Warcraft Wiki talk:Policies/Archive01

I just dumped this outdated nest of votes going nowhere here. If anyone has any objections, feel free to thwap me over the head and reopen the vote, but at least fix links and stuff to be relevant to WiWWiki as it looks today :-)   --Mikk 05:46, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

Old Discussions

For an archive of the preliminary conversation, see Project talk:Policies/Archive (old discussion page).

Some naming related discussions have been moved to Project talk:Naming policy.

Current Discussions and Open Votes

See also Project talk:Namespace, Project talk:Category, Project 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 Project: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:Elwynn Forest would either be moved to Elwynn Forest or Zone:Elwynn Forest.--Aeleas 18:41, 4 Nov 2005 (EST)

Disambiguation pages

Proposal

1. If a possible article name is common to two or more topics, and
2. if the page's name is unambiguous, and
3. 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

1. If the article name is common to two or more topics
2. but neither article is predominantly referred to (see Special:Whatlinkshere/<articlename>)

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

Concise Articles and Source Text

Proposal moved to Project talk:Writing policy#Concise Articles and Source Text. --Fandyllic 3:16 PM PST 19 Mar 2006

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 Project: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 Project: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

1. Mikk 04:58, 7 June 2006 (EDT) "subst:Boilerplate:foo" vs "subst::Boilerplate:foo". Wow, a whole colon easier. I think they're fine where they are :-)

Comments

Sounds like a good way to do it, if it will make substitution easier. In regards to Boilerplates and Project:Boilerplates, I would suggest keeping them separate, but moving Boilerplates to Project: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 Project:Category on July 2, 2005, which covers this topic but not quite this proposal. This other article was mentioned in Talk:Main Page#A word on categories (July 2005, cont). 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 Project:Category page and put a link to that page on the Project:Policy page.--Aeleas 13:04, 4 Nov 2005 (EST)