User talk:Everyman/Guild Wars Wiki:User pages Draft
From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Just a note. If this policy goes through I will never archive anything ever again. Misery 08:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- You might want to read over some of these prior discussions of this issue.
- Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:User_pages#Allow_deletion_of_text_on_user_talk_pages
- Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:User_pages#Allow deletion of text on user talk_pages (revisited)
- Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:User_page/Archive_4#user_talk_pages
- Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:User_page/Archive_4#Change_the_part_about_user_talk_pages
- Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:User_page/Archive_4#User_Policy_Change_Proposal_-_When_content_can_be_removed_immediately
- It might give you some insight on the current policy. --
Wyn 08:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've read portions of those but I'll have them again in detail. In any case I believe borrowing from Wikipedia's policies would be an improvement over the current GWW policy. See Wikipedia:Don%27t_restore_removed_comments Everyman 08:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- 8/10 -Auron 08:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also feel free to edit the draft. I'm going to sleep now. I just wanted to get this started before I forget. I went over to Wikipedia a while ago and felt so happy with their current User page/talk page policies that I felt I should recommend them over here. Everyman 08:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree personally, we are a much smaller wiki that Wikipedia. There are reasons we don't use their policies. Requiring archival of all talk page content other than blatant violations of NPA and trolling, makes establishing patterns of behavior much easier when the need arises. -- Wyn 09:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- To echo wyn's earlier point, you should read over the prior discussions before making proposals to current policy, as all you're going to do is cause the discussion to be restarted from the beginning instead of continued from where it left off. You need to revise the policy draft to meet the needs and concerns of the community (or at least begin to, instead of just copypasting blindly without really knowing what the community wants or why the policies of a billion-edits-a-day wiki really fail hardcore on a small wiki like ours) before the draft should be considered or discussed. For that reason, I'm going to tag it for deletion until it has content worth debating - rehashing year-old arguments on a mostly unrelated policy for a wiki nothing like ours is a waste of time and effort on everyone's part. Note that you can keep it in your userspace for the time being, but it does not belong in the mainspace (even as a draft) until it has something to propose. -Auron 09:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- This isn't a proposal yet, it's a draft. According to Template:Policy, a draft is for policy drafts that need improvement. When the work is complete, it'll become a proposal. Everyman 09:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree it should be worked on in your userspace. When it's ready to become a proposal, it can be moved back to mainspace. -- Wyn 09:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree it should be worked on in your userspace. When it's ready to become a proposal, it can be moved back to mainspace. --
- This isn't a proposal yet, it's a draft. According to Template:Policy, a draft is for policy drafts that need improvement. When the work is complete, it'll become a proposal. Everyman 09:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree personally, we are a much smaller wiki that Wikipedia. There are reasons we don't use their policies. Requiring archival of all talk page content other than blatant violations of NPA and trolling, makes establishing patterns of behavior much easier when the need arises. --
- Also feel free to edit the draft. I'm going to sleep now. I just wanted to get this started before I forget. I went over to Wikipedia a while ago and felt so happy with their current User page/talk page policies that I felt I should recommend them over here. Everyman 08:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- 8/10 -Auron 08:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've read portions of those but I'll have them again in detail. In any case I believe borrowing from Wikipedia's policies would be an improvement over the current GWW policy. See Wikipedia:Don%27t_restore_removed_comments Everyman 08:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
(reset indent) One reason why archiving everything on a talk page is not so great is because it creates an extra workload for the user that's doing all the archiving. See Linsey Murdock's talk page as an example. I believe poor Linsey got sick of having to do all that archiving so eventually her contributions to the wiki became less and less. The same might be true for Isaiah Cartwright and even Regina and Gaile. Let the users be free from the burden of archiving. Everyman 09:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think you will find that Linsey's page is being archived by members of the community (mostly me) once she has had a chance to comment. Her lack of commentary has nothing to do with the amount of archiving needing to be done. I would seriously talk to these people before you use them as a reasoning behind making a major change to a large policy. I believe the ArenaNet staff have all explained their current lack of activity on the wiki. -- Wyn 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I recall that in the months prior to members of the community archiving Linsey's talk page that Linsey's talk page actually had to be locked down because it had grown to be unmanageable for her (and Linsey was doing the archiving up to that point). While it's nice of you to take on the extra work of archiving another user's talk page, the problem still exists: talk pages can become very large and many people would rather not waste time archiving things that are not worthy of their attention. Time spent archiving is time wasted that could have been spent in other areas, especially when there is a page and contribution history. Now if we didn't have those page and contribution histories, then archiving may be useful. Everyman 09:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
