Board Thread:Policies/@comment-10473115-20170415164119/@comment-112155-20170417130324

Mrkermit wrote: I want to tell you that discussions are "won" by willingness to participate in them even after better guidelines are established. That is logic, but I tried to say, and seemingly you didn't understand my point, that currently, discussions are won not by those willing to participate, but by those willing to put up a fight.

Is that the kind of discussion that are wanted in this site? Because that is what has been happening as of late. I'm pretty sure I don't want it. Hopefully all this changes that, but if it doesn't, you can't count me out of threads and discussions...

Mrkermit wrote: I feel that your comment "let's get rid of something I don't like just because I don't like it" is unfair because propositions to remove something have always been done to improve our articles. I've never thought that you really mean that we should approve everything which can be referenced to sources. I never said anything like that, that we should approve everything. But, and at least SunGodKizaru agrees with what I actually said, many proposals are based Nobody can't be interested in editing everything and anything Marvel. There are people who don't care about TV series, about video games, about a specific set of characters, or a specific set of articles; and is totally understandable and obviously respectable.

However, in more than one case, there have been proposals to get rid of that specific set of articles with no further reason than a personal dislike or unwillingness to edit them. The topics about tracking appearances, the hybrids or the suits, just to cite recent examples, are sets of articles that not everybody may be interested in, and that is totally legimitate. However, their presence helps the ones that are interested in them, while it doesn't hinder the people who are not interested; so what could be the reason to get totally rid of them? It's just personal distaste, and as the suits thread demonstrated, people that put up a fight are able to make others just leave the matter out of tiredness.

Mrkermit wrote: I disagree with your view of purpose of being an admin. Policies should not be left to only admins. We have done that and the result isn't good. Again, you misinterpret what I said. Actual redaction and maintenance of the policies has to be lead by the wiki's staff members, while seeking opinions and input from everyone else. How can you pretend that regular editors write an structured policy article, that needs to be written with a certain sense of "officiality", if admins sometimes don't even bother?

There will always be volunteers, of course, but admins should always take point in these matters.