Talk:Gwp

This is a nice article to test out any deletion policy we might have in the works. S 20:06, 7 February 2007 (PST)

That's an awfully snide comment from you Stabber... I thought the article was in good taste. --Narcism 20:13, 7 February 2007 (PST)

I don't understand, is there something wrong with the article, or are you worried it will be defaced? Trevor Reznik 20:17, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Whether or not it will be defaced isn't a question... 24.136.80.36 23:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Del tag

I firmly disagree with deletion... it isn't patent nonsense, it's the truth. Ever hung out in gwp much, Lemming64? -Auron 23:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the incorrect use of the tag, I was being lazy, but as yet pages about other fansites, etc. have not been deemed acceptable. Guild Wars Wiki:Fansites --Lemming64 23:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Change the tag, then. It isn't speedy deletion. I just asked in #gwp if it was vandalism, the general response was "looks accurate." If we're disallowing this type of page, fine, but it isn't vandalism. -Auron 23:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Conflict. Let me clarify, the whole thing is just asking for trouble until we have a policy set in place for pages about other webpages, chatrooms, forums etc. Until that point pages like this are likely to be

• a. more trouble than they are worth.
• b. unnecessary.

--Lemming64 23:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those points, I just didn't think it was vandalism :P -Auron 23:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said I was being lazy :p, it is easier to type G1 than a sentence, clearly it was poorly thought out as I have written far more due to that already! lol --Lemming64 00:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Due to GWW:CONTENT I don't think we will retain this. When the fansite rules have been formed, this should be treated according to that. (Ofcourse, the discussion might benefit from taking irc channels into account too) -- (gem / talk) 18:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol tag was removed with "dumb tag" as reason, I have replaced it now with the exact link to where it says we should not retain this... o.0 --Lemming64 16:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So you broke GWW:1RV willingly, by re-reverting without discussion? Good tactic. -Auron 11:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How can you break a policy that has not been accepted as policy yet. I understand what you are trying to do here, but from a common sense point of view, the tag should not have been removed, and it should have been reapplied as the article did DIRECTLY contravene a policy that is accepted. --Lemming64 11:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh... what? The tag can be removed at any time by any person - and before you re-add it, you should discuss it first. Not doing so is very poor tact. -Auron 11:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Before it was removed it should have been discussed as this discussion was already going. Not to mention I did post here if you look that I was re-adding it and why I was re-adding it as the article was a clear breach of an existing policy. I am fairly sure I did the right thing here, and the article was deleted. I am not sure why you are even arguing the point here, nor what that point is. --Lemming64 20:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you also missing the point that GWW:1RV is not policy yet? It is still pending. --Lemming64 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)