Forum:Behind the Scenes and Rule Application

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Behind the Scenes and Rule Application

There have been some misunderstandings and questions of late how our policies apply to this section. These appear to come from an over-literal reading of a specific rule, without reading the entirety of our policy and putting the selected part in context.

Applying the rules

In most cases, applying the rules is a simply binary affair, either a situation meets the trigger standard a rule gives, or not, and there is little, if any overlap. For example, linking porn in chat is uncontroversially against the rules.

Sometimes however, it might appear that there is a conflict in the rules, however in most cases these "conflicts" are caused by misunderstandings in how the rules interact with each other.

In all of our rules, there is some sort of heirachy. We have general rules, and in some cases these general rules are trumped by the more specific. Example: In chat, the general rule is you can talk about whatever you like, but there are specific topics/behaviour that are not permitted (eg - Porn) and certain things that may depending on the context not be permitted (eg- Rule 9). The general rules give way to the more specific.

In the case of Articles, we have one of these apparent conflicts.

The More general rule reads:

“All content needs to be accurate. Fallout Wiki aims to provide reliable information. In particular, adding speculation and own inventions (fan fiction, fan art etc.) to articles should be avoided.”— Our policy

and

“All content needs to be verifiable. Other editors need to be able to check and verify it.”— Our policy

Whilst the more specific rule when it comes to the behind the scene section reads:

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

If we read the rules as being equal or even with the more general rule taking precedence, we have an irresolvable conflict, one rule renders the other meaningless; this is an obvious absurdity to have a more specific rule rendered null (it would also mean that references without visual/textual correlation but confirmed by the developer would be ruled out, another obvious absurdity).

The Golden Rule of legislative interpretation instructs us to read rules in a way that takes out the absurdity. As such, the only way to read the rule is with the most specific rule trumping less specific rules where there is a conflict.

The Behind the Scenes section does not, nor has it ever, needed developer confirmation or citation. Occasionally mistakes are made, but we cannot rely upon asking a developer for every obvious reference - they are very busy people and do not exist at our beck and call.

Do we need to refence this?

Yes and no.

We do not need developer confirmation. If we have it, through the bibles or a statement, great, use it.

In the recent case that brought this to light we have a character (Vice President Bird), who is a parody of former Vice President Dan Quayle. A user, who seems to be unfamiliar with Quayle's gaffes didn't see the link between the two.

We can however, even without developer confirmation meet both standards. We are drawing a link between a character statement/mannerism and real world behaviour, and we can reference that.

For example, when we say that Vice President Bird is a parody of Quayle, we can point to his dialogue files (eg - his lines about how to spell Potato) and video clips/news reports of him making the relevant gaffe (telling a child it should be spelt potatoe). (Just for clarity this is not the only link between the two).

In this case, we are applying a level of analysis, but still showing the proof of the working for anyone to confirm/challenge it later.

Comments/Questions?

Post away. Agent c (talk) 22:45, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

This seems so blatantly obvious to me that I'm dumbfounded it even needs to be discussed. The Gunny   23:04, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

I actually have a forum I am writing out (as I already know that you know of), which I hope will help address the issues at hand with community consensus. There are a lot of precedents being set lately, which needs to be discussed, but what is relevant to this forum, that you have created, is that we have contradicting policies. Policies, which inherently, means that every editor has to follow them, or else they are susceptible to administrative action. So when one policy, causes an editor to be unable to follow another policy, that means that there is something seriously wrong with part of the system, and opens up channels for abuse.

And what has been seen, is that the problem that has been created due to this contradiction in our policies, has opened up a loophole of sorts, where certain editors can now shut down all discussion, and claim an objective truth without evidence to prove that their claim is nothing more than circular logic, to push through edits which should be considered either controversial, or worthy of proper, community discussion.

Instead, with this loophole, what we have seen are informal votes which violates the nature of how this wiki works in collaboration with its community, and users laying claim that certain policies are superior to others, which leads to favouritism in the form of picking and choosing which policies to follow. When the administration is picking and choosing which rules to follow, then there is nothing a regular editor can really do about it, except for create a forum as I am about to do, in hopes to gain awareness. Otherwise, what I have already seen, are editors abandoning their obligated burden of proof, failing to gather references, even when there are references that can be found in less than 5 minutes (such as with the Quayle reference being discussed on this forum), and administrators which refuse to cooperate with anything that does not 100% satisfy their personal speculation, or the speculation of others that they support.

And that is where the problem lies. Speculation is an idea in which someone believes, vehemently, that they are right. But who gets to decide what constitutes obvious references? What is separating you guys, from the other editors that add in what they call obvious references, without sources? Nothing, except your positions on this wiki. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 23:34, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

Lex specialis derogat legi generali is a pretty widespread legal tradition, so I wouldn't consider it to be just "users laying claims". -- ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 23:55, December 20, 2014 (UTC)

We are not a body of any government. We are an encyclopedia, that incidentally grew a community around it. When it comes to laws, it ultimately becomes necessary to choose between vague and more specific laws, or otherwise nothing would get done. Sometimes nothing gets done anyways. On a simple wiki, which has a small list of policies, beginning such a doctrine will only succeed in further convoluting the editing process, and only drives a divide into the standard editing community's worth, and the administration's worth in final deliberations. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:08, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

We don't have a "Small list" of policies. We have policies where some apply generally, and some apply specifically. There is no divide into the standing editing community, nor is there some empowerment of the administrations power. Agent c (talk) 00:11, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

I'm just not sure if keeping a wiki is possible without general rules. You can try to sum up everything that's allowed and what's not allowed, if you really want to avoid conflicts, but I don't think it will fit on less than thousands of A-4 size sheets of paper. So then when we do get to general rules, it's logical there are exceptions on them. But then again, exceptions wouldn't make sense if they weren't to be taken in account. For example: there's freedom of speech, but you can't promote starting genocides, as there is a special rule that prohibits this one. I know there can be discussion about this kind of stuff (what's the general rule and what's the exception? when they are both about as general etc.), but that's why we have talk pages in case there are discenting opinions, I guess. - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 00:16, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

We do have general rules, though. They are our guidelines. I am not saying that general rules are bad - but in no way should they be our policies, which when broken, or are written badly, convolute the editing process, and makes users susceptible to punishment, depending on interpretation. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:31, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Leon, this isn't some new magical precedent, this is long established practice from before either of us were prominent editors. The fact that our pages have reflected this since before the split is proof to that.

There is no loophole, except those invented in the minds of people whom refuse to read a rule in perspective of its place in the greater rules. We cannot have a general rule that makes more specific rules invalid. If we did, then all rules are invalid. There is no Picking and choosing what rules to follow except by yourself - you are making arguments to ignore the specific rule in favour of the general despite the absurdity that results.

There is no contradiction if you read all the rules, and put them in the right perspective. There is only a contradiction if you try to apply them in the incorrect order.

Eg: Animals are not permitted. Guide Dogs are allowed. There is no contradiction, the rule "No Animals are permitted" obviously gives way to the "Guide Dogs are permitted" rule.

Like Gunny, and many others who have witnessed certain events happening here, I really think this is so obvious we never should have needed a forum in the first place. Agent c (talk) 00:04, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

It is a magical new precedent. A lot of people here have conveniently forgotten that I was one of the most prominent editors here, and led many campaigns that have drastically changed this wiki, which can still be seen today. When I created an account, I worked hard at removing speculation, and I worked alongside many of our most prominent leaders, with Goth being the one I looked up to the most. When he left, I picked up the mantle, and I went through hundreds of articles, removing the most blatant speculation, although I understand that there is still so much that I have never gotten around to.

And it is this experience, that gives me the right to tell you that this kind of crap never would have happened before the split, when the wiki was more professional about the kind of content that was considered acceptable. Hell, Tag or Ghost would have shut down that informal vote for the Salient Green speculation, in a second, as it violates the wiki's prime principle in community consensus (not just a consensus amongst a few that agree with each other). I know I am the popular scapegoat around the wiki these days, but any would be foolish to continue denouncing what I have done for this wiki, and what I know of how this wiki worked before the split happened.

And so I am going to keep this simple at this point, as the rest will be discussed tomorrow on my forum. What is happening here, is that certain editors, that hold positions on this wiki, are now using contradicting policies to push through their speculation, without references, instead of recognizing the fact that we have contradicting policies.

Remember when you said that we should strive to be more like the TARDIS wiki? What happened to that? Because the TARDIS wiki is one of the most prominent wikis on Wikia, not because it is more popular, but because it is one of the most professional wikis. And they did not get to that status by using convoluted rules to satisfy speculation within their article-space, no matter how "Obvious" certain users there might have felt the speculation was. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:16, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Leon, I can state with 100% certanty that CzechOut does not have a red hotline to RTD/Moffat/Cartmel/Verity/Et al. They do draw connections on obvious things, citing the episode it appears in, and not demanding official confirmation that obvious facts are obvious facts. We do not need official confirmation for every little thing 0 it has been long standing policy that that requirement only applies to real world weaponry comparisons. Agent c (talk) 00:20, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact, that when they do that, they use a maddening amount of references to try and back it up as much as possible. If there had been any such citations for the Salient Green speculation, I already told everyone that I would never have had an issue with its addition. It is the same reason why I accepted the Blade Runner speculation, even though we do not have official confirmation for it. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:24, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

“It is a magical new precedent.”

Proven wrong in our pages with content added well before either of us. No its not forgotten you were once prominent here.

“And it is this experience, that gives me the right to tell you that this kind of crap never would have happened before the split”

Remind me. Was the split before or after 2009? (I dont know when it was added, I just picked a very old state at random.)

Here it was on the day you became an admin File:Screen Shot 2014-12-21 at 00.30.52.png

I think you have rose tinted glasses about the "beforetime".

“And so I am going to keep this simple at this point, as the rest will be discussed tomorrow on my forum.”

There is no need for another forum. Discuss it now. We don't have contradicting policies, we have a former admin who doesn't know how the policies apply, and doesn't know how they applied even before he was an admin. Agent c (talk) 00:26, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

That is not an argument that you can use seriously. We have tens of thousands of articles. There is no way that we can catch everything, and basing new precedents on the fact that there are mistakes on our tens of thousands of articles, does not seem like a good justification to me. What I am specifically speaking of, is whenever these mistakes caught the attention of our editors that properly understood the rules, and enforced them in order to maintain our professionalism.

As for the split, that happened in 2011. But, again, past mistakes do not justify convoluting the editing process with contradicting policies. Especially since the rule that caused the contradiction, was created after the split.

Well, the forum is covering an extensive topic, which is why I still want it to be separate. I was hoping this would cover every base, but it does not, unfortunately (I mean no direspect). ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:36, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

“That is not an argument that you can use seriously. We have tens of thousands of articles....”

Which have all followed the same standard on behind the scenes since well before you became an admin. There is a reason why that rule was put there, the only other way of reading it would be to make it absurd.

What do you think the purpose of that rule is? Apply that purpose. Its purpose is not to just make up space and be worthless.

“and basing new precedents on the fact that there are mistakes on our tens of thousands of articles, does not seem like a good justification to me”

The only mistake I am seeing is in the incorrect reading of rules such that a general rule can render a specific rule moot.

“As for the split, that happened in 2011”

I am glad we have an answer to a retorical question.

“contradicting policies”

There are none if they are read correctly.

“Well, the forum is covering an extensive topic, which is why I still want it to be separate. I was hoping this would cover every base, but it does not, unfortunately (I mean no direspect).”

Then cover the missing bases. I see no basis to split the discussion. Agent c (talk) 00:44, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

The fact that an absurdity can be created, through logical reasoning, means that there is an inherent flaw. The funny part is, that the flaw could easily be removed by making either of the two contradicting policies, into guidelines, instead (depending on community perspective). There are many users that agree with my interpretation, and my interpretation has a much stronger establishment than yours. That gives my interpretation just as much validation, and warrants proper discussion before you begin imposing yours.

It still needed answering. Forgetting our past is unacceptable.

They are. Policies must be enforced. By having a policy which allows editors to bypass another policy, means that there is a contradiction. Not only a literal contradiction, but also a precedent contradiction.

I am not sure that you are understanding. My forum will be covering a lot. As in, your forum barely covers 1/10th of what I will be discussing, which is why it has taken me so long to write it, and is also why I have requested the help of 3 users (soon to be 4), to write out opinion pieces over their differing perspectives. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:50, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

“The fact that an absurdity can be created, through logical reasoning, means that there is an inherent flaw.”

No, anything can be read absurdly if you try hard enough.

“he funny part is, that the flaw could easily be removed by making either of the two contradicting policies, into guidelines, instead (depending on community perspective).”

But there is no need. The specific section has specific rules. Apply the specific rule.

“Says you. You are dictating a singular way of interpreting the rule, even though you were not the one to found the rule, you have hardly ever used the rule since you have never had a strong editing presence here on Nukapedia, and even though your interpretation is not the only logical one.”

Except, as you stipulated, the rules if read your way conflict and result in an absurdity, so your interpretation clearly isnt a logical reading. Please do provide any alternative logical reading (if there is one).

“They are. Policies must be enforced. By having a policy which allows editors to bypass another policy, means that there is a contradiction. Not only a literal contradiction, but also a precedent contradiction.”

Its not "bypassing" is a more specific rule to that section. I don't see why you're going all Don Quixote over such a simple concept. There is no contradiction. Agent c (talk) 00:55, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Leon, it's great that you feel so strongly on this issue that you too want to make a forum on it, however I would like to point out that you do not have the power to say "This forum sucks, use mine". You are free to post the comment and points you would make on your own forum in this one, but if another forum of the same topic is opened the day after this one it will be closed. I'm sure you understand why. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 00:32, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Eisegesis. Please do not project your biases into my words, in order to assume malice or some other petty reason. As seen on talk-pages long before this forum was created, and through discussions I have had with many other users, you might see that this forum has been being written for quite some time. And when it is released, you will see that it covers much more than what Chad brought up.

Honestly, it would have been great if this forum covered everything I want to discuss, as that would have saved me a lot of time. But it does not. You also will not close down my forum when it is released. That is censorship, and I am breaking absolutely no rules. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:39, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Censorship is not being told to put your points in the proper place. Agent c (talk) 00:46, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break so I can find my metaphor better

As for the application of general and specific rules goes, I like to think of them this way:

Let's say a town has a general speed limit ordinance that speeds on all residential roads, unless otherwise posted, is 35mph. That is the general rule. Now let's say the specific road you're driving on happens to have a school on it. The Town also has a very specific ordinance that says speed limits in school zones, while school is in session, is 20mph. This more specific rule trumps the general one. Try to tell the cop that it's OK to drive 35mph in the school zone because the general rule covers all roads at all times. He'll laugh all the way to turn in his ticket book.

I hope this little scenario helps everyone understand the application of general site wide policies and how they are used with content specific policies. The more specific the policy, the more applicable the rule. As I said above, I'm dumbfounded this even needs to be discussed. Now, if you don't mind, I've got about 20000 bytes of TL:DGAF to read, thank you. I needed something to do with my evening cigar anyways... The Gunny   00:49, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 00:54, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Over-ruling policies for when a general policy is too broad in terms to be applicable is damn useful in chat moderation. No rule will last its encounter with an offender, so fully agreed. Archmage Neko^{Neko's Haunt} 00:59, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Rational, but your example has no translatable morale to the system that our wiki utilizes. So I feel that I should bring this up again:

• Policies must be enforced, as through their inherent purpose. Breaking them results in administration action, and sometimes can even attract the attention of Wikia Staff. By having another policy take a stronger stance, even in situational scenarios, means that one policy is forcing the editor to ignore another policy. This is a contradiction, and convolutes our policies and opens up channels for abuse.
• Guidelines are general rules. They are there as a strong foundation, to help editors better understanding editing, and what is expected from them through community norms. They are not necessarily enforceable, and are simply there to be helpful.

So the problem here, is that we have contradicting policies, in which one of them needs to become a guideline, as that is the way certain editors are treating the policy that offends ones editing etiquette the most. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 00:56, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Wait... SO are you saying that speed limits are just a guideline? JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 00:59, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

And they are being enforced. You however are subverting the most specific rule with the general rule... You are breaking the purposeful approach in your irrational reading. Clearly the purpose in the rules is to have a catch all that applies to most situations, and then a more specific rule in the other section for when the general rule cannot apply. The policies do not contradict each other, they are complementary. Agent c (talk) 01:00, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Garouxbloodline: Nah. The Gunny   01:02, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I am sure, Gunny. I find it interesting that the people campaigning for these new precedents, are users that have either hardly contributed edit-wise, or were never a big part of this wiki until after the split, when our rules and standards became more lax. What I see are semantics. I see friends banding together zealously, and defending a concept they barely understand.

Professionalism has been my entire life, essentially. And it would really be a shame, to me personally, to see our quality further decline. I think a lot of us forget that just because we are popular, does not mean that our wiki is as good as others, such as Wookiepedia. I think a lot of our users forget how much we let this wiki slip into a mess, such as I discovered when I had to spend a month single-handedly cleaning up the wiki so that we could get spotlighted, as we met almost none of the requirements. And now, I see loopholes being used to add speculation. I see the wiki and its decisions being mostly made by adolescents who have barely ever edited, and sit in chat all day. I see the people who actually have put effort into the wiki, such as Jspoel, and the old-timers such as Tagaziel, ruthlessly made fun of.

It is just a shame. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 01:25, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Number of edits is not equal to worth of opinion. Also, by saying that "I see friends banding together zealously" it seems to me that you are assuming bad faith (for the second time in this forum), which I will have top ask you. to avoid doing. And you are right, we have become more lax so from this moment onwards consider this me un-laxing. This forum is not about questioning the worth of people's opinions, so please stop doing so.

Now, if we could all please return to the subject at hand, and talk about how we could change the wording of the rules to better benefit the wiki, instead of insulting each other.JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 01:32, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

So what do we do?

To me there seems to be two real options.

1. Change the wording of the rules to better reflect that the specific rule supersedes the general
   
2. Remove the specific rule, for if it doesn't supersede the general rule it is redundant.
   

Personally I am in favour of option one. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 13:01, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see how there is a conflict as a logical alternative reading has not been proposed (just ones that result in absurd results and are thus illogical). However, if we absolutely positively must make it plainly obvious then we can put a single line under the "Specific content" header (before any subheaders) reading "In the event of any apparent conflict the rules applying to the specific section overrule the general content criteria". Agent c (talk) 15:35, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 15:40, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Again, the necessity of this is beyond me, but if we have to make our policies readable to the lowest common denominator, we should add that specific rules mentioned further down the policies supersede the general rule. The Gunny   16:17, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

The "highest" place I can think of putting it would be Fallout_Wiki:Policies_and_guidelines. If we're gunna put it there I'd give it a heading that reads "Intepretation" and then as its body should be read "Rules should be read with an eye to giving effect to their purpose. Our rules are a combination of specific and general rules, general rules give way to specific rules in the event of an apparent conflict. "Rules lawyering" is against the spirit of the wiki and is not acceptable behaviour." Agent c (talk) 16:23, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to have a "barracks lawyer" clause in the rules, that needs to be in user conduct, not in content policy. The Gunny   16:26, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. Agent c (talk) 16:30, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

And probably discussed in a separate forum, as it has nothing to do with this specific issue. The Gunny   16:49, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

Possible solution? Short resume of stances (please keep your answers short)

DO NOT DISCUSS YOUR OPINION HERE ABOUT THE OTHER HIS/HER IDEAS, ONLY POST YOUR OWN OPINION ON THE TOPIC ITSELF PLEASE Sorry for the caps, but wanted it to be 100% clear. I'm also already saying in advance, I stopped reading this forum some time yesterdaynight as I didn't like the way it went and I felt no need to read it as it wouldn't make my day any better. Anyway, I was asked on chat to say my opinion on a proposition. It was a proposition to add to the rules a line that reminds the user that special rules dominate over general rules. I didn't get the complete context of the proposition, as I stopped reading and i'm not planning to, so I just start a new header here to point out this doesn't belong with the other comment section. I am personally in favor, as I only see it beneficial that rules are made more public so everyone has easier access to the existing law. However, I wanted to make sure that this proposition is something sides can somewhat agree to, as a consent is almost always the best solution to avert further issues. If you don't agree, please say in short why not, and please don't criticise other people their motivation. Are there other propositions you think should be discussed/voted on, even if this idea is passed? - ^Greets Peace'n Hugs (talk) (blog) 16:44, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

This is slightly longer than a short answer, and I apologize in advance for that.

I have concerns with: A) Who gets to decide what constitutes "Obvious"? Everyone, and I do mean everyone, thinks that their personal opinion is "Obvious". So my concern is that the administration is now getting a better say on what constitutes "Obvious", even though our rules state that our administrators are nothing more than regular users with extra maintenance tools.

And then B) Why are we focusing so much on the rule favouritism, instead of alternatives? If we have community forums, where we gather unique speculation, and vote on whether we should make exceptions for them. Making official exceptions, which creates an official discussion that we can link to on the article as an alternative reference, makes much more sense than blatantly throwing in speculation, with little or no community input, without any references, at all, to back it all up. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 17:23, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

As an addition to my last comment, please keep in mind that both concerns are propositions for further discussion. With A), I am wanting to see where the community feels the decisions on what content is "Obvious" should lie. Should it be left up to the entire community? The administration? Individual interpretation?

With B), I honestly this that this alternative, while not the best, would be a much better alternative to discuss, then what is currently going on. If anything, at least the idea can be spitballed, and other alternatives can be discovered. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 17:30, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

@ A) No. No idea where you get the idea that the admins are getting more of a say (Users who however are familiar with the subject are getting more than a say than a user who doesn't know who the subject is). B) I have no idea what you're talking about with rule "Favouritism", the rule is clear. Agent c (talk) 17:26, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from in the first point, Leon. Yes, if we have no rule about only having developer confirmed BtS it does pose the question of "oh but then who gets to say what we do and don't have". However, I think the solution is simple; first is there a direct correlation to the alleged reference? (for example do they have the same more obscure name? do they look or act similar? do they quote the reference?) if these are true then it is reasonable to add asa reference. Now, if after it is added an admin or fellow user decides it doesn't seem like a reference they are free to remove it, and start a discussion on the talk page to see where the consensus lies. Does that sound fair to you?JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?" 17:34, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

“Obvious (adjective): easily perceived or understood; clear, self-evident, or apparent.”— Whatever dictionary Google uses these days

I don't see a need to have to redefine every word in the dictionary or have a long discussion over every tiny little judgement call; Obvious itself is the standard. A discussion every time? That is a bureaucratic nightmare waiting to happen and actually gets in the way of any real work being done. I think we'd all be better off if we stopped nitpicking the policy and just got on with its plain, clear, logical, and dare I say obvious, implementation. Agent c (talk) 17:37, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

I would have agreed with you in the past, Jasper, as I would have thought that reasonable, as well. But I have become cautious, after doing exactly that in the past, and being proven wrong... again, and again, and again. We have used direct visual correlation, to state "Facts" on so many weapons articles, and a huge number of those "Facts", were later to be proven wrong.

On one hand, I 100% support the direct textual correlation policy, as there is no ambiguity with a song or similar that has been copied nearly verbatim. But the visual policy has always been flawed, and has resulted in us looking quite foolish on way too many occasions. It is not a trusthworthy policy, and I would rather it be seen gone altogether.

Then, we come to this being a bureaucratic nightmare. We cater to the wiki - the wiki does not cater to us. If we have to have a conversation, every time we want to make sure that this wiki holds up to high standards of quality, then we should be proud in doing so. Obvious, just like common sense, are both logical fallacies, as everyone thinks that they understand both, when in reality, they likely do not understand either. ^{Some Assembly Required!} 17:43, December 21, 2014 (UTC)

You might have time to have a long conversation every time someone wants to dispute that "VP Bird nothing like Bill Clinton's VP", but I do not, especially when the correlation is obvious as is the lack of familiarity with the subject of the disputor.

You're under the mistaken impression that Admins somehow trump regular users/consensus on these things (we don't). We dont need a new rule, and no new precedent has been set to suggest we are (on the contrary, no precedent has been set at all). So on this point, I don't think there needs to be any further discussion.

As for defining obvious. I can go all day and play contrarian to whatever definition or process to get to "obvious" is proposed. I wont, but someone will, so to even try is a waste of time. Langauge is imprecise, it will always be imprecise, and as long as it is imprescise, we cannot define a concept or process with 100% precision.

Simply apply the purpose behind the rule. If there's a problem, that's what the talk page is for, and get a thought out consensus. No New rules required, no long winded forum required, it already is the rule, and I dont think anyone seriously disputes it. Agent c (talk) 17:56, December 21, 2014 (UTC)