9,166
edits
Forum:Major overhaul for "List of rumors": Difference between revisions
Forum:Major overhaul for "List of rumors" (edit)
Revision as of 22:23, January 21, 2020
, 4 years agono edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
#''Rumors should only be listed once they are disproven.'' The most important guideline. Leaks are only listed once they're proven, right? This rule would allow the page to be written without the clouded judgement of an unproven rumor, and also make it more apparent which ones are notable and which ones are passing speculation. | #''Rumors should only be listed once they are disproven.'' The most important guideline. Leaks are only listed once they're proven, right? This rule would allow the page to be written without the clouded judgement of an unproven rumor, and also make it more apparent which ones are notable and which ones are passing speculation. | ||
#''Rumors should be written about from an objective, neutral standpoint with emphasis on citations.'' This one is self-explanatory, but important; all info on SmashWiki should be written from an unbiased standpoint, and rumors are no exception. No speculating, just the facts about the rumor and whether it was true or not. | #''Rumors should be written about from an objective, neutral standpoint with emphasis on citations.'' This one is self-explanatory, but important; all info on SmashWiki should be written from an unbiased standpoint, and rumors are no exception. No speculating, just the facts about the rumor and whether it was true or not. | ||
#''Only the most notable rumors should be added.'' This one is the least clear of the three points, as there's no real "rule of thumb" for what makes a leak notable, but it is noted in the page's guidelines and should be emphasized, especially regarding the current state of the page. While something like the Grinch Leak is notable, as it was covered by major news sources and is remembered as an especially elaborate hoax, I'd say over half of the | #''Only the most notable rumors should be added.'' This one is the least clear of the three points, as there's no real "rule of thumb" for what makes a leak notable, but it is noted in the page's guidelines and should be emphasized, especially regarding the current state of the page. While something like the Grinch Leak is notable, as it was covered by major news sources and is remembered as an especially elaborate hoax, I'd say over half of the existing rumors are not notable. | ||
This, I believe, would greatly improve the quality of the rumors page and make it useful as an actual resource of notable rumors rather than a running news bulletin for any rumor that pops up. This is my first time writing a major proposal, but I feel like this is important for such a contentious page. If you have any comments, please direct them below. ~ [[User:Serena Strawberry|<span style="color: #e68;">'''Serena Strawberry'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Serena Strawberry|talk]]) 21:20, January 21, 2020 (EST) | This, I believe, would greatly improve the quality of the rumors page and make it useful as an actual resource of notable rumors rather than a running news bulletin for any rumor that pops up. This is my first time writing a major proposal, but I feel like this is important for such a contentious page. If you have any comments, please direct them below. ~ [[User:Serena Strawberry|<span style="color: #e68;">'''Serena Strawberry'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Serena Strawberry|talk]]) 21:20, January 21, 2020 (EST) | ||