WoWWiki

This wiki contains inaccurate and out-of-date information. Please head over to https://wowpedia.fandom.com for more accurate and up-to-date game information.

READ MORE

WoWWiki
Register
(→‎Comments: @fandyllic)
(→‎Comments: a half-way point between policy and guideline)
Line 47: Line 47:
   
 
::::::: A guideline doesn't let us omfgdelete pages that are utter useless bullmanure without having deletion votes running for half a year. :-(   --[[User:Mikk|Mikk]] 18:03, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
 
::::::: A guideline doesn't let us omfgdelete pages that are utter useless bullmanure without having deletion votes running for half a year. :-(   --[[User:Mikk|Mikk]] 18:03, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
  +
  +
lol Mikk. I guess you really want this place cleaned up. I feel that it should be a policy – enough to vote – but if it get's the {{tlink|veto}}, I can live with it. It would make the world a better place if all the guild pages were better constructed. But such a wish doesn't lend itself directly to policy. A ''firm'' guideline might be in order, where if we see a guild page with "bullmanure" in it and nothing of value, how about having a policy where we just clean that sucker up and get it out of here? How do you like that idea, Fandyllic, and everyone else? [[User:D. F. Schmidt|Schmidt]] 01:31, 20 June 2006 (EDT)
   
 
== Implementation details ==
 
== Implementation details ==

Revision as of 05:31, 20 June 2006

Votes

Yes:

  1. Yes Ralthor 17:37, 24 May 2006 (EDT) - (I wrote it so I like it, but I am sure some people can find some improvements)
  2. Yes DarkTichondrias - (no comment)
  3. Yes Mikk 06:42, 7 June 2006 (EDT) - (I love it!)
  4. Yes Zonkk 07:31, 7 June 2006 (EDT) - (Looks good)
  5. Yes Aeleas 11:05, 12 June 2006 (EDT) - (Looks perfect.)
  6. Yes Schmidt 11:37, 12 June 2006 (EDT) - (See below.)
  7. Yes Emcepticon 11:19, 15 June 2006 (EDT) - (It's silly to have pages that are nothing more than redirects, I agree wholeheartedly.)
  8. Yes Kirkburn 07:53, 17 June 2006 (EDT) - ()
  9. Yes Kitsunei 07:46, 18 June 2006 (EDT) - ()

The YES votes are currently winning by 9-1. This policy will become ratified on June 19 unless the situation changes. --Mikk 13:56, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

No:

  1. No Fandyllic 4:34 PM PDT 13 Jun 2006 - (I think these rules are overly restrictive... by this standard we should have even more restrictive policies for player pages.)

Comments

  • If this goes into force, remember to touch up Template:Tlink and create Category:Stubs/Guild. --Mikk 07:04, 7 June 2006 (EDT)
  • I added a link to Template:Tlink to the article. This one should be brushed up A LOT if this goes into force. --Mikk 17:36, 7 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Oh, and the Template:Tlink template should probably get a <small> pointer to the policy to make it easier to spot for people setting up new guild pages. --Mikk 18:20, 7 June 2006 (EDT)
  • I strongly believe that guilds should be able to post recurring activities, such as "We go to BRD every weekend" or "We go to some high level each weekend: First weekend of the month, BRD; second weekend of the month, LBRS", etc. And I think upcoming activities that aren't normally recurring are fine, because it kind of gives you an idea of what they're planning so you can see whether you'd be interested. Everything else looks fine to me. Schmidt 11:37, 12 June 2006 (EDT)
Phrased like that, yeah, I agree. I think we all agree that WoWWiki shouldn't be the guild calendar though, i.e. a replacement of their own site. Perhaps we can just rephrase the policy to reflect that better? --Mikk 13:55, 12 June 2006 (EDT)
Accordingly, I added a "periodic events, if weekly or monthly periodic" as allowed on the project page. Restate as necessary. Also, I just rethought the events that aren't normally recurring. I'm not sure that's such a great idea, or at least I couldn't think of a way to word that idea, so I didn't edit that in. Anyone else can, if you want. Schmidt 14:23, 12 June 2006 (EDT)
I rephrased it in somewhat more general terms (didn't like the precise weekly/monthly requirement), but added emphasis on the fact that we want things that are useful to people outside the guild, not just existing guild members. ( = Don't wikisquat please). --Mikk 15:48, 12 June 2006 (EDT)
  • I don't understand why upcoming events can't be posted on a guild page. For the the smaller guilds who occasionally participate in raids with larger guilds you can't always know on a regular basis when an event will happen. Someone please explain. BTW, I will probably try to start a recall vote of this policy if it gets passed as is, but only if many makers of guild pages complain (which is unlikely). --Fandyllic 4:40 PM PDT 13 Jun 2006
Because continually posting what's going on ("hey peeps, I just talked to the GM of <foo> and we're going to ZG with them tomorrow, so get online!") means they're Wikisquatting and should get their own server? --Mikk 17:46, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
Yea thats my thought. The difference is using the wiki as your means of communicating with members and using the wiki to record information about your guild for the benefit of others. While I can see the benefit of posting the current schedule as an information source for others it seems to much like Wikisquatting for me and only really targets their guild members. I would probably make similar restrictions on player pages if I designed a policy for them because both player page and guild pages have the same problem. There are a bunch of pages with no/almost no links to them, uncategorized, and they don't provide enough information to be considered the least bit useful. Useless guild pages, however, far outnumber player pages, and with player pages you don't have to worry about wikisquatting. Someone could pottentially use their player page as a blog, but guilds are much more likely to wikisquat. --Ralthor 18:00, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
Perhaps we can just tweak the text a wee bit to actually say what we don't want rather than try and beat around the bush? I personally wouldn't have a problem with e.g. a guild posting "We will open the Ahn'Qiraj gates on <server> on <date>". It IS kind of inter-guild communication, but it's a WIIIIDE audience. --Mikk 18:13, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
Ok I removed the part about upcoming events and replaced it with the sentence below (slightly reworded) so it now has on it, "In general terms don't put any material on the page that requires it to be updated frequently or is only meant for members of the guild." --Ralthor 18:35, 13 June 2006 (EDT)
That seems better. I still don't like this as a policy. It should be a guideline. --Fandyllic 4:43 PM PDT 19 Jun 2006
A guideline doesn't let us omfgdelete pages that are utter useless bullmanure without having deletion votes running for half a year. :-(   --Mikk 18:03, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

lol Mikk. I guess you really want this place cleaned up. I feel that it should be a policy – enough to vote – but if it get's the Template:Tlink, I can live with it. It would make the world a better place if all the guild pages were better constructed. But such a wish doesn't lend itself directly to policy. A firm guideline might be in order, where if we see a guild page with "bullmanure" in it and nothing of value, how about having a policy where we just clean that sucker up and get it out of here? How do you like that idea, Fandyllic, and everyone else? Schmidt 01:31, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

Implementation details

  • When old guild pages are found to violate policy, I assume that the reasonable thing to do is apply the 30-day limit to their violations (counted from tagging the page with Template:Tlink)? --Mikk 18:20, 7 June 2006 (EDT)
    • Violation can just be fixed, they don't need to be deleted... I made a check list here of implementation items.


  • [√] Add Policy page to its proper place. (I'm actually not sure where this proper place is, either leave it here or add it to Policy/Writing and remove this page, where ever it should be consitent with where we plan on putting specific rules for page types i.e. WoWWiki:Policy/Writing/FanFiction & WoWWiki:Policy/Writing/Lore.
This seems right to me. --Mikk 11:29, 18 June 2006 (EDT)
Done. --Mikk 17:21, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
  • [√] Remove link on WoWWiki:Policy/Writing that says it is a proposal
Done. --Mikk 17:30, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
  • [√] Update Template:Tlink with the 30 days deletion policy
Done (by Fandyllic ~5 minutes before I went to do it. Effin mindreaders =)) --Mikk 17:30, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
  • [√] Add reference to WoWWiki:Policy/Deletion#Speedy Delete explaining that a guild stub can me marked for speedy delete if it has been marked as a stub for more than 30 days with no improvement. (None should be marked speedy delete until 30 days after this policy takes effect)
Done. I didn't specifically reference this policy, but rather said that violation of other policies can result in speedydelete. I specifically did not want to mention timeframes since it becomes a pain to update duplicate information. --Mikk 17:54, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
  • [√] Update Template:Tlink to point to this page (or whever it ends up going)
Done. --Mikk 17:21, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
  • [√] Deprecate WoWWiki:Policy/DNP#Guild pages and have it point here
Actually, DNP should explain that there are several "Do NOT"s in the writing policy and point at that in general. --Mikk 11:29, 18 June 2006 (EDT)
Done. --Mikk 17:21, 19 June 2006 (EDT)
Imo, it needs to point at the policy a lot more often. It's a bit too specific about things to put in the page and not. People might take it for policy. --Mikk 03:33, 14 June 2006 (EDT)
  • [] Ensure Boilerplate:Guild is still a good starting point for a guild page and conforms to the new policy (I think it does)
  • [√] Notify New Page Patrol Team of changes so they can ensure new pages conform to the policy.
Done. --Mikk 17:54, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

Thats all I can think of, the hard part will be enforcing those pages that already exist. In general probably do these things:

  • When you find a guild page, ensure that it meets the required information. If it doesn't: add the content required. If you can't add the content: mark it as a stub.
  • If you find a guild page in violation of policy, fix the violation and leave a note on the talk page. Or: if you don't have the desire to fix it or are not sure how to do it, mark it with Template:Tlink and explain the violation on the talk page.

--Ralthor 18:30, 13 June 2006 (EDT)


  • All the quick stuff done. Only the tedious jobs left now. All yours, Ralthor :-)   (Well, ok, or anyone else. Not me =))   --Mikk 18:01, 19 June 2006 (EDT)