Now that I’ve written that I’m wondering if we actually had a point in limiting it to Dynastic Rules by default, and may withdraw this, but let’s at least have that conversation.

Right now the Photo Gallery wiki page isn’t gamestate (it’s only linked from rule 1.1 and not in the dynastic rules), but all of the information tracked on it is (because the alteration of that information is regulated).

Was the dynastic rules scope just to cover situations where we dynastically reference some corpus of text and don’t want people to edit it - and for core-referenced pages like Imperial Styles and Mentorships we should declare case-by-case whether we want them to be freely editable?

I think we’ve just all collectively misremembered how it works.

As far as I can tell, the clause was always dynastic-rules-references-only, going back to 2013 at least. (It was, perhaps predicatably, a response to a Wakukee scam where they wrote “this page is gamestate” on a non-gamestate wiki page and used that to declare victory.)

Very startling to realise that we’ve all just been using it wrong all this time.

Anyway, I’m FOR this.

I’m mildly concerned that making the gamestate tracking page itself gamestate might mean that a purely visual afterthought like adding separator bars would be illegal, and would have to go through a proposal.

(Although I know for a long stretch we were declaring gamestate pages in dynastic rules, prior to the establishment of “gamestate tracking page” as a core keyword.)

It could be worth a clarifying entry in Spelling and Formatting, to establish that wiki formatting can be freely edited and amended so long as meaning isn’t change or lost.

Good idea, added.

Sorry, thought I was deferring to another proposal