elanthipedia talk:Manual of Style/PCs - Revision history

CARAAMON: /* New Changes */

2015-02-13T00:03:39Z

New Changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:03, 12 February 2015
Line 29:		Line 29:
	We have been asked not to further clutter the forums due to people requesting unofficial order folders specifically for us. Therefor, we have proposed the following changes to naming rules of PC Organizations:		We have been asked not to further clutter the forums due to people requesting unofficial order folders specifically for us. Therefor, we have proposed the following changes to naming rules of PC Organizations:

			We will remove the necessity for families to be named as such, and all groups shall adhere to the following rule:
	* Family-based groups will have the page name Fancypants family.
	* Players can not create [[Official Orders]], Houses or represent themselves as members of governments (existing or their own) or nobility.		* Players can not create [[Official Orders]], Houses or represent themselves as members of governments (existing or their own) or nobility.

CARAAMON: /* New Changes */

2015-02-12T03:37:52Z

New Changes

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:37, 11 February 2015
Line 29:		Line 29:
	We have been asked not to further clutter the forums due to people requesting unofficial order folders specifically for us. Therefor, we have proposed the following changes to naming rules of PC Organizations:		We have been asked not to further clutter the forums due to people requesting unofficial order folders specifically for us. Therefor, we have proposed the following changes to naming rules of PC Organizations:

	*Family-based groups will have the page name Fancypants family.		* Family-based groups will have the page name Fancypants family.
			* Players can not create [[Official Orders]], Houses or represent themselves as members of governments (existing or their own) or nobility.
	* Other may have the names changed if their contain implications that they represent any sort of governmental, noble, or royal body. "Order" is allowed so long as the group does not portray themselves as an [[Official Order]] if they are not.
	: Example of restricted words include House, Empire, Kingdom, or Dynasty. Others may be added at any time.

CARAAMON at 03:33, 12 February 2015

2015-02-12T03:33:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:33, 11 February 2015
Line 25:		Line 25:
	:: It is a good idea but I'm not sure how effective this guideline will be since by definition it addresses articles with controversial subject matter, ie information that is under dispute between two editors. The word "negative" is also quite fuzzy as it is entirely a matter of perspective whether one person or the other has behaved "negatively" or not. The word seems to go towards the motive of the editor rather than the content (eg writing something about another character with the goal of "outing" him or her in some way), and in my mind that opens up the larger subject of objectivity and NPOV. My other thought is that ideally, the provisions for documentation and proof should apply to all information entered on the wiki, especially when writing about another person's character, and shouldn't necessarily be restricted to controversial topics. Also third-party forum posts aren't in my view a reliable source since they aren't guaranteed to be either authoritative or objective. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 06:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)		:: It is a good idea but I'm not sure how effective this guideline will be since by definition it addresses articles with controversial subject matter, ie information that is under dispute between two editors. The word "negative" is also quite fuzzy as it is entirely a matter of perspective whether one person or the other has behaved "negatively" or not. The word seems to go towards the motive of the editor rather than the content (eg writing something about another character with the goal of "outing" him or her in some way), and in my mind that opens up the larger subject of objectivity and NPOV. My other thought is that ideally, the provisions for documentation and proof should apply to all information entered on the wiki, especially when writing about another person's character, and shouldn't necessarily be restricted to controversial topics. Also third-party forum posts aren't in my view a reliable source since they aren't guaranteed to be either authoritative or objective. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 06:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
	:::The problem is that what other sources are there? The GMs almost never post about PCs and PC groups... game logs can easily be altered. If someone says one person or group did something and the group or person says they didn't.... what do we do? I'd feel a lot more comfortable if we could set some sort of policy rather than us SysOps having to play Dictator/Private Investigator. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 00:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)		:::The problem is that what other sources are there? The GMs almost never post about PCs and PC groups... game logs can easily be altered. If someone says one person or group did something and the group or person says they didn't.... what do we do? I'd feel a lot more comfortable if we could set some sort of policy rather than us SysOps having to play Dictator/Private Investigator. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 00:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

			==New Changes==
			We have been asked not to further clutter the forums due to people requesting unofficial order folders specifically for us. Therefor, we have proposed the following changes to naming rules of PC Organizations:

			*Family-based groups will have the page name Fancypants family.
			* Other may have the names changed if their contain implications that they represent any sort of governmental, noble, or royal body. "Order" is allowed so long as the group does not portray themselves as an [[Official Order]] if they are not.
			: Example of restricted words include House, Empire, Kingdom, or Dynasty. Others may be added at any time.

CARAAMON at 00:59, 23 January 2009

2009-01-23T00:59:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:59, 22 January 2009
Line 24:		Line 24:

	:: It is a good idea but I'm not sure how effective this guideline will be since by definition it addresses articles with controversial subject matter, ie information that is under dispute between two editors. The word "negative" is also quite fuzzy as it is entirely a matter of perspective whether one person or the other has behaved "negatively" or not. The word seems to go towards the motive of the editor rather than the content (eg writing something about another character with the goal of "outing" him or her in some way), and in my mind that opens up the larger subject of objectivity and NPOV. My other thought is that ideally, the provisions for documentation and proof should apply to all information entered on the wiki, especially when writing about another person's character, and shouldn't necessarily be restricted to controversial topics. Also third-party forum posts aren't in my view a reliable source since they aren't guaranteed to be either authoritative or objective. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 06:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)		:: It is a good idea but I'm not sure how effective this guideline will be since by definition it addresses articles with controversial subject matter, ie information that is under dispute between two editors. The word "negative" is also quite fuzzy as it is entirely a matter of perspective whether one person or the other has behaved "negatively" or not. The word seems to go towards the motive of the editor rather than the content (eg writing something about another character with the goal of "outing" him or her in some way), and in my mind that opens up the larger subject of objectivity and NPOV. My other thought is that ideally, the provisions for documentation and proof should apply to all information entered on the wiki, especially when writing about another person's character, and shouldn't necessarily be restricted to controversial topics. Also third-party forum posts aren't in my view a reliable source since they aren't guaranteed to be either authoritative or objective. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 06:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
			:::The problem is that what other sources are there? The GMs almost never post about PCs and PC groups... game logs can easily be altered. If someone says one person or group did something and the group or person says they didn't.... what do we do? I'd feel a lot more comfortable if we could set some sort of policy rather than us SysOps having to play Dictator/Private Investigator. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 00:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance script at 06:04, 22 January 2009

2009-01-22T06:04:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:04, 22 January 2009
Line 20:		Line 20:

	: Looks good to me --[[User:Callek\|Callek]] 03:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)		: Looks good to me --[[User:Callek\|Callek]] 03:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

			:: Thank you for including me in this conversation, Caraamon. As people may have noted I have been completely inactive here for quite a number of months due to a number of personal matters that have dominated my spare time. So I'm not familiar with the underlying issues this guideline may be intended to address, and I am completely ignorant of the context here. But with that proviso, I hereby throw in my two cents ;)

			:: It is a good idea but I'm not sure how effective this guideline will be since by definition it addresses articles with controversial subject matter, ie information that is under dispute between two editors. The word "negative" is also quite fuzzy as it is entirely a matter of perspective whether one person or the other has behaved "negatively" or not. The word seems to go towards the motive of the editor rather than the content (eg writing something about another character with the goal of "outing" him or her in some way), and in my mind that opens up the larger subject of objectivity and NPOV. My other thought is that ideally, the provisions for documentation and proof should apply to all information entered on the wiki, especially when writing about another person's character, and shouldn't necessarily be restricted to controversial topics. Also third-party forum posts aren't in my view a reliable source since they aren't guaranteed to be either authoritative or objective. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 06:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

CALLEK at 03:58, 22 January 2009

2009-01-22T03:58:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:58, 21 January 2009
Line 18:		Line 18:

	Apparently I need to be more clear when speaking to people who aren't the voices in my head. Go figure. Basically what this is about is under what conditions can a group claim something, and individual(s) claim that it is false. This is not about opinions, or feelings, or dislikes, but about under what conditions should be allow posting of negatory (is that better than negative?) modifications? -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 02:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)		Apparently I need to be more clear when speaking to people who aren't the voices in my head. Go figure. Basically what this is about is under what conditions can a group claim something, and individual(s) claim that it is false. This is not about opinions, or feelings, or dislikes, but about under what conditions should be allow posting of negatory (is that better than negative?) modifications? -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 02:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

			: Looks good to me --[[User:Callek\|Callek]] 03:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

CARAAMON at 02:08, 22 January 2009

2009-01-22T02:08:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:08, 21 January 2009
Line 16:		Line 16:
	</pre>		</pre>
	-Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)		-Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

			Apparently I need to be more clear when speaking to people who aren't the voices in my head. Go figure. Basically what this is about is under what conditions can a group claim something, and individual(s) claim that it is false. This is not about opinions, or feelings, or dislikes, but about under what conditions should be allow posting of negatory (is that better than negative?) modifications? -Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 02:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

CARAAMON at 23:21, 21 January 2009

2009-01-21T23:21:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 21 January 2009
Line 15:		Line 15:
	as should any post from other forums that requires a user name to view.		as should any post from other forums that requires a user name to view.
	</pre>		</pre>
			-Moderator [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon\|talk]])</sup> 23:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

CARAAMON at 23:11, 21 January 2009

2009-01-21T23:11:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:11, 21 January 2009
Line 12:		Line 12:
	is no objection to whether they have been altered. Disagreement on ''interpretation'' of what logs mean is not sufficient		is no objection to whether they have been altered. Disagreement on ''interpretation'' of what logs mean is not sufficient
	to void their value as proof.<br />		to void their value as proof.<br />
	Posts from the play.net forum should be copied to <pagename>/Posts (using [[Template:Post]]) to retain them for posterity, ~~as should any post from other forums that requires a user name to view.~~		Posts from the play.net forum should be copied to <pagename>/Posts (using [[Template:Post]]) to retain them for posterity,
			as should any post from other forums that requires a user name to view.
	</pre>		</pre>

CARAAMON: New page: I submit to people the following for guidelines on negative information:

 ==Events and Organizations Involving PCs== ===Negative Information=== While we do not discourage the posting ...

2009-01-21T23:11:23Z

New page: I submit to people the following for guidelines on negative information: <pre> ==Events and Organizations Involving PCs== ===Negative Information=== While we do not discourage the posting ...

New page

I submit to people the following for guidelines on negative information:
<pre>
==Events and Organizations Involving PCs==
===Negative Information===
While we do not discourage the posting of negative information about Player Characters, we do require that it be added
in a mature and reasonable way. To this end, if a PC is involved in an organization or an event that is seen as negative,
proof must accompany that information in the form of a reference, unless the information is added by the player of that
character.
====Proof====
What constitutes proof may vary from case to case, but some suggestions may be links to forum posts by third parties, and
references to in-game magazines, books, or other documentation. Logs may be submitted as proof, but only so long as there
is no objection to whether they have been altered. Disagreement on ''interpretation'' of what logs mean is not sufficient
to void their value as proof.<br />
Posts from the play.net forum should be copied to <pagename>/Posts (using [[Template:Post]]) to retain them for posterity, as should any post from other forums that requires a user name to view.
</pre>