Changes: Forum:The Ruby Sanctum map and the DNP policy

Revision as of 07:20, 7 April 2010

Forums: Village pump → The Ruby Sanctum map and the DNP policy

Isn't this DNP by virtue of being datamined? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 02:52, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read the DNP policy. The Ruby Sanctum has been announced. --Pcj (T•C) 02:55, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

I would take that as "Ruby Sanctum" being allowed, but the map image not being allowed until someone enters the instance on the PTR. I take it that has happened?--SWM24 48 03:07, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

That's not what it says. Announced content which exists on live or PTR clients is permitted to be datamined. --Pcj (T•C) 03:10, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

I guess you are correct in their interpretation. That is how it is worded. The changes to and clarification of the image portion of the policy went nowhere.--SWM24 48 03:16, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Looking deeper into it does bring up a few questions though, is datamining inherently exploiting? I can definitely see that from the Blizzard Terms of Use, section 2, subsection C. However that would make it always against policy to get the loading screen images as we have been, not just in "pre-release" mode. That would also mean WoW Model Viewer images would be out as well. I guess my point is as it is currently written the Exploits part of that policy is against the "Datamined" part of that policy. Though lots of database sites "datamine" WoW all the time and get away with it so maybe the exploit section is rather the weaker link. --Pcj (T•C) 03:28, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll accept that, but where do we draw the line? The existence of an announcement makes a datamined screenshot of the announced subject okay? I want to be clear on what to enforce.--SWM24 48 03:49, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the line must be drawn there. That far, and no further. I think that the announcement at least makes it more amicable to Blizzard's standpoint than the scooping of other fansites which are more inclined to get the latest story. WoWWiki is more an encyclopedia than a newspaper. --Pcj (T•C) 03:53, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

The stance that seems to have been taken in the past is that only information that is legitimately available to players is OK to post. This means that anything that is available on the PTR is fine, as is anything that Blizzard has shown us directly, but data that is merely included on the PTR but not accessible is not. Look at how often we removed ICC boss screenshots based solely on the model being datamined out of the PTR. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:04, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there has been some inconsistency which would be good to resolve. I don't think shutting down WoW Model Viewer images is the answer so we should probably open it up slightly. I am still behind only announced content, though. --Pcj (T•C) 04:11, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

The difference between model viewer images and maps is that we can see the maps with official tools while the model viewer imagery is not so accessible. Thus, maps are ok, unseen models are not.

quick instructions: download the "User Interface Customization tool" zip, extract it to your PTR directory, run "AddOn Kit.exe", choose the "Art" option, wait entirely too long, go to "Blizzard Interface Art (enUS)/WorldMap/TheRubySanctum" and play with the blps. This is (more or less) what I do to get most of our interface art. --k_d³ 04:14, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not behind shutting down model viewer images altogether; just model viewer images for content that isn't available. The Ruby Sanctum, while it has been announced, is not yet available. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:15, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously this is still an issue of much debate. Technically, yes, any datamining is against the ToU and WoW Model Viewer falls into that, but: (1) Blizzard doesn't seem to be enforcing that much, especially considering machinima and other database fansites, and (2) datamined content of stuff that has been announced is not currently against WoWWiki policy. Maybe some sort of requirement that all datamined content must be clearly labeled as such? --Pcj (T•C) 04:36, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

So I'd like to refine datamining as it pertains to the DNP policy as "getting access to stuff not accessible via the official unmodified clients or officially provided tools" (italics indicating the addition). Thoughts? --k_d³ 04:51, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's OK for a definition of datamining, but do you mean to block datamining or allow it? I think that's more what the discussion is about.

--PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 04:56, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Allow interface data/the instance map (as it's not datamining as far as Blizz is concerned), but prohibit model viewer screencaps/other stuff obtained via datamining (read: not extracted with the official toolkit). At least until it's been actually seen on the clients. As soon as we can take screen caps from a client (without exploits!) it's fair game as it's always been.

The only change I'm proposing is explicitly allowing interface art extracted via the tool. --k_d³ 05:01, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

I tried to get clarity before, but it did not work out. Dark T Zeratul was correct about how things have been enforced in the past (a way which I thought was the moral high road), but that can change if the change is not forbidden by Blizzard. If we can get away with something that many other fansites are doing and still seem reputable in Blizzard Entertainment's eyes, then I am fine with it. Blizzard provides the tool. Is it exploiting the tool?--SWM24 48 05:14, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

My stance is unchanged from what it's always been, just that I'm being explicit about allowing AddonKit-provided stuff rather than implicitly allowing it as we have in the past.

From what discussions I've had with Blizz-folk, the line we've been drawing on DNP content (since the Burning Crusade DMCA takedown, that is) is fine. No formal confirmation from Blizz Legal or the like, just a general "We've seen it. Don't worry" comment or three. So I'm not all that concerned.

Is there anything else still unclear to anyone about the DNP policy? I'd like us to all be on the same page before I go to bed. --k_d³ 05:53, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

I think the way KD3 phrased it after the outdent is good. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 06:48, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

As a followup, because it's come up again, I'd like to get some clarity on this: with the exception of what KD3 pointed out above, are we changing the way in which we enforce this policy? Either way, I think it needs to be rewritten to be more explicit. Currently, the relevant paragraph is as follows:

While datamined images of live or PTR content are permissible, "true" in-game screenshots are preferred and will always be given preference over datamined content. Content arrived at by an exploit (other than datamining) is not allowed to be posted on WoWWiki. Datamined content from the current versions - live or PTR - of the game (i.e., not announced upcoming content) which could otherwise only be obtained by other exploits is similarly not allowed. For example, datamined images of GM Island may not be posted.

As it stands, it could go either way. Based on the line "datamined images of live or PTR content are permissible," One could make the argument that any and all data that appears in a PTR patch, legitimately accessible or not, is fair game so long as it has been announced. However, based on the line "Datamined content from the current versions - live or PTR - of the game (i.e., not announced upcoming content) which could otherwise only be obtained by other exploits is similarly not allowed" one could make the argument that only those things were are legitimately accessible are allowed. The latter, of course, being how the policy has been enforced in the past. Personally, I am in favor of keeping it this way. This Wiki's goal is not to be first with the information, it's to be correct, and I think we've all seen examples of people being over-zealous in updating PTR information only for it to get changed, often multiple times (this is especially irritating when heavily-linked articles have to get moved because their names changed before going live). I also prefer to lean towards the maxim of "better safe than sorry," especially as we've been sent a C&D notice from Blizzard in the past as a result of posting unreleased content. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:36, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

DTZ has the point, we tend to the have most correct informations, not the first to have it (every one knows MMO or WoR for this).

We should keep allowing datamined informations, announced or not, only if they are accessible Live or PTR.

We might also re-work the DNP policy paragraph so people can understand easily our point of view. The current one is somehow too "technical" to my eye.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 12:14, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

We now have an issue with the Zalazane's Fall achievement. It's been argued that you can use a script call to link it in-game, therefore it should be allowed. However, this is a script call that is only known to exist because it has been datamined. In theory, one could use scripts to call up any of the audio files contained in the database too. I'm going to echo A'noob and reiterate that A) we need a very solid decision on this, and B) the DNP policy needs to be rewritten to be more explicitly clear on what is and is not allowed. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:19, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded it for clarity and incorporated kd3's earlier wording. Let me know if you think that's clear enough. --Pcj (T•C) 00:22, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Also need to point out that Zalazane's Fall does fall completely within policy. Scripting is provided by Blizzard and the method indicated is allowable as far as the Terms of Use (and the current DNP policy) is concerned. --Pcj (T•C) 00:33, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

I have an issue with the use of "unannounced content" vs. "unreleased content," as the two can mean different things. Halion the Twilight Destroyer is announced content, but is not released content. Currently, the policy suggests that datamined images of him are OK (the Images page almost explicitly so). -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:35, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

It says "articles" about announced content, not "images". --Pcj (T•C) 00:39, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Currently, the DNP policy says nothing about datamined images, and the Image policy says that datamined content is okay if it has been "announced".--SWM24 48 00:44, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

"Content arrived at by an exploit is not allowed to be posted on WoWWiki." Datamining is an exploit. --Pcj (T•C) 00:46, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

New formulation is clearer to me: we allow only live or ptr-accessible content to be published.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 07:20, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Forumheader|WoWWiki policy}}
 Isn't [[:File:InstanceMap-TheRubySanctum.jpg|this]] DNP by virtue of being datamined? -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 02:52, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 :Please re-read the [[WW:DNP|DNP policy]].  The Ruby Sanctum has been announced. --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 02:55, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 I would take that as "[[Ruby Sanctum]]" being allowed, but the map image not being allowed until someone enters the instance on the PTR. I take it that has happened?--{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 03:07, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 ::That's not what it says.  Announced content which exists on live or PTR clients is permitted to be datamined. --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 03:10, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
 :::I guess you are correct in their interpretation. That ''is'' how it is worded. The changes to and clarification of the image portion of the policy went nowhere.--{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 03:16, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
-::::Looking deeper into it does bring up a few questions though, is datamining inherently exploiting?  I can definitely see that from the [http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.html Blizzard Terms of Use], section 2, subsection C.  However that would make it always against policy to get the loading screen images as we have been, not just in "pre-release" mode.  That would also mean WoW Model Viewer images would be out as well.  I guess my point is as it is currently written the Exploits part of that policy is against the "Datamined" part of that policy.  Though lots of database sites "datamine" WoW all the time and get away with it so maybe the exploit section is rather the weaker link. --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 03:28, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
+:Looking deeper into it does bring up a few questions though, is datamining inherently exploiting?  I can definitely see that from the [http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.html Blizzard Terms of Use], section 2, subsection C.  However that would make it always against policy to get the loading screen images as we have been, not just in "pre-release" mode.  That would also mean WoW Model Viewer images would be out as well.  I guess my point is as it is currently written the Exploits part of that policy is against the "Datamined" part of that policy.  Though lots of database sites "datamine" WoW all the time and get away with it so maybe the exploit section is rather the weaker link. --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 03:28, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
-:::::Well, I'll accept that, but where do we draw the line? The existence of an announcement makes a datamined screenshot of the announced subject okay? I want to be clear on what to enforce.--{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 03:49, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
-::::::Yeah, the line must be drawn there.  That far, and no further.  I think that the announcement at least makes it more amicable to Blizzard's standpoint than the scooping of other fansites which are more inclined to get the latest story.  WoWWiki is more an encyclopedia than a newspaper.  --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 03:53, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
+::Well, I'll accept that, but where do we draw the line? The existence of an announcement makes a datamined screenshot of the announced subject okay? I want to be clear on what to enforce.--{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 03:49, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::The stance that seems to have been taken in the past is that only information that is ''legitimately'' available to players is OK to post. This means that anything that is available on the PTR is fine, as is anything that Blizzard has shown us directly, but data that is merely included on the PTR but not accessible is not. Look at how often we removed ICC boss screenshots based solely on the model being datamined out of the PTR. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 04:04, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
-::::::::Agreed, there has been some inconsistency which would be good to resolve.  I don't think shutting down WoW Model Viewer images is the answer so we should probably open it up slightly.  I am still behind only announced content, though. --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 04:11, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
+:::Yeah, the line must be drawn there.  That far, and no further.  I think that the announcement at least makes it more amicable to Blizzard's standpoint than the scooping of other fansites which are more inclined to get the latest story.  WoWWiki is more an encyclopedia than a newspaper.  --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 03:53, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::::The difference between model viewer images and maps is that we can see the maps with [http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/ui/ official tools] while the model viewer imagery is not so accessible. Thus, maps are ok, unseen models are not.
-::::::::: quick instructions: download the "User Interface Customization tool" zip, extract it to your PTR directory, run "AddOn Kit.exe", choose the "Art" option, wait entirely too long, go to "Blizzard Interface Art (enUS)/WorldMap/TheRubySanctum" and play with the blps. This is (more or less) what I do to get most of our interface art. --<span style="border-bottom: 1px dotted;cursor:help;" title="WoWWiki bureaucrat">[[User:Kaydeethree|k]]_[[User_talk:Kaydeethree|d]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Kaydeethree|3]]</sup></span> 04:14, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
-::::::::::I'm not behind shutting down model viewer images altogether; just model viewer images for content that isn't available. The Ruby Sanctum, while it has been announced, is not yet available. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 04:15, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
+:The stance that seems to have been taken in the past is that only information that is ''legitimately'' available to players is OK to post. This means that anything that is available on the PTR is fine, as is anything that Blizzard has shown us directly, but data that is merely included on the PTR but not accessible is not. Look at how often we removed ICC boss screenshots based solely on the model being datamined out of the PTR. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 04:04, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
-:::::::::::Well, obviously this is still an issue of much debate.  Technically, yes, any datamining is against the ToU and WoW Model Viewer falls into that, but: (1) Blizzard doesn't seem to be enforcing that much, especially considering machinima and other database fansites, and (2) datamined content of stuff that has been announced is not currently against WoWWiki policy.  Maybe some sort of requirement that all datamined content must be clearly labeled as such? --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 04:36, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
+::Agreed, there has been some inconsistency which would be good to resolve.  I don't think shutting down WoW Model Viewer images is the answer so we should probably open it up slightly.  I am still behind only announced content, though. --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 04:11, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
-Can I move this relatively obscure image talk page to the policy forums?--{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 04:37, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
-:Sure. --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 04:38, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
+:::The difference between model viewer images and maps is that we can see the maps with [http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/ui/ official tools] while the model viewer imagery is not so accessible. Thus, maps are ok, unseen models are not.
+:::quick instructions: download the "User Interface Customization tool" zip, extract it to your PTR directory, run "AddOn Kit.exe", choose the "Art" option, wait entirely too long, go to "Blizzard Interface Art (enUS)/WorldMap/TheRubySanctum" and play with the blps. This is (more or less) what I do to get most of our interface art. --<span style="border-bottom: 1px dotted;cursor:help;" title="WoWWiki bureaucrat">[[User:Kaydeethree|k]]_[[User_talk:Kaydeethree|d]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Kaydeethree|3]]</sup></span> 04:14, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
+:I'm not behind shutting down model viewer images altogether; just model viewer images for content that isn't available. The Ruby Sanctum, while it has been announced, is not yet available. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 04:15, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
+::Well, obviously this is still an issue of much debate.  Technically, yes, any datamining is against the ToU and WoW Model Viewer falls into that, but: (1) Blizzard doesn't seem to be enforcing that much, especially considering machinima and other database fansites, and (2) datamined content of stuff that has been announced is not currently against WoWWiki policy.  Maybe some sort of requirement that all datamined content must be clearly labeled as such? --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 04:36, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
+So I'd like to refine datamining as it pertains to the DNP policy as "getting access to stuff not accessible via the official unmodified clients ''or [http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/ui/ officially provided tools]''" (italics indicating the addition). Thoughts? --<span style="border-bottom: 1px dotted;cursor:help;" title="WoWWiki bureaucrat">[[User:Kaydeethree|k]]_[[User_talk:Kaydeethree|d]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Kaydeethree|3]]</sup></span> 04:51, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
+:Well, that's OK for a definition of datamining, but do you mean to block datamining or allow it?  I think that's more what the discussion is about.
+--{{User:Pcj/sig}} 04:56, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
+::Allow interface data/the instance map (as it's ''not'' datamining as far as Blizz is concerned), but prohibit model viewer screencaps/other stuff obtained via datamining (read: not extracted with the official toolkit). At least until it's been actually seen on the clients. As soon as we can take screen caps from a client (without exploits!) it's fair game as it's always been.
+::The only change I'm proposing is explicitly allowing interface art extracted via the tool. --<span style="border-bottom: 1px dotted;cursor:help;" title="WoWWiki bureaucrat">[[User:Kaydeethree|k]]_[[User_talk:Kaydeethree|d]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Kaydeethree|3]]</sup></span> 05:01, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
+:::I tried to get clarity before, but it did not work out. Dark T Zeratul was correct about how things have been enforced in the past (a way which I thought was the moral high road), but that can change if the change is not forbidden by Blizzard. If we can get away with something that many other fansites are doing and still seem reputable in Blizzard Entertainment's eyes, then I am fine with it. Blizzard provides the tool. Is it exploiting the tool?--{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 05:14, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
+:My stance is unchanged from what it's always been, just that I'm being explicit about allowing AddonKit-provided stuff rather than implicitly allowing it as we have in the past.
+::From what discussions I've had with Blizz-folk, the line we've been drawing on DNP content (since the Burning Crusade DMCA takedown, that is) is fine. No formal confirmation from Blizz Legal or the like, just a general "We've seen it. Don't worry" comment or three. So I'm not all that concerned.
+:::Is there anything else still unclear to anyone about the DNP policy? I'd like us to all be on the same page before I go to bed. --<span style="border-bottom: 1px dotted;cursor:help;" title="WoWWiki bureaucrat">[[User:Kaydeethree|k]]_[[User_talk:Kaydeethree|d]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Kaydeethree|3]]</sup></span> 05:53, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
+:I think the way KD3 phrased it after the outdent is good. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 06:48, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
+::As a followup, because it's come up again, I'd like to get some clarity on this: with the exception of what KD3 pointed out above, are we changing the way in which we enforce this policy? Either way, I think it needs to be rewritten to be more explicit. Currently, the relevant paragraph is as follows:
+::''While datamined images of live or PTR content are permissible, "true" in-game screenshots are preferred and will always be given preference over datamined content. Content arrived at by an exploit (other than datamining) is not allowed to be posted on WoWWiki. Datamined content from the current versions - live or PTR - of the game (i.e., not announced upcoming content) which could otherwise only be obtained by other exploits is similarly not allowed. For example, datamined images of GM Island may not be posted.''
+::As it stands, it could go either way. Based on the line "datamined images of live or PTR content are permissible," One could make the argument that any and all data that appears in a PTR patch, legitimately accessible or not, is fair game so long as it has been announced. However, based on the line "Datamined content from the current versions - live or PTR - of the game (i.e., not announced upcoming content) which could otherwise only be obtained by other exploits is similarly not allowed" one could make the argument that only those things were are legitimately accessible are allowed. The latter, of course, being how the policy has been enforced in the past. Personally, I am in favor of keeping it this way. This Wiki's goal is not to be first with the information, it's to be correct, and I think we've all seen examples of people being over-zealous in updating PTR information only for it to get changed, often multiple times (this is especially irritating when heavily-linked articles have to get moved because their names changed before going live). I also prefer to lean towards the maxim of "better safe than sorry," especially as we've been sent a C&D notice from Blizzard in the past as a result of posting unreleased content. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 00:36, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
+:::DTZ has the point, we tend to the have most correct informations, not the first to have it (every one knows MMO or WoR for this).
+:::''We should keep allowing datamined informations, announced or not, '''only''' if they are accessible Live or PTR.''
+:::We might also re-work the[[DNP#Datamined or unreleased content, and speculation| DNP policy paragraph]] so people can understand easily our point of view. The current one is somehow too "technical" to my eye.
+:::{{User:A'noob/sig}} 12:14, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
+:We now have an issue with the [[Zalazane's Fall]] achievement. It's been argued that you can use a script call to link it in-game, therefore it should be allowed. However, this is a script call that is only known to exist because it has been datamined. In theory, one could use scripts to call up any of the audio files contained in the database too. I'm going to echo A'noob and reiterate that A) we need a very solid decision on this, and B) the DNP policy needs to be rewritten to be more explicitly clear on what is and is not allowed. -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 18:19, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
+::I've reworded it for clarity and incorporated kd3's earlier wording.  Let me know if you think that's clear enough. --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 00:22, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
+:::Also need to point out that Zalazane's Fall does fall completely within policy.  Scripting is provided by Blizzard and the method indicated is allowable as far as the Terms of Use (and the current DNP policy) is concerned. --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 00:33, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
+:I have an issue with the use of "unannounced content" vs. "unreleased content," as the two can mean different things. Halion the Twilight Destroyer is announced content, but is not released content. Currently, the policy suggests that datamined images of him are OK (the Images page almost explicitly so). -- [[User:Dark T Zeratul|Dark T Zeratul]] ([[User talk:Dark T Zeratul|talk]]) 00:35, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
+::It says "articles" about announced content, not "images". --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 00:39, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
+:::Currently, the DNP policy says nothing about datamined images, and the Image policy says that datamined content is okay if it has been "announced".--{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 00:44, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
+:"Content arrived at by an exploit is not allowed to be posted on WoWWiki."  Datamining is an exploit. --{{User:Pcj/sig}} 00:46, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
+::New formulation is clearer to me: we allow only live or ptr-accessible content to be published.
+::{{User:A'noob/sig}} 07:20, April 7, 2010 (UTC)