Wowpedia talk:DNP policy

= Policy addition =


 *  Discrimination 
 * WoWWiki is a wiki for everyone. We do not tolerate discrimination based upon social status, age, sex, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

Added by Kirburn. Incidents of discrimination should be reported on Wowpedia:Violations. -- Fandyllic  (talk · contr) 2:37 PM PST 7 Dec 2007

Rolandius' Cleanup
The policy&diff=prev&oldid=1766508 extensive cleanup changes done by Rolandius have been reviewed by me and do not change anything substantive. I have warned him not to make changes like this again without staging and approval by an admin. -- Fandyllic  (talk · contr) 6:22 PM PST 6 Feb 2009

=Proposal to DNP non-English content=

Proposal Text
WoWWiki is an English wiki. Its infrastructure does not support content in other languages. Doing so would entail something like what wikipedia has - different sub-domains and monitoring routines to track changes between different language versions of pages and alert translators.

So, for now, non-English content is against policy and can be tagged speedydelete when found.


 * Note that there are WoW wikis in other languages, e.g. http://www.wikiwow.com/ (French) and http://www.wow-wiki.net/ (German).

Exceptions

 * One possible exception is quoted material pasted as part of a page where the author simply would not/could not translate it. If this content is on-topic and otherwise not available in the wiki, it is a candidate for translation - or removal as part of the regular editing process.


 * Guild pages. As per guild page policy, they are required three (3) sentences in English. We stand by that. But other than that, we allow guild pages to continue in whatever language; it makes sense to allow it since some guilds cater only to speakers of a specific language. Pages violating this are tagged Stub/Guild and given the standard time to correct the problem.

Reasoning
Non-English text / pages are already being deleted, but through time-consuming votes. And some contributors are simply not sure of how to deal with it. Codifying this practice in a policy with a swift resolution seems sensible to me. --Mikk (T) 07:41, 4 September 2006 (EDT)

Policy ratification vote

 * Yes :


 * No :

Implementation checklist

 * [&radic;] Add proposal text above to DNP policy
 * [&radic;] Add one line to WP:WRITE saying that the WoWWiki language is English
 * [&radic;] Clarify WP:GUILD saying that the three required sentences must be English, but that the article may continue in other languages if appropriate.

Comments

 * I agree, but would this mean automatic deletion of non-english guild pages if they comply with the guild policy (main text can be in german, but there must be some english introduction)? -- Kirkburn (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2006 (EDT)


 * Hrm. Good question. Personally, I'd require 3 sentences (as per guild policy) in English. I suppose the rest can be in whatever language. If it's a guild that caters only to people speaking one (non-English) langage, it doesn't make much sense to require it all to be in English.  --Mikk (T) 07:55, 4 September 2006 (EDT)


 * I changed the policy proposal to include this now.  --Mikk (T) 07:59, 4 September 2006 (EDT)


 * I have been hoping this would finally be brought up for a while now, as I always feel bad about marking a page with (possibly) a lot of information on it in another language for deletion and not having a policyt to fall back on. I hate to be an American elitist english only person, but in the end there are several major reasons why we can't support it.  Obviously we don't have the structure in place for it, we also don't have much of a way of monitoring the content on non-english pages unless we grab some multi-lingual admins, finally there would never be enough content in other languages to justify the work it would entain to setup and maintain several different languages.--Ralthor 00:54, 7 September 2006 (EDT)


 * Don't feel too bad. My first language is most definitely not English :-)  --Mikk (T) 03:04, 7 September 2006 (EDT)


 * Martian isn't a real language Mikk ... ;) -- Kirkburn (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2006 (EDT)

=New topics=

Data Mined Content
I do not readily see any policies against posting data mined content in either WP:EDIT, WP:DNP, or WP:WRITE. However it does appear in the BC Stub: Did I overlook something, or is this really not explicitly stated in policy? -- 15:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)


 * You're right! It's mentioned on Wowpedia:Image guidelines, but not here. I'll add something about that now. 15:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Might I suggested rephrasing "files" to "information?" Unless that's what you really meant.  -- 16:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I don't want to be overly restrictive without some discussion with others first - atm I was just posting the legally obvious parts :) 16:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I think it's reasonable to add audio files and quotes from such files to the list. -- 23:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


 * The files themselves perhaps, but I'm not sure of the status of the quotes from them. Hrm... 00:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I will admit this topic is a sticky wicket and does need some more discussion from other members of the community. -- 08:29, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I've seen a lot of pages containing quotes from data mined files, in particular, Illidan Stormrage (tactics). It says, in so many words, "Illidan dies," which many players were not expecting, and should at the very least use spoiler tags if someone's going to post this. Illidan has not been slain on either live or test realm; the only source of this quote is a datamined sound file. Furthermore, I feel that unless something has been seen or heard on an official live or test realm, without using methods that violate the ToU or EULA, it shouldn't exist on the wiki. -- 19:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this | edit made by Tekkub. This would allow for anything found in the game/PTR files on Wowwiki, regardless of whether it is actually found in-game. I think he meant: "Datamined images of live or PTR content are permissible as long as it has been seen in-game first, but "true" in-game screenshots preferred and will always be given preference over datamined content." -- 04:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to single out any sites... but it should probably be noted that most datamined info comes from mmo-champion, and images from there, that refer to future content, should not be uploaded here at all. 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll agree that most DNP content comes from mmo-champion, but I think it's too much to put a blanket ban on everything posted there. I'm currently trying to get Kirkburn to update the phrasing of the policy, which was discussed a while back and should take care of this (see discussion below).-- 03:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Real-world application of WP:DNP to a page.. comments please
See Server talk:Scarlet Crusade US/Rahurm please. Mikk (T) 06:00, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

WOW Model Viewer Graphics covered by data mining policy?
I'm interested in creating some visuals of some of the item sets using WOW Model Viewer. http://www.wowmodelviewer.org/ Is this precluded by the Data Mining policy. They are not live screen shots, but they would also not be unreleased conted. Skalchemist 19:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind. Found my answer at http://www.wowwiki.com/WoWWiki:Image_guidelines.  Skalchemist 20:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Change to the image DNP policy
Moved from the Village pump

The DNP policy underwent some minor albeit important changes (written and un-written) concerning datamined information and images posted on the wiki. Currently the wording of the policy is such:


 * Datamined pictures and files of unreleased content are not allowed. Note that any in-game screenshots obtained from the live or test servers and clients are okay.


 * Datamined images of live or PTR content are permissible, but "true" in-game screenshots preferred and will always be given preference over datamined content.

Nonetheless, items such as are currently on the wiki despite the fact that they have not been seen on a live or test realm, nor has such specific information on them been released by Blizzard (CM's have only confirmed the bow's existence and its name, but nothing more). The information, stats, and graphics were datamined, and not permissable on the wiki according to DNP. However, admins have informed me that Thori'dal's article is acceptable and will remain on the wiki.

If there has been a policy change in practice, we ought to change the policy article accordingly to avoid disputes; if not, we should remove the datamined content. -- 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd imagine the bow is at least linkable on the PTR (or people wouldn't be able to determine its stats), which means item stats and model (dressing room on PTR -- which makes model viewer pictures acceptable (preferable?) as well) are public; icons of new items can be extracted with the addon kit using the PTR client, so those are also public. -- Foxlit 22:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As best I can tell, the bow was first brought to light by MMO-Champion on Feb 8th. They have a disclaimer that the information is from a "Pre-PTR leak and could be different on live servers."  It's clear this is unreleased content.  In order to force a link on the PTRs, you need the item ID to create the link command in addition to having the bow actually been "seen" for the link to work and not output regular text.  I don't think icons are protected by the server the same way item links are. -- 23:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * PTR files are ok to post now? Even if what they are of is not in-game, even in the PTRs? What brought on this change? Is it because we felt like it because datamined content is 'cool'?-- 00:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's what they are saying. The files are okay to post if they are at least in the PTR. At least, that's how I understood it. -- 00:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So if a file is in the PTR files, but has no chance of being included in the thing being tested when it goes live, it is still bad?-- 00:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Another example is the images of Kil'jaeden already showing up.  None of the PTRs have come close to even unlocking him, and no guilds have passed the eredar twins yet (if they are even unlocked as well). -- 01:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Datamined images of live or PTR content are permissible" Read that over and over until you understand the policy allows them. They have not been seen, but are datamined from the files of public test versions which have been released. I'm looking at them right now. --  http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png|User:Zeal  http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zeal  http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png|Special:Contributions/Zeal  http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zeal  01:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What of the tuskarr, icecrown/forgotten crabs, and frostlord?-- 02:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Same goes for the Tuskarr, it's in the PTR files. Never seen anything about the others on here or elsewhere. Oh, and just for the record, Kil'jaeden and the bow, they are available on the PTR, just haven't been reached or obtained yet. --  http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png|User:Zeal  http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zeal </li><li style="display: inline;"> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png|Special:Contributions/Zeal </li><li style="display: inline;"> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zeal </li></ul> 15:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, that clears that up. What of unused models that are in the non-PTR files? BTW, the Frostlord is here. The crabs were here, but I do not see them anymore. They were on WoWInsider too.-- 16:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Both in the files. Just to give you another perspective, they're simply unobtainable content, such as the the old Ashbringer GM's liked to show off. It's only not allowed when it's on private builds such as interal aplhas and friends and family ones, which is when the big Blizzard came and told us to take such content off here. ;) -- <li style="display: inline;"> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png|User:Zeal </li><li style="display: inline;"> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zeal </li><li style="display: inline;"> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png|Special:Contributions/Zeal </li><li style="display: inline;"> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zeal </li></ul> 16:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What of the infamous orca?-- 17:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Zeal- while the second line of the policy allows datamined images, the first line forbids datamined images of unreleased content. It looks like there is some disagreement over whether "released" means "seen in-game" or just "in the game files."  I personally interpreted it as the former. P.S. Link to orca discussion. -- 17:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Public Test Realm means it is released to me, just not to those people who don't go to the PTR, but they can, if they want. Does that make sense? I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. The orca was never publicly released anywhere, so it isn't allowed. The orca also is not just speculation, because it was obviously datamined. The worldofraids.com tooltip screenshot for Thori'dal is in the gray area for me, since it hasn't been obtained by anyone all though it is presumably available on the test realm. The big problem is that the sources for Thori'dal could be alot better than they are. If they were, it wouldn't be as controversial. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 1:36 PM PST 17 Feb 2008


 * So images, items and other information that are in the game files but not seen on live realms or the PTR are in fact okay to post on Wowwiki? -- 00:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes.. that's considered released, but unobtained/unobtainable content. -- <li style="display: inline;"> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png|User:Zeal </li><li style="display: inline;"> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zeal </li><li style="display: inline;"> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png|Special:Contributions/Zeal </li><li style="display: inline;"> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zeal </li></ul> 15:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ummm, no. If you will never see the content in-game, it shouldn't be in WoWWiki. For example, the orca model is in the game files, but can not be seen in-game and there is no evidence it will be added in the foreseeable future before the release of Wrath of the Lich King. So, it is considered only datamined and not publicly released. If a blue post appears saying something like, "Hey guys the orca is coming in patch x.y, so don't drown looking for it now," then it would be okay. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 4:55 PM PST 18 Feb 2008


 * What of the other WotLK things?-- 00:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh... then rewrite the policy to make that destinction Fandy, as currently it doesn't. Other than the issue with the Orca (which i wasn't around for) this wasn't the case for previously released but unobtainable content. Given the meaning you're applying to that terminology, you can't make the distinction without Blizzard. Unobtained content will have to be considered unobtainable, until it's obtained. Pretty easy to make a claim for keeping alot of PTR and live content off of WoWWiki for several weeks-months. Enjoy the minefield -- <li style="display: inline;"> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png|User:Zeal </li><li style="display: inline;"> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png|User talk:Zeal </li><li style="display: inline;"> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png|Special:Contributions/Zeal </li><li style="display: inline;"> http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png|User:Zeal </li></ul> 02:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not too long ago Kirkburn was taking down Illidan's model images and sound files, even though he was on the PTR. However, Kirkburn also told me (via irc) that the Thori'dal article was okay.  The problem with posting content that's in the files and confirmed by Blizzard is that they change their mind (e.g. Emerald Dream).  Kaydeethree (an admin) has been | removing model images from the ED page.  There's obviously different ways the policy is being interpreted, even among admins.  It needs to be spelled out what is okay and what is not okay:


 * Information/items/images of content seen through normal game play on an official Blizzard realm or Public Test Realm are allowed on Wowwiki. (given)</li>
 * Information/items/images of content not seen through normal game play on an official Blizzard realm or Public Test Realm, but may be found in the files of the client thereof (are/are not) allowed on Wowwiki.</li>
 * Information/items/images of content not seen through normal game play on an official Blizzard realm or Public Test Realm, but may be found in the files of the client thereof and has been confirmed by a Blizzard employee to exist in-game currently or in the future (through a citable source) (are/are not) allowed on Wowwiki.</li>
 * Information/items/images of content not seen through normal game play on an official Blizzard realm or Public Test Realm, not found in the files of the client thereof and has been confirmed by a Blizzard employee to exist currently in-game or in the future (through a citable source) (are/are not) allowed on Wowwiki.</li>
 * Information/items/images of content not seen through normal game play on an official Blizzard realm or Public Test Realm, not found in the files of the client thereof, and not confirmed by Blizzard (are/are not) allowed on Wowwiki.</li> -- 04:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

</ul>
 * And what of the Ashbringer? It has been stated multiple times that datamining a screenshot of the blade itself is NOT OK, despite the fact that A) it is in the game files, B) the main image consists of woefully outdated stats for a version of the weapon that, at the time, existed solely as a GM weapon, and C) there is a screenshot of Tirion holding it later in the article. And, if it's OK to post images datamined from the PTR and other in-game files, even if said things are not accessible in-game, then what, precisely, is the point of the policy?  Unless I'm missing something, there really isn't a way to datamine something from files that we don't even have in the first place. -- Dark T Zeratul 04:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a hot topic - it is obvious that everyone (both Blizzard and fansites) are becoming more relaxed about this. As it stands the easiest way to write this (in my opinion) would be: ''images of announced content existing on the live or public test clients are okay. Certain pieces of unannounced content may be exempt from this for reasons of extreme notoriety and importance''. Notoriety would include the tuskarr and Kil'jaeden (both announced), but not give free reign to any and all doodads. Regarding the Emerald Dream, that is unannounced content and would thus not be allowed. 17:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Makes sense, but I had to read it a few times. May want to clarify what constitutes an "announcement." -- 18:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would define it as Blizzard specifically saying that "this thing is coming in a patch". It would have to be fairly specific about the content, so a general "Emerald Dream is being looked at" wouldn't count, but "Kil'jaeden is being summoned in Sunwell Plateau in patch 2.4" would. Any official Blizzard spokesperson would make this announcement (forum/interview/website/etc). 19:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Doodads for the Emerald Dream are in Moonglade now BTW.-- 21:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So is this new policy being decreed? If not, I'd like to start the voting booth. -- 18:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To update on this, is the following okay?
 * Images of announced content existing on the live or public test clients are okay. Certain pieces of unannounced content may be exempt from this for reasons of extreme notoriety and importance, which will be up to an admin's judgement. Note that Blizzard has final say on what content can be shown.

22:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Works for me. -- 03:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have updated the text given the above discussion. 22:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting image changes
This came up on Forum:Secret maps of World of Warcraft. The text was changed by Kirkburn, with minor edits by Pcjpolicy&diff=next&oldid=1822915, to say:

"Only articles about announced content existing on the live or public test clients are permitted. Certain pieces of unannounced content may be exempt from this for reasons of extreme notoriety and importance, which will be up to an administrator's judgment. Note that Blizzard Entertainment has final say on what content can be shown."

What is and is not "announced" is clarified, but what are the "Certain pieces of unannounced content" that are exempt? The "extreme notoriety and importance" part is not defined. The example given is that the tuskarr and Kil'jaeden are allowed, but any and all doodads from the PTR and the Emerald Dream are not allowed. PTRs aside, what is the general idea or the criteria behind these? Also, the "an administrator's judgment" part is a wheel war waiting to happen (and they have happened about this). If an administrator turns a blind eye to a DNP image or article, another admin will likely come along and delete it. What is saved by however many just takes one to delete.

I added "However, if you exploit to get it, it does not get posted."policy&diff=next&oldid=1995936 to the text based on a comment by Kaydeethree on IRC. I still feel it is lacking. It is still far too vague.-- 23:59, September 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * If we can't give a good example of an exemption, let's just take the exemption out of the policy. "With no exemptions." If we come into a situation we feel is appropriate, we could change the policy at that time to allow for it. 6:22 PM, 21 Sep 2009 (EDT)


 * Removing it would solve things. I think changing the policy at future times to allow for exemptions seems too fickle. Personally, I disagree with the "With no exemptions." thing. I can also think of a few admins who would stand by it.-- 00:09, September 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the current wording is needlessly strict. For example the current wording prohibits articles about the Cataclysm expansion and its' announced features because they aren't on the PTR. It also prohibits articles about content which is on the live servers, but was never announced, such as A Cautious Return and An Injured Colleague. Perhaps the section could be renamed to unannounced, unreleased content, while permitting the coverage of any released content, as well as the coverage of infermation on unreleased content which has been released by Blizzard, either directly (blue posts, pages on the official websites, trailers, publicly available demos, Blizzcon panels etc.) or through the media (interviews, preview articles etc.), with a separate section covering the rules for datamining. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:08, September 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems a new aspect of unclarity has surfaced, as you greatly misinterpret what it is supposed to mean. Reading it now, while forgetting its intent, I start to see this.-- 01:20, September 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that the intent behind the change was to expand it to cover datamined content and information other than images, such as transcripts of audio. I learned about this page while reading the discussion at Talk:Patch 3.3.0, and posted here because I was worried that a literal reading of this policy's current wording could be used to get rid of Cataclysm-related pages. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:38, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, for fair point about announced content that is neither on a live or test realm. Perhaps it should be "announced content, and content which is readily accessible on public, test or demo realms". As for the exemption, it is worded in that fashion for a reason - so that common sense is able to assert itself. 12:31, September 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it might also be a good idea to clearly define "announced content" - live in the game, PTR, open beta, worldofwarcraft.com, BlizzCon, and interviews with Blizzard staff? Anything else need to be on that list? Where do we draw the line on datamined and hacking? For example, you can write a script to create a link to items that don't "really exist." See . 3:44 PM, 24 Sep 2009 (EDT)


 * The "announced content" is defined above as "...Blizzard specifically saying that "this thing is coming in a patch". It would have to be fairly specific about the content, so a general "[thing] is being looked at" wouldn't count, but "[thing] in patch [#.#]" would. Any official Blizzard spokesperson would make this announcement (forum/interview/website/etc)." I would like to keep it as general as possible, without having any loopholes. The issue of "what is datamining?" seems to have come up, and I have no idea where to draw that line (Ask Blizzard?). As for the 'common sense' aspect of the exemption, the sense does not seem to be common. I wanted to use the exemption to allow screenshots of things that both are notable and have been confirmed to be never going to be implemented (i.e. pre-Cataclysm inaccessible non-Caverns of Time Hyjal Summit and Azshara Crater, but not 'maybe' content like the Emerald Dream), but some stoic individuals disagreed for obvious reasons (they require exploits/map viewing software). It broke the rules, but I took that exemption as saying that I could break the rules.-- 00:44, September 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * What about when an upcoming feature has been announced as something which is definitely on the way, but doesn't have an announced ETA or patch number, such as the new ammo system between when it was announced that it wouldn't be ready for 3.1.0 and when it was announced for Cataclysm, or the race and faction change services between when they were announced and when they were implemented? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:27, September 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be allowed, as it does not require a screenshot or datamining.-- 22:07, September 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * My gut feeling on your example Sandwich is that because someone had to use some "extreme exploring" (wall jumping, etc) or external software just to get see it, my thought would be Blizz would not approve. But I don't have a direct connection with Blizz's legal dept. to ask so I can't say for certain. You may be able to find your answer from reading the Terms of Use Agreement. 12:20 PM, 29 Sep 2009 (EDT)

Here are some selected quotes from Terms of Use Agreement I felt were relevant. The Terms of Use Agreement states that:


 * [You agree that you will not, under any circumstances:] use any unauthorized third-party software that intercepts, "mines", or otherwise collects information from or through the Game or the Service, including without limitation any software that reads areas of RAM used by the Game to store information about a character or the game environment; provided, however, that Blizzard may, at its sole and absolute discretion, allow the use of certain third party user interfaces;

So this seems to forbid all model viewers and map viewers. No more transparent images? The wording also forbids database sites like Wowhead.


 * [You agree that you will not, under any circumstances:] use cheats, automation software (bots), hacks, mods or any other unauthorized third-party software designed to modify the World of Warcraft experience;

None of the things I mentioned above change how the game is played, so they may have that going for them.


 * Using or exploiting errors in design, features which have not been documented, and/or "program bugs" to gain access that is otherwise not available, or to obtain a competitive advantage over other players;

This comes from a section on PvP. However, you can not pwn with a screenshot.

Going by these, we would need to be a lot stricter than we are now. It seems the "no questionable content ever" route is the way to go. The Cataclysm-lost info will have to be recorded by less reputable or 'scummy' fansites. Our only way out may be the 'Blizzard's sole and absolute discretion' thing, but doubt it, as that is worded for custom user interfaces. The wording of the policy needs to be changed regardless.-- 21:57, September 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sandwich, I'm no lawyer, but if wowhead was breaking the contract, they would have sent them a cease-and-desist letter by now. Not to mention all the other websites, so I wouldn't worry about the contract wording. Or maybe Blizzard just likes to have it in there so they could take those sites down if they wanted to. But as long as they play nice and don't post alpha content, they'll probably always be allowed to exist. 2:51 PM, 1 Oct 2009 (EDT)

Here be an arbitrary break
Here's my stance, which is what I've always believed is the policy's intent, if not necessarily in these exact words. The lines in italics are my further explanation/thoughts on the previous point.

Feel free to edit the top-level bullet points within reason.


 * Not OK:
 * If you had to exploit, datamine or otherwise take advantage of the unmodified default client
 * As always. No map/modelviewer screenshots of unavailable content. Map/modelviewer screenshots of _available_ (read: anyone can log on and look at it with blizzard's client without exploiting/datamining) content are ok, but in-game screenshots are preferred
 * ''I'm trying to skirt around the issue of "what is datamining" by pointing to the unmodified game client
 * If you broke NDA to get this, or you're editing on behalf of someone who broke NDA
 * We're not wowinsider, kthx.
 * The final declaration of what is or is not content under NDA will be up to the admins, (unless we get another DMCA takedown notice!) with the understanding that if it came out of nowhere when the alpha's happening, it's probably going to get deleted with prejudice
 * If Blizz has said it's not coming any time soon or will not be implemented and never made it to a publicly playable state
 * Azshara Crater, Emerald Dream, pre-2.0 CoT, pre-4.0 Hyjal Summit, etc. We can still talk about what little is publicly known, but no unannounced content like random ED doodads or maps of AC. Blizz's image of the ED is, of course, ok since they posted it on the encyclopedia publicly.
 * Pre-2.0 CoT and pre-4.0 Hyjal are in _this_ list and not OK#3 because they were never publicly accessible--only access via exploiting/datamining
 * Anything completely off-topic, defamatory, libelous, trolling, etc...
 * There's 6,000 other wikia for that.


 * OK (with the caveat that whatever content about to get posted doesn't break any of the Not OK rules above)
 * Content from the live realms, the PTR, the beta, or any event realms (BlizzCon, WWI, etc), and looks reasonably decent
 * no horrendously blurry photographs of a computer monitor taken at an oblique angle, please
 * Stuff from the RTSes, novels, RPG source books, playing cards, and other officially licensed paraphernalia
 * Just to be safe so wikilawyering doesn't mean we have to toss all of the RPG stuff, as much as I'd like to see some of the more esoteric crap gone
 * Content that Blizz has announced publicly but is not currently a playable/tangible form.
 * blizz's website/press releases, things that have changed in later stages of development, blue posts on forums, magazine articles, other gaming sites, etc. Key words: _blue_posts_ -- MVP/regular poster stuff doesn't count.
 * Content that was publicly available but is no longer in-game is fine--think changes from beta to live, or active removal of stuff like old naxx or old onyxia. Just not stuff that required exploits to get to.
 * As soon as the content's in a tangible form it's covered by one of the earlier two OK lines
 * Fanart/fanfic clearly marked that it is fan-created and not something official
 * I've been impressed with the guesses of how the zone maps are going to look like, for example. So long as they're not passed off as official, they're fine by me.

Does this cover everybody's concerns? -- k_d3 00:29, October 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could rephrase the part about content publicly announced by Blizzard to include both direct announcements (such as press releases) and announcements through the media (such as interviews and articles based on playable demos), and replace "not yet in a playable/tangible form" with "not currently in a playable/tangible form". I don't want a wikilawyer to abuse this policy, arguing that it only covers information directly released by Blizzard about content which is still upcoming, to remove properly sourced information about Warcraft Adventures: Lord of the Clans, or cut the information in the Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos article about how the Burning Legion were originally intended to be a playable race / faction, but got cut during developement. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:30, October 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Phrasing is an issue. The Terms of Use Agreement seems to be very strict about datamining. This confuses me, as sites like Wowhead have not been taken down, and if that stuff goes around unpunished there is a theoretical line between 'What is stated that we have to do to make Blizzard like us' and 'What we actually have to do to make Blizzard like us'. I am perfectly willing to let things like Azshara Crater and Hyjal go, as that was expected (but I am still a bit sad about it).-- 01:41, October 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * @gordon: Wasn't intending for what I've got here to be the exact verbiage used on the policy page, just more of a general pointer. Feel free to edit the first level of text.
 * @swm: The datamining policy is far less strict than it has been in years past, especially that Blizz has formally okayed machinima. Also consider that wowhead, curse, and the wiki are all official fansites and blizz has known for years (and is okay with the fact) that we all datamine information. We just don't post everything we see. Take it from me that the line we've collectively drawn is not about to get our fansite status yanked. ;) -- k_d3 02:26, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * The current proposed phrasing would prohibit the coverege of products and features which were announced by Blizzard, but were cancelled or indefinitely delayed, such as Lord of the Clans, demons as a playable race in Reign of Chaos or the dance studio in World of Warcraft, as well as the coverage of joke features such as Pandaren Xpress and the Bard class. IMO either the "If Blizz has said it's not coming any time soon or will not be implemented and never made it to a publicly playable state" section should be removed (the part about using hacks and exploits and the part about breaking NDAs seem to cover everything), or there should be an explicit exception permitting the use of non-datamined information released by Blizzard. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:13, October 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should preclude all information about the dance studio, because some was literally blueposts (official), but yes, I think the truely datamined stuff on MMO Champion that came out in the last week should not be on the wiki, even if Boubille got an official press pass at BlizzCon. 2:56 PM, 1 Oct 2009 (EDT)

So, are any changes going to be made to the wording of the Policy, or is this conversation just going to be used to clarify it as is?-- 20:12, October 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Talk:Track Mechanicals has brought up another aspect of the issue of how far this should go.-- 00:26, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Items are one thing... but spells abilities... next thing you know we'll be putting slash commands only GMs can do... 04:08, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Where the line is, and why, should be stated.-- 19:45, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Non-editorial discussions
Even though it is not in the official WoWWiki policies, it is brought up here that WoWWiki is not a forum and that non-editorial discussions are frowned upon. I'm not sure in what policy I should add it, but the DNP policy was the best connection I could find.

Now what I would like to add is that if you don't have anything that would contribute to the content of the article, then don't write it. If a lore character acts in a way that might seem strange, don't add to it since we're not to discuss what logic Blizzard has when making their games. Neither are discussions about adding new metals to the game that is already in the lore, as it would have close to zero impact on the game when discussed on talk pages. There are already the official forums for that.

Tell me what you think about making an addition to the DNP policy, where you shouldn't make non-editorial discussions on talk pages. 14:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure if I've got the right idea of what you're thinking about adding, but it sounds like speculation, which is handled in WP:LORE. -- 15:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Examples: 1 2. I have some other examples too, but I think you get the idea. 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you write out explicitly what statement you want to add? I think that's just easier to comment on. In general I think we need something stated. We need "what belongs in talk, what belongs in the forums, what doesn't belong," IMO. 2:46 PM, 1 Oct 2009 (EDT)

Novels/Mangas?
Is there a rule for how long you'll have wait before adding something from the novels/manga? Aedror42 (talk) 20:01, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:LORE. -- 20:07, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Aedror42 (talk) 21:55, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Unreleased vs. unannounced
This sentence doesn't say what (I hope) it intends to:


 * Only articles about announced content existing on the live or public test clients are permitted.

I suggest re-wording this as:


 * Only articles about announced content are permitted. Where topics center around information released in-game or in game data files, only information pertaining to live or public test clients are permitted.

Notice that the first version would make discussion of any Cataclysm topic, even those currently announced by official Blizzard representatives, a disallowed item. That makes no real sense. On the other hand, if the goal is to eliminate discussion of—let's just go for a really small example here—the Star Wars reference in Uldum, then I believe the second sentence would suffice as Uldum has been officially announced, but the screenshot that shows the the reference in question is datamined from non-public clients. You could discuss the Egyptian theme of Uldum (again, announced), but not the structure of specific buildings seen in screen shots. -Deepone (talk) 20:50, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Your rewording is more in line with how policy has actually been enforced, too. Sounds good. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:09, May 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought we fixed that...-- 22:46, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for policies?
This is mainly regarding Wowpedia_talk:DNP_policy, but I think this could apply to other parts of the policy too. I was wondering, what exactly are the reasons for not allowing posting of stuff from the game files, given that the things do interest people and harm no one? I understand obviously that exploits should not be posted, but that's a totally different league, and it's right that it has it's own header on that policy page because all such stuff does is cover gaps in information about lore (or game mechanics etc).

On the page it seems a little authoritarian just stating 'this is the way things are', which seems a bit odd for a site that is apparently independent of Blizzard? Or are you not in fact? Surely you should be trying to cover as much information about the world as possible even if it's not officially released, and may never be? It seems a bit bad to have a 'media blackout' on a fan site of lore that hasn't been sanctioned for release by the authority (Blizzard).

It'd make people a lot more inclined to follow the rules if you simply explained them and they were reasonable reasons, rather than simply threatening to ban people in the first paragraph - sure, that may scare off the majority but there's also a sizeable amount of people who know that a 'ban' on the internet is an oxymoron. :P It's better to simply treat readers like other human beings rather than I HAVE THE POWER RARRR DO EET. :) I looked through the talk page here and I can't really find much that supports that it's just what "everyone agrees is right", more that it seems to be a case of people following along because they don't want to get in trouble or make a fuss (pretty normal). :P

--Kittymew (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because its a requirement to maintain Official Fansite status with Blizzard. There are many perks involved with being an official fansite (including direct links from Blizzard's new armory pages).  Official Fansite status is more important than anything, especially now with wowpedia branching off from wowwiki. Ressy (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Blizzard has the legal power and the will to enforce their policies regarding the unauthorized use of their game material. It's happened before, and will happen again if this policy is broken. It's a lot easier for us to proactively prevent the uploading of offending material than it is to have to methodically go through it and remove it all if Blizzard gets out their EULA bat again. --Varghedin (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Copypasting content or actually uploading images of stuff I can understand, but merely talking about stuff's existence should be fine really. I was looking on the GM island article and notice that stuff has been removed - and then on the discussion page, people saying there that because the information was found out via using a model viewer or whatever it could not be described, even if no information about how it was done is posted? Seems a bit unreasonable if the actual information does not break any policies (such as describing how to do exploits and stuff, I understand why that should not be allowed because it harms others). --Kittymew (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It boils down to this is where the community has decided to draw the line on what content is allowed and what is not allowed. It's worked for us so far. -- 15:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any community discussion of this issue on these talk pages though (including the archived ones)? (I mentioned that in my first message in this discussion thread by the way)


 * Is there a discussion actually anywhere that you can say genuinely that the whole community was aware of and able to participate in with no unreasonable expectations like it closing within a few days? When you use the word consensus, I hope you don't mean that in the Wikipedia style (e.g. a small close-knit of people deciding on an issue on a page that not many people read with a small time period for people to comment, then parading the results around as the consensus of a few thousand people. Similar to local government bureaucrats really, no real attempt to get people involved other than officially required because they really just prefer it when they are the ones making the decisions.)


 * A bit of devil's advocate there since I see your points, it seems a bit like it's the lesser evil of the choices if Blizzard will basically excommunicate you otherwise? But I do really not like it when people misuse the word consensus so much like Wikipedia has popularised, I hope it isn't that though and you just mean there's another talk or forum page? --Kittymew (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * DNP is one of the oldest, most established policies. I don't really care to find all the discussions (there are many) but if you want to establish a consensus, feel free to start a vote to recall it. -- 15:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Another major reason for the policy is we lose fansite status if we post material that isn't supposed to be public yet (i.e. alpha stuff that only people under NDA's get to see). We want fansite status. Blizzard linking to wowpedia == more visitors seeing our stuff, and more potential contributors. The "freedom of information" argument doesn't even begin to apply here, I certainly won't try to stop you from posting it elsewhere, but posting it here means we lost fansite status and we don't want that to happen. --Mikk (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I added paragraph explaining this in the policy now. --Mikk (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That doesn't explain why stuff that isn't under NDA can't be posted though! ;) --Kittymew (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because we wish to maintain our fansite status? -- k_d3 03:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)