Wowpedia talk:DNP policy/Archive01

''This discussion pertains to a section on what not to post in guild pages that used to be part of the DNP policy. It has now been replaced by Guild pages policy. --Mikk 17:03, 19 June 2006 (EDT)''

= Old Discussion = I think the Guild pages secion on DNP does not give good examples. Also, the "bad" example does not seem like misuse of bandwidth in any way. The We Die Alot just has more info that the Adjudicators page. It doesn't suggest using the wiki page as a billboard or a place to post endless lists or conversation threads (which would be over-using and potentially misusing bandwidth of the wiki).

I'm going to change the examples and clarify how a guild page could misuse bandwidth. The current section seems to poorly describe why some guild pages are DNP.

Proposal for okay guild pages:
 * Guild pages that provide background, history, membership list, and policies of the guild. A guild page that helps a person decide whether they would want to join the guild is okay and what guild pages should be for.

Proposal for DNP guild pages:
 * Guild pages that attempt to use the wiki to list large amounts of data or hold guild screenshots or portaits, just to offload data from some private guild web location. A good guideline would be a guild page that exceeds 32Kb or invites using the page as a conversation thread.
 * --Fandyllic 8:41 AM PST 4 December 2005


 * No, no no - the size doesn't matter - it's the objectivity that matters. I don't care how small it it; if they are using Wowpedia as an extension of their website, even in the smallest way (as that one guild page said that the wiki would be the place where their rules would be posted and editable by anyone) it is against our policy. The page needs to be one that explains the goals of the guild, any requirements of membership, and perhaps a # of members - not a memberlist.  There should be a prominent link to their homepage, and perhaps obvious links to things like their roster or forums, but that's about it.  It should be just like any article should be - objective, informational, and helpful to readers.
 * [[User:SilverSide| Silver\Side]] 13:39, 4 Dec 2005 (EST)


 * Can you quote from the policy page where it supports your assertion? Honestly, I don't see it. Also, you presume quite a bit about what readers find informational. I count myself among readers (would you dispute this?) and I found the We Die Alot page much more informative than the Adjudicators page. I agree there should be a link to a main guild page if one exists, but one should not assume that every guild already has one.
 * Also, what is the point of linking to Objectivity when it has no contents? You have asserted a principle based on a term that you haven't defined. Some of us call this spurious argumentation.
 * Please stop using the tactic of asserting statements as true without any supporting evidence. It doesn't work on me. I actually follow the links you put in and try to see how they relate or support your statements.
 * --Fandyllic 10:44 AM PST 4 December 2005


 * Does voting 'no' for a recall mean we recall the whole page? I think we want to keep the no posting exploits part.  I do think the guide lines for a guild page should be well defined to provide a place for people to post generic information about their guild without allowing it turn into an extension of the guild page.  For example, we could create a Guild Boilerplate that must be used for all guild pages that way they know the information that can be placed here.  We could impose a size limit as well as say no sub pages.  For example, Immortalis has a huge guild page, with sub pages for their members, guild roster, guild charter, and guild accomplishments.  At the same time I couldn't even find a link to an external website (although I may have missed it), which implies that this is their guild site.  I think the guild guidelines should be fleshed out and defined (maybe as a whole seperate policy we can vote on and discuss the specifics of, I am not sure how recalling this policy does anything (unless that is required to change it, I don't know a lot about the specifics of making policy changes), can we instead draft a new policy and accept that over this one? --Ralthor 00:35, 7 April 2006 (EDT)


 * I'd say "Yes", and "if someone doesn't like it, they can recall that" :-)  This vote isn't really going anywhere anyway since it's not really a vote to do anything specific other than "hmm, I'm unhappy". Yours is more specific and to the point and much more likely to actually go anywhere. --Mikk 06:56, 7 June 2006 (EDT)