's very ambiguous as to what exactly should be awarded. AD Vortigern (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I personally do not agree at all with the removal of the awards system. However, I do agree that we need an acceptable non-ambiguous circumstance for awarding {{Prefect}}. - Peregino (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to propose for the policy to state this: "users who reach each milestone (1xxx, 2xxx, 3xxx, 1xxxx) will not receive the awards if their user page edits exceed fifteen/twenty percent of their total contributions". I mean… if a user has made 1000 edits, but 200 of them are for their own user pages, it is really unacceptable for them to receive awards. - Peregino (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Whilst I agree, wouldn't such a change be redundant? Users are already banned from having more than 20% of their edits being on their user page. AD Vortigern (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
My issue with the awards system is that because it purely counts the number of edits, it does not take into account the natute of the edits. For example, Delaney Wang just got given a "third class" award purely because they reached 1,000 edits, but most of their edits have not been article edits, they' ve been talk and user page edits. I kind of feel like it promotes an indulgent brownie point culture that only measures quantity, not quality. If "awards" are given, they should be for genuine efforts to improve things, not simply the amount of edits done. What about a vandal who manages to vandalise loads of pages in a short period of time because nobody is around to block them? RedWizard98 (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

No personal attacks[]

  • Listing insults, being impolite or disrespectful toward another user(s), and intentionally expressing negativity as personal attacks, and state clear penalties for such behaviour.

Discussion[]

This will be very controversial, but I think this should be more clearly written and not penalise people for calling out foolish editing behaviour, which to me reeks of political correctness and mollycoddling of bad editing behaviours. This policy is often never applied equally either and can involve user bias. It should only apply to people making exceptional attacks, such as slanderous accusations, profanity, inflammatory, highly insulting or discriminatory language, slurs etc. If you reasonably criticise someone's behaviour on the wiki, that is not an attack, especially when vandalism or disruptive editing is involved. People should also learn not to take personal offence when their editing is criticised, which arguably several users have recently. Speech policing is censorious, Orwellian and against the message of this franchise and its creator. RedWizard98 (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, there should be a warning (or a basic penalisation if the behaviour continues unstoppably) for users whose conversational sentences are somewhat impolite, show unwelcome, and give intentional negative expressions. - Peregino (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
It wouldn't be fair if a-user-who-adds-fanon-content is blocked while the-user-who-calls-them-stupid is unpenalised. - Peregino (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry RedWizard, but I am not going to support changing the NPA policy to make it easier for you to insult people. This is obviously in reference to this. I was in no way "mollycoddling bad editing behaviours", I did not actually defend the user's actions in any way. You did not "reasonably criticise someone's behaviour", and you know full well that you did not. On the vandal's talk page, you used the words "incredibly juvenile and moronic". This is incredibly unnecessary. Yes, they vandalised the wiki, but two wrongs do not make a right. {{Vandal2}} would have sufficed, you did not need to add any more comments after it. Then, on RFA, you said "utterly stupid statements". All you needed to say was "User is vandalising the article with incorrect statements about the character being gay". Look how much better that sounds? Would make you sound like a much nicer person than you are currently coming across. Why do you find it so extremely difficult to just not use words like that? Nobody else on this wiki does. It is not "censorious, Orwellian and against the message of this franchise and its creator", it is very basic common decency. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  12:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This reminds me of two lines from The Power of Words poem: "A careless word may kindle strife; A gracious word may smooth the way".
Now I think insultingly "mollycoddling of bad editing behaviours" should be listed in NPA, stating clearly of the penalisation a user will receive if they do so. - Peregino (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
"mollycolloding" means treating someone "in an indulgent or overprotective way", or with undue favour towards someone. "insultingly mollycoddling" is a bit of an oxymoron. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  13:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
When there are personal attacks, I think we should start by providing a warning template (which currently doesn't exist), give a second warning the next time, and then block for a short period of time. However, I guess that I do not have the authority to make these decisions (blocking is quite a serious matter), so let's just say that this message merely expresses my humble opinion.
P.S. Sorry for the "insultingly mollycoddling. I'm not a native-speaker, and I didn't even know what is "oxymoron" until now lol. - Peregino (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I think what you wanted to say was more like "insultingly criticising". Anyway, I do also think this behaviour of using overly harsh words has been going on far too long. Saying things like "moronic" is not friendly in the slightest. Even as a third party, I feel uncomfortable when reading words like this. MalchonC (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I also disagree with changing the policy like this. RW, like has been explained to you so many times, there is no need to be so combative when you're calling out behaviour that is wrong whether it is deliberate or a mistake. The kind of language you choose to use like calling someone "moronic" is unnecessary and out of line and creates a toxic environment. This is why situations often get turned into one worst than it needed to be. "Negative personal comments" are already prohibited by the policy. - Kates39 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Spoiler Policy[]

  • Create a formalised written policy regarding spoilers on wiki, with an appropriate time limit.

Discussion[]

A formal spoiler template was never implemented. I am in favour of a 1 month time limit. SeichanGrey (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with everything suggested above. - Peregino (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
a one year time length wad the de facto standard, and was enforced as such. with a formalised policy, it can br a reference. SeichanGrey (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Editing Policy[]

  • Recommend that people use the 'Preview' function, and only make edits if they are necessary visual changes, or important for the functioning of the article.

Discussion[]

I highly suggest that a rule is put in place to ban people from spam editing. Spam edits can be disingenuous, as people could use edits so that they have a right to participate in votes and discussions. They can also be used for request-for-right reasons, if someone wants to say "I have so many edits which proves I'm a valuable contributor". People have lately had a tendency to just not use the preview function, and insist on spam editing over and over again to make tiny edits, which can result in 15 to 20 edits on one page in a single day. Furthermore, edits like this and this have absolutely no purpose, and only spam Special:RecentChanges. Castlemore (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. There is little point in edits that change absolutely nothing visually or functionally, like changing the capitalisation of templates, removing not-actually-visible spaces like in the edits you linked, etc. It would be good to actually have official policy against this. It would save the time and efforts of those who make these kinds of edits, if nothing else. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  11:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with this. I never knew that making these kinds of edits could be called 'spamming' until today, and I'm sure that I won't be the last one to make this mistake. Having a policy for edit spamming will be highly useful and reduce the chance of this happening. - Peregino (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion policy[]

Discussion[]

As far as I know, the Harry Potter Wiki has no policy for the discussion side of the wiki. I think it’s best if we ask the people on that side of the wiki for their opinion (I believe they have more experience in the discussion side than us, who have more experience in the editing side than them) and then take their ideas into consideration and adjust accordingly. Thoughts? - Peregino (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion board is like a different thing from the wiki entirely so I don't think we should or need to create a policy for it here. They do have their own guidelines which you can find in the left. MalchonC (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Template policy[]

As suggested in this forum:

  • Sequence of header templates: should {{Youmay}} precede or follow {{Conjecture}}, etc..
  • How to use each type of template (for newcomers).
  • Limitations on creating templates to prevent an excessive amount of unnecessary templates (e.g. it won't be a pleasure if 50 users create 50 templates like this just for themselves.).
  • How many times should {{Vandal}} be given before {{Last}} is used.

Discussion[]

Thoughts? - Peregino (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend also defining how long the templates for things like articles to be merged and cadidates for deletion should be on the page before a descision is made. For example, on Verucca Buckthorn-Snyde the template has been there for over a year and that seems far too long. I think a time limit of two or three months before a final descision is made by a moderator is reasonable.

Additionally, I would be in favour of redesigning the header templates to just be a bit smaller, so it doesn't clutter up the screen so much.AD Vortigern (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree. - Peregino (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I had suggested something similar in this forum, largely for aesthetic reasons. SeichanGrey (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
What I suggest is increasing the length of the templates (to the same length as {{Out of universe}} or {{Spoiler}}). This will decrease their height and make them take up less area. Can someone with special rights edit these heading templates as soon as possible? I don't want this topic to be forgotten again and again. Thank you. - Peregino (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Past tense policy[]

Discussion[]

I think we should add that statements that are also true in the real world (e.g. "Great Britain is a large European island…") can be written in the present tense. This is already how we do things here, but has no actual policy support, since the policy just says things should be written in the past tense. MalchonC (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This is something the wiki has been doing anyway so I will add this point to the policy. Consider it Yes check Done - Kates39 (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Leaving redirects – Possible new section in policy[]

Discussion[]

I am fine with leaving redirects. However, there should be no redirects left behind for some names that are clearly not useful or entirely nonsensical. Some examples include this edit, this edit, and the numerous screenshot file names (by a user named Lord Voldemort, no less lol. SeichanGrey (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Bots policy[]

Discussion[]

  • Lets demote the two bots, the ones that haven't been edited for over 13 years.
  • Promote a new bot account used by an active editor. SeichanGrey (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Add a new policy regarding actor content?[]

Discussion[]

There seem to be some interest in changing actor pages so that the content is strictly, an infobox, and Harry Potter-related information. No other content such as other film, television, and theatre roles. Should it be moved into policy?SeichanGrey (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Rate limit on edits[]

Discussion[]

I know people have complained about the amount of edits by a single editor, which can easily flood recent changes. Any one have thoughts on having a formalised limit? SeichanGrey (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary. As long as a large amount of edits isn't vandalism and help the wiki better, there should be nothing to worried about. We should care about the quality of edits, not the quantity. - Peregino (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Also, users shouldn’t have their attempts to edit pages hindered by a policy just because they have a lot of time to edit. - Peregino (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I somewhat think there should be some general guideline on edit rate limit. I had previously agreed to some rate limit closer to 40-50 a day since it really flooded recent changes, so it would not drown out necessary moderation. Thought it may be worth mentioning since I've been chided before. Also, good edits or not, the fact that I made sheer amounts of edits, would make detecting bad ones more difficult. SeichanGrey (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree that "sheer amounts of edits, would make detecting bad ones more difficult". However, I think 40-50 edits a day is too little. I personally prefer a 70-120 edits per day. - Peregino (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I still don't think having a guideline/policy for this is a good idea. This could impact autochanges, which commonly occur when a category is renamed and would surely/likely violate this policy if it exists. - Peregino (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with this being a policy, I feel it would restrict editing too much, and only be useful in the case of a user making a ridiculous amount of edits (500-1000) per day. Perhaps instead, a guideline should be established along the lines of "If you know you're going to be making a massive amount of edits in a short amount of time, inform a content moderator or higher first", that way the content moderator can determine if the changes would really be necessary and takes steps to prevent it if needs be. AD Vortigern (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Naming of articles[]

Discussion[]

There is a point in Harry Potter Wiki:Policy#Naming of articles which says "Character articles should use Western name order, which places the given name(s) before the surname(s), even if the subject is from a culture which traditionally places the surname(s) before the given name", and I'm not sure we've been abiding by this or enforcing it, particularly with characters such as Long Shouren, Liu Tao, potentially Ya Zhou, etc., and to be honest I don't even know why we have that as a policy anyway. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  11:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I can see why the policy is useful, because Japanese name order is often very confusing, and unlike Chinese and Korean names which are more obvious, you can't for most times immediately see which is the surname and which is the given name, so a policy that clarifies where the surname should be put is helpful.
I think we should simply extend the point in the policy about Chinese/Japanese/Korean names of real-world people to in-universe characters as well. That would require minimal changes, Long Shouren and Liu Tao can both stay, and Ya Zhou is confusing anyway since it just isn't clear which is the surname. MalchonC (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
English
*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement