Classic WoW Wiki talk:Policies

=Old Discussions= For an archive of the preliminary conversation, see Policy/4 Oct 2005.

Some naming related discussions have been moved to WoWWiki_talk:Policy/Naming.

=Current Discussions and Open Votes= ''See also WoWWiki Talk:Namespace, WoWWiki Talk:Category, WoWWiki talk:Article types.

Policy status phases
Moved proposal, voting record, and comments to Policy status phases discussion.
 * --Fandyllic 8:21 PM PST 4 Dec 2006

Category pages and Namespace debate
There seemed to be a general consensus on the Categories and articles proposal, so I've copied the text of it to Category and moved it to the Old discussions section on this page. Making existing category pages comply with it shouldn't be too difficult for the most part.

The zone categories/articles are somewhat problematic, as there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus from the Namespace discussion as to whether those should be in a separate namespace or not. Depending on the outcome of that debate, the content of Category:Zone:Elwynn Forest would either be moved to Elwynn Forest or Zone:Elwynn Forest.--Aeleas 18:41, 4 Nov 2005 (EST)

Disambiguation pages

 * Proposal:


 * If a possible article name is common to two or more topics, and
 * if the page's name is unambiguous, and
 * if it can be assumed that anyone who is searching on a particular article name will be looking for one particular article,
 * then the article most likely to be searched for should have the appropriate title; any other article that might take that title will be given another appropriate title. If there should be enough topics that could use this title, a disambiguation page should be named with that common title, plus "(disambiguation)".

But
 * If the article name is common to two or more topics
 * but neither article is predominantly referred to (see Special:Whatlinkshere/ )
 * then the disambiguation page should not have "(disambiguation)"; the articles that could carry that name will be given an appropriate title as is mentioned above.


 * Yes:
 * 1) Schmidt talk 09:10, 7 Oct 2005 (EDT) (originally proposed)
 * 2) Powerlord 21:50, 7 Oct 2005 (EDT)
 * 3) Aeleas 15:03, 28 Oct 2005 (EDT)
 * 4) Hammersmith 01:56, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * 5) --Terrybader 14:10, 10 Feb 2006 (EST)


 * No:


 * Suggestions:

Money templates
I have noticed that there is a ridiculous amount of money templates. I propose that we eliminate all but four of those:, , , and. I think that this will help reduce confusion and standardize the templates more. Pureblade 23:06, 30 Oct 2005 (EST)

Support
 * Pureblade 23:06, 30 Oct 2005 (EST)

Oppose

Comments

 * We might change the Templates article to eliminate the others from being listed, and we might change each article that refers to those others, but there's no need to really delete them. However, you could add the tag to their talk pages (but not to the template proper, as that would screw it up). It might be wise to note that these others are deprecated in favor of the others that you mentioned.


 * Further, and  are useful when only two denominations are relevant. For that matter, whenever you have gold involved, there's no need to even mention copper. That's like mentioning the number of cents involved in a $100+ transaction. So I am in favor of keeping each of those three, and gs and sc; gsc is next to useless, as well as . Ultimately, there's no need for concensus on this, but I assume that no one would be offended if you changed each article you come upon. Schmidt talk 00:41, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * I'm sort of in favor, but mostly against. How should I vote?
 * Here is what I mean:
 * The templates    and     are redundant, so maybe we should eliminate one in favor of the other. However, if you just want to see   , then how would you use    (doesn't exist yet) or    ?
 * --Fandyllic 2:58 PM PST 20 Dec 2005

If I was you, maybe don't even vote; I didn't. There's really no purpose, and until this template-overuse bug is fixed on this wiki, we might as well keep the different ones, for pages that list many different prices. Also, there's definitely no reason to have a gc at all, for the reason I mentioned above: Why bother with a fraction of a dollar when you're talking about 100 dollars? Schmidt 19:15, 20 Dec 2005 (EST)
 * So what do we do about this discussion? -- Hammersmith 03:09, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)


 * Let it rot. lol. /shrug Schmidt 23:07, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)

Concise Articles and Source Text
Proposal: Lore articles on characters, places, and events should be kept reasonably concise, summarizing and cleanly presenting the facts and events directly relevant to the topic. Large sections of copied source text are discouraged, as they tend to make articles overly long, create repetition, contain much information that isn't directly relevant, and are problematic to update.

Citations to an official source should be included where relevant in the form of a link. Following the policy of preferring internal links, the link would ideally be to an internal page containing a complete transcription of the source, clearly identified as Source Text. This should also allow for easier verification and citation of sources.


 * Yes:
 * 1) Aeleas 18:42, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)
 * 2) Schmidt talk 23:44, 2 Nov 2005 (EST)
 * 3) Hammersmith 01:47, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)


 * No:

This should already be standard policy, why is this even needed? Was there a problem with something somewhere? --Terrybader 14:13, 10 Feb 2006 (EST)
 * Comments:

Boilerplates
Proposal: Move all the boilerplates (list with annotations and category list) to the Template namespace, taking into account a new discovery on using subst: from Wikimedia (see also Boilerplates for notes on this Wikimedia article).

Also, I propose that someone (maybe Aeleas, because he rewrites so well, or anyone else) combine Boilerplates with Boilerplates, if that is okay. I do notice that the scopes of each of these articles are not quite identical, but certainly Boilerplates does not belong in the main namespace, and the scopes are very nearly identical.


 * I realize that this is by no means important, but I thought it might benefit some, at least, if these were in the template namespace. At the very least, they'd be out of the main namespace, and would not appear as articles. I wouldn't mind moving these myself, but I'd like to leave it to someone else so that people don't say I'm a punk. Schmidt 22:09, 11 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * Yes:
 * 1) Schmidt 22:09, 11 Nov 2005 (EST) (of course)
 * 2) Aeleas 13:18, 16 Nov 2005 (EST)
 * 3) Fandyllic 6:21 PM PST 16 November 2005 (Schmidt, you're a punk. ;-)... but I don't want to do it either... heh.
 * LOL (which see)
 * No:

Comments

 * Sounds like a good way to do it, if it will make substitution easier. In regards to Boilerplates and Boilerplates, I would suggest keeping them separate, but moving Boilerplates to List of Boilerplates.--Aeleas 13:18, 16 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * It sounds okay to me, but is there an especially good reason not to just merge them? There doesn't need to be, but if there is one, I'd like to know about it so I can think about it next time, too. Schmidt 00:12, 17 Nov 2005 (EST)


 * I was thinking tha keeping the list of boilerplates separate would make it cleaner for browsing through it, though it's just a matter of preference. --Aeleas 00:38, 17 Nov 2005 (EST)

Community census
I propose having producing a list of the people in various categories. The only one I can think of now would be to list those who check policy amendment votes and those who don't care, and those who contribute on a regular basis (a certain number of edits – even as minor as spelling – per week). This would perhaps allow us to determine how many votes we're expecting to have. So if there's only 10 people who are active, we know that if we want a 2/3 majority, we're expecting at least 7 votes. Schmidt 08:03, 19 Dec 2005 (EST)


 * Who have this page on watchlist, or otherwise regularly check it (at least once a week):
 * 1) Schmidt 08:03, 19 Dec 2005 (EST) (on watchlist, but I don't log in as much anymore)
 * 2) Hammersmith 03:37, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * 3) --Terrybader 14:17, 10 Feb 2006 (EST)


 * Who regularly contribute to the wiki (even if it's just spelling or formatting, etc.):
 * 1) Schmidt 08:03, 19 Dec 2005 (EST)
 * 2) Hammersmith 03:37, 6 Jan 2006 (EST)
 * 3) Fandyllic 5:43 PM PST 13 Jan 2006
 * 4) --Terrybader 14:17, 10 Feb 2006 (EST)

I watch this page when I'm around, but I tend to spend long times away from WoWWiki, due to other things going on in my life. I also tend not to vote in cases where I don't have an opinion one way or the other.

P.S. Special:Maintenance has some things people can fix if they can't find other things to do. I'm beginning to think that I'm the only person who goes and fixes double redirects. MediaWiki will only redirect an article once, so double redirects must be manually fixed. --Powerlord 16:28, 11 Jan 2006 (EST)


 * I've fixed double redirects from time to time. I thought I was the only one. lol Schmidt 23:06, 13 Jan 2006 (EST)


 * and I thought I was the only one as I have fixed several dozen in the last few weeks. --Terrybader 14:17, 10 Feb 2006 (EST)

Categories and articles

 * Proposal:


 * Category pages should have a link to an article that contains the primary information at the top, that page should have (for that category only, and any other categories for which it is the primary article) a sort key that puts that page at the top of the list. Therefore, the only information on a category page will be links to relevant articles, but not any significant information.


 * I have discovered that LAISREN had already put forth Category on July 2, 2005, which covers this topic but not quite this proposal. This other article was mentioned in Talk:Main Page. If this is acceptable, this should be mentioned at the former article. Schmidt talk 00:32, 27 Oct 2005 (EDT)


 * Yes:
 * 1) Schmidt talk 09:10, 7 Oct 2005 (EDT) (originally proposed)
 * 2) FeldmanSkitzoid 16:29, 9 Oct 2005 (EDT) (see comment below)
 * 3) Aeleas 00:18, 25 Oct 2005 (EDT)
 * 4) Hammersmith 03:39, 6 Jan 2006 (EST) (it's been accepted to go ahead anyhow but I wanted to support the decision)
 * No:
 * 1) Powerlord 21:48, 7 Oct 2005 (EDT) While I'd like to agree with Schmidt, I think that the sort key part is redundant. It would make more sense to simply have a normal link to the relevant page(s), which would appear above the Article or Subcategory lists.
 * So if the main page was simply linked (not as a category item), you'd agree? I'll agree with that, except that the category link will place a link at the bottom of the page listing what categories it belongs to, and it might be helpful to see that it's a member of the relevant category. Schmidt talk 01:10, 8 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Comments
I'm starting to come around to this idea, to a certain extent. I think pages like Engineering are too long, and most of the sections (as divided by headers) should be put on their own lists. I threw together an Example of what I think that page should look like. Basically, if a Category has its own Table of Contents, it's probably too long.

However, some pages are about as short as they can get, for example the Shaman page. Its contents seem about as brief as they can be.

Regarding the Category:Organization page that kinda started this whole thing, I threw together another example of what that could look like.
 * --FeldmanSkitzoid 16:29, 9 Oct 2005 (EDT)


 * As for the brevity of category:shaman, to me, even that seems too long for a category page. Note that I have no qualms with a normal article being that long. (Sure, some articles are way too long, and it could be good to break those articles apart.) But category pages are already an assembly of articles pertinent to a particular subject.


 * Take for example category:demigods. This category has warrant, but it's clunky. It has all the demigods listed in the top portion in some odd order (certainly not alpha), and then at the bottom, in alpha order. The top list also includes links to uncreated articles. No problem IMO, because since those links are already there, they set a precedence. And since those broken links are there, it would be awkward to leave out the rest from the list. It's a clunky page, but virtually incorrigible. At least, to someone who doesn't know much lore. This is why it would be better to have an article called Demigod (preferred over Demigods, for easier linking if you're just saying someone is a demigod, you don't have to pipe to make it singular). And under demigod, you could have this same list instead of here.


 * I think category:newbies is a great example of a category page. You may want to see my comments on the discussion pages for both of FeldmanSkitzoid's examples. Schmidt talk 01:42, 10 Oct 2005 (EDT)

I definitely agree that any substantive content on Category pages is 'clunky'. A separate page, for example, for /Engineering, which has a link to (and is a member of) /Category:Engineering would be much clearer to both the novice and wiki-experienced user. I do agree with Powerlord that the sort key is not necessary. A single sentence of standarized text at the top of a Category page can direct users to the main content page, and would be brief enough so as not to invite any further content additions on that page. --Aeleas 00:18, 25 Oct 2005 (EDT)

What I dislike about the Categorization system as it is is such pages as Category:Zone:Felwood. I believe that categories should have one or two sentences on what they cover, then the list of articles in the catrgoy. Such pages a Felwood should be the article which lists the information on the zone. Then, Categoy:Felwood could be linked to in the See-Also section of Felwood whihc would be a list of other pages pertaining to Felwood. I am finding having Category: pages having the actual info is extremely frustrating when trying to link to it, not to mention that it always ends up having a few of its articles redirecting back to itself, in the case of Felwood being listed at Category:Zone:Felwood, which wastes space, and makes life more difficult for the user. Pureblade 23:05, 3 Nov 2005 (EST)
 * There seems to be a general agreement on that point, Pureblade. This proposal has been up for a month, and the only vote against was on the relatively minor issue of sort keys, so I'm going to incorporate it into the Category page and put a link to that page on the Policy page.--Aeleas 13:04, 4 Nov 2005 (EST)