Guild Wars Wiki talk:Article retention/Draft1

Sounds good to me. -- Coran Ironclaw 22:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Some points after a quick read

 * I think it should mention how we document player/community events (some are documented with the reasoning that Anet recognized them, like the Mursaat thing, but there was contention about Oktoberfest)
 * Can we have a heading about historical content and not need a separate policy for it? We keep ArenaNet events, quests that have been removed from the game, skill changes are in history, etc.
 * Needs to say that you shouldn't use Talk: pages to try to buy or sell your items. I see people putting their IGNs on talk pages doing this. A lot of people have sell things in their userspace which is fine, but talk page messages like that dont belong here.

There's probably more stuff I will think of later. - B e X   01:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal mumbo-jumbo from Anet
Since i can't really propose a new policy change for the momment, may i suggest:
 * Removing the following text:
 * The restrictions here only apply to "primary content" namespaces (main, Image, Category, Template). Pages in the User namespace have their own policy.


 * Adding the following before "Information we always retain":
 * == Content Restrictions ==
 * The following content is absolutely not permitted in any form, under any namespace:
 * Libel or defamation.
 * Content patently offensive to others, including ArenaNet's competitors. <- Not sure, due to objetivity, and since most of it qualifies as vandalism.
 * Content in breach of the wiki's policies or the game's terms and conditions. <- "Content" being the key word. If a policy or legal term is not relative to content, shouldn't be applied on this policy.
 * Do not include copyrighted text or images (see the image use policy) that are not licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
 * == User namespace ===
 * Pages in the User namespace (including talk pages) have their own policy in regards of content retention. While the above content restrictions still apply to them, they are excluded from the restrictions that follow. <-Not sure if a note about Guild pages should be added also.

(Most of this text comes from GWW:USER, where we would need to remove it if it were to be added here)
 * What would this change mean in practice?: Nothing. In one way or another, all the "content restrictions" included here are already covered by common usage now (and all over the wiki, not just on userpages), even if no policy, guideline, or explicit rule has stated it. This would "write it" in a place, as to facilitate users (those with too much free time and a recent changes list on their bookmarks) to point exactly a policy when telling a contributor that something shouldn't be added/discussed here.--Fighterdoken 07:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with using the link to T&Cs. Whatever is said there, we can say here with clearer words, while leaving out pages of irrelevant content. --Xeeron 15:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yay for clear statements!. In that case, replacing the line:
 * Content in breach of the wiki's policies or the game's terms and conditions.
 * For:
 * Content deemed racially or ethnically offensive, threatening, defamatory, harmful, sexually explicit, or designed to promove hate towards a group of people in particular, including links to sites with such content.
 * Advertises about the intention of buying, selling or trading a Guild Wars account, or trading in-game goods or services for real world money..
 * Description about ways to duplicate exploitable bugs (those that grant users benefits not intended as per game design) as long as the exploits remain active in-game. Documentation about those bugs can be done only after they are fixed.
 * ''Diffusion of ways to automatize the gaming process within Guild Wars (such as bots or macros), including links to sites with such information.
 * Diffusion of any user's personal information (name, adress, e-mail, etc.) without express permission from the user. For practical purposes, the permission will be considerated to be granted if the user makes this information available on the wiki by him/herself.
 * Not sure what i am missing :/. In any case, by adding this i think we could remove the link to the legal mumbo jumbo from the GWW:USER and avoid including it here...--Fighterdoken 18:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You should drop the proposed added line regarding copyrighted text or images. The underlying intent is fine, but it's not worded right, and is more correctly covered by Guild Wars Wiki:Article retention already. --Rezyk 18:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And I guess the existing "Copyrighted content" section should also be moved above the point of "things below this don't apply to User namespace". --Rezyk 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that sounds as a good idea in regards of copyrighted content, since we are applying it already to the whole wiki (userspace included). --Fighterdoken 21:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)