Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Copyrighted content
From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Um, were we not suppose to copy policies from there to here?... o.O? Ariyen 04:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Who says that? People just want something different in terms of policies here. But copyright isn't something we have much influence on, so it makes totally sense to copy it. poke | talk 07:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Licensing Terms[edit]
That document is written and controlled by ArenaNet. Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Copyrights -- Wyn 
talk 04:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks. Has me less puzzled now. :-) Ariyen 04:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I created this proposal under the assumption that the licensing terms from GWW are functionally identical to those here. I'm currently asking Emily about it as per Wyn's suggestion, and while I don't see why there would be a difference, I think we ought to wait for an answer before ratifying this, if that's even considered an option. --Kyoshi
(Talk) 17:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- I created this proposal under the assumption that the licensing terms from GWW are functionally identical to those here. I'm currently asking Emily about it as per Wyn's suggestion, and while I don't see why there would be a difference, I think we ought to wait for an answer before ratifying this, if that's even considered an option. --Kyoshi
Proposal[edit]
I'm for the proposal that was placed up. Ariyen 16:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Unless anyone has some issue with the current state of the proposal, I think we should just get this one out of the way; one less proposal to take care of later when things get busier. --Kyoshi (Talk) 05:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- One point to note is that is the the one exception to all other policies around: We can not reject it (the only way to do so would be to stop editing) since it ultimatively comes from ANet. That being said, I feel it is also pretty uncontroversial, so for both reasons, we should take off the proposal tag. --Xeeron 11:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- This one can be rejected, since it's a user-written interpretation of the rules set forth by ANet. Basically depends upon how people want it to be written, and it's not even strictly necessary.
- And yeah, nobody seems to care quite enough to want any (major) changes. --Kyoshi (Talk) 18:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
- One point to note is that is the the one exception to all other policies around: We can not reject it (the only way to do so would be to stop editing) since it ultimatively comes from ANet. That being said, I feel it is also pretty uncontroversial, so for both reasons, we should take off the proposal tag. --Xeeron 11:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion[edit]
I'd remove the word Policy from the first sentence and remove the template. I am thinking of having Practices and processes added in there somewhere (the words being linked of course), but I prefer someone else who could make the article better. Ariyen 19:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'd agree with that. Change "policy" to just plain article.
20:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Noinclude tags[edit]
Hmm, was/is this transcluded somewhere? -Chieftain Alex
12:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Not that I can see. Going to remove them. At some point in the future someone may stumble across it ; ). G R E E N E R 01:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
