The Shartak Wiki talk:Policies and guidelines

From The Shartak Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

When proposing a policy or guideline, put quotation marks around its proposed title and text. Unquoted text is for comments. Proposals and comments should be signed.

Proposed policies

"No vandalism"

"No edit may be made in a deliberate attempt to violate policy or reduce the quality of the wiki; such edits are considered vandalism. Forms of vandalism include but are not limited to blanking (removing significant and relevant parts of an article), insulting, and spamming (adding irrelevant content for self-promotion or profit). See Wikipedia's policy page on vandalism for a more detailed explanation of wiki vandalism." — Elembis (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think users and clans should have some slack under this policy for edits to their own pages, but I'm not sure that that needs an explanation. — Elembis (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
By piggybacking on Wikipedia's vandalism policy, you inherit parts like "Always assume good faith" and "Users own their own talk pages" which should provide coverage of your concerns. --Tycho44 07:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree we should use Wikipedia's guidelines. They have already done a lot of work developing them. Let's save time and copy off the smart kid's paper.--Nosimplehiway 07:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up suggestions pages

The current suggestions pages have gotten pretty cluttered with old suggestions. Those folks with slow connections or older computers may be having difficulty accessing them.

I propose that: "as of March 1st, we'll move all suggestions which were originally posted in 2006, along with their discussion, to a set of archived pages. A link to the archived pages will be posted on the main suggestions page and on individual suggestions pages. This action will then be repeated in following years on the same date. (ie: All suggestions originating in 2007 will then be archived on March 1, 2008.) If the original author of a suggestion wishes to continue a discussion of a topic from the previous year, they may post a copy of the suggestion and its' disussion, in its' entirety, during the new year."

If there are other ideas for how to deal with the problem of overly large suggestions pages, please post here. Thanks!--Nosimplehiway 07:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As there has been no discussion of this idea, I did not feel right in implementing the change. I have posted a notice of this policy suggestion in each of the suggestion categories to elicit discussion of this idea here. When the decision is made, I will delete those listings, if that's the decision we reach. Since March 1 has already passed, the archiving will be implemeted April 1, if there is no objection here, but March 1 in following years. --Nosimplehiway 13:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Rather than doing it on all 2006 suggestions, why not instead archive all suggestions which have seen no changes in the last 9 or 12 months? Or some other period, which you can point at as inactivity?--Johan Crichton 20:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Having a "rolling" period of time would require someone to monitor the threads throughout the year for topics ready to expire. I suggest archiving it by year of original posting largely to reduce the workload. This would be an action taken only once per year, in March, then ignored until maintenance is due again next March. Plus, giving each thread a shelf life of, say, 9 months or 12 months would mean that if one person went through the suggestions pages and commented on everything twice a year, everything would be posted on the main page indefinitely. If no progress has been made in a discussion in three months time (the minimum length of time a thread would be posted under my system, some would be up for as long as fifteen months), then it seems unlikely that anything useful will come of the discussion. If there is a thread from the previous year still actively being discussed (as opposed to the stray comment here and there) as of March 1, we can repost the contents in the new year. Certainly any topic which has been archived can be resurrected as a new topic in the new year, hopefully amended to incorporate ideas from the discussion, if the original author likes.--Nosimplehiway 05:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The only problem I can see with archiving them is that some of them might be ones that I'm looking to implement and if you move them, I might never find them again! --Simon 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This policy would not remove the suggestions entirely from the wiki, just move the older ones to their own page, where comments could continue to be made. The result would be, for example, pages titled "2006 Suggestions: Items" and "2007 Suggestions: Items". There has been little overflow from one year to the next, even in implementation (see below). Now, that said, Shartak is your baby and if you are firmly against this new policy, I will withdraw the suggestion.--Nosimplehiway 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't see that a periodical tidy up (say every three months) would be that much extra work. Can we have some figures on the age of the suggestions on the suggestions pages? --Johan Crichton 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Tidying up every few months would be fine (see below), I thought you meant we should archive suggestions after 9 months had passed with no new comments, thereby requiring a high level of monitoring. (eg if the final comment on a suggestion was posted on Feb 12, the suggestion would be archived on November 12) Sorry I misunderstood you.--Nosimplehiway 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at some numbers from the "Game Mechanics" suggestion page. I chose that one because it has the largest number of posted suggestions (37) and so, I hope, will give the best sample. Out of 37 posted suggestions 32 were originally posted in 2006. Two pages were not included in this data, leaving a total of 30 suggestions in the sample. (For both suggestions and comments on the suggestions, I am not including data from posts which did not have a proper timestamp. It would take a lot of digging through the history files to find the original dates. This removed 2 suggestions and quite a few comments, most of which came from only a handful of users. eg Rozen and Firstamongdaves )

  • During Jan, Feb or Mar of 2006, 8 suggestions were posted...with 23 comments made after April 1... 3 were made after July 1.
  • During Apr, May or June of 2006, 5 suggestions were posted... with 1 comment on them made after July 1 and none made after Oct 1.
  • During July, Aug, or Sep of 2006, 10 suggestions were posted... with 6 comments on them made after October 1 and none made after Jan 1, 2007.
  • During Oct, Nov or Dec of 2006, 7 suggestions were posted... with 1 comment made on them after January 1, 2007 and none made after Mar 1, 2007.

While the majority of comments on suggestions was made within a few weeks of the initial posting, there were occasional outliers. Some of these were months later. There was, however, only one comment made in 2007 regarding a 2006 suggestion. That was a message from Simon that he had implemented the suggestion ("More Clan/Crew Powers"), and it was dated January 9, 2007. Had a March 1 archiving been performed, this suggestion would still have been available on the main page when the comment was made.

If in 2006 we had archived the pages three months after the close date (eg archived Jan-Feb-Mar on July 1), only 3 comments would have had to be made on the archive page rather than the main page.

My conclusion: neither an annual nor a tri-monthly archiving would have a significant impact on the flow of conversation regarding suggestions. I would be happy to either implement an annual policy or accept your friendly amendment to make it a tri-monthly (or other time period) archiving. --Nosimplehiway 19:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds like it should be ok, provided that implemented suggestions are moved from whichever page they're on over to the implemented page. I tend to just make a note on the relevant suggestion and leave it to someone else to move the whole thing. Perhaps while you're archiving suggestions you could check there aren't any implemented ones left in the archive. Thanks. --Simon 21:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Try for quarterly (tri-monthly) archives, if you can. --Johan Crichton 22:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Does archiving move the page and make links to the page not work anymore? Does it prevent editing the page? If it does, I'd prefer it not get archived as I sometimes like to comment on old suggestions, plus I've started making something that links to each suggestion. Anyway, I don't think you'd need to move the old suggestions, wouldn't making a new page for people to start putting the new ones on work just as well? --Buttercup 05:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Archiving, as I understood the proposals by Nosimplehiway would be to move the entire (archived) suggestion to an archive page. You'd still be able to comment on archived suggestions, and links would still be possible. If I decide to do something like this, I'd try and make sure any links were updated. --Johan Crichton 05:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
How about this? User:Buttercup/temp/Suggestions Click through the links, they all work. The only thing you'd have to do is replace what it says on Suggestions with what I put on my user page. I would've done it, but I figured since it's a main page I'd ask first. If you want to get fancy, you can move suggestions that were posted this year onto the new pages I made (updating links as you go, of course). It didn't take me very long to set up, and the process can easily be repeated next year as well. --Buttercup 08:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion that was had above and the policy that was settled I upon I believed was to create archive pages for the old and inactive suggestions, not create a new set of pages each year (and the work required in changing links every year, from the main page or forums etc).
Using your own initiative may be a good thing, but consulting with the community before starting anything is as well when the resource is community owned. It can avoid causing people to go Whuh? when they see multiple new pages created as well :)
All you needed to do was create a single page not all of them. I'd sooner see implemented what Simon agreed to above, which preserves any existing links into the wiki, and reduces any work required every January. --Johan Crichton 08:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This policy is still listed as being under discussion. If it's official it should be moved down to the implemented policies section.
Anyway, I was discussing it. I figured it would be faster and easier to show how it worked rather than going into lengthy detail, which would likely end up with it seeming way more complicated than it actually is. I didn't modify any existing pages, and put the content of what would need to be modified for what I proposed on my user page, so I don't think I did anything wrong. Although you're right, I didn't need to make -all- of the new pages to show how it would work, and I didn't realize the confusion it might cause others to have those new pages there.
I don't think it would take very much time to do, as it took me about 15-20 minutes while figuring it out, and would probably take me 5 now that I know how. I could even write out the instructions on how to do it to make it a smooth process. Seven pages created every year (5 suggestion, 1 header, and 1 nav page), with a simple bit of copy/pasting and a change of date. Then last year's suggestion pages get an archive header informing people that they can comment, but must go to the current page to post new suggestions. Thirdly, links would be created in the Suggestions page to the new year's pages, and last year's links would simply be moved down to where it says archive.
As far as links, no links need to be changed. That was my main concern, really. From my user page I've got 48 links pointing to the items page, one for each item, and was planning on doing the same for the other categories as a project of mine. If links have to be changed manually, I figured creating new pages for the new year would save someone a heck of a lot of work compared to changing every link pointing to the old. Actually, it'd probably be better not to move January 08's suggestions to the new pages so as to preserve maximum linky goodness.
The nav bar for whichever year you were on would have links to that year's items, skills, classes, game mechanics, and miscellaneous pages, as well as the main Suggestions page. So no matter where you were in either the archive or current suggestions, you could get to any other archive or current suggestions page by going through the main link.
Basically, I see it as archiving without actually moving any pages. --Buttercup 10:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussion was had and Simon and I both agreed to Nosimplehiway's proposed policy. It just hasn't been moved yet, most likely due to Nosimplehiway going inactive on the wiki.
The original policy suggestion was intended to move inactive and old suggestions from the suggestions pages, archiving them to an archive page where they could still be accessed. I think Nosimplehiway demonstrated well that most old suggestions never get any comments or attention after a period of time. I don't see that your suggestion (having yearly pages) achieves that intended purpose.
Yours suggestion would require prep work every year creating new pages and the modification of links on the main Suggestions page, and would break any links to the 'current suggestions: xyz' pages from within or external to the wiki. His suggestion requires creating archive pages, and moving inactive (etc) suggestions to those pages on a regular schedule, as already happens with implemented suggestions.
In any case, I discussed Nosimplehiway's policy with Simon on IRC today, and he was happy with me (as a wiki sysop) to action it, which I intend to begin this week. --Johan Crichton 10:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Meh, alright. I'll just practice my wiki skills then. I still want to finish it, even if it doesn't get used. BTW, we don't seem to have a parser. I was trying the 210 example, which was supposed to output 210, but as you can see, doesn't. Any idea why we don't have that or whether Simon would be cool with adding it? --Buttercup 02:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The ParserFunctions appear to be a mediawiki extension - as such, they won't be available on a mediawiki wiki unless they've been installed. Best way to find out if Simon might add it would be to ask him either via IRC, forum or the shartak feedback mechanism. --Johan Crichton 03:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've edited the pages so that people won't get confused and start posting there. --Buttercup 03:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In consideration of other wikiers, any new pages I need in order to conduct my experiments/prepare my example will be created on my user page. --Buttercup 08:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've moved all test content I created in the main namespace to my userpage. --Buttercup 02:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed guidelines


Implemented policies

"Don't edit the user and clan pages of others"

"A user page belongs to the user it pertains to, and should not be edited by other users. Likewise, a clan page belongs to the clan it pertains to and should not be edited by any users who are not members of the clan. The only exceptions are edits that consist solely of corrections to grammar, spelling, punctuation, link targets, capitalization, and markup." — Elembis (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, I agree with this policy as it would most likely pre-empt useless revert wars. It should perhaps be noted that the talk pages for user and clan pages are fair game (within reason). The "good faith" exceptions appear to cover everything that I can think of at the moment. --Lint 05:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree with this policy (clan-owned clan pages). Suppose that a new player wants to join a clan, and is seeking information about available clans. They can look at Shartak Clan List Pages, Private Clan Forums, and Wiki Clan Pages. Obviously, Clan Listing and the Privately Maintained Forums are owned by the clan leader and the clan, and there is an expectation that they represent the "face" of that clan. Basically, those sites are giant promotional infomercials, where clans praise themselves and defame their foes. But is the wiki to become another venue for unrestrained preening, braggadocio, and factless garbage? What role does the Shartak Wiki play? Everywhere else on the Shartak Wiki, there is an expectation of valid content. There is an expectation of factual accuracy. There is perhaps even an expectation of NPOV (neutral point-of-view). Somehow the clan pages get overlooked. What can I put on my clan page for my own clan? Can I say that The South Shartak Trading Company is a bunch of cheating zergers who PK their own camp? Can I say that my clan feeds starving orphans and gives heavy swords to all its members? Can I post my favorite screenshots embarrassing my enemies? ... I guess in my perfect utopian fantasy, the clans are all described using six-sentence neutral-point-of-view factual journalistic descriptions (maybe with a quotation or two quoted from their clan listing page) and a clanbox. Meanwhile, the clan-owned clan history, propaganda, blow-by-blow accounts, journals, and the rest of it, are placed in a separate Clan-Owned ClanSpace - perhaps Clan:The South Shartak Trading Company, as opposed to The South Shartak Trading Company. (That's just my own personal opinion, rather than a desire to rewrite policy.) --Tycho44 06:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"No copyrighted content"

"No content (text, images, etc.) may be submitted if it is copyrighted." — Elembis (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree. The last thing we need is to run into copyright issues. --Lint 05:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The copyright "policy stick" should not become a tool for rival clans to provoke and pick at each other. It is perhaps effective for a policy guideline to say "copyright material is subject to deletion at any time without argument or appeal" and then leave it unenforced until such time as Paramount or Clear Channel sends a nice e-mail, or the owner(s) of the wiki (e.g. Simon) deign to care. Notice that greyness is inevitable: Surely we don't own copyrights to Viveca Lindfors, JB Aristide, Hans Moleman, Dr. Livingstone, Foo Fighter, and so on. Is my character "Indiana Jones" banned from appearing on the wiki any place for any reason? How much can I say about my "Lost Ark Raiders" clan on the clan page? Can I wear a bullwhip on my talk page, and quote myself from in-game: "Snakes, why does it always have to be snakes?" I'd say keep images and long quoted passages off the wiki, but let the small stuff remain under parody fair use unless the rights-holder seems to care. But I don't know anything about U.K. copyright law. --Tycho44 07:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Implemented guidelines