ARK Survival Evolved Wiki talk:Wiki rules

From ARK: Survival Evolved Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Intro[edit source]

As suggested from a great idea from Doctor Arson, this will be an attempt to curb harassment, spam and attempt to keep the wiki at it's highest quality. Idea stolen from the Minecraft wiki. We can add a Video policy as well as necessary.

Rule Suggestions[edit source]

Images[edit source]

I propose that images should always be uploaded to the wiki rather than using hotlinking. Hotlinking doesn't give us the same tools to manage images (particularly licensing and history), and makes it harder for other editors to contribute updated versions of the image if needed. Thoughts? -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That is probably the best idea for managing pictures-- Minemodoverlord (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hotlinking image is just generally a bad practice for use in wiki. all contents on wiki should be stored on wiki with some exceptions like videos.--SharpShot gif (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Doubly-agreed. As far as wikis go, little bothers me more than when I see that dumb 'Hot-linking protection is active!' image everywhere. -- Nofew (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

How about quality settings? I've noticed that some parts of the game can vary greatly depending on how high people's graphical settings are set. I understand that not everyone is capable of playing Ark at higher settings, but I think we should endeavor to try and get at least two screenshots -- One with the game at low settings, and one with it at high, at least for objects that significantly differ in appearance across those settings. On top of this, we should probably try to make it clear that pictures of objects shouldn't be dyed (Unless talking about dye) and other things of that nature. -- Nofew (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It would be greatly preferable for all submitted images and videos to be of high quality. This game is downright beautiful on the highest settings and it would make the wiki look better if we were able to include some of those amazing visuals. Although I understand that not everybody is capable of achieving that (I can only get about 18 fps on lowest settings), so they shouldn't be outright disallowed, but if someone can provide an image serving an identical purpose but with a higher quality, it should replace the lower quality one without question. --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
As someone with a crappy computer as well.. I try to make screenshots at higher settings then at what I play usually, but still not optimal. Maybe instead of forbidding lower quality, we could make a Category tag like "stub" but for "seeking better quality" so people that can provide better quality would know we look for replacement? Would that work? --Amkorra (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
MediaWiki already has a template for this, {{Reupload}}, feel free to use it. I've updated it to the same style as the other notice templates. -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree on having two versions of each image. It's a lot of work for very little gain. However, I think we should strive for high-quality images whenever possible and request low-quality images to be improved using {{Reupload}}. As for dyes, I agree. This isn't a fashion community. ;] -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Videos[edit source]

I propose that embedding videos should, in principle, not be allowed, unless done by Gamepedia staff. Exceptions should be handled on a case-by-case basis to allow high quality videos of non-trivial gameplay to be contributed. This could be managed on each article's talk page, for example. Thoughts? -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2 minute videos on how to make each dye and place the traps are getting a little old so i definitely support this! -- Minemodoverlord (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Might be better if all videos have to be approved by staff before they can be displayed? --SharpShot gif (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of a wiki is to allow a community to edit content, bringing their own unique perspective/research to the table in one place for the sake of providing information to said community. To restrict an entire community of the ability to edit with video embedding contradicts the primary goal of a wikipedia. (Forgive me for my lack of education on editing wiki pages and how they are coded. I am not exactly sure how one obtains Gamepedia staff status or what that entails.) I am now fully aware that many of the videos applied to the wiki is a cheap quick trick to garner personal benefit. When I initially started making Dino Bytes, it was because many of my fellow players didn't know answers, and there was no information out there to be had. While still learning about editing videos, and I am still very much a novice when compared to people who officially make Curse videos, I believe that my videos have been valuable. I try to make them as short and as comprehensive as possible, professional. I would like it if we could possibly reconsider the redacted videos that the community itself posted onto the forums. I was not the person who made a two minute video for each dye, (It's 9 minutes and a comprehensive guide to all dye making. If you argue that the video is not relevant or useful, there are +6k views, people want a video for this.) nor have I made a video on how traps can be placed, this is common sense and pretty standard across all survival games.
So I propose an idea, to prevent random people adding YouTube spam to every page, degrading the quality of the wiki, why not establish a list of requirements, written here on exactly how the admins think a video ought to be. Vague enough to allow you the ability to retain rights, but concrete enough to allow the community to still contribute visual media for the benefit of the entire community. I understand as someone who has not edited anything on the wiki my opinions or ideas may be viewed as unwelcome, I will attempt to learn how to edit the wiki so I can remedy this. I do want to contribute. There are many things to consider when making a video. It has been established that advertisement of any kind is not allowed and that we wish to avoid trivial content like how to place traps. I have tried to compare several elements to Margaret Krohn's official curse video to hammer down some of the things that make it look more professional and thus providing a more professional video.
  1. She has no advertisements on her video other than Curse at the beginning.(Which can only be used by people who work for Curse. Allow a short logo to be placed at the beginning of the video.)
  2. The music in game is provided in the description below. (Not on screen. If music needs to be recognized, placing it in the description box is required.)
  3. She does not ask for subscriptions in the video, however it does ask down below and all of her social media content is left in the description box. (This should be an acceptable form of asking for subs as it does not appear on an embedded video.)
  4. Promotes the wiki community by adding, "► Join the community at" (Symbiosis. You feature their videos on the site and they put you in their description box.)
Here are my ideas.
  1. All videos submitted to the wiki must include the version of the game they are recorded in. (This allows for easier moderation, if the video becomes out of date, then it is subject to be taken down.)
  2. Require on the rules page that no advertisements, offensive language, subscriptions, donations, or promotions are allowed in their video content. (I have, please subscribe, in the top left of my video I am willing to re-render all of my videos if this is necessary.)
  3. If another person wants to submit a video of theirs, when there is already a video provided, they think it is better or has more accurate information, they must put in for a petition to on a specific page. This keeps video space at a premium.
  4. Videos wishing to be submitted must be reviewed first. (Or you can allow them to be added, if they don't garner enough views, you will know they are not relevant and ought to be removed from the wiki and noted in a specific page why it was removed?)
  5. Adding a section to all wiki pages you believe deserve a video tutorial there and specifying which dimensions you want the video to appear in. This allows a systematic and concrete place for videos to be viewed. No more putting it at the top of the wiki page, however, the official Curse video is at the very top, IMO videos should be put at the bottom of the page. This how they do it on the Minecraft Gamepedia.
  6. The front page should be updated whenever there is a major patch. A video featuring new dinos, items, etc. ought to be placed here. (That video that is there has been there for weeks now. Do a Patch Video, people will want to see it.)
So, this is all I can come up with. What do you think? (I would like to point out... I FIGURED OUT HOW TO SIGN MY NAME BELOW, I R LERN 2 WIKI!) -- Thelyzardiam (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey Thelyzardiam, thanks for adding to the discussion! This is exactly the kind of feedback I hoped to get from my suggestion. I definitely think we should have some kind of video box with information such as patch version, submitter, etc. I'd be happy to help make it. I'll speak to the review process in my reply to Z3ther in a little bit. Oh, and if you have any questions about wiki functionality, feel free to ask me. :] -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey Thelyzardiam! Great ideas! In regards to #3, I think there should be a maximum of 2 videos on each page, with a standard 1 video for smaller content pages. There's no sense to have half of the page be videos, and it would be perfect since it forces the creator to make a higher quality to remain as the featured video. In regards to a review process (#4), a video can be posted on the talk page asking for review... What does everyone think of a sort of "jury" that if 2/3 people from the top 20 editors (and or 3/4 people from the top 40) approve then it would added to the page. Similar rules can be in place to replace the current. --Z3ther (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Great ideas, Z3ther! However, I think requiring supermajority from a large number of editors might be too much. I think something like simple majority with votes from at least five Top 20 editors should suffice, no? As I mentioned above, I'd be happy to assist in the creation of the necessary templates etc. to facilitate the review/voting process. -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I think only having 5 from the top editors is very limited as of right now we only have 3 out of the 5 active. PicayuneCoterie (talkcontribslogsblock log) has not made any edits for a month and is still at the top. This might lead to votes not happening because of top editors being inactive. --SharpShot gif (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Are there only 3 active editors in the Top 20? Anyway, 5 was just a number, it could just as well be 3. Or it could be 5 editors from the Top 40. -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
There's a few of the top 20 that are pretty inactive... actually having looked at some stats, it appears as if in the top 20 editors only 10 are what I would call as active editors. 7 haven't edited in the last 3-4 weeks, and 3 haven't edited in the last 2ish weeks. If we look at the top 20-40 editors, only 4 are "active", 2 of which have mostly only added videos. Given the stats, I would put my vote towards if you're in the top 20 editors you can vote on videos being approved into a page, 2 of which are needed for it to be posted, 3 of which are needed to overturn/replace a video. That gives a chance for content creators, but also keeps the wiki a high enough quality that not just any video is posted. Thoughts? --Z3ther (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds fair. I assume this vote would be on the talk page of wherever the video is to be added? --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
That's what I would imagine, whoever wants to add their video posts it with a template (that we can make for voting) into the talk/discussion part of the page that they want it added in, two votes later the person or the second/third voter can add it in, or does that sound too tedious? --Z3ther (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
No, that sounds just fine to me. The template can be made so that it produces the final content to be inserted into the page, so it'll just be a matter of copy and paste. -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Videos must go through a jury voting process on the article's talk page where the top 20 editors are able to vote on videos. After 2 approval votes, the video can then be added to the page." If we're ok with this language, I would propose that the template include a area for both approval, as well as non approval votes with an area for reasoning why so we can see activity from the top 20, and if we're continually getting 18 no's and 2 yes's we can rewrite the way this works, rather than most everyone not approving and just not saying something. Fair? --Z3ther (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of having the videos voted on, but that will take a massive amount of time. -- Crua9 (talk)

Maybe if I explain what's going on with my videos, it may help whomever figure out what's going on. But I want to mention right now, I'm really getting sick of this crap where I upload a video helps a load, but gets taken off because it shows ads, or someone with power thinks all videos shouldn't be on here or something.

I made a few videos on this game to help people. One of the biggest ones that helped a lot of people was my video on how you can get oil/pearls, what it looks like, and what you can do with it. I've gotten 237 thank you e-mails telling me that they couldn't figure out how to do it before my video came out. They ran into problems where people were giving them bad info on Steam, and THIS wiki didn't help AT ALL.

The following video that seem to help a lot of people was the Lamppost. Having this say it looks different from the pic and not really showing anything is pointless. You may ask why don't we just show a picture of the real thing. The answer to that is I seen it where at least one person was confused by the angle of the lamp. This means there is a lot more that has this problem. Anyways, I got 152 e-mails thanking me for that.

Now lets get into ads and donations. I shouldn't have to explain this one, but unlike writing text or making a crappy video that helps no one. Just to do what we do actually cost money. Some of us has to pay for licenses per use, some of us has to pay for it over time, and some of us has to use the ad money to get better stuff that could make better videos. For example, my mic cost $500, the software I use cost $800, and I can keep going. Then there is a cost for the music, and some of us even has to have ads or risk being sued by contract.

Ads in itself shouldn't be a factor in if a video can be linked on here. If this is the case, then you're automatically making it where this wiki is open to bad info and worst videos.

For anyone thinking we YouTube people are making bank with ads. Ads are known to be going out the door, and Google even sent me a thing and said 95% of my profit isn't coming in because of people using ad block. The 10k viewed how to get oil video only got between 22 and 25 cents for. (So don't give me this crap that there shouldn't be ads). In fact, people asking for money or just having the ability to have donations shouldn't be a stopping factor because normally less money comes in by that method (for me it's been $2 per YEAR). Again, the stuff to just make the videos isn't cheap and you can't buy it with hugs and kisses. (If you say otherwise, try that on your bank with your house. Lets see how well they take it)

With that being said, we obviously have some control of the ads. Personally, I use ones that you can skip. The ones you have to watch out for is the ones that the person didn't allow google to pick the time slots (giving it has an ad every 2 seconds). And while I don't do sponsor videos yet, I don't think it should stop someone from having their video on here. As long as it's towards the end/start or tasteful.

While this personality hasn't happen to me, I've seen it where people don't allow others to post their videos on here because they have a social media site (FB, twitter, etc). This has to be one of the pointless things to stopping a video. But, with this being said, if the person isn't blasting their social site. Then I don't see the problem. In fact, they wouldn't have the views if they were. as for as labeling the music. This shouldn't be a thing unless if the videos are directly uploaded to here. Many people have contracts saying they don't have to do that.

Now as far as things I wouldn't allow on here. I don't see any point of anyone having a LP or acting stupid. However, I could see an area for PVP or PVE tips (if a page is added for it).

Anyways, I hope a few of you did learn something about uploading to YouTube, and why it's not good to say anything is spam if it's YouTube. I also hope many of you figured out by now that you will get worst content by keeping people from having ads on their videos, have links to other videos, etc. -- Crua9 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crua9 (talkcontribs) at 09:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This site is here to provide information on the game to the player. If that is what a video is doing, then it may find a place here. However, if the video is advertising a server, other videos from the uploader, or anything else past information on the subject at hand, then it makes the wiki look unprofessional and sloppy, and it wastes the player's time. If your videos are as informative and well-made as you claim them to be, then they shouldn't have any trouble getting through the voting process. --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Only problem i have with your videos is you don't place them on the page with care it looks like you just throw them on --SharpShot gif (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why you make such a big deal about ads if they pay so little. In any case, you're welcome to propose your videos for inclusion on relevant pages when the video rules are finalized. -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Have we agreed on whether or not a server can be advertised in the video description? The description isn't displayed on the wiki page, making it less of an issue, I think. Thoughts? -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say putting it in the description is perfectly fine, since that's only visible on the YouTube page. --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Configuration[edit source]

I propose that the wiki should first and foremost cover the game as it appears and behaves under the standard PvPvE configuration on official servers. Where applicable, notable differences between PvPvE and PvE rulesets should be noted. The same goes for the official Primitive ruleset. This will ensure that configurable mechanics such as gathering and taming are described uniformly. Where it makes sense, we can include notes on the effects of certain configuration options, such as reduced taming time etc. Thoughts? -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. we have had some users edit pages with data thats way off leading me to think they got it from private servers using custom difficulty settings. It might be a good idea to make a notification above the edit field box informing editors that any stats that are affected by the difficulty setting should be taken from default servers not custom ones. --SharpShot gif (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. The edit field box sounds like a really good idea! -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the edit field box is the best imo, then you don't have to have it on every page, or have templates, just a simple notification in the place when people will go to edit it. --Z3ther (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Anecdotal Evidence and Speculation[edit source]

I propose that anecdotal evidence and speculation should be confined to an article's talk page where it must be verified before inclusion in the article. This is mainly to curb useless additions such as "I tamed this dino in this amount of time" or "I once saw such and such happen" etc. Thoughts? -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely. I just remove those sorts of things when I see them, although I do sometimes keep the actual information if it's useful and I know it to be true (which is rare). --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, just yes. Oh, gosh, I could go on for ages about how this stuff needs to go away. Anything opinionated like 'White dinosaurs are rare and should be tamed immediately no matter what you're doing because I like the white ones' and 'Diving for oil is rarely done because it's particularly stressful' should be hunted down and removed, too. This is a wiki, not a diary about someone's custom server where someone tried to get oil once, got freaked out and decided to write about their own personal, heavily-biased one-off experience.
While on the topic, I've noticed that a lot of people post information that seems to conflict with other pages. For example, some people claim a 'high-level dinosaur' is level 30 at the most, while others claim over 80. Obviously this is due to people having different difficulty settings, essentially making just about /everything/ an anecdote. I think there should be either a standard server configuration that people are required to base their information off of when they want to edit the wiki, or at the very least, they should be required to state what difficulty their server's running at. -- Nofew (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The standard should be what the official servers are running off. --SharpShot gif (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought that, but I'm worried that the developers might keep changing what the official servers are running at. I think we need to define one to guarantee that it doesn't change and avoid those little "as of version 1.88" notes everywhere. While basing it off the official servers is definitely a good way to go, I think it might be better if we ran it at a difficulty of 1.0 to fill out the wiki faster.
Simply posting an .ini somewhere is probably the best short-term solution and should be done regardless, but I have a gut feeling that it'll still invite some anecdotes. I'm tossing the idea around of having a dedicated wiki-testing server, where everyone online is expected to be super-focused on making sure things are of acceptable quality and nobody's complaining about being too thorough, but I don't know if anyone'd be up for that considering how few active editors there are here who also happen to write well. -- Nofew (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I vehemently disagree on this. If we are not documenting the default settings, this wiki will become very confusing to the average reader. It will also make it more difficult for others to add information and verify existing information. Also, we have a responsibility as the official wiki to do this the right way, and I don't think diverging from the defaults is it. :] -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Man, that smiley totally fixes things. o_o. Anyway, okay, maybe I shouldn't be writing at three in the morning. Here, let me try to say where I'm coming from;
So, Ark is in heavy development. Sometime this week, the developers are upping the difficulty cap and applying it to their official servers. I know this is the first time they've done it, but I'm worried that this will become a regular thing and it'll keep invalidating a bunch of articles, so I want to try and avoid that.
...Annnnd now I just came to the realization that everything's subject to change, not just the difficulty cap, so even if we had our own guarnteed-to-never-change standard things might still go kaddywonkus, so perhaps that entire point's moot.
Okay, yeah. Scratch that. Let's just stick to what the official servers are doing.
Back to topic, can we get a page that just points to other pages that consist primarily of anecdotes and speculation? I'm fairly new to writing wikis, so if there's a template for a redirect page that someone could point me to, I'd appreciate that. -- Nofew (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
We have those, they're called talk pages. --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey, that was my "I'm being nice even though it might not read like it" smiley. >:] Anyway, this is actually not the first time the difficulty is increasing, and might not be the last, but we'll just deal with that. A large part of this is using the tools of the wiki to keep things organized. And then there are the talk pages and you are welcome to use {{Outdated}} (which will put things in Category:Outdated) if you see something that (you suspect) is no longer true. As far as anecdotes go, I'd say everything in Category:Creatures is probably worth a look, but don't be too undo happy, sometimes there is truth to some of these anecdotes, we just need to find out what is and what isn't. -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Private Servers[edit source]

This probably should be discussed. Currently we have the ARK Server Providers page, which is only allowed to be edited by Autoconfirmed users at this point. I think since there's not much out there in regards to where to find private servers it can be allowed, so long as new additions keep the same format and only post the single link, but it's entirely up to the community here and what they think. --Z3ther (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I think having a list of server providers is fine. All outgoing links on the wiki are rel="nofollow", anyway. The existing list could use some better formatting, though, it's a bit messy right now. -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I gave the list a little makeover and moved it to Dedicated Server Providers. -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Content on tribe pages[edit source]

Should these rules be in effect on tribe pages? I saw a tribe linking to the YouTube channel of one of their members. Should this follow the same rules about asking for donations etc. as videos on regular pages? That actually seems a bit excessive to me. And what about hotlinking images? Perhaps this should be allowed as well, as an exception? Thoughts? -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, IllegalOpcode! I agree with your thinking. Tribe pages are quite different from typical informational pages on the wiki - it makes sense that certain rules wouldn't apply to them directly. As Tribe pages are meant to be resource hubs for Tribes in the game, things like linking to YouTube channels could greatly help in their recruitment efforts. BriannaMCR (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Have you considered moving tribe pages to a Tribe namespace? (With redirects so existing links still work, of course.) This would make it easy to tell at a glance when patrolling if it is a tribe page. -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I've pretty much been letting tribe pages do whatever they want. Unless they have a name that could easily be confused with an actual page (Carno Rex is pushing it), I see no problem. Although, an idea comes to me; some sort of notice at the top of each tribe page saying something along the lines of it not being an official wiki article and the information is managed by the tribe members rather than given the standard quality control of our articles. I think Wikipedia has a similar notice for pages that are managed by companies. --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
We've created the namespace for it so all Tribe pages should start with Tribe:<Tribename>, so it will cut down on the confusion and tend to keep it a little more separate. A notice could also be good, so if say a year down the road people are still looking up something and the tribe has been abandoned, it won't be confusing. With that given, I'm down for letting tribes do "basically" whatever, provided the're not seriously breaking the other rules. --Z3ther (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll see about getting a notice template created later today. --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Rule Specific Language[edit source]

In order to keep the ARK: Survival Evolved Wiki free of spam and unnecessary items, there are a few rules and guidelines you must follow when editing and creating pages:

  1. Don't post content that is against the Curse TOS.
  2. Spam/Advertising/Vandalism is not allowed. This includes posting off-topic, repetitive, offensive, libelous, or advertising content.
    1. Some Private Server information is allowed, provided that it keeps the same format: see Dedicated Server Providers.
  3. Harassment, insults, ad hominem is not allowed on the wiki. Please keep all discussion pages as civil as possible. Be respectful.
  4. Link to homepages, try to avoid linking directly to files and file-sharing sites--homepages are generally more secure then a Megashare link.
  5. Try to make sure your pages have content. Note that some content might be too simple to warrant a page. There are exceptions, such as parts of the actual game. Berries is a great example.
  6. If you are in the middle of working on a page, mark it as a work in progress so it won't get removed due to lack of content.
  7. Content should first and foremost cover the game as it appears and behaves under the standard PvPvE configuration on official servers. Where applicable, notable differences between PvPvE and PvE rulesets should be noted.
  8. Keep speculation to a minimum. Anecdotal evidence should be confined to an article's talk page where it must be verified before inclusion in the article.
  9. Keep videos to an absolute maximum of 2 per page. It's better to tell rather than show. See below for additional video specific rules.
    1. Videos must go through a jury voting process on the article's talk page where the top 20 editors are able to vote on videos. After 2 approval votes, the video can then be added to the page.
    2. All videos submitted to the wiki must include the version of the game they are recorded in.
    3. No advertisements, offensive language, subscriptions, donations, or promotions are allowed in the video content.
    4. If an additional person wants to submit a video when there is already a video posted, they must petition for it on the discussion page, where it must receive 3 approval votes.
    5. If a video has been approved, please follow the template to paste into the page.
  10. Sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~. If you see a comment without a signature, look into the page's history to find the username and date of the person who made the comment, then substitute {{Unsigned}} using {{subst:unsigned|Username|Date}} and remind them to sign next time using {{Please sign}}.

Shouldn't this list be on the actual rules page rather than the talk page for the rules page? --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it is meant as a draft until the rules are finalized, but we should probably get moving on that soon. -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Currently, the rules page is empty, so this draft would be better than nothing. We can always update the list if need be. --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I was mostly waiting to make sure no one else had issues with it for a week, but just moved it over. We still need a template for videos if someone has interest in making that.. --Z3ther (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll get started on a template tonight. -- IllegalOpcode (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Video Rules Revisited[edit source]

We're looking to have the current video rules reformed. The current system sounded like a good idea at the time, but it has proven to be impractical. So we're looking to get it changed to better serve the wiki, the youtubers, and the community. We have the following ideas so far, feel free to offer your opinion on them or add a completely new idea.
-- Mr Pie 5 (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Long-Term Approval[edit source]

My idea is to keep the current system initially, but after a few videos by individual users/youtubers, we give them permission to bypass the voting process if we feel that they've proven themselves capable of producing useful and appropriate content without the need for video review. These users will of course still have their videos subject to deletion if they violate the rules or we begin to feel that our trust in them was misplaced.
-- Mr Pie 5 (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

First One's Free[edit source]

The first video posted to individual articles should be able to get through without a vote, but subsequent or replacement videos to that page will still need to go through the voting process. This first video will still be removed if it's inappropriate, misleading, or just blatantly wrong though. --Cadaeib (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft[edit source]

Alright, this video policy issue has been festering around waiting for discussion long enough. If there are no objections within 24 hours, this will be official until when/if we come up with an improved version. The following is a modified combination of the Minecraft Wiki Video Policy and Cadaeib's idea above.

9. Keep videos to an absolute maximum of 2 per page. It's better to tell rather than show. See below for additional video specific rules.

  1. The first video posted to a page may be done without debate. Additional or replacement videos must go through a jury voting process on the article's talk page where the top 20 editors are able to vote on videos. After 3 approval votes, the video can then be added to the page.
  2. Videos must follow the [[Video Policy]] (this will link to the video policy below).
  3. Videos should contain the version of the game they were recorded in.
  4. Videos that fail to completely adhere to these rules, or that have become outdated will be removed at the discretion of the individual admins.

Video Policy[edit source]

(The policy would be included on a subpage of the rules, so as not to clutter the rules page)
The video policy describes when and how a video can be included in an article on the ARK: Survival Evolved Wiki. This policy applies only to mainspace articles, tribes may post videos to their own pages. Official Curse and ARK videos are exempt from these rules, within reason.

Embedded videos[edit source]
When to use them[edit source]

Embedded videos are only permitted in articles when an animation is necessary to illustrate some of the mentioned concepts, and a static image cannot fulfill this role alone. Examples of this would include, but are not limited to, the behaviors and attacks of certain creatures, the particle effects of certain game elements, or the demonstration of a complicated process (such as taming).

Video contents[edit source]

Embedded videos should be completely neutral, entirely for illustrative or explanatory purposes. Self-promotion, advertising, donations, or offensive language are not allowed.

  • Exceptions
    • The video end card may contain self-promotion of the channel.
    • The video description may contain any of the above.

It should also go without saying that the information in the video should be correct - please know what you're talking about.

How to embed videos[edit source]

YouTube videos should be embedded using {{#ev:youtube|id}}. The id of would be Wrt21WitQBc.

Other videos[edit source]

As a general rule, no other videos are allowed on mainspace articles. However:

  • References: If a video is the direct reference to the content of an article, then it may appear in the references (as a textual external link).

-- Mr Pie 5 (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are a few more suggestions - Any other thoughts?
  • 10 minutes or less suggested, but can be exceeded if very informative and necessary
  • try to give each page its own video, avoiding using the same video multiple times, unless it is appropriate to be used in such a manner, such as an armor set or a weapon and its new ammunition
  • post a video on the talk page for a review if there is a question on whether or not it will be accepted
    -- Minemodoverlord (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Trivia on this wiki[edit source]

To what extend should trivia allowed on this wiki? Please discuss.

To start, IMO

  • Trivia should be related to the ingame creature/feature, or
  • describe interesting differences between the ingame and realworld counterpart

--Cadaeib (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before, the word 'trivia' is defined as facts or information loosely related to a particular topic. Every creature within ARK (with the exception of bosses and event-based creatures) are based off of a real extinct or extant animal. Information about these real world creatures is related to the topic of the game's creatures. That's why it's listed as 'Trivia' at the bottom of the page, after the in-game information. If the trivia section is meant only for in-game information, whatever is supposed to go there should really be incorporated into the main body of the page. TheDeinonychus (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This is an interesting problem. I do think facts about the realworld counterparts of the Dinosaurs ingame do have their place on the wiki but not in the Trivia section. I would suggest adding a Background section like we use on the DayZ Wiki for big sections of info that TheDeinonychus adds to the pages and use the Trivia section for small pieces of information like for example:
  • The dossier mistakenly lists Iguanodon as living during the Late Jurassic, when it instead lived during the Early Cretaceous.
  • The Terror Bird's genus, Phorusrhacidae, actually refers to the family informally known as terror birds rather than a particular genus.
But that are just my 2 cents on the issue. --Basinox (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I brought this up in our Slack chat yesterday, and a few members of the Curse staff have offered their opinion on the matter. They all said that if it isn't relevant to the in-game creature in a way besides its namesake, its not really appropriate for the game wiki. To quote a couple of messages: "You're not trying to re-document all of paleontology. You're coving facts about a game," and "I think the bottom line should be 'does it provide more info for the player?' Copying a paleontology book might be going too far, but explaining oddities in the game would be great."
However, that being said, specific policy decisions are handled on the basis of individual wikis, so it's still up to us to figure out what is best for this particular wiki. I think Basinox has a good idea with the background section, but we need some measure of how deep into the background we should be going, preferably a concrete limit, as ambiguous boundaries rarely work out well.
-- Mr Pie 5 (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Having two different sections would solve the issue. But again, it still seems to me that a lot of the in-game information that gets dumped into the Trivia section should be worked into the main article somehow. For example, most articles have what sort of flying creature can pick up the creature in question. Pretty much every creature has this listed, making such info so common that it should really have a place in the main body of the article. Other pages have taming or hunting strategies in their trivia sections, which again should be somewhere in the main body. True, not every in-game fact may fit easily into a main section, but the trivia section can easily become a dumping ground for info that should really be placed elsewhere.
Adding a 'Background' section, as Mr Pie suggested would help separate things that are strictly game-related and things that are about the animals the game's creature are based off of. However, trying to come up with 'concrete' limits might not be possible without being extremely specific and very limiting on what qualifies. For one, some of the animals the game's creatures are based off of are rather obscure. For example, while most people would know general info about Triceratops, most wouldn't even have heard of Achatina. Would that mean basic info about Triceratops would be considered superfluous? Or would that mean more info would be allowed simply because there's more of it out there? Some creatures just have more interesting facts about them when compared to others. Only advice I could really give is that facts for a Background section should be kept relatively short, maybe four lines or so for each fact. And links to other sites with more information (Wikipedia or other relevant sites) should be given where able. I had always tried to give links back to Wikipedia pages for any bit of trivia I added for that purpose. For one, it meant that I could only list those facts that I felt readers might find interesting, but still leave a way for those that wished to learn more could easily find a full article about the topic in question.
I would just like to say, thought, that until a couple days ago no one had any issue with real-world facts being added to the Trivia section. There are still pages with real-world facts that have not been removed yet. Some of which have been up for months. If, as some people claim, this site has a policy of removing any non-game specific information, then it's never been enforced. And given that this wiki is about a game where nearly every creature in it is based upon a real life animal, as opposed to other games where nearly everything is fictional, there is value in talking about the real-world inspirations for these creatures. If nothing else, it shows what the designs for each creature are based upon, as well as the reason behind many choices in their designs. It shows where the game developers decided to take artistic license with the looks of a certain creature (such as with Dilophosaurus or Ankylosaurus) or how closely they remained to the real-life animal (such as with Carnotaurus).— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDeinonychus (talkcontribs) at 15:01, 1 March 2016 (GMT). Please sign your posts with ~~~~
Just to give my opinion on the topic: I fully agree with Cad's rule draft. This is Ark wiki, not dinosaur wiki. If a trivia fact relates to the ingame creature or its design process, it's fine. But the fact that an asteroid was named after the Iguanodon just doesn't belong on the Ark wiki, people can hit up Wikipedia for this kind of trivia. --TMHWK (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Marking empty pages for Deletion[edit source]

What should be the rule, regarding, pages that have their content deleted, whether by vandalism, or intentionally being blank (like Tribe pages). Should we mark them all for deletion, or leave them be for an admin to notice them? SpeedHighway (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If a valid page is deleted by vandals, you should just revert the edit and wait for an admin to block the vandal (in the case the vandal proceeds and no admin shows up, you can try to message one of them, but usually at least one of us is here). For tribe-pages that are blanked it's sometimes difficult to say if that was vandalism or intention by their creators. If the page was blanked by a registered user that also created the page, it's probably ok to insert the delete-template. In other cases where it's not sure, just leave it blank. If nobody complains after some time, the page will be deleted.--Cadaeib (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I forgot to add the main part of my question. For pages that are newly created, by vandals: We cannot undo these, so is marking them with a delete request acceptable? There have been quite a few added, recently, where the vandal text was removed, but all of the blank pages now exist, for no reason. SpeedHighway (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a good thing to do! Usually these pages are removed pretty soon. A list of the shortest pages is available, so we remove them from time to time, but usually they'll get removed at least after some hours.--Cadaeib (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)