Guild Wars Wiki talk:Policy

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Visibility? 2 Archives and New Comments 3 Can't Delete Talk Page 4 In a nutshell 5 Going around a block 6 Too Many Policy Drafts 6.1 Formatting 7 Merging

[edit] Visibility?

Are the policy proposals visible enough? Every time I come across a proposed policy it's entirely by accident. I don't think proposed policy discussions are visible enough to the casual user who doesn't deliberately look for them. I would hate to think a small minority of the wiki were having policies pass because people who would otherwise oppose them didn't know about it, (or worse, a certain minority knowingly proposing policies with the knowledge many would be opposers won't find out about it). Dancing Gnome 20:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

They are all listed at Guild Wars Wiki:Policy#Current proposed policies. More visibility for proposed policies and more visibility for the policies as a whole would be great though. -- (gem / talk) 20:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a link on the main page? br12 • 20:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The lower red box here might be worth taking a look at. We are missing that helpful info on the main page. (Haven't really notied earlier since I don't enter the site through the main page) -- (gem / talk) 20:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a link to the categories is helpful.. especially on the Main Page... We should rather clean the policies page a bit more up, to make the policies more visible. poke | talk 20:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I did that, sorry br12 • 20:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How about removing the blaa blaa and just leaving the policy names as a list. I never use this page, I jsut opt for the category. The text makes it awfull to read. -- (gem / talk) 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

All the above suggestions are great but what I think would be really good is if whenever a proposal reaches approval/rejection stage we get a message show up like when the bureaucrats message did. This would make sure everyone who logged in around that time was aware someone was trying to pass a policy they might not like. Dancing Gnome 22:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is using the message system not a bit unnecessary? I agree that policy proposals could do with better visibility, but I think that this is going from one extreme to another. If there was an opt-in system for the message then I could gladly support that (and I believe it would be possible using some javascript) but I still don't know if that's ideal. Personally I'd just like to see an incremental improvement for the time being. LordBiro 22:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A no for using the site notice for this. There are many policy proposals and most of the proposals are very minor modifications and additions. Most users aren't even interested in how the wiki works on the background, they just use it for searching info. -- (gem / talk) 22:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and for the same reason, I don't want those links to be added on the Main Page, as it's mostly used by visitors but not by contributors. We should make the Policy page clearer and add hot topics to Guild Wars Wiki:Community portal.. poke | talk 22:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It really should be easier to find.--Yankeefan984 23:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archives and New Comments

I scanned the Policies pages for information on updating or adding comments to archived content. Here's an example: This thread was something I had archived from my main Talk page, but when archiving other content, I realized I had an additional bit of information to add to that previously-archived article. I wanted to make that addition, since it was a "wrap up" of the topic and contributed something to the historical record of the game. Is it acceptable to add the comment, as I did, with a reset indent and a notation that it was added to the archive page after the materials were archived? I'd appreciate knowing the best way to go about this rare but occasionally-useful process. Thanks. -- Gaile 02:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you comment, save and then archive. People won't look in an archive for new content and thus will never see the resolution to a topic. If you comment and save, it is at least recorded in your talk page history, even if you remove it straight afterwards. - BeX 03:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand and agree. But what about something that was archived a week or two ago, as this page was? You see, I didn't think about there being a "resolution" to the question, and I archived it some time ago. Then, there was a change (the requested feature was re-introduced) and I wanted to note that, for historical and informational purposes. I could "unarchive" the comment, I guess, add the final note, wait a few days, and re-archive, but that seems cumbersome. It's a puzzle, isn't it? -- Gaile 03:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm also be unsure of that situation. Technically any comments should be brought out of the archive and restarted, but if amending comments on your own talk page, I'm not sure, and it does seem a bit strange. I think that a safe way to do it is to amend the archive, and either bring the topic out onto your talk page maybe under a section with "Recently updated archive topics" and then leave it there for a bit for any new comments, or alternatively, unarchive, add comment and rearchive. I think either way would be accepted. - BeX 05:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can't Delete Talk Page

Where does it say that? The only thing I have read is when a page contains information such as a ban, which is pretty rare. And why can't I delete redundant shit from my talk page? Anon

Here - BeX 05:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So by "remove" it means have the page deleted? And what is the reasoning for that? Why can't I delete soemthing no matter how pointless it is? EDIT: From Guild Wars Wiki:Deletion policy: except in cases where the user page bears an important message (such as a banned user warning). The only place I have ever seen a banned user warning etc is on a talk page, which implies it can be delete, otherwise there would be no reason to put this in the policy. Anon

Well, "deletion" of talk pages would imply that you "remove" the content on it, and since content can't be removed as specified in the user pages policy, you can't delete them either. Only way a talk page can be deleted is if it was originated on vandalism, or if it's a remmanent from a vandalism (which qualify just a G4 on the deletion table).
Anyways, if you want to get rid of the content on your talk page, just archive the content on it, keeping the archive link visible (you can do it as much as you want, even thought it may not be healthy).--Fighterdoken 05:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A deletion turns my talk page into a red link, it has no existence on the wiki any more. Removal is quite different, the old content can be viewed in the page history. Anon

[edit] In a nutshell

Should we use something similar to Wikipedia's nutshell template? I'm thinking of something like this:

This policy / guideline in a nutshell: Summary of policy. More summary of policy. Etc...

-- Gordon Ecker 06:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am weary of adding those boxes. See my post at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Be bold. Whatever could be in that box, should be in the opening paragraph anyway. --Xeeron 11:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Xeeron. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

But there is no formatting style guide for policies and quite a lot of them get misunderstood, what should be in the opening paragraph isn't necessarily in the opening paragraph. Anon

Then fix the opening paragraph, don't add useless fluff such as yet another template. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 14:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

But the opening paragraph is part of the policy, so changing the opening paragraph of an existing policy page would require the proposed change to go through the formal policy change proccess, while the summary would clearly not be part of the policy, allowing it to be edited without a policy change proposal. Anyway, we could just try to slip better opening paragraphs into any future policy change proposals. -- Gordon Ecker 02:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Either the summary is policy, or the summary is worthless, because it doesn't reflect policy. Having "looser limits" summaries is a very bad idea. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's actually what I do first whenever I propose a rewrite. I also don't really like the in-a-nutshell thingy simply because it sorta stops people from even skimming through the thing policy. "Oh look, a summary. I'll just read the summary and assume that I know about it." kinda thing... -- ab.er.rant 05:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia have to have those because their policies are a mess and inertia prevents fixing them. We should never be in that situation. Backsword 13:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Going around a block

Would going around a block renew your block time or extend it? — ク Eloc 貢 00:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the sysop who notices and blocks decides to do. —Tanaric 00:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too Many Policy Drafts

I can't imagine that I'm the only one who thinks that it is poor form to create a new policy draft for a subject when one already exists covering the same subject. What's the point. There is no way it can be claimed that consensus exits to implement a policy proposal when a conficting proposal is open. At the very least, if one feels that the creation of a new policy proposal is justified then they should be willing to mark prior proposals on the same subject as rejected. -- Inspired to ____ 16:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, many of things listed as proposed policy changes have not actually been proposed but are merely drafts that someone is working on. Does anyone else have a problem with this? -- Inspired to ____ 19:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not especially. Create another subsection if it's a problem. -- Brains12 \ Talk 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And call it what? "Policy changes someone is thinking about proposing and thought you might care to look at if you've terribly bored." They can add to the Requests For Comment, they can ask a couple people to look it over, but what is the point of listing it here? -- Inspired to ____ 20:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a suggestion to list whatever policies are being drafted (akin to the listing of whatever policies are being proposed). And there's no need for such a long title, silly, just call it Policy drafts! ... But if that's another problem, let's leave drafts out altogether. -- Brains12 \ Talk 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And the more I look at it,what a mess. Most drafts actually aren't listed and actually other then not seeing the point in listing them, its really the cleanup of a list that seems to be the biggest problem. Also, some things are titled as drafts but have actually been proposed and visa versa. I don't know if its worth asking for comment on or not, but for now I'm going to use Category:Proposed_policies to find changes someone is actually trying to make to existing policies. -- Inspired to ____ 20:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be blowing this out of proportion. It is very important for policy drafts to be discussed b4 they are proposed. There may be things that need to be changed etc. etc., and once its proposed, you can't make major changes to it. I do think that it might be a good idea to make a new header for them, but taking them from the list altogether seem quite ridiculous imho. --Shadowphoenix 20:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

lol. Can't actually decide which way I'd rather have an idea referred to as. Anyway, both are how I felt after spending time thinking I was doing the prudent thing and reading through policy change proposals to find they actually hadn't been proposed. Which wouldn't be bad if I nothing else to do. And it is very very important to have policy proposals discussed before they are implemented. -- Inspired to ____ 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it can be confusing to have a lot of drafts going on but it shouldn't be disallowed. Contradicting proposals gives an option to users and it can be used to gauge support for either view. Like back when we had several different proposals and debates taking place in several talk pages on revert policies. The problem is just in the presentation. Just re-organise it into something that you think is better. If it's good, no one will revert you.

And as for the draft vs proposed, there's not really a formal distinction between them, and there's really nothing that stopping anyone from changing a proposed policy in a major way. The main difference for a draft is that it isn't complete yet or that it's not fleshed out enough. The discussions for them are essentially the same. -- ab.er.rant 04:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

Because of the large amount of adminship and election proposals at the moment, could we split them up into subsections? We should probably just have one proposal running at one time, as suggested above, but for as a short term thing while that discussion is still ongoing. For example, similar to the actual policy list:

===Currently proposed policy changes===
====Content policies====
*Blah
====Administrative policies====
*Blah
;Elections
*Blah
====Other policies====
*Blah

You get the picture. -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a possible; but I do not agree with one policy being proposed at a time. Maybe if we could add a policy draft section in there as well. --Shadowphoenix 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant the above suggestion to be something for what we have at the moment, to sort through the bumblejumble and hibberijibberies. Stuff like extra sections or one proposal at a time is for the "Too many policy drafts" section. -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

done. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Great :) -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

It has been suggested that this page or section be merged with Guild Wars Wiki talk:Copyrighted content. (discuss)

Due to legal issues involving attribution and the GFDL, I think we should have an explicit policy on merging. -- Gordon Ecker 03:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if we need a policy or not, but a document telling how a correct merge is supposed to be done would definitely be good. With examples. - anja 07:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like what is needed is gww:how to merge, not a merging policy. --Xeeron 12:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We can't. We're not a sovereign entity. No matter what we deside, we still have to follow the copyright rules. Backsword 12:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Has any wiki anywhere ever had any drama over copyright issues? I mean people tried to claim copyright when GW was taken over and that went no-where. I don't even recall someone complaining about someone breaching copyright on any of the content on the wiki. 122.104.165.13 14:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Is any other wiki hosted by a company which uses the wiki in a commercial project like Guild Wars?

Most wikis are created by communities only without having the problem of needing to be that strict about copyright, but as ANet gives us the rules about copyrighted content, we simply have to stick to it. poke | talk 14:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If it needs to be in policy form, it belongs at GWW:COPYRIGHT; I doubt a separate policy is needed. Then, if necessary, we can have a "Help:Merging" page to show how it should be done. -- Brains12 \ talk 16:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrights isn't a policy, it's a legal notice, however we could have a copyright policy (or a copyright guideline, or both) which would provide rules and procedures in order to prevent and deal with copyright issues. -- Gordon Ecker 04:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

GWW:COPYRIGHT goes to Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrighted content, which is policy. - Tanetris 05:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Expanding that policy should be more straightforward, unless this new policy can have a greater scope than just on merging. -- ab.er.rant 01:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. I think we should take this discussion there. -- Gordon Ecker 04:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)