Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Policy/2008-2009 archive

Doing stuff

Given how we have GW2 content now, and we're going to get more soon, how about we actually do something here? Given how the last policy discussion was more than one year ago, I suggest we begin the discussion again with a simple proposal: copy all GWW policies here. If any change is needed, we can change those policies later. It would give us a solid base from which to begin, as opposed to having to reinvent the wheel. Erasculio 13:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

the point was we want to re-invent the wheel. There were numerous users who weren't happy with the policies on GWW, and this is a chance to start fresh. Besides that, we still aren't having that much activity, that it requires policies yet, or at least not that many policies. The onyl one that's perhaps needed is article retention, and even then it's not strictly necessary. 84.43.109.60 13:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone has problems with the GWW policies they should go there and propose changes. Given that both wikis are combined we should try to make most policies similar if not identical to the GWW ones. poke | talk 14:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, if someone is not happy with the GWW policies, he could change them after they have been implemented here. I doubt someone would be against all policies currently on GWW, and given how slow policy discussion is, if we begin now we will likely be finishing when GW2 is released : P Erasculio 14:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look through the archive, you'll see people wanted to make new policies here rather than just copying GWW's over, because if we copy GWW's, we'll probably never change them (that was perhaps more the point i was getting at, though it didn't sound like it i'll admit). We should try and create the policies that are relevant to this wiki and this wiki only. There are perhaps a few we could copy from GWW (NPA springs to mind) and some we should start fresh (e.g. Admin and BCrat). 84.43.109.60 14:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have seen that argument before, but I'm somewhat worried that, while it's likely we would never change copied policies, I think it's even more likely that we would never be able to make new ones. Regardless, how about we copy every policy other than those about the admins? In other words, everything but Adminship, Elections, Arbitration policy and Requests for adminship. We would copy only the more bureaucratic stuff (NPA, Sign your comments, Copyrighted content, etc). Erasculio 14:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be ok with that. 84.43.109.60 14:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not be. For a while now, I've been thinking about this "policy" system, and I really don't like it - rules, regulations, "don't do this"es, "you need to this that"s; the fact that the policy system as we know it often becomes seen as law. Tanaric's comments in this discussion are very interesting.

How he describes the start of GuildWiki is something like how I think the start of Guild Wars 2 Wiki should be - a natural progression of product, process, practice, and then 'policy'. What I very much want to avoid is this, and it seems to be going on now, - "And then we moved here [to GWW]. And editors unfamiliar with the history of the GuildWiki's policies ported some here outright, and made them into law. And now law-mongering policy zealots along with unfortunate history-ignorant newbies believe that a code or a "bill of rights" is not only helpful, but actually necessary, for tranquility and productiveness on the wiki."

Don't you think we could follow that natural progression here? In the past week, where we've had a relative burst of Guild Wars 2 information, our community has been fine. We've had people upload images, create articles, improve current articles, even overhaul articles and their formatting. Objections were sorted out through discussion or boldness; vandals, sparse as they are, have been blocked and reverted. All this without GWW-style policies or guidelines. Why can't we carry on like that? As the community grows, we'll probably get more objections, naturally, but they can still be discussed and sorted out. As we grow, we might put these consistent happenings, methods, solutions, and whatnot into articles in the Guild Wars 2 Wiki space. Since they'd just be documentation of what goes on, very little discussion would have to occur for their 'approval'; it's detailing what already goes on, not what should or will go on, something completely different to GWW because of people trying to document the future, which is usually an impossibility.

I think a mistake in the past was naming the practice articles 'policies', which automatically implies law or governance in itself. If we're to have these 'practice-articles', I would intend to name them something different that more accurately describes their nature; but we can do that when the times comes. All in good time. -- Pling \ talk 15:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I really don't agree. I think that point of view is effective regarding some topics (like admnistration, userpages and etc), but I believe it does not work regarding some aspects. Content retention, for example, is something already in practice (we don't have articles about "Jeans"); formalizing it would be implementing something the community already does, as opposed to telling the community to do something. NPA follows the same idea (people are already avoiding personal attacks), and the deletion policy is more a tool for quickly deleting content (thanks to the speedy deletion system) than a set of behavior guidelines. Erasculio 18:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a series of essays detailing "something the community already does" would be better than the policy form as we know it (whether from GWW, GWiki, PvX, whatever). Nothing "formal", just... informative details regarding practice. However, I don't think we have enough practice to document right now for such an essay - the community is still relatively small, and many things are disagreed upon (even regarding content, e.g. how relevant is this to Guild Wars 2?). I'd rather wait for the beta and/or an abundance of information before we go any further on this.

I'm not liking the fact that you've just created copies of GWW policies, something contested just a few days ago. In fact, you've probably copied the stuff you tagged as inactive today from years ago. I also don't think you're taking into account the fact it's not only GWW'ers here; GWW:SIGN, for example, is certainly not a practice on this wiki. [[Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Content retention/22-08-2009draft]] is simply false. -- Pling \ talk 18:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Contested, you're right, but without a clear consensus for it or against it. I thought it would be better to bring that discussion here (after all, like you said it's not just people from GWW here) and discuss each policy case by case, as some may be worth implementing and others not. As always, my opinion alone isn't going to implement anything, and if someone would like to change the current drafts, he/she is free to do so. Erasculio 19:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

We can quite easily bring that discussion to this wiki without the needless copies of policies. To continue with you intended actions, even when the wiki community would contest it, is, quite frankly, rude, and a blatantly apparent attempt to force your views of policy on others by simple political momentum. Additionally, we do not need to go through the GWW policies to decide what to implement when we have not even decided if we are to have policies. Belar 20:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Belar, either we assume the GWW community has a strong say here (which you are assuming, given how you think a decision should not be applied here because it was contested on the other wiki) and then we have a good reason to copy the policies here, or we assume that this wiki has to think its own policies and discuss here, not somewhere else, if the GWW policies are good for this place. Feel free to see this as an attempt to force my opinions on the others, but there were simply no opinions about this idea being discussed here, where it matters. Erasculio 20:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't assuming anything, I was going by the objections at the top of this very section, which you so handily ignored. And I do not see your actions as forcing you opinion of the content of policy; instead, you are forcing your opinion on the purpose and existence of policy on this wiki, as was being discussed (Again, in this section) with Pling. Belar 21:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you mean I'm ignoring the IP's comment in which he says "I'd be ok with that", and poke's comment about how both wikis should have similar policies? I see. I'm sorry if I'm basing myself on discussions happening this year, as opposed to rants from the end of 2008. Erasculio 21:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Oh, right, because Pling and Anja don't count as people. Also, the structure of a wiki's policies, barring a major overhaul and/or change of userbase, is not a time sensitive issue. Discussions about GWW's policy structure that were written last year as just a relevant as ever. Belar 21:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how you would expect me to have considered Anja's comments given how they were stated after my changes to the policy section. Even ignoring the irony of your complains about how I would be ignoring Brains and Anja (while you are ignoring how two other users actually supported this idea), if you would rather follow years-old inconclusive discussions that led to no result instead of, you know, trying to achieve something, feel free to remain doing nothing while we discuss policy implementation here. Erasculio 21:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What irony? I never ignored anyone. If you'll note, I said that the issue is "contested," not "the community unilaterally disapproves of your proposed actions," which would imply that there is more than one viewpoint being expressed, and that there is no consensus yet as to what should be done. Also, I do not know where you latched on to the idea that agreeing with someone who quoted someone constitutes "follow[ing] years-old inconclusive discussions," as that is quite patently false. Belar 21:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is no consensus, be it to try to bring the policies over here or not. Given how both options were contested, why are you complaining so much that I tried to implement one option instead of the other? The other option, doing nothing, is the same as just following the old discussions that died without any conclusion. Erasculio 21:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I definitely oppose copying policies just for having policies, and we need a new approach since this is a quite new community. I don't even think we should bring over the old policies to say "we need a policy on this subject". Do we really? We can just as well make it when we see there is a real need. - anja 19:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "Doing nothing" is not anything bad - it can be an action and decision as much as creating multiple policies can. In this case, I think it's the better one, and I think you're being over-eager to get something done regardless of its effectiveness or merits. The fact that you've copied GWW policies outright without even changing them to be relevant here (e.g. the article retention draft stated we hold guild pages...) shows this.

Policy for the sake of policy isn't constructive. It leads to the false impression that they're necessary for a wiki to work; it could also lead to the policies being incredibly difficult to change and amend. GWW is a perfect example of that.

I'm not sure what else to do here, since the policy-culture of GWW seems to be getting in the way of actual productivity. All I can urge you to do is focus on the points and arguments made, the quality rather than the quantity, what would be most effective, and take time to think whether any of these policies actually help us with our primary objective (that being to document Guild Wars 2) or if it actually hinders it. The fact that this has taken so much attention and focus away from the mainspace should be an indication to that. -- Pling \ talk 22:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's my two cents. Universal wiki policies, ie policies you might find on any wiki about any topic (No Personal Attacks, Be Bold, All Obey Felix) could be ported over from whatever source you like with no harm done, but why should they be? The majority of the GW2W community right now is seasoned wiki veterans. We all know the "rules" of wiki etiquette, written or unwritten. Let new users gauge their actions by comparing them with those of other community members, not by attempting to follow an arbitrary code of laws.

As for the GWW nonsense about deletion codes and elections, well, fuck that shit. 23:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Uh...I'm not really worried about taking the focus away from the mainspace, considering how the contributors there and the contributors here are not really stacking (Belar's last contribution to the mainspace was more than one year ago, for example). I would have liked to tag an article for speedy deletion but couldn't do so thanks to the lack of a deletion policy; I would like to remove some articles which aren't related to GW2, but there's no content retention policy. Those policies help not to impose laws, but rather to have the arguments in one place, as opposed to having to state the same thing ("the wiki holds content related to GW2, not GW1") multiple times.

I don't think it would be fair to new users to expect them to know the "rules" without showing them what those rules are; if said rules are so much part of consensus that all old users know them and follow them, what is the problem in stating them for the sake of new people? Erasculio 23:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is going from objectionable to plain ridiculous. "I would have liked to tag an article for speedy deletion but couldn't do so thanks to the lack of a deletion policy; I would like to remove some articles which aren't related to GW2, but there's no content retention policy." Is it policy that's enabling you to click your edit button and type a deletion tag with a reason attached, or enabling people to click their edit button and contribute to a discussion if they object or support? No. If you think something warrants deletion, tag it. If people object, discuss it. Link to previous discussions if necessary. People are, hopefully, capable of thinking and acting with their own judgement. -- Pling \ talk 23:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) If you think something should be deleted, or deleted speedily, tag it as such and give a reason. If someone disagrees, they'll post about it. If someone with sysop tools agrees and there's no disagreement, they'll delete it. Simple. Just because we don't have rules to say when and how to do something doesn't mean we can't do it when it makes sense. - Tanetris 23:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

But if we are acting as if speedy deletion were part of this wiki, wouldn't it make sense to have speedy deletion officially part of this wiki, as a resource explained to everyone, and not as a tool available only to those who know how it works thanks to having experience with it from the other wiki? Like I have said before, rules don't exist only to tell people what not to do, they also exist to let people know how to do what they want to do. Erasculio 23:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a guide, not a policy. Also, I have never used the speedy deletion tag on GWW because it's too much of a bother. I just put {{delete|spam article}}. The idea of a delete tag is to let the sysops know, not to sentence the article to execution. 23:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) There's no 'Speedy Deletion', since the Speedy Deletion of GWW was basically 'the stuff that you don't have to wait 3 days for'. There's none of that here. I probably check the changes to all articles, and I also check the list of deletion requests in case I missed something - if I see something that I think wouldn't require any further input and is extremely unlikely to be opposed, I delete it. I otherwise wait for an undetermined and unspecific time, so people have the chance to put forth their objections. And yes, we're a small enough community that one or two sysops can handle day-to-day activity. -- Pling \ talk 23:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent)
I am seeing a lot of the same mindset that was overly prevalent on GWW happening here already. Many people seem to assume that new users will just automatically know everything about the wiki (on GWW it was more about how the information was organized and accessed), and that isn't fair to the new user of the wiki. I am going on the presumption that the access will be similar as to the one now available on GuildWars, the pressing of the <F10> key. Automatically assuming that all of the users will know established policy of other wikis is not fair, nor is it accurate. You are setting it up already to just (by default) adopt all of GWW's policies (good and bad) by wrote, because that is what you assume people will be used to, without taking into consideration if they have actually used GWW before or not.

Some things are common sense, true, but having certain things set up before hand, available for the use of the users of the wiki (and the people who help maintain it, namely us in this discussion) is a good idea, and since there are actually people making use of it, at least talking about policy cannot be a bad idea. That can mean tools or policies, take it which ever way you want.

See my post below about automatic adoption of the GWW policies. I personally don't think it is a good idea, since many of them are (from what little I know of them) what I would consider broke policies. 42 - talk 07:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

These revivals...

shouldn't happen. I fully agree with Pling here; we don't need policies now, we really don't. The low number of problems we have are easily dealt by discretion and common sense. Even signatures are not a problem because of the linking to GWW and its policy. There is really nothing we would gain from early fixed policies, except that future users might find them bad and start to change everything because they were not involved with the initial setup. Really, leave the policies alone until we actually need some. But looking at RecentChanges and seeing nothing, except those recent policy edits and the occasional vandals, so there is really no need to have policies. poke | talk 10:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we remove this page from GWW:RFC? The fact that the only way to draw in more than the two or three users who have so far contributed to these discussions is to post a request for comment on another wiki should show that this wiki's userbase is definitely not substantial enough to form policies... There certainly isn't "a lot of policy work to be done". -- pling 17:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's harmful to work on and discuss policy drafts, and not having to start from scratch when we do start needing policies seems like a signficant benefit. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think we will end up with really useful policies if we start with them before they are needed. Policies generally evolve from particular problems, and those problems directly influence the content of the policy. If we now create - even just draft (which would be already done btw.) - policies before any problems occur that can't be handled by common sense, we restrict the wiki needlessy and make it hard for new people to make changes to them when problems appear.

And I do think that it is harmful, simply because they restrict everybody from the beginning and will just lead to policy changes early when the wiki is getting more active. Instead we should just ignore any policies by now and think about them when there is really a need. There is no need to make a wiki active (via RFC on GWW) because of policy discussions that are not needed for the aim of the wiki. poke | talk 07:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So you'd agree we don't need policies right now, but would rather make them anyway when there's only a few people around and to lessen the 'workload'? I'm not understanding how that's a good idea. It didn't turn out to be a good idea on GWW, at any rate.

By the way, "start from scratch"? No - policy shouldn't be started from nothing, whether it's now or at the instant of game release/wiki activity. It should come out of past precedent, consensus, and effective resolutions to previously experienced problems or issues relevant to this wiki and its community. The only way to do that is to allow time for such things to come about and naturally progress. I imagine Wikipedia, which you're probably familiar with, did much the same thing with their policies. They seem to advocate product, process, policy anyway. -- pling 11:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think theres any harm in discussing them; we have people here (albeit only a few), so where is the harm in that?Actually implementing them before they are needed may be a bad thing, but actually discussing them and getting a general basis of where we're going with them? I have no problem with that. -- Wandering Traveler 17:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you discuss that which has no purpose? How do you create that which has no purpose?

Fully agreed with poke and brains. I'm removing this from GWW:RFC. NuVII 18:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Poke, I don't think we will end up with really useful policies by hastily reacting whenever some incident has demonstrated an urgent need for a new policy. As for using Guild Wars Wiki's RFC page, I think that should be sorted out on its' talk page. Pling, I'm arguing that allowing policy drafts collaboratively developed and be subjected to scrutiny well in advance of any urgent need for policy is better than having to throw everything together at the last minute. I'm also arguing that working on these drafts is unlikely to "lock in" bad or unpopular policies. If enough people want guild pages, the current draft of Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Article retention almost certainly fail as a proposal. If most of the user base objects to something in a policy proposal, they'll oppose it whether it was written last week or last year. Furthermore, the fact that a policy proposal was written years before the Guild Wars 2 beta by a small number of people who are no longer active on the wiki could be used to argue against the implementation of that proposal. NuclearVII, I believe that the primary purpose of these drafts and discussions is to ensure that, when we finally need policies, there will be some alternative to copying policies from other wikis or throwing something together at the last minute. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent)
(sorry about the length, but I feel it needs to be said)
Gordon makes a good point on policies, and so does poke. There are some polices that DO need to be established from the beginning, and there is no harm in doing so. There actually could be more harm waiting until "it is needed". That is like the old adage of "closing the barn door after the horse has escaped". The "policy" about NPA or something similar should be established right from the beginning, and would make it easier to enforce later instead of someone being able to say "well you just made that up". Setting up and establishing a policy(sorry, meant guideline) on proper formatting used in ALL articles and any main space pages, very useful in doing so now, in my opinion. It provides a standard to follow from the beginning, so instead of having to go through all of the pages to check if they are formatted right or not, they can be fixed when they are fewer in number, and the new ones are more likely to be by proper format.

Establishing now how to set up a policy(sorry, again meant guideline) on formatting of pages for NPCs and locations? Yes, waste of time spent better elsewhere. Setting up policy on things that have to do with the game now? Not needed, for sure. Not setting up policies that affect the wiki "until they are needed"? Not a good idea. And for those that don't have to be set right now, it is still useful to discuss them now, instead of waiting until the last second and throwing something together that basically sucks ass.

Nuke, the "purpose" of these policies, as you said, is to prevent problems before they happen, not react to an event and try to fix something already broken. It isn't a matter of trying to overly restrict the users either, just to establish, or at least get discussion started on, policies that are helpful. Not all policies are designed to be restrictive, and all policy ideas shouldn't be scrapped just because some of them are too restrictive. 42 - talk 07:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that designing and refining policies isn't always a quick process, and by starting early we can get a bit of discussion going before we get a massive influx of users. We don't necessarily have to finalise anything, but it can't hurt to get the ball rolling. --Santax (talk · contribs)

"before we get a massive influx" - Shouldn't policies actually be made of the idea of many people, the whole wiki community at best? By finishing them early (or just discussing the basic elements), we cut ideas off those who are currently not interested, but will come later. If we look at recent policy discussions over at GWW, there always appeared something like "look in the archives, this was discussed before" etc. - basically this nullifies the comments of those who were not there at that time and makes it nearly impossible to change policies. It is better when they all can decide from the beginning. poke | talk 19:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not like people aren't aware we're here. The people here now are the ones with an interest in the running of the wiki, the vast majority of the people who come later will be more content-oriented, I imagine. I just don't think it's feasible to wait until after release to set up a framework for the wiki, we'll busy enough with formatting guidelines and actual content. --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Brains, I don't think it's possible to wait for the whole wiki community. Still using GWW as an example, we still get new users asking to change policies; do you really think GWW should have waited until now to make policies just so these users could give their opinions before the policies had been made? There isn't really a "whole wiki community"; it's something eternally in flux.

The argument that this wiki currently has too few users in order to discuss policies, while we're expecting a huge surge of users in the future, isn't something I completely disagree with. I'm slightly amused, though, at how we're expecting more users to come and, when people do appear, we tell them we're still waiting so we won't do anything right now. Same thing with the opinion against moving the GW2 suggestions here: it's because this wiki is empty because it has no content, so no content would be moved here. What are we waiting for, exactly? Erasculio 22:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent)
I wish to apologize to many people, I meant to refer to many of the ideas listed above as guidelines, and did not intend policies, specifically the naming convention and capitalization standard I have since recommended in the guidelines section.

I do not mean to suggest or recommend that we finalize these policies, with the possible exception of an NPA policy. However, the thing you are not considering poke, is that on GWW (and I don't want it to become an issue here already even before it is started) it is very difficult to attempt or even get people to seriously consider a policy change. I do not want that to happen here before we even get started with the game. I am not intending that all policies be set in stone now, never to change.

Erasculio and poke, I think the best idea is to set up discussion for policies now, a barebones framework that is able to change as needed, and not be like the setup currently in use at GWW. I am personally for a system that is able to adapt and grow as the user base grows, unlike GWW is being done. I have already seen many people basically try to act like this wiki is just a subsection of GWW already, and all GWW policies should automatically be enacted and valid here. I have already been "denied" an application for adminship of this wiki by what I feel is an attempt to enforce GWW policy here.

It seems from reading this page that too many people are playing the extremism angle; "we either have to enact policies now", or "wait until the last second". These two choices are NOT the only ones available. We do not need to enact policies right at this moment, but not discussing them yet is as stupid in my opinion, because, if this were allowed to progress, the policies would be hashed together "at the last second" without sufficient thought and discussion being able to be put into place. Many of these people also seem to be starting what I have seen happen many times on GWW; that being the attitude that this is how I do something, so I am right, and anyone else who does it different is wrong.

There are some standards and policies that should be discussed and implemented as soon as possible (like some form of NPA policy), and I think waiting would not be a good idea. Two of these are proposals which I have suggested in regards to guidelines. Basically, GWW guidelines have gotten away from following actual English language standards, and I am trying to get them put in place before this wiki starts getting more and more users, and more and more content. The other is the current adminship acting like this is GWW. I have already seen many examples of this happening. This, while not being policy, is one of the bad side effects of having the GWW admins grandfathered in. Some try to enforce GWW policy and standards here like it is GWW.

It isn't totally relevant here in literal implementation, but the example of what happens behind the scenes I think is a valid point to this policy debate. During my service in the U. S. Navy, I had the unfortunate experience of being able to see the result of what has been referred to as "the safety policies are written in blood". Basically, that means that any changes that need to be made wait until someone gets killed or hurt before a policy gets changed. While not as drastic here, the same equivalent end result could be avoided. Discuss policies beforehand and people will not be the victim of some half-baked policy that was "just made up 10 minutes ago." Instead, the policy can be reasonable and not the result of someone who happened to be having a power trip that day, and implemented something off the cuff, which isn't fair to everyone.

And Nuke, putting an RFC for GW2W on GWW; I am not totally sure I read that right, but why was it there to begin with? This is GW2W, not GWW. 42 - talk 23:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed policy adoption (before problems happen)

(Moved links to Guidelines Proposal Page as well) (sorry for what some people refer to as WoT, but I want to say it all at once, to save having to add more later.)
Having been a user of GWW for quite a while, and not necessarily liking many of the things (policies) that they have in place, I do not think that just right off the bat all of the policies should be trashed just because they are the old ways, nor do I think that they should just automatically be adopted because, well, "they are the old ways".

I agree that there should be new policies made specifically for GW2W, and I propose one of them right now. I am not familiar with the technically proper way to present them, but after finding out the main page to this wasn't the right place, I am re-linking it here. It is in regards to a capitalization policy that I think establishing now would make life for all a lot easier, and closer to actually used proper English than GWW policy seemed to be. The proposal is linked [[Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Capitalization_Policy|here]]. I shouldn't have named it what I did, should have posted as proposal in the name as well, sorry about that. Basically, this policy pushes for the use of proper English language formats, when no set format is established by the game itself. Specifically in the case of naming the articles, and use of proper capitalization. I think that everyone following this policy (or whatever is adopted) from the beginning on all pages used, will be more helpful and useful than trying to "fix" a broken and improper standard later.

That being said, I do feel that many of the other policies in use on GWW are good (at least at heart), and should be looked at, not for straight adoption as-is on here, but almost as a proposal of their own, a starting point for people to look at, and say, "OK, that part was good, but we could do this part better" etc., etc. I do think, that to some degree, the NPA policy on GWW itself is not bad, and something with the same intent should be adopted here.

In regards to the current use of the category system on GWW, (I have been up all day working on this wiki, and do not have the energy right now to draw up a full proposal on this yet) most people have been using it as a search engine, and have gotten away from what I consider the actual reason for the wiki in this respect, to document the game. I think that accurate use of categories that do not necessarily have a "use" for some people as a search engine tool should not be ignored. The category system, as I see it, is intended to be like an index in a book. The index doesn't try to decide for you what information you should be looking up, it presents the information, and lets you decide what you do with it.

I also spent quite a few minutes porting over some of what I think would be many of the more useful templates and categories from GWW (this is allowed under the GNU FDL policies listed on both sites, as each use was credited).

Once again, sorry for being so long-winded (fingered?) on this subject. I will work on other policy proposals later on this weekend, when I can get time. 42 - talk 07:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal that I think would be a good idea to start using (if adopted) as soon as possible, again to ensure standard use in the future. The proposal page is linked [[Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Naming Style Convention Proposal|here]]. It is a recommendation for adopting a standard naming style that more closely follows the English language (I believe), that I feel was not followed as well as it could have been in GWW. I do not feel that "waiting until it is needed" on this proposal and my proposal for standard capitalization and punctuation should be done, as that could lead to more work needing to be done to correct errors and non-standard articles and pages; and, in one respect, something like this is actually needed now before more work is done. 42 - talk 16:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The struck out comments have more to do with guideline proposals, and have been "moved" to the discussion page for guidelines. 42 - talk 18:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I typed up a discussion page that I think people should read. It contains quotes and discussion of many of the topics on this page from many other contributors to this page. To avoid another WoT, I put it in my user page here. 42 - talk 18:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)