Forum:Vote: General-Specific rule & Speculation in "Behind the scenes"

This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Forums: Index > Wiki proposal votes > Vote: General-Specific rule & Speculation in "Behind the scenes"

Recently there has been some discussion on 2 topics. Both sides told me they agreed to hold a vote over it, so now it's time for us to vote :)

• Should "Specific rules dominate over general rules"(Lex specialis derogat legi generali) be added to our policy pages?
• Should "behind the scenes" content that is considered "obvious", based on "direct visual or textual correlations", be added to article pages, even when there's no reference from a developper with it?

Specific rules dominate over general rules

Should

“In case there is a more specific rule, the more specific rule will dominate over the more general rule.”

be added to our policies?

• Add it: I want this added
• Don't add it: I do not want this added

Vote

Poll finished on 9:28 pm December 28, 2014 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

Add it

1. Agent c (talk) 21:30, December 21, 2014 (UTC) Restatment of the existing rule.
2. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 21:36, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
3.  The Gunny   21:39, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
4. FFIX (talk)
5. Richie9999 (talk) 00:51, December 22, 2014 (UTC)
6. --WrightEveryTime 02:02, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
7. To prevent any misinterpretation and convey our best interpretation. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 05:49, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
8. -- ^{Watch in awe!} 06:10, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
9. ------Cassie Ultimate Anime Loving Weeaboo.✿ 06:17, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
10. ---bleep196- (talk) 18:31, December 25, 2014 (UTC)
11. There could certainly be situations in which more specific rules should be used. Perhaps not often, but it may happen. In all, it would be best a user is warned if a specific rule exists. Energy X 18:53, December 25, 2014 (UTC)

Don't add it

1. 13:20, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Removed Votes

1. 02:25, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Hm, can anyone give some examples before I throw in my vote? Energy X 18:40, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

There is a rule: "You cannot put you garbage bags on the street on the sidewalk", but there is another rule "You can put your garbage bags on the street on days that the garbage is collected". The second rule is more specific, so if the specific conditions are met (it's a day the trash will be collected), then the police can't give you a ticket, as the more specific rule would make the general rule not apllicable at that time. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 18:36, December 25, 2014 (UTC)

Also as a major one: Animals are not allowed; Guide dogs are permitted. Agent c (talk) 18:46, December 25, 2014 (UTC)

Behind the scenes

Should content, that's considered "obvious", based on "a direct visual or textual correlations", be added to article pages in the "behind the scenes" section, even when there is no developper confirmation? In case of disagreement, both sides will try to find a consent using talk pages. In case this is fruitless, they'll appoint a mediator they both agree on, which will help finding a consent, and if necesary, decide the outcome.

• In favor: I want "obvious" content, based on "a direct visual or textual correlations" added to article pages.
• Against: I do not want "obvious" content, based on "a direct visual or textual correlations" added to article pages.

Vote

Poll finished on 9:28 pm December 28, 2014 (UTC).

• A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
• You can vote by placing one of the following lines in the appropriate section:
  • Use # {{yes}} ~~~~ if you support the proposal.
  • Use # {{no}} ~~~~ if you are against the proposal.
  • Use # {{neutral}} ~~~~ if you wish to abstain.
• Please do not edit other user's votes.

In favor

1. Agent c (talk) 21:31, December 21, 2014 (UTC) Restatment of the existing rule.
2. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 21:36, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
3.  The Gunny   21:41, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
4. FFIX (talk)
5. I would welcome any further guidelines that refine the quoted addition. I also would not mine a general notice on cultural references pages that remind readers that cultural references are added and allowed via editor discretion rather than cold-cut verification. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 05:49, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
6. Richie9999 (talk) 06:07, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
7. -- ^{Watch in awe!} 06:10, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
8. ------Cassie Ultimate Anime Loving Weeaboo.✿ 06:38, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
9. ---bleep196- (talk) 18:32, December 25, 2014 (UTC)

Against

1. --WrightEveryTime 02:02, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
2. Everything needs proof, or nothing does. 02:26, December 23, 2014 (UTC)
3. --Skire (talk) 01:35, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral

1. It may be slightly unprofessional, but then again it would be unpractical to ask the devs for each piece of trivia. Hm, maybe if we place the trivia and a certain "hidden" template to say "This trivia has not been confirmed by developers". In any case, if we would to do this, it has to be written very well, without anyone reverting or placing their own views. Energy X 18:40, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

Comments

OK. So no one cares enough about this issue to even vote on it. What do we do if we don't get a quorum? I'm assuming we fall back to the implied interpretation of the policy, where specific rules trump general rules, but it's not spelled out in red letters on the guidelines page. Either that or some more people need to vote on this. The Gunny   21:53, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

I want to see a result coming from this, and added it to community messages. Jspoel 23:01, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

I've already lost anyway, as I'd say this is all the votes we'll get. I say just go ahead and put through the first one and preserve the second if it's all the same to you. 02:29, December 23, 2014 (UTC)

I think it's important for everyone to understand that the way this is worded is how our policy is currently stated, with the exception of the word "obvious":

“"Behind the scenes" information in the form of cultural references is acceptable page content only when there are direct visual or textual correlations.”

I've heard comments from people who seem to be confused that we are going to start allowing these references when in fact, as of now, we already do. This would probably have been better served asking if we should remove this clause from the policy, rather than reaffirm it. We are not creating a policy that allows us to add new speculation, but if this does not pass, removing the policy will require us to remove a ton of content. The Gunny   22:31, December 25, 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Without this policy we basically lose any behind the scenes content that came from games prior to Fallout: New Vegas, as that is the only game that we have been able to reliably source behind the scenes information for from a dev. This includes things such as the behind the scenes section for the Unusual Call Box, Guardian of Forever, and more. Basically any behind the scenes content without a developer citation would be removed, no matter how obvious they might be. Richie9999 (talk)

I will do that one better. If folks really, really want to stand on a strict threshold of developer confirmation for everything and want to remove anything that can't be verified, I'll be more than happy to run over all the weapons pages and remove anything that can't be positively verified. Be very cautious over how far you want to take this people. The Gunny   23:15, December 25, 2014 (UTC)

(←)  A point well made. Without using an ounce of common sense, the wiki would be bare. Agent c (talk) 23:33, December 25, 2014 (UTC)

Results

The vote has ended. The motions pass. Agent c (talk) 01:31, December 30, 2014 (UTC)

---

---

Policy vote forum overview
Policy	Content policy
Amendment 1	General/specific rule & BTS speculation · Vote · 30 December 2014 · 11-1-0; 9-3-1
Amendment 2	Countries articles standard · Discussion · Vote · 2 August 2015 · 16-3-2
Amendment 3	Attribution · Vote · 27 August 2015 · 13-0-0
Amendment 4	Creation Club content · Vote · 25 September 2017 · 23-3-0
Amendment 5	Creation Club article placement · Vote · 25 October 2017 · 15-5
Amendment 6	Creation Club on mainspace · Discussion · Vote · 20 March 2018 · 15-5-2
Amendment 7	Deleting Torn and Lionheart · Vote · 7 June 2020 · 12-0-0
Amendment 8	Non Developer Resources (Resources Namespace) · Discussion · Vote · 21 July 2022 · 12-0-0
Related topics	Content organization guideline · Article layout guideline