Guild Wars Wiki talk:Policy/Archive1

Signatures

→ continued in /Signatures

Guilds

→ continued in /Guilds

Bureaucrat selection

→ moved to Project talk:Adminship

PVP In General

→ continued in /PvP

TOCRight

→ moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/General

Article style and formatting

→ moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Style and formatting

Builds

→ continued in /Builds

I should hope it isn't. LordBiro 09:28, 8 February 2007 (PST)

This page

Is a policy as well (at least the policy creation part) and useful in my mind. --Xeeron 11:22, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Any dissenters toward making this policy? We're operating at an accelerated pace this week, I think, so waiting a single day should be enough. —Tanaric 12:56, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Go ahead. :) I hope we will get a decision on a few more today. --Gem (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I am in agreement! LordBiro 13:11, 8 February 2007 (PST)

This is fine by me for now. --Karlos 13:27, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Call me a Yes-man. :) — Jyro X 13:30, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I like it overall, but there are a few things I dislike:

• "If consensus is not reached, mark the article for deletion." I strongly feel that failed proposals should not automatically be deleted; they're important and valuable with respect to wiki policy. Can we omit this line for now?
• (very minor) The notes about voting seem to imply that voting is okay, as long as not used to declare consensus. I'd like to eventually push for a shift from voting to straw polls in determining consensus. How about rewording those lines as "Note that simple majority in a vote is not an indication of consensus."?
• Too many steps and details for properly changing a policy. Requiring a sub-article for each change, even if very minor? =( If this policy was in place and I followed it to the letter, wouldn't I have to make 3 new pages as part of this response? It's also difficult for users to identify the minor change through sub-articles. Please lessen the hurdles in order to encourage user participation, or we may find a lack of it... Fundamentally, all one really needs is to be able to show real consensus support for the change. Here's a suggested rewrite of that section:

To change a policy, write up a clear description of the proposed change in the policy's talk page (or create a new sub-article under that policy). Add a link to your description to the "Currently proposed policy changes" section below, along with a brief summary. Please sign and date the entry!

Once a consensus to adopt the proposal is reached, it can be edited into the policy page. If consensus is not reached, no change can be made. Note that simple majority in a vote is not an indication of consensus.

=== Currently proposed policy changes ===

--Rezyk 14:31, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I support these changes. --ab.er.rant (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Me too. --Karlos 10:04, 9 February 2007 (PST)

I support the changes. --Barek 11:23, 9 February 2007 (PST)

I support these changes, and further attest that we've put enough time into this to call it an official policy once these changes are added. —Tanaric 17:43, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Only positive comments and 2 days without new comments: Moving this from policy proposal to policy now. --Xeeron 09:57, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Images

→ continued in /Images

Policy: Redirects / Capitalisation

As stated here, can we please agree on handling redirects more leniently? I would like to have redirects to skill pages in lower case and without non-alphanumerical characters. Same for collectable drops. These types of redirects simply make accessing specific pages so much easier. ~ D.L. 15:17, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I think one of the mistakes we made early on in the GuildWiki was that we were too strict with redirects, and while we tried to alter the policy, the general sentiment of the community didn't change much.

I, too, would be in favour of a very lenient policy on redirects. LordBiro 15:24, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I support a more lenient policy for redirects too. --Gem (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Definitely agreed. Especially alternate spelling redirects are a blessing. --Xeeron 15:32, 8 February 2007 (PST)

100% agreed. Use lower case/in game spelling for the main article, but have every common variation as a redirect pointing to it. Should have a policy saying that links go directly to the article though, rather than a redirect. --NieA7 03:41, 9 February 2007 (PST)

I've drafted Guild Wars Wiki:Redirects. LordBiro 09:36, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Policy organization

We currently have articles in both the "Guild Wars Wiki" namespace (eg. Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks) and as subpages in the "Guild Wars Wiki:Policy", such as Guild Wars Wiki:Image use and Guild Wars Wiki:Policy/Builds. Can just agree on way of doing it? I propose we put all policies into the name space and not as subpages. --ab.er.rant (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2007 (PST)

We can have policy proposals as subpages and move them into the namespace once they get accepted. --Xeeron 05:17, 9 February 2007 (PST)

I agree with Xeeron. LordBiro 05:23, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Foundational policy

→ moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Charter policy

Suggestion: Function, not philosophy

I have already seen a number of policies try to dictate behavior, tell people to play nice, or create a feel good atmosphere. For example: Guild Wars Wiki:You are valuable, Guild Wars Wiki:Assume good faith, and Guild Wars Wiki:Civility. Ultimately, how are these useful? You can't dictate how people feel. How does reading a page long policy on being nice to people help users? Policies should dictate rules and function. If a new user logs onto the wiki and makes a mistake are you going to point them to Civility and tell them "You violated the philosophy of our wiki, read this article to better yourself"? They may not share your philosophy, they may not get the article, or they could just be a plain jerk. Wouldn't it be far more useful to say "We have a strict policy against personal attacks, you have been given a warning. Continued personal attacks will result in the suspension of your account as per policy." Keep things procedural or clearly showing "If you do X, Y happens." In addition as leadership changes and the users of the wiki change, the philosophy of the wiki may shift. There is no wiki law that says every wiki must have X, Y, and Z. If you want to create a page on the philosophy of the wiki, do it outside policies. Policies should be like laws or instructions. They should have a function and serve a clear purpose. You can't dictate how people feel, but you can make it clear "If you violate these rules there are the following consequences." -Warskull 02:23, 2 March 2007 (EST)

There's a lot of similar talk in the discussion pages of each of those. I generally agree with you overall, except that I completely fail to understand how Guild Wars Wiki:Civility is like the others in some people's eyes (you're not the only one). If I instruct someone to "be civil", am I not saying to behave in a certain way, rather than think/feel in a certain way? For me, the term "civility" already refers to behavior rather than a state of mind -- someone could have murderous thoughts in their head but still be civil.

Hypothetically, if CIVIL was ratified: If a user is markedly uncivil, I would like others to be able to point to GWW:CIVIL and remind the user that it is policy to be civil. If a user is continuously and problematically uncivil despite being aware of the policy, I would like arbitration to be able to note repeated, knowing violations when deciding and summarizing judgement. --Rezyk 05:47, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I agree with Warskull. His examples of policy fall under the heading of the psychology of behavior modification. A user's personality querks should not be judged through policy. GWW:YAV has already been changed to a general Welcome page as a guideline for new users. The idea of Guild Wars Wiki:Civility should fall under the guideline of "this is how we would like you to act", but how can you punish someone based solely on minor personality traits or the way they type does not sit well with me and the examples found there are already apart of GWW:NPA. In regards to GWW:AGF, I have no opinion for the moment whether it should be a guideline or a policy. — Gares 08:06, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Guideline system

We should discuss the idea of having a system for wiki guidelines in addition to our system for wiki policies.

The subject has been touched on a few times already, in:

• Guild Wars Wiki talk:Welcome (mentioned only)
• Guild Wars Wiki talk:Assume good faith
• Guild Wars Wiki talk:Be civil#Policies and guidelines
• Guild Wars Wiki talk:Policy# Suggestion: Function, not philosophy (mentioned only)
• Guild Wars Wiki talk:Content over presentation

I think the main things to iron out for this are:

1. What should our definition of "guideline" be?
2. What is the purpose/role of guidelines here? (especially compared to the purpose/role of policy)
3. What system should we use for creating/modifying/revoking guidelines?

--Rezyk 14:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)

One popular idea that I've seen is that guidelines should be unenforced statements of widely-held beliefs (policies are mandates; guidelines are optional but encouraged). Personally, I support having these kind of "statement of personal belief" articles, but I don't like having them called "guidelines"; these are better named as essays. Semantically, the term "guideline" sounds somewhat official (although not as much as "policy") and should not be used on things that are ultimately optional to follow. --Rezyk 15:19, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Calling them guidelines is just inappropriate. How about etiquette? -- ab.er.rant 20:31, 5 March 2007 (EST)

I dont mind either name. The idea seems to be a good one: Make a clear distingtion between policies (stuff that we demand, and breach of which can lead to penalties) and guidelines/etiquette (stuff that makes everyone get along better). --Xeeron 09:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

A suggestion:

1. Category:Wiki editorials
2. Definition: An opinion piece representing the views of some users regarding participation on this wiki.
3. Purpose/role: Presents and promotes understanding/discussion of some users' opinions (not necessarily consensus, or even majority, opinions). Is not to be enforced by administration.
4. Lifecycle: Anyone can create one, but it should be tagged with {{editorial}} (which will disclaim the article from representing consensus or policy). Can be modified by anyone if placed in the Guild Wars Wiki namespace; may be less freely modified if placed in user space. Deletion follows standard deletion policy.

I came up with the term "editorial" to try to also encompass stuff like Guild Wars Wiki:Content over presentation and the old Guild Wars Wiki:You are valuable, which I felt didn't really fit well in being called "etiquette".

--Rezyk 21:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I've started a draft policy on Guild Wars Wiki:Guidelines. This is distinct from my "Wiki editorial" suggestion above; the main purpose for this is to provide a more solid foundation to start accepting formatting guidelines on. --Rezyk 16:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Opening the Guild Wars Wiki

At this time, with so much great work on the official Guild Wars Wiki, and with policy formalization moving along well, we would like to officially open the GWW this week. If there are no objections or overwhelming concerns, we plan to announce the official Guild Wars Wiki at Noon Pacific on Friday, March 23. In order to make that announcement, we will present a news post on the official website and add a permanent graphical link on the main page of the site, as well.

If you have questions or concerns, please post them here. Emily and I will be monitoring these pages for your suggestions, comments, and questions. Everyone at ArenaNet is very grateful for all the hard work that the early GWW members have invested so far. This Wiki has one of the most solid starts ever, and that is due to the time and effort that the community has poured into this project. We sincerely thank you!

We look forward to continuing to work with you--and with a growing community of Guild Wars players--as we open the doors to The GWW! --Gaile 21:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Woot! Here we go! Everyone brace yourselves! :p -- ab.er.rant 21:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This is a good thing, right Ab? ;) --Gaile 21:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The more the merrier I say. — Gares 21:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course it's a good thing ;) time for stress-testing. We're finally gonna see what will really happen, since we have alot of speculation on it. But on a serious note, is there anything that we should really need to nail down before it goes public? -- ab.er.rant 21:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The deletion policy above everything else. If no one has anything to complain about it, we'll make it a policy on the 22nd. The build and guild policies would be a nice plus, but they aren't fatal. -- (gem / talk) 22:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

A system of government that's approved by ArenaNet? --Rezyk 22:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

What about inappropriate content? The no personal attacks policy covers personal attacks and general bigotry, but if someone spammed a talk page with, a string of expletives, an inappropriate ASCII image or advertising spam, I don't believe there's any policy to handle its removal. -- Gordon Ecker 02:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't those fall under vandalism? -- (gem / talk) 06:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I forgot about that. There's still the issue of inappropriate language in talk page posts that doesn't fall under vandalism or personal attacks. I don't care how much swearing the talk pages have, but this is the official wiki of a T-rated game. -- Gordon Ecker 07:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

It's fine Gordon, as long as the swearing is not directed at a user and it is kept to a minimum. According to the ESRB Rating defintion for Teen Rating category, it can include violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language. — Gares 08:52, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I just checked the EULA, Guild Wars isn't an ordinary T-rated game, it's a T-rated game with an 18+ requirement in the EULA. I'm pretty sure I'm worrying too much. I'm just being cautious because it's campaign season and North America seems overdue for the next video game related "moral panic", but these days the media only seems to freak out about guns and caffeinated beverages, and other games are far more likely targets. Anyway, if there is something on the talk pages that's not covered by a policy and offends enough people, we'll probably get a policy to deal with it soon enough. -- Gordon Ecker 22:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Any news on the Parser Functions bug or ImageMagick? I was hoping they would be fixed before the opening. -Smurf 04:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Yah, these should be working when we open. -- (gem / talk) 06:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I also think that Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Policy/Builds should be finalized before opening up the Wiki. Too many people might think that this Wiki handles Builds the same way GWiki does.

I was also hoping to be able to try something with the expr-parserfunctions for the progression table.

Are all the templates now up to speed? I believe that the Template:Skill infobox is still not 100% set? (I believe LordBiro was working on draft-5?) -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 06:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The drafts I am working on need not be implemented before launch. Since they are completely within the template the work needed to alter them is minimal. LordBiro 07:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I have no problems with officially opening. However, I'd like all editors to please check and comment on article retention. This really needs to be proper policy before the rush comes. —Tanaric 00:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Image copyright

Not sure if this is going to hit here with the same effect but it's something to look over that is changing Guildwiki and may soon come here. Not even sure if this is the appropriate place to post this link so please move it if you know of a more appropriate place. Thanks. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 12:57, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I had noticed that, and I think it's a great idea. I even made some icons for it (surprise surprise) but I modified the Tango "generic image" icon, which is released by the Tango project under a "by-sa" license, meaning it's potentially incompatible with GuildWiki's "by-nc-sa" license. I thought about uploading it and explaining that it was under a different license, but I decided against it.

I think we already deal with this to an extent; GuildWiki needs to upload ArenaNet images under fair use, whereas we have special permission from ArenaNet to do this. And we tag such images with {{arenanet image}} so I think it's all good. LordBiro 14:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

We do need something for user created work though. Though anything uploaded is meant to be under the same license, as per {{user image}}, right?. - BeX 21:01, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I don't think {{user image}} really deals with the license. It's presumed that any original work is uploaded here under GFDL (someone could state otherwise, but they could only realistically state a more liberal license, not a more strict one, since anyone wishing to use their contribution could just use whichever source was released under the most liberal license).

Really I think we need something for any images that are not original work, but aren't by ArenaNet. I don't know how many such images there are. LordBiro 04:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Which is why I brought it up now. I'd rather we take a look into fixing it properly proactive rather than have to clean up someone elses mess last minute, reactive, like Xeon has been doing on GWiki (thank you Xeon!). I have no idea where to begin so I figured I'd post and see if anyone else had ideas. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 07:37, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Needed fansite policy?

Given all the discussion on the Community Portal, and the earlier talk at Talk:Fansite, I believe we need a policy created for out-of-game content, especially fansites. The current Article Retention policy states that this content is not permitted, but that discussion is taking place.

I'm leaving for work now, and likely won't be on again until later this weekend. Does anyone else want to take a try at drafting a Guild Wars Wiki:Fansite pages policy? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't have time, but can I suggest that it be named Guild Wars Wiki:Fansite articles instead? Pet peeve. :P - BeX 12:34, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Completely agreed. If you make it under the wrong name, I promise I'll move it. :) —Tanaric 15:40, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

<3 - BeX 05:23, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Interpretation of changing policies policy

I reverted Guild Wars Wiki:User page, due to a breach of our current policy change policy. Please take note that I interpreted our current policy change policy such that uncontroversial/formatting changes need not go through the proposal process (any disagreement on the talk page make a policy change no longer uncontroversial). If anyone disagrees with this interpretation, please mention it here. In that case, Guild Wars Wiki:User page needs to be reverted to a much earlier state and I would introduce a proposal to integrate such an interpretation into our current policy change policy. --Xeeron 10:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see a problem with the revert (I had conveniently glossed over that part of this policy). It's now in a separate page, awaiting some tweaks before I add it to proposed policies. - BeX 10:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Reversion policy proposals

Guild Wars Wiki:Only revert once, Guild Wars Wiki:Three-revert rule are both good, popular policies which are mutually exclusive, making it nearly impossible to get a concensus in favor of one over the other, because of this, the discussion has stalled. There's also Guild Wars Wiki:One-revert rule, which is still in the draft stage, but has a lot of potential. I suggested a vote or opinion poll, which was a fairly unpopular suggestion. What about some type of runoff system? We could discuss whether 1RV, 3RR and 1RR would be acceptable on their individual talk pages, if only one receives concensus the issue is resolved, and if two or all three receive concensus that they are acceptable, we can discuss which is preferred on a neutral talk page, such as Guild Wars Wiki talk:Reversion. -- Gordon Ecker 23:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned two of the proposals of which I was aware ... what about Guild Wars Wiki:One-revert rule that was proposed as an alternative to 1RV? Or did I miss where 1RR was rejected? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that I missed it and was in the process of editing my comment. Does anyone have other suggestions for resolving the deadlock? -- Gordon Ecker 00:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Pistols at dawn. MisterPepe talk 00:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha. I think that the deadlock might resolve itself over time, however there's been very little activity recently on those talk pages - it seems like people simply have gotten distracted by other things. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A vote! A vote! ::sees Tanaric collapsing:: =P --Xeeron 00:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(sees Tanaric fake collapsing, then grab a rather large gun out of his rather large - and manly - beard to go after Xeeron) MisterPepe talk 00:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why have all these vote suggestions come up lately? My blood pressure seriously can't rise much higher. —Tanaric 08:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No comment. -- (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's always Xeeron! He must be attempting to assassinate Tanaric, albeit in a round-about manner! - BeX 02:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I could continue trying to dispel the notion that they are mutually exclusive and then go from there...but I'm not too confident that I can succeed in that. --Rezyk 02:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to mention that, to make everyone's life more complicated, I made some edits to 1RR in hopes of sparking some further interest in it and pushing it ahead of the pack. I know Gordon saw it, and didn't like my use of a redirect ;), but I was hoping for more of a rallying of support and refinement. So, for those of you who worked on it then let it slide to the back-burner, for those of you who saw it and dismissed it as unrefined, and for those of you who haven't particularly noticed it, I'm telling ya 1RR is the happening reversion policy place to be! - Tanetris 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the history of GW:EN_Prerelease_Bonus_Pack this morning and thought Wasn't there a policy to prevent something like that?. I took a look at GWW:POLICY and found not one but three. All of them are in some discussion state and 2 of them are nearly dead (no discussion since a month or longer). 3RR got a post today but it basicly states that editors should be compelled to discussion pages as soon as possible. The only real active one is 1RR which looks pretty good to me. I suggest stating it as proposed policy and post it on Guild Wars Wiki:Community portal instead of 1RV. It would be good if this could be concluded soon. Der moon 07:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that saying "2 of them are nearly dead" is inaccurate and even unfair to 1RV and 3RR, as it makes it sound as if they've been given up on; that's definitely not the case. The discussion regarding all these policies is one and the same, the weaknesses of one are the strengths of another; it started at the 1RV talk page, now it has mainly moved to the 1RR one. It's still the same discussion, it's still editors trying to decide between these three alternatives (or finding some middle ground of some sort), and it's still very active. --Dirigible 18:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel sorry for being unfair to 1RV and 3RR, but that was just the impression to me. The problem is, while we have no policy regulating reverts, we can only appeal to discuss first and edit afterwards. Therefor it would be good if a version was applied leaving out the sections under discussion. These sections would be added when consensus is reached, thus getting a working policy quickly. Perhaps I think too easy and the discussion is in a dead end, but perhaps everyone should be reminded that the wiki should be above sticking to personal opinions and stubbornness. I don't want to offend anyone taking part in this discussion - I am not - and perhaps I don't understand the importance of some differences in the wording. Der moon 21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's now almost 2 months since those three revert policies are getting commented on. It is lucky we haven't had any serious revert wars so far? If a revert war happened, it might help spur things a bit. -- ab.er.rant 08:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't give people ideas. ;) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Diff with current policy

Is it an idea to add:

[{{fullurl:Guild Wars Wiki:<to be changed policy-name>|diff=current&oldid={{REVISIONID}}}} Difference to current policy]

somewhere below the heading "Changing existing policies"? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 22:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made a template for it too: {{diffwith}}. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 22:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines

We do not have a clear distinction between policies and guidelines here on the wiki, with some bad consequences. Please have a look at User talk:Riven#Sig. This is what happened: Riven has been in opposition to the current policy and refused to follow it. Now Anja told him to stop it, Riven blantly refused, so Anja might ban him and/or delete his sig image soon. This is the story. Or is it?

Take a look at the actual policy in question Guild Wars Wiki:Sign your comments:

"please follow these guidelines" / "Images should meet the following guidelines" / "The image file should not be larger than 19 pixels wide and 19 pixels tall"

To me, there is absolutely nothing in the policy that forces users to have no image wider than 19x19 pixels. It is a guideline, you should, but you dont have to. That both Anja and Riven (and several other people) misread this points to 2 big flaws in the policy:

1. The policy page is cluttered! Try reading it. If this was a user page, it would be in violation of our user page policy for being so long. We expect our users to abide by our policies, but if the policies of the wiki taken together rival "Gone with the wind" in length, I question that we can honestly expect that.
2. The policy page includes tons of stuff it shouldn't! It is all there: Wiki code advise, internet privacy considerations, deliberations on the usefulness of policies. All that can go on help pages, guides, whatever. It should not be in a policy page.
3. The policy page does NOT include the most important part: What users must do and must not do in simple words (and maybe what happens if they dont abide). There is barely anything in "must" and "must not" terms and what little there is is scattered all over the place. Nothing is mentioned about any consequences of disregarding the policy.

To me that is a horrible policy which needs a big clean up. --Xeeron 19:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think alot of the policies actually lack the part which says, "if you don't abide the rules/policies this will happen". I even checked the new blocking policy, and as breaking policy is not included, I'm confused. Barek mentioned administrative actions in his comments, I continued on that line, but I didn't feel backed up by policy or common sense alone in this case. (Also why I asked Xeeron to join in). - anja 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the policy on signature images, I think his tone along with threats of mass vandalism were enough to earn him the ban regardless. --Lemming64 21:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Rofl, threats of mass vandalism. That made my day. I Love Aiiane Even More 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Want to adopt my "perfect" section on policy breach from Guild Wars Wiki:User page/Draft 20070715#Failure to adhere? :P -- ab.er.rant 02:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, in regards to this section - see the newly created Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Policy Cleanup. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sections

There's quite some duplication of sections on this page. It'd be nice if someone could reformat the enitre page. It's confusing at least one user. Backsword 05:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Which sections are duplicate? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the distiction between 'new' and 'changing existing', which currently doesn't mean anything, so we get conflicting proposals in the two sections. I guess an alternative would be to implement some strict rule for what goes where, but that's going to be arbitrary as all policies tends to interact with other policies. Backsword 05:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to mean something to me - all of the proposals in the "changing existing" are such that you could do a diff of them with a current policy page - all of those in the "new" are such that there's no existing page that would be edited. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Take Guild Wars Wiki:Fair Use and Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrighted content/Draft 070809 as an example. Backsword 06:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Rejection

I was looking for a clear line for when a policy proposal is ongoing and over, thus to be rejected, but it seems we don't have one. Looking through history pages, we don't even have a clear praxis to base a policy on.

This mostly because of the current cluttered lists, we have proposals from may still active, and the No profanity closing. I agreed that one was doomed, and closing it probably a good thing, but 2 vs 2 is not what I consider concensus, and I wouldn't like to see it cited as precedence for closing proposals by someone who dislikes them.

One might have an idea on what such a rule should look like, but I think the best thing right now is to develop a praxis by discussing individual proposals. So I'll post sugestions to reject most current proposals, with the intention of sparking a debate on the issue. But with the possible bonus effect of cleaning up the proposal lists.

Backsword

I think we should try to minimize the significance of a proposal being tagged as proposed versus rejected to avoid general fighting for either status. Try to have it easygoing (like managing which items appear on RFC) and just for organizational purposes to roughly sort the more active proposals from the inactive. (Any "rejected" policy can still be considered and discussed, and easily re-proposed whenever someone wants to drive new arguments/discussion for it.) Maybe even rename the terms to something less meaningful, like "open proposal / closed proposal" or "active proposal / inactive proposal". --Rezyk 08:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Rejection imposes a 1 month cooldown before re-proposal. The profanity policy was never formally proposed, so I don't think its' rejection was legitimate. I'd like to see some kind of "inactive draft" or "abandoned draft" tag for drafts which are no longer intended to be formally proposed, as well as drafts which haven't had any meaningful edits or discussion recently. -- Gordon Ecker 08:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've thrown something together at Template:Inactive draft policy. -- Gordon Ecker 08:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)