Wowpedia talk:Personal article policy

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Past discussions archived to...


Alternative policy

I was the one that initially proposed this policy, and in the wording I was trying to highlight a particular philosophical distinction between personal articles (which fan fiction or other creative works inherently are) and standard wiki articles. Revisiting it now, though, I think I just made it needlessly confusing. What would people think, in principle, of the following? The effect is much the same, but I think it's a clearer approach.

Policy
Personal articles are welcome in WoWWiki, but must be located as subpages of the author's user page. Personal articles include:
  1. creative works such as fan fiction, observations, and player character biographies,
  2. player biographies, and
  3. guides where the author wishes to receive credit for the work, such as Aletto's Guide To Azeroth.
Objective articles on notable subjects in the Warcraft community are excepted from points 1 and 2. For example,  [Sword of a Thousand Truths], Leeroy Jenkins (video), and Thottbot all properly belong in the main namespace. Fame or infamy within a single realm or battlegroup does not qualify as notability.
Enforcement
Creative works in the main namespace will be moved to a subpage of the initial creator's user page. Guides credited to one author will have the credit removed; if the initial author wishes to maintain the guide as a personal article, he or she may move it out of the main namespace and restore the credit.
Reasoning
Q: Why can't my fan fiction or player character biography be located in the main namespace with the other articles?
A: WoWWiki is primarily an encyclopedia of information on Warcraft, and most visitors will be looking for information from official Blizzard sources. While fan works are welcomed here (unlike at many wikis), it is extremely important that we keep fan-created content separate from official content.
Q: What if I want others to edit my fan fiction?
A: You have control over your own subpages, but others can still edit them, and so you are free to invite collaboration or comment. While others are allowed to edit your work, they are doing so on the terms you have set, so you retain control over the article.
Q: Why can't I have control over a page in the main namespace?
A: In the main namespace, readers are invited to be bold in editing anything they see. If an article is not satisfactory to a reader, he or she is encouraged to completely rewrite the entire thing to make it better. It is very important for the ongoing growth and improvement of WoWWiki to maintain this atmosphere. Obviously it does not make much sense to have anyone who comes along replacing your player character's backstory with something completely new.
Q: Why can't I receive credit for the guide I worked so hard on?
A: You can, but such an article should be located as a subpage of your user page, to make it clear that you are the author and wish to receive acknowledgment for it. Giving credit to a specific individual within an article puts a proprietary stamp on it that discourages collaboration, and particularly discourages large-scale rewrites. This is contrary to the spirit and strength of a wiki, in which everything is always changing and being improved upon by many different people. It is the nature of collaboration that one's work, as good as it may be, is subject to change.

--Aeleas 23:53, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Player Characters

I think that player characters should be sub articles for the server they are related to. There are a ton of PC articles that are created by users who do not own them and then it causes problems when they reject having that PC article under their username. I propose that PC articles be separated from fan fiction designation, fan fiction will almost always have a WoWWiki user associated with them. --GRYPHONtc 22:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Vote results moved to WP:PC

Old content

This is my proposal:

  • Any personal articles, files, etc., that are prior to the move for Gamepedia should be deleted, this is aimed at unclaimed accounts.
    • If the account has been claimed since the move, the personal article should not be deleted especially if the user is still active.
  • If the account has been claimed since the move but the file uploaded isn't linked to an article using the Special:WhatLinksHere, it should be deleted as per the Images policy:
    • "However, Wowpedia is not an image hosting service. Any images uploaded must be for use on Wowpedia."
      • WoW Icons shouldn't be touched because of this; the file isn't being used because Blizzard has yet to use it. They have also shown to start using some icons that were previously unused in the past.

This also applies to a lot of user images that aren't linked anywhere. We definitely won't be able to get this done for the week, but overtime as we come across some, just a simple wiki maintenance.


Votes

Yes
  1. YesSurafbrov T / C / P 19:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC) - (Nominated)
  2. Yes Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 19:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC) - (Yup, enough time has passed where if accounts haven't been claimed by now, they most likely will not and we should purge personal articles from nonexistent users.)
  3. Yes DarkTZeratul (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC) - (Yes, but only for unclaimed accounts--NOT old pages on reclaimed accounts.)
  4. Yes Alayea (talk / contrib) 21:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC) - (I'm with DTZ on this.)
  5. Yes Xporc (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC) - (Why not, but I reserve myself the right eventually reestablish good personal articles if we find them)
No

Comments

Does this apply to users that have an account with us, but no longer maintain their personal articles? Or just personal articles from nonexistent user accounts that were moved over during the transfer? Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 19:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the ones that have an account (but no longer maintain it), those particulary I would like your guys opinions on whether we should keep them or not. The ones with nonexistent accounts should definitely be removed. — Surafbrov T / C / P 19:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm unsure about this specifically being necessary as an ongoing policy change. It seems like a one-time thing as worded. Perhaps if we wanted to set a maximum time-length for a personal page to go without activity. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!C207,729 contributions and counting) 20:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against that. -- MyMindWontQuiet 20:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose to seeing a maximum time-length. — Surafbrov T / C / P 20:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to delete personal pages based on the page's inactivity - there are several reasons why someone might make it and not update it, but still want to access it. Deleting personal pages linked to users that have not reclaimed their accounts, on the other hand, I'd be okay with. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I can understand that. Also what about user images particulary (the ones that aren't linked to any article but the account still exists)? — Surafbrov T / C / P 20:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Unused personal images should be scrubbed regardless. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think stuff should be removed on account of time, but the unclaimed stuff.. I won't oppose that, although I'm not in direct favor of removal either. PeterWind (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Same as Pete. Also, it's now what, the third policy of mass-editing that is being voted without the others being finished? Xporc (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Like I said above: "We definitely won't be able to get this done for the week, but overtime has we come across some, just a simple wiki maintenance." Don't care how long it takes, at the least it would be known. — Surafbrov T / C / P 22:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I can understand why some user-content shouldn't be removed. As long as it is connected with an existing account (or a claimed account), I don't see an issue with it. I'm talking about user images that are just in the abyss of categories (also showing in the Special:UnusedFiles page) and the articles that are connected to an account that no longer exist since the move. — Surafbrov T / C / P 22:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)