Thread:Jmor/@comment-4140188-20121122192542/@comment-4140188-20140731023959

"Policies need to be approached with common sense; adhere to the spirit rather than the lettering of the rules, and be prepared to break the rules on the rare occasion when they conflict with the goal of improving the wiki."

This is a crucial paragraph in your policies. Below is www.wikipedia.org's content policies.
 * "be clear. Avoid esoteric or quasi-legal terms and dumbed-down language. Be plain, direct, unambiguous, and specific. Avoid platitudes and generalities. Do not be afraid to tell editors directly that they must or should do something.
 * be as concise as possible—but no more concise. Verbosity is not a reliable defense against misinterpretation. Omit needless words. Direct, concise writing may be more clear than rambling examples. Footnotes and links to other pages may be used for further clarification.
 * emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense. If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more.
 * maintain scope and avoid redundancy. Clearly identify the purpose and scope early in the page. Content should be within the scope of its policy. When the scope of one advice page overlaps with the scope of another, minimize redundancy. When one policy refers to another policy, it should do so briefly, clearly and explicitly.
 * avoid overlinking. Links to policies, guidelines, essays, and articles should be used only when clarification or context is needed. Links to other advice pages may inadvertently or intentionally defer authority to them. Make it clear when links defer, and when they do not.
 * not contradict each other. The community's view cannot simultaneously be "A" and "not A". When apparent discrepancies arise between pages, editors at all the affected pages should discuss how they can most accurately represent the community's current position, and correct all of the pages to reflect the community's view. This discussion should be on  one  talk page, with invitations to that page at the talk pages of the various affected pages; otherwise the corrections may still contradict each other."

I have approached the policies of the page with common sense. Providing readers with an excess of information does not make any page manageable or user-friendly. In fact, it makes the page difficult to understand, lengthy, verbiose, and unclear.

I just copied/pasted only the summary of the chapter 1 page, and that was around five pages in microsoft word. Five pages! How can we make 40-60 page chapters become relevant when we are telling adding on irrelevant info for a summary? It is not a synopsis, which would be more detailed.

The short summary was merely a different way to organize the page layout. If someone wants just a quick overall idea of what happened in the chapter, they can find it. If they want a more detailed version, they can go to the summary, which is not a synopsis. If they want anything else, they can just go read the chapter.

I do acknowledge it is a different way of thinking. Different styles of layout have pros and cons. I'd like to point out that, however, that One Piece is an incredibly dense manga that's been going for well over a decade. There wiki, which contains almost 4,000 articles. Up to date, relevant, and easily manageable 'articles. 'Clearly, they are doing something right over there.

IF the Ao no Exorcist wiki is to take off and become a wonderful database that provides proper insight, relevant information, and understandable pages, we need to change some things. I do acknowledge that they are your policies. However, I've been a part of this wiki for nearly 3 years, and there are some things that need fixing. I don't want to fight you- I want to make this wiki something we can be proud of. We need to move forward and try to make things right, and I am willing to work with you to do that. So let's try and find some common ground, get our pages worked out, and make this thing work.

Jmor (talk) 02:39, July 31, 2014 (UTC)