Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Policy 2008-03-03

Stuff I like and stuff I dislike in the proposal

What I like is doing away with the split between policy changes and new policies (in the policy part of the article). That one was a bit unneeded in the old wiki, since the rules are basically the same. I also like the explicit mentioning of formatting like boxes not being part of the actual policy. What I dislike, however, is the excessive linking of templates in the actual policy. Whether we want to call policies that never come to be "failed policies", "unsuccessful proposals" or just "old junk" should not be written down in policy. Imho, the only template that should be mentioned at all is the {{policy}} one, to clarify that all pages bearing that tag are considered policies. All others are simple formatting and should be left to day to day wiki editors organise. --Xeeron 20:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The formal "failed proposal" classification is only necessary because of the two month "cooldown" for re-proposal without concensus. If the timer is removed, or if concensus is required to submit any proposal, the classification would not be needed. I think the "proposed policy" template needs to be mentioned as part of the proposal process. -- Gordon Ecker 01:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice observations. Still overall a very good policy to me.reanor 18:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, No, I don't like the font..... lol jk; no I really like this it is detailed in how actions should be taken when proposing etc. Well I put my Support in :o) --Shadowphoenix 18:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Change "Policies are the harder, more important rules of the wiki. They can govern both content and user conduct. ". It makes it seem unchangeable and set in stone, despite the following information. Policy isn't law -- it's just the way in which we want to do things and how we show it to other people. -- pling | ggggg 11:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced "govern" with "regulate". The "harder, more important rules" part is meant to distinguish policies from "softer" rules such as guidelines, I can't think of any better ways to phrase it. -- Gordon Ecker 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines aren't rules, they are guidelines -- thus the "harder, more important rules" is fairly redundant. Policies are the only "rules". But still, I'm not too sure about it. Perhaps "Policies are community-created regulations which oversee content and user conduct to ensure the Guild Wars 2 Wiki can function successfully"? It sort of implies that policies aren't ArenaNet-created ("community") and sums up what policy is and why we have it, whereas the rest of the article only mentions how policy is created. -- pling | ggggg 23:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Only rules" wouldn't be correct, there's also Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Copyrights (and potentially other ArenaNet-imposed rules) and the federal, state, county and municipal laws of whichever jurisdiction the servers are hosted in. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the first sentence with "Policies are rules of the Guild Wars 2 wiki derived from community consensus.". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor revisions

Should minor revisions require full drafts like major revisions, or should it be possible to detail the proposed changes on the talk page? -- Gordon Ecker 08:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Have it possible to be proposed on the talk page. -- pling | ggggg 11:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to the paragraph on the proposal process. The "detailed in unambiguous terms" part is intended to require minor revisions proposals to cover all additions, subtractions and replacements of text like full drafts. -- Gordon Ecker 23:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

*bump*

This has not been commented on in a while and since ArenaNet seems to be hinting to more major information releases... now seems good a time as ever to (at the least) start discussing policy. I have read this over a time or two and it looks acceptable. My only complaint would be that we should perhaps mention that implemented policy can be overturned with consensus. --hnzdvn 21:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I still don't think policy (or discussion) is necessary yet. pling 16:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

While it might still be a bit early, I share the feeling of getting policy worked out in the not too distant future. Since the game release date draws closer, so should our "policy release date". I don't want to be discussing the revert policy in the middle of the rush to bring new articles here 1 day after GW2 has gone live. --Xeeron 17:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

A couple suggestions:

1. Consider treating policy pages like the main page, with a copyedit pages specificaly for revisions and proposals.
2. Do something to seriously limit tag team disruption in the revert policy. If something non-trivial (i.e. not fairly obvious vandalism) is added and people think it should be removed, give other people a chance to see it and discuss it before deleting it. At the minimum give something new 24 hours to be seen.

--Max 2 17:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

@Xeeron: Exactly my point, I don't want us all to be trying to get all the policy as well as all the articles done at the same time... if that is the case I see mass chaos :P. I know the game is far off, but policy discussion can drag on for quite a long time. If we start, at least, minimal discussion at this point, then we can have a head start.

@Mtew/Max 2: Your first point seems a bit redundant. This draft already addresses minor formatting, grammar/spelling issues, as well as major policy changes/proposals. I see no need to muck it up with copyedits. Your second point should be discussed on a 1RR proposal. --hnzdvn 18:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to some extent a redundant, but the gist is to protect the actual policy pages. Secondary was to rename 'DRAFT' to 'copyedit'. --Max 2 19:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

We've never had a problem with leaving policy pages unprotected (on both wikis), so I see no reason to protect them now. Even Wikipedia, which has a much larger userbase and potential vandals, leave their policies technically editable. Protection is typically reserved for pages with high vandalism/edit warring. Also, drawing from GWW history, multiple drafts can often be made at one time; also, drafts can differ in content quite a lot, so one "copyedit" isn't as useful as a date or the like. That said, proposals are often just made on talk pages, which works too.

As I've said so many times before, I think something different to "policy" as we (or most people) know it would be better, and I don't think policy should be rigid, highly structural, or seen as "law"; also, whatever it's called should be created on the basis of precedent and practice wherever possible. pling 20:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So what kind of alternative would you propose? The current system with policies seems to work (well, most of the time), but I wouldn't be oppose to exploring alternatives. --hnzdvn 19:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to continue our policy-less approach for now until we have content and a (big enough) community to warrant the drama involved with policies. poke | talk 19:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but personally I would like to at least try to start talking about it. Policy discussions come with drama, that's a given, but I would rather get the bulk of the drama out of the way in the not so distant future... that way we don't have to deal with an immense amount of policy drama and an immense amount of article drama (which I can guarantee there will be just from some of the things that have happened thus far) at the same time. --hnzdvn 19:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) *bump*ing once again, since people seem so determined to discuss policy that can't be implemented until a Policy policy is implemented. I have no quarrels with this proposal, I think it covers most (if not all) bases. --hnzdvn 16:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We need policies going. I like this draft. ShadowRunner 16:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As it might take a few months or so to get policy after policy written correctly and in place, it would be wise to go ahead and discuss the more important and critical policies at this time with the game predicted to possibly be released no earlier than around the beginning of the year. Imo, ones like NPA and Revert Once should be more of a priority over others, such as adminship/RFA and Sign Comments. — Gares 17:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Imho, the "policy on policies" is one of the less important ones. Why? Because it is actually one of the least needed ones. We can go ahead and write policy pages and come to consensus without it. The policy on policies is merely a convenient tool to make policy discussions a bit better structures and easier to find. This is not to say we shouldn't have one, just that I don't see it as very important right now.

The one exception to the above would be if someone challenges the view that policies should be formulated by consensus, but I didn't see any indication of that yet. --Xeeron 14:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)