Talk: DNP policy

Template:Archives1

Old vote to recall

• In my interpretation, the vote to recall was about the "Guild pages" section of the DNP policy. It has now been replaced with WoWWiki:Policy/Writing/Guild pages, so I am archiving the vote to WoWWiki talk:Policy/DNP/Archivevote as it is about a section that no longer exists. --Mikk 17:01, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

Inline linking

I've noticed a lot of inline linking to offsite images on the official Blizzard pages. Most web sites don't appreciate this. Using the images themselves should fall within what Blizzard allows if we host them locally, but I don't think they would be pleased with us using their bandwidth to display them.--Aeleas 00:06, 7 April 2006 (EDT)

as if you predicted the future a complaint soon arrives... Talk:WoW Equip--Ralthor 18:19, 7 April 2006 (EDT)

Proposal to DNP off-topic and defamatory content

Add the following to the DNP policy:

=== Off-topic content ===

Do not post content that has no connection with World of Warcraft whatsoever. Off-topic content can be deleted by any WoWWiki contributor, and whole pages that are off-topic are candidates for speedy deletion. Persisting in posting such content may get you labelled as a vandal and banned.

==== Examples of off-topic content ====

• The now-deleted articles on various gaming consoles. They may be gaming machines, but they've never run WoW.

• A guild page containing nothing but an encyclopedia entry on the bird family (the animal). (Yes, it's being deleted because of not following the guild page policy.)

==== Examples of tangential but on-topic content ====

• An article on how to spec your PC/Mac to run WoW well is tangential, but on topic.

=== Defamatory content ===

Articles and/or talk page posts that are nothing but personal defamation not only violates the neutral-point-of-view policy but are also illegal in many countries. Defamatory content can be deleted by any WoWWiki contributor, and whole pages that are nothing but defamation are candidates for speedy deletion (remove the defamatory content when tagging the page so it's not easily reachable!). Persisting in posting such content may get you labelled as a vandal and banned.

Note that a modicum of common sense has to be applied to this policy. While isolated cases of "I think you are being a jerk right now, because <well-formulated and objective reasons>..." as a response in a talk page isn't exactly good wikiquette, it isn't defamation, either. A whole barrage of why a person has to be an idiot, is.

== Policy ratification vote ==

Yes

1. Yes Mikk 11:48, 20 June 2006 (EDT) - (My proposal, so...)
2. Yes Kirkburn 08:41, 23 June 2006 (EDT) - (His proposal, so...)
3. Yes Shem 17:50, 23 June 2006 (EDT) - (Common wiki-sense, here.)

No

Comments

• If you can think of another few examples of off- and on-topic pages that you've come across, please add them. --Mikk 11:48, 20 June 2006 (EDT)
• *nudges Schmidt and Fandyllic both in one swift move* Decree! Decree! --Mikk 12:17, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

If the page is getting speedily deleted because of defamatory content, leave it there. Why? It's easier for me (the one who will likely delete it) to determine how defamatory it is. If there is history of the page getting turned back and forth, it could be a protected page, if the useful stuff is worthwhile. Now I can obviously use the history function and see what's there, but still I would prefer it to be intact as you saw it. In this case, you'd want to just add Template:Tlink to the top of the page, immediately below it say "defamatory" or some such thing, an HR (----) and a space or two. This way I can see why it's up for speedydeletion. BTW, this should go on that page as well, which I thought was already there.

However, if the entire page will not be deleted because of such content, delete what's [what does] not [belong] there, and leave such a note in the edit summary.

How's that for a suggestion? Schmidt 13:16, 25 June 2006 (EDT)

Hrms. Paraphrasing the speedy deletion policy.. "Leave the text in the page no matter the quality"... I agree as long as we're talking quality. But now we're wandering off into violating the law turf. Granted, it's not our violation. And it's certainly not me that the cops will come after so it's no biggie to me personally. It's just my opinion that slander gets yanked out of the page before being tagged for deletion. And, yes, it does mean more work for you admins when it does happen. =/   Does it happen a lot?

if the entire page will not be deleted because of such content, delete what's not there, and leave such a note in the edit summary

This line is getting syntax errors in my English parser. Think you could rephrase it? =)

--Mikk 13:44, 25 June 2006 (EDT)

Curse IE6! It translated what I wrote into something that no one else can parse. /bonk IE6. How about "delete what doesn't belong there" (i.e. defamation or whatever).

Anyways, I saw it a few times last night. I just don't like the idea of blanking a page on such an occasion. It makes sense to me to leave it there. As long as everyone knows it's defamation and that it will be deleted soon, why blank it? Schmidt 14:24, 25 June 2006 (EDT)

---