Forum:Content policy suggestions

<<< Back to Logical Sector • <<< Back to Forum

Everyone is welcome to add.

Content Policies at a Glance

• Article cohesion. Article cohesion is one of the most important things in an article. It is hardly enjoyable (or even DESIRABLE) to read endless streams of repeated words, and as such articles that cannot be interpreted in any sense of the word are deleted on sight.

• Article purpose. Be it for humor, to make a point, or just to dance on a subject, an article must have a clear-cut purpose. This purpose does not need to be stated or obvious, but if it's just there to sit there and stare, then no, it doesn't fit.

• It's usually very preffered that if your article is deleted, you should take it up with the admin who deleted your article, not another, because this can result in many catastrophic events involving admins and pie.

• Encyclopedic entries are very welcome although not necessary. It is important that no matter how much you like a subject, however, that it is not factual in any way (unless the facts add a piquant tang to the article.)

• No 'bad f**kin' language,' please. The articles can viably have a swear word thrown in once or twice, but it is unneccessary.

• Vanity will be shot. And users who make vanity will also be shot. With a flaming crossbow. 21 times. Yes, I am serious. YOU GET A BLACK DOT IF YOU MAKE VANITY. Don't do it.

--Sir Asema ^Politics _{Complaint Inbox or Outbox}

Well, as i suggested on IRC (which is btw, where most of these things start, for those who give a rats arse), i suggested we remain under our current policy of allow almost anything without extream views and swearing etc. but apply these kind of rules every half a year or so, to clean out the crud, like a sorta rodding of the drains as it where. so we scrutinise all our articles, and then delete the bad ones. during this two week period anything not worthy would be deleted and would allow more crap to accumilate, so we retain our "we allow anything" image, but we know that the rubbish gets knocked away in the end. sorta liek an encouragement to make good articles, so they stay in the longrun, but we give em some time to improve and stuff and whoever posted it gets the joy of having an article :) --Silent PenguinLeave Me Alone 17:23, 19 Ditzimber 2007 (UTC)

Yeah seriously, go on irc it's great. Articles should be fixed up a bit, i'm fed up with seeing articles that are called "an article that..." or "The article on..." --Testostereich • (ballsack) 17:50, 19 Ditzimber 2007 (UTC)

Content Policies at a Second Glance

1. Article cohesion. Article cohesion is one of the most important things in an article. It is hardly enjoyable (or even DESIRABLE) to read endless streams of repeated words, and as such articles that cannot be interpreted in any sense of the word are deleted on sight.

No, sir. I think you have the wrong web site. Here at Illogicopedia, as the name suggests, we are not in the business of making good articles. We are in the business of making complete jabberwocky. SNARK HUNT!!

2. Article purpose. Be it for humor, to make a point, or just to dance on a subject, an article must have a clear-cut purpose. This purpose does not need to be stated or obvious, but if it's just there to sit there and stare, then no, it doesn't fit.

Fraid not. "Nonsense" by it's very definition, has no purpose. To implement that would mean to delete the entire site. Once again, I think you have the wrong web site. Were you trying to post this at Uncyclopedia perhaps?

3. It's usually very preffered that if your article is deleted, you should take it up with the admin who deleted your article, not another, because this can result in many catastrophic events involving admins and pie.

Yeah, that's just common sense. :) I'm not sure whether we need that written in policy but that might be a good idea though I don't think it's urgent.

4. Encyclopedic entries are very welcome although not necessary. It is important that no matter how much you like a subject, however, that it is not factual in any way (unless the facts add a piquant tang to the article.)

That's fine as a suggestion to contributors but not as a rule.

5. No 'bad f**kin' language,' please. The articles can viably have a swear word thrown in once or twice, but it is unneccessary.

This kind of thing will be shot. And users who make it will also be shot. With a flaming crossbow. 21 times. Yes, I am serious. YOU GET A BLACK DOT IF YOU MAKE PROFANITY. Don't do it.

6. Vanity will be shot. And users who make vanity will also be shot. With a flaming crossbow. 21 times. Yes, I am serious. YOU GET A BLACK DOT IF YOU MAKE VANITY. Don't do it.

Well, um, I'm not so sure about that - it depends on your definition of vanity. I say, if it's interesting for other people you don't know to look and possibly even read, then it doesn't matter whether it looks like vanity or not. I mean, how else could we do an article on vanity? (i have no idea whether that article exists - i'm just putting brackets around the word. if it's red, then by all means please make the article happen, people!)

OVERALL SCORE: 4 out of 6 isn't too bad, I guess, but I wouldn't be voting you for admin any time soon. No offense. :) --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:41, 26 Ditzimber 2007 (UTC)