FAMEPedia:Village pump (policy)

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Create a new CSD criteria: G:15
I propose to add the new CSD criteria G:15, which has been developed in my sandbox. A new template (Db-g15) was also made to accompany it. This criteria will help in the simplification process of FP and give users the freedom to take part in it. --Magogre (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support for the principle. --Raidarr (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

FAMEPedia:Five pillars
What do you think about the Pillars of FAMEPedia? What's your opinion? Chimobi (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Should we have more,
 * 2) Should these Five be simplified?
 * 3) Is it not bad as is?


 * Overall, a reasonable set especially for a wiki carving a market from Wikipedia in premise. Really, only changes that correlate to what make this wiki different from wikipedia would deserve stating. I do think this could stand to be cross-linked with and reviewed alongside the existing FAMEPedia:About page, as the principles of why they exist strongly overlap; ambitiously, one can replace the other. Aesthetically five pillars would be the better looking and perhaps simpler one to use. In sum I lean option 3, offering the above to consider. --Raidarr (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Core Content Policies
Our Core Content Policies are including but not limited to; What do you think about these policies?
 * 1) Neutral point of view
 * 2) Veriafiability
 * 3) No original research
 * Should they be simplified?
 * What is your proposal?
 * What is your opinion? Let your voices be heard, voice your opinion out. Chimobi (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Collectively these policies are reasonable in spirit, but are clear duplication of the equivalent Wikipedia policies; as a result the citations are left with red links and the content depth is mainly appropriate to Wikipedia but lacks brevity for the community size of FAMEPedia (especially when things are linked with more red links and expected interconnection, such as NPOV's FAQ).
 * For me the issue is not so much the written policies so much as their lack of relation to an organic community. They're duplicate, not built to task. In templates and so forth this can make sense and get by, in foundational policy and architecture for the wiki it results in something of a mess where you must either duplicate everything (lending credence to people who would consider this a 'mere wikipedia clone) to be complete or effectively throw out the existing material in order to develop organically (a ton of work). However, not addressing at all simply leaves a patchwork structure with little central organization and many holes.
 * Unfortunately I do not see an expedient way to address this as the duplication is already extensive and a true rework is probably impossible for the current management. Thus, I unfortunately lack an actionable solution to these observations. As much as I believe it may cause trouble down the road, the simplest answer is to say 'I guess they're fine'. --Raidarr (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)