Guild Wars Wiki talk:Content retention/10-12-2008Draft

Per the discussion here. Changes from the current policy are:

1. Adding the ArenaNet namespace to the list of namespaces encompassed by this policy.
2. Organizing the "Restriction on content" section in alphabetic order.
3. Adding a new "Suggestions" section to the "Restriction on content" subheader, with what is being discussed on the Community Portal.

One thing that needs to be settled, assuming there aren't any major problems with this change, is what people would like to name the suggestions lists linking to the ideas in the userspace. Erasculio 22:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

ArenaNet:Guild Wars suggestions and ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions would be fine, imo. -- Brains12 \ talk 23:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made slight modifications to the suggestions section - it's not "Guild Wars 1", it's "Guild Wars", and I've added the "one link per user" to clarify it's not one link per suggestion. Also, do we want to speedy delete the ArenaNet-namespace suggestions, seeing as their deletion been decided as a whole by the community? -- Brains12 \ talk 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to add a notice to the main suggestions pages telling people they will be deleted, so those who want to keep something from there are free to do so. Of course, not a notice in every subpage, just in the Arena Net main portal and the suggestions pages themselves. Erasculio 00:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant after the implementation of the new system. For example, we have the two lists; someone creates a suggestion at ArenaNet:Guild Wars suggestions/Blah; should we speedy delete it or tag it for the 3-day wait?

Before the implementation though, we could have a message on every suggestion page/attempt at creating/editing (similar to the guild page creation message) saying "these will be deleted, blah blah, copy if you want, blah blah". After the implementation, we could change the message to say "don't create pages in this namespace blah blah". -- Brains12 \ talk 01:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday, Emily mentioned in her journal that they're working on an official response to the suggestion pages question. IMO this proposal should be retracted for now, and keep this in the draft stage until after we've gotten an official answer. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

1&2 are nice improvements, mostly on the formating level so should be noncontroversial.

3 is the point. However, we should not list everything we discussed at policy level; only the general rule. Ordering things at the policy level just cuases further problems. There is especially no need to have policy on the format of a single page; any such discussions can be done of that page's talk. Backsword 11:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

At the least, I think we should specify that suggestions belong in userspace only. But yes, formatting could be decided/documented out of policy. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

How about "The restrictions here only apply to "primary content" namespaces (main, ArenaNet, Image, Category, Template). Pages in the User namespace have their own policy. "? Backsword 15:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions in mainspace

While they haven't been discussed, I doubt there is support. Just about all the problems with them in anet space persists, and then there is the issue of article name conflicts. Backsword 15:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your comment above, in that my original proposal for the suggestion section here was detailing stuff that's a matter of formatting, not policy, so I like the shorter versions you and Brains have edited. My only concern is making clear that we do not keep suggestions, but still have a list with userspace-linked suggestions in the Arena Net space (or will have). Erasculio 15:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"... are only retained in the user namespace, but can be linked from the Anet namespace"? --Xeeron 15:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Brains' "in any namespace other than the user namespace" is good enough. Like mentioned in the previous section (and unlike what I have said above), we could probably leave details like the list to be explained outside the policy (yes, this is me pretending it has not been more than one month since the previous contribution). Erasculio 04:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)