elanthipedia:Town Green (policy): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| (50 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Towngreenpages|Policy discussion|This '''policy''' section of the Town Green is to discuss [[Elanthipedia:Policy|existing and proposed policies and guidelines]] here at Elanthipedia.}} |
{{Towngreenpages|Policy discussion|This '''policy''' section of the Town Green is to discuss [[Elanthipedia:Policy|existing and proposed policies and guidelines]] here at Elanthipedia.}} |
||
==Elanthipedia Style Discussion== |
|||
== New users with strange names == |
|||
Hey folks, head over to [[Elanthipedia:Manual of Style/new]] and [[Elanthipedia talk:Manual of Style/new]] to give your thoughts on the discussion of a LARGE project of standardizing the wiki.--[[User:Naeya|Naeya]] <sup>([[User talk:Naeya|talk]])</sup> 15:29, 19 April 2008 (CDT) |
|||
Four new users have been created within the last week with similarly weird, code-like names: |
|||
Any interest in creating a skill ranking page for each skill? it can be added to the current individual skill pages. zairius.com has a few old pages like this. the one problem would be verification i suppose. however i would find these incredibly interesting as well as other "number-crunching" players. dying to know who is #1 in whatever skill. |
|||
[[User:Gj0Vxn|Gj0Vxn]], [[User:LyuZsg|LyuZsg]], [[User:TycZzv|TycZzv]], and [[User:CpaPqe|CpaPqe]]. Seems kind of fishy to me. Is it possible to run an IP check on them and/or otherwise see whether they're legit or not? None have performed any edits yet. --[[User:Farman|Farman]] 16:51, 8 July 2007 (CDT) |
|||
== How to handle obsolete skill articles when DR 3.0 is released == |
|||
:If it becomes a problem we can utilize the captcha extension, and make new users enter a string. And/Or we can utilize SpamBlackList which protects us from malicious edits. --[[User:Callek|Callek]] 21:14, 8 July 2007 (CDT) |
|||
I think we need to set a policy on how to handle this since a large number of articles will be impacted. I am posting this because ''we're starting to get edits along these lines. <small>(edit--I just noticed I had left this part out [[User:Farman|Farman]] 17:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC))</small>'' |
|||
I noticed that too. We'll watch them.--[[User:Naeya|Naeya]] <sup>([[User talk:Naeya|talk]])</sup> 22:08, 8 July 2007 (CDT) |
|||
Since some skills are being removed completely and others are being combined, it's not so clear as in the past when most (all?) examples were skills that were simply renamed whole eg Transference skill. |
|||
== IG Secrets == |
|||
IMO the goal of Elanthipedia is to preserve information about DR, and that includes obsolete and discontinued systems. We preserve articles about old spells, and should do the same for old skills. |
|||
I think it would be useful to state the policy on revealing in-game secrets in articles. Please correct me or add to this if I am wrong. |
|||
So I propose that we keep old skill articles as they are, with a prominent link at the top of the article to the new skill. --[[User:Farman|Farman]] 18:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
* Posting in-game secrets or solutions to quests is discouraged on a main article page, as this might reveal the information to someone who came to the article seeking general info only. |
|||
Just to clarify, I think that in the case of skills that are simply getting renamed, a redirect is appropriate providing mention is made in the new article about the previous name. --[[User:Farman|Farman]] 18:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
: I agree. This site is not just about providing functional information about the game, but also historical information, such as how systems used to be. That being said, I believe functional should take precedence over historical, when they conflict. -Moderator [[User:Caraamon|Caraamon Makdasi]]<sup>([[User talk:Caraamon|talk]])</sup> 19:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
Sounds good. I think any such conflicts should be easy to resolve in how the articles are written. We could also do the [[article/old]] structure when needed, although it should be rare. |
|||
:How does one make a sub-page? --[[User:Kraelyst|Kraelyst]] 18:04, 20 October 2007 (CDT) |
|||
For anyone else reading along, when the time comes to transition articles, the {{tlink|obsolete}} template should be useful. I'm still not convinced that anyone besides us reads the town green though ;) --[[User:Farman|Farman]] 18:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::Simply have a "secrets" page linking from the main page somewhere, perhaps under the heading of "extra info." Then the subpage can be something like Article Name/Secrets. Or something similar. Just a suggestion.--[[User:Naeya|Naeya]] <sup>([[User talk:Naeya|talk]])</sup> 20:56, 20 October 2007 (CDT) |
|||
::Yup, it's just like subfolders in Windows. [[Dummy Article]] would have a subpage [[Dummy Article/Secrets]]. The reason I'm bringing this up now is that I'm running across some articles written in the last month or two that include what look like quest walkthroughs. --[[User:Farman|Farman]] 13:28, 21 October 2007 (CDT) |
|||
:Okay, I agree with Farman's original idea for our policy and I think the solution for posting secrets as a subpage is good, though I do have one additional suggestion. Although it may be a hokey old web design trick, we could just make the secret text the same as the background color and that way the secret text could remain in its appropriate place in the article. Let's finish up this discussion and get this policy posted in our help section and wherever else it needs to be. --[[User:Kraelyst|Kraelyst]] 05:32, 5 November 2007 (CST) |
|||
== Posting Policy in general == |
|||
Actually, I think it would be a good idea to draft a simple posting policy to cover a few basic things: |
|||
# secrets policy |
|||
# language/respect for fellow posters etc. |
|||
# opinion/commentary vs. facts (akin to wikipedia's NPOV?) |
|||
# copyrighted material |
|||
Any other thoughts? I'm hoping this can be something pretty simple and casual as opposed to a huge legal document, and have a prominent link on the main page. Growth has been slowing down a little here lately but I still think it would be useful to have a clear posting guideline while Elanthipedia is still relatively new. --[[User:Farman|Farman]] 13:28, 21 October 2007 (CDT) |
|||
== Script articles == |
|||
I think we need a guideline for how to post scripts. |
|||
The problem is that current practice seems to be to post the script with the article title equal to the script name. This can be confusing since there's nothing in the article title that indicates that it's a script, and the potential for conflicts with other article types exists, especially as more and more scripts get posted. |
|||
I can see a few ways to approach this, and I'm not sure which is best: |
|||
*Put script articles as sub-articles of the main [[Scripts]] page, eg "Scripts/AScript". My gut feeling on this is that it doesn't go far enough. |
|||
*Put scripts in User space under the author of the script, eg "User:Farman/Scripts/Empathy". The benefit here is that indication of authorship is preserved, however should an account be deleted the scripts would be lost. |
|||
*Make a new namespace '''Scripts''' eg "Scripts:Scriptname". I think this is the cleanest way to do it but most people will have a hard time searching in anything but the main space. |
|||
*Put '''(script)''' after the script title, eg "Script (script)". I don't think this is a good idea since it doesn't go far enough in segregating script articles, but it is an option. |
|||
*Keep all scripts off-site, and link to the external page. The most severe policy, but it has the benefit of preserving a script author's code, which would otherwise be subject to editing as any other wiki article. |
|||
Any thoughts? --[[User:Farman|Farman]] 14:29, 4 November 2007 (CST) |
|||
:Of those options my favorite by far is to add "(script)" to the article title. All the other ideas were good, but each of them also had a fatal flaw which was accurately described. I think the most important thing is that it be easy for people to post their scripts (and easy to find), so doing the subcategory, User namespace, or off-site are all out of the question. I vote "(script)" --[[User:Kraelyst|Kraelyst]] 05:26, 5 November 2007 (CST) |
|||
:I guess allowing the upload of .cmd files would be out of the question too? I think that would be easiest, especial for script users. Being able to download the file instead of copy/paste and creating a new script... just the opinion of a tired empath taking another long walkabout from Elanthia.--[[User:Naeya|Naeya]] <sup>([[User talk:Naeya|talk]])</sup> 09:03, 5 November 2007 (CST) |
|||
::It may be unwise to allow people to upload .cmd files because if someone decides to add something malicious that we don't catch others might download it thinking that since it comes from Elanthipedia it must be safe. --[[User:Kraelyst|Kraelyst]] 10:27, 5 November 2007 (CST) |
|||
:::True. My trusting nature still has trouble understanding why anyone would do such a think in the first place. Oh well.--[[User:Naeya|Naeya]] <sup>([[User talk:Naeya|talk]])</sup> 12:46, 5 November 2007 (CST) |
|||
Kraelyst, you raise a very good point, but there's nothing to stop someone from posting a malicious file right now (unless there is some kind of AV software running on the server, which would make a lot of sense). And it adds another reason to why I think we need to hash out all of our policies a bit more completely. Given the open collaboration nature of a wiki I would expect there to be something stating the owners and sysops aren't responsible for the content posted on the site, since it's impossible to police what people post, instantly and with 100% infallibility. Of course such malicious files should be removed as soon as they are detected, but that won't eliminate the possibility that someone could be victimized by it before that happens. |
|||
Anyway I've always felt a bit conflicted about scripts on Elanthipedia. It feels to me that they aren't really in the core mission of the site, since scripts aren't a part of DR itself. They're important though and I do think we should have them here if people want to post them, which it seems they do. But while you can assess the accuracy and completeness of an article about Vorclaf, or Khri, for example, you can't do the same for a script since they are entirely subjective and user-created. And there are unlimited variations possible for scripts that achieve the same essential end. That's why I'm hesitant to just stick '''(script)''' after the name, it's very possible to end up with 50 '''Origami (script)''' articles and who is to say which one is the best? Not to mention the fact that each one might run on a different FE and there'd be a need to organize them that way. '''Origami (script-SF)''', '''Origami (script-Wizard)''', '''Origami (script-Genie), '''etc etc etc. |
|||
The more I think about it, the more I am leaning towards having them in the user space of the person who posts it, or keeping the code offsite. I know that the latter is what I would want to do for any of my own scripts I'd put here, to protect the code. --[[User:Farman|Farman]] 00:12, 6 November 2007 (CST) |
|||
==Personal and vanity topics== |
|||
If there is a discussion on this elsewhere or an already-existing policy by all means point me to it. |
|||
There should be a hardline policy on posting vanity pages and personal topics anywhere but in your own namespace. I just got finished moving two "proposal" pages with little to no bearing on actual game lore or mechanics into the creator's namespace, and it occurs to me that the more popular Elanthipedia gets the more stuff like this will pop up. |
|||
I also have concerns for adding vanity to pages. The biggest risk I think is pages on things like orders or militias; I don't think pages like this should turn into platforms from which to sell themselves. They should contain factual information about the orders, links to websites, and the names of the leaders, but not big sections on why they are the best or most awesome and why you should join now and get a free cookie. |
|||
That's pretty much it, was wondering what other people would think of that. [[User:Reene|Reene]] 15:43, 11 November 2007 (CST) <sub>(reposted from [[Elanthipedia Talk:Policy]])</sub> |
|||
:I agree almost completely. On principle I think Elanthipedia's main article space should be NPOV and informational, with as little subjective content as possible. But I go back and forth about how hardcore to be in terms of enforcing policies like that. We are such a small site, with such a small number of registered users (and even tinier number of active editors), that being too strict about it could alienate some people. And if the community consensus is to include such content, then so be it (although I suspect this is not the case). On the other hand, it seems that many users here are new to wiki's in general and staking out policies like this would set a good example and a firm foundation for future growth. --[[User:Farman|Farman]] 11:57, 12 November 2007 (CST) |
|||
Latest revision as of 12:17, 12 January 2013
| Town Green policy discussion post | |
|---|---|
| This policy section of the Town Green is to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines here at Elanthipedia. | |
| Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the File:Button sig.jpg in the edit toolbar). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. | |
| Town Green |
|---|
| Town Green |
| Policy (post) |
| Technical (post) |
| Assistance (post) |
| Miscellaneous (post) |
Elanthipedia Style Discussion
Hey folks, head over to Elanthipedia:Manual of Style/new and Elanthipedia talk:Manual of Style/new to give your thoughts on the discussion of a LARGE project of standardizing the wiki.--Naeya (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2008 (CDT)
Any interest in creating a skill ranking page for each skill? it can be added to the current individual skill pages. zairius.com has a few old pages like this. the one problem would be verification i suppose. however i would find these incredibly interesting as well as other "number-crunching" players. dying to know who is #1 in whatever skill.
How to handle obsolete skill articles when DR 3.0 is released
I think we need to set a policy on how to handle this since a large number of articles will be impacted. I am posting this because we're starting to get edits along these lines. (edit--I just noticed I had left this part out Farman 17:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC))
Since some skills are being removed completely and others are being combined, it's not so clear as in the past when most (all?) examples were skills that were simply renamed whole eg Transference skill.
IMO the goal of Elanthipedia is to preserve information about DR, and that includes obsolete and discontinued systems. We preserve articles about old spells, and should do the same for old skills.
So I propose that we keep old skill articles as they are, with a prominent link at the top of the article to the new skill. --Farman 18:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I think that in the case of skills that are simply getting renamed, a redirect is appropriate providing mention is made in the new article about the previous name. --Farman 18:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. This site is not just about providing functional information about the game, but also historical information, such as how systems used to be. That being said, I believe functional should take precedence over historical, when they conflict. -Moderator Caraamon Makdasi(talk) 19:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. I think any such conflicts should be easy to resolve in how the articles are written. We could also do the article/old structure when needed, although it should be rare.
For anyone else reading along, when the time comes to transition articles, the {{obsolete}} template should be useful. I'm still not convinced that anyone besides us reads the town green though ;) --Farman 18:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)