Guild Wars Wiki talk:Guidelines/Archive

I finished my first pass of this draft and am looking for any constructive criticism. --Rezyk 23:41, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Everyone seems to have ignored this. Can I just go ahead and merge this with the existing GWW:FORMAT and try to replace "Formatting" with "Guideline"? The latter seems better and more indicative of the articles it is meant to encompass. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 21:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Feel free to use any material I've written, of course. I honestly can't tell if I'll like the result yet, but we might as well see how it goes. =) --Rezyk 06:42, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Can someone define for me consens and how it is to be gaged? My worry is apathy on the talk page doesn't constitute consensus. Dancing Gnome
 * Well, consensus is considered reached when a discussion has a reached a point where participants are wholly in agreement about a something. There's really not much to gauge because a consensus if different from having a majority. As for apathy or general lack of discussion, yes, those do not indicate consensus. Are you referring to this page or to something else? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 14:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If this should replace the existing Formatting page, I'm against it as the formatting page is a lot more clearer than a list like this or like Guild Wars Wiki:Policy. poke | talk 11:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not supposed to replace the formatting page. This is to the formatting page as Guild Wars Wiki:Policy is to for example Guild Wars Wiki:User page. --Xeeron 12:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I had in mind at that time was that Formatting should be renamed guidelines. But now, with the creation of several other types of guidelines pages, I'm thinking guidelines should the a GWW:POLICY equivalent, with the formatting guidelines as a subgrouping for guidelines specific to formatting. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 00:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing that bothers me, is that the policies are all named "whatever policy", but the formatting guidelines use subpages. :/ - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 03:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then go ahead and propose to move one or the other =) --Xeeron 09:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Difference to policies
This proposal leaves me in two minds: On one hand, I really want to have guidelines as sort of a "policy light" around in the wiki, on the other hand, I don't know whether this is the correct way to do it. Somehow I am worried by having this formal structure, but maybe it will work out fine, I just dont know. --Xeeron 09:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So is it agreed that a policy is rules that are expected to be followed while guidelines are just recommendations and conventions? So all the etiquette and behavior stuff that's currently in some of our policies should ideally be moved out into a separate guidelines article? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 02:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is what I believe should happen. Anything that cannot be enforced (ie. with a block) should be in a guideline. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 03:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I only agree for the completely optional/ignorable stuff that naturally separates into its own section. In some cases, leaving soft notes in policy (with clear descriptions that they are not required) is more convenient for readers. --Rezyk 03:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, agreed. Convenience and visibility. Having a section devoted to expected behavior makes it more visible than just a link. Example: Guild Wars Wiki:User page/Draft 20070715. Perhaps a shortening of that section and then moving the bulk of it into a guidelines page (a short one I expect)? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 04:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A less formal proposal (rewrite)
To sum up the main points of the proposal: The basic idea behind my proposal is that guidelines should be a tool to facilitate consensus about a large number of articles without going to each articles talk page. As such tools, they should be easy to use (no formal process), but also not carry extra weight (no bans based on guidelines).
 * No administrative action soley based on breached guidelines
 * Minimal formal process for guidelines (guidelines are treated like normal wiki articles with respect to changing them)

The proposal is mainly geared towards formatting guidelines, but is broad enought to incorporate other uses (e.g. a sysop guideline, a non-binding guideline on ban lengths, non-binding guidelines on user behavior). --Xeeron 12:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't see anything wrong. My only question is on when they would be used. Could you give an example on when a guideline would be used over a formating page, or it's talk page? Backsword 12:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All the current Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting pages would count as guidelines covered by this policy. Additionally, you could think of new guidelines which could possibly arise, e.g. someone might argue for a "reset the talk page indent once 10 :'s are reached" guideline (not that I am proposing that ;-) just an example). --Xeeron 13:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So how should we resolve problems that arise with regards to not conforming to guidelines? Can I use the guidelines to justify an edit to a particular page? For example, can I remove another user's formatting changes solely because it doesn't conform to guidelines? Or does something like that warrant going to the talk page to argue about why not to follow guidelines? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 14:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say yes. Just like you can go to any wiki article and correct it if you feel it is wrong. The difference between policy and guideline being: If you correct something based on policy, that is the end of story. If you corrected based on a guideline, the other auther could revert your edit and it would go to the talk page (of course he/she would have to argue convincingly why following the guideline is worse). --Xeeron 17:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerns: --Rezyk 22:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) When an edit to a guideline is disputed, what is the ideal that we should use to judge whether or not that edit should be kept?
 * 2) Can acting against a single guideline repeatedly constitute a complete reason for administrative action? Or acting against multiple guidelines? Can acting against a single guideline once add reason on top of policy violations? I generally would not support saying that there is no weight behind something that represents consensus.
 * Err ideal? What ideal do you use to judge whether notes should be in front of NPCs or behind trivia? Whether there should be colored boxes on the main page or not? Just use common sense and the sound arguments brought forward on the talk page, like always. I dont see a need to write that down specifically.
 * No (if it does not break any polcies); No (but mind you, only if it is not vandalism); A reason for banning? No, if no additional policy is broken; I would say so as well, but what does that mean? All our articles (should) represent consensus, yet does that mean they are set in stone? No. I feel you are reading guidelines but thinking vandalism. Conducting vandalism is breaking policy as is, you dont need to make guidelines binding to stop it. If whatever happens is NOT vandalism, I dont see why guidelines should carry administrative consequences. --Xeeron 00:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd guess that means it could lead to rever wars, and the normal revert war policy would handle it.


 * If we had one. Backsword 12:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For both of those answers: I don't mind having something that works that way, but I would take issue with that for something described as "backed by community consensus". If guidelines are as freely edited as articles, they can carry the same instability...and without explicit consensus in discussion to show for any major changes, there won't be a version that we can point to as "supported by consensus" in any given dispute. And I don't want to dilute the importance of consensus by saying that something which represents it will not be backed by administrative action. I'm generally worried about acts which are not necessarily blatantly malicious/unconstructive, so I wouldn't consider it covered by vandalism. --Rezyk 04:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If it helps, I've edited the draft to show what I mean about this approach and its relationship to consensus. Not sure if this throws off the intended role too much, though. --Rezyk 19:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bump
I really like the way it is right now. And this has really been sitting as "proposed" for far far too long. Either we hammer it out and be done with it, or we get fail it. -- ab.er. rant  08:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I still support this as well. --Xeeron 09:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks fine to me. It's how we're running the formatting guides already. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 09:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me, I don't see anything inherently controversial about it. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, it looks fine as it is. Something soft enough to don't cause as much tension as a policy, yet important enough to be considered (I'm totally pretending I didn't make this comment to bump this discussion >.>) Erasculio 18:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I support this one. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 18:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this to policy. --Rezyk 23:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I just took out the TOC though, seemed a bit pointless. -- Lemming [[Image:User Lemming64 sigicon.png]] 23:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)