Guild Wars Wiki talk:Deletion policy/Archive 2

Additions?

Guild images that violate guild page policy (like user images that are misnamed, but guild images instead). Also user request for user images. - BeX 03:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd support adding the former as I5, but I'd say a standard deletion policy should apply for user request on user images, since while a user might be the initial person to utilize a user image, there's nothing that says others can't use that image as well, and an image one person doesn't want anymore might still be used by another. -- (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The majority of user images are character pictures and random screenshots. Stuff used in userboxes or shared images generally aren't uploaded under the user's name. I think there should be some sort of criteria for images that have no shared use, because the user request section applies only to "user pages". - BeX 04:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The flip side - is there really any detriment to having the images around for 3 days while a regular delete tag goes through? Most speedy criteria are for things that have no potential use on the wiki, or are outright policy violations.

The other thing is that if there are no other uses of the images, Speedy G3 would probably apply for user request - G-speedys can apply to any article, whether it's a main namespace article or an Image: one. -- (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

G3 applies to new pages/files only. I still think that we would benefit from having a separate criteria for user images. - BeX 05:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ads

Quick question,Why isn't Advertising under the speedy deletion policy? ~ Kurd 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it could probably get away with being classified G1, but A1 would work if it were forbidden under another policy. The problem is, I can't find a policy that specifically disallows it. The Image use policy does forbid adverts in images but I don't see anything that's technically against ads (usually we just call it spam and rv it, though). MisterPepe talk 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Do you have a specific example? Personally, I would think the majority of those would fall under G1 or A1 ... but I have no objection to someone proposing a new G# or A# entry to specifically address it - pending further community discussion on the proposed wording. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he's talking about Talk:Black Widow MisterPepe talk 21:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Jup, i added a speedy delete to it, but it was reverted because it doesn't say so in the speedy rules ~ Kurd 21:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it is a talk page, A1 does not apply and it does not look like pure vandalism either. --Xeeron 21:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is why it hasn't been deleted yet =P If I see something obvious on the RC list, it goes away pretty quickly. MisterPepe talk 21:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess Gem did one of the periodic sweeps now. Nonetheless, it would be useful to decide whether advertisment gets to be a speedy deletion. --Xeeron 22:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Imho it should be a speedy as you can see from the quick deletion. :) -- (gem / talk) 22:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Blank and then speedy delete ~ Kurd 12:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

G3 clarification

Does the only editor of a page blanking/self reverting everything they did qualify as a request for a G3? I've been seeing some guild pages like this, and they can't be A1 deletions (non-mainspace). MisterPepe talk 23:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear enough, but we've treated them like that all the time. -- (gem / talk) 23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should make it explicit. -- Gordon Ecker 08:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I4 policy for Guild Images

The Guild Image Policy and User Image Policy are pretty much the same (images must start with "Guild <Guild Name>"/"User <User Name>") but the deletion policy does not have a criterion for those Guild Images. Should we update the policy to explicitly include improperly named Guild images --trekie9001 09:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

New general speedy criteria

Stuff that has zero relevancy - see Perv and Gey for instance. It is plain silly to keep articles like that around for 3 days when they should be immediately deleted, but evidently since it isn't in the policy, deleting it is bad. We should rectify that bit of bureaucracy and get a smoother process on paper for dealing with pages like that.

I think pages like Perv and Gey fall under "patent nonsense," and thus should be deleted under G1, but not everyone shares that view... so we are forced to make another general to include them. How should we word it? -Auron 00:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree Auron, whilst it may not fall under G1 strictly it needs to be included. Obviously a certain level of discretion would need to be allowed for which the current policy does not seem to allow for. but the best I can come up with to describe the two articles in question is:

A3: Articles created with the sole intention of causing trouble.

--Lemming64 00:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like that much, as it's hard to say what intent an article is created with. I'd prefer something such as:

"Irrelevant Content - pages which fall outside the scope of GWW" -- AT(talk | contribs) 00:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds much better than mine. :) --Lemming64 00:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So we're making this in A instead of G? -Auron 00:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A is probably better, as it's only really a problem in main namespace. As another option, this could fall under A1 if GWW:CONTENT was tweaked. ("This includes pages comprised solely of content that is forbidden by other policies.") -- AT(talk | contribs) 00:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think A is a better idea, it only really needs to apply to the main namespace. --Lemming64 00:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you guys think that everyone generally agrees about which pages fall outside the scope of GWW? Does every possible bit of strategy advice fall inside its scope? --Rezyk 00:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Rezyk ... it could easilly be argued that it's not clear-cut on if the articles mentioned should fall within the scope or not, so they would still fall under the 3-day review period - at least they would to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So "Perv" doesn't fall outside the scope of GWW? K, everything makes sense now. -Auron 01:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately it comes down to do we allow some discretion to admins to determine what should be discussed as possible content, and what is clearly an attack/bit of fun/trouble making or pertinent to GWW. --Lemming64 01:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "Perv" obviously falls outside the scope, but the suggestion doesn't just hit "Perv". --Rezyk 01:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Some sysop discretion is definitely allowed according to GWW:ADMIN. -- ab.er.rant 01:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that these terms should be outside of scope; the current wording allows for argument that they are within scope. Both are attempting to document non-official terms that the article authors claim are seen in chat channels. If these two terms fall outside of scope, what of other non-official ArenaNet terms seen in chat channels, specifically dealing with strategy related terms? As mentioned by others, it's a question of the degree of admin discression that's acceptable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(RI) How about something like "A page that is incontrovertibly unrelated to both Guild Wars and the Guild Wars Wiki (example: An article on Asperger Syndrome, regardless of quality, would be speedy-deleted). If the relationship may be controversial, the general deletion process should be used."? It'd give sysops a bit more discretion for the obviously irrelevant, without giving free reign to their own interpretation of what GWW "should" be. - Tanetris 02:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"incontrovertibly unrelated"... wow... I learned a new phrase! -- ab.er.rant 02:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I support this wording for a new speedy criterion. —Tanaric 19:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I like it :) poke | talk 23:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

general speedy criteria - explicit policy violation?

There are already speedy criteria for certain specific policy violations (I4, for instance), but in cases where a user repeatedly violates policy in a disruptive manner (such as via proxy accounts), should there be a speedy criteria to allow for cleanup of such articles? Does this fall into the scope of vandalism? It wouldn't necessarily seem so, however, I'd like to see what the community's thoughts are in regards to this. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am all in favor of having an exception to include it in the scope of vandalism, or a set criteria for putting all content added by a user circumventing a ban to be immediately removed. I do not believe it necessarily fits into the scope of vandalism as it stands, as the edit or image itself may seem harmless, however a user is banned for a reason, whatever it is, and circumventing that ban with a new IP/Proxy/account is a clear violation of the ban. --Lemming64 23:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

While it may seem an obviously good idea, is it really needed? I don't think it's a problem if a banned user provides useful content. And if it's something disruptive, wouldn't existant rules be enough? Backsword 23:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Riven demonstrated how that is not necessarily the case, I don't believe his image uploads could be construed as vandalism on their own, however he was trying to make a bad point with them and it caused at least one other user to question the deletion of said images because it didn't fit in with policy. --Lemming64 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the images be deleted? If so, why are there no policy stating so? Backsword

Yes they should, That is what we are discussing right now. --Lemming64 23:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My point is: Are there anything wrong with the images in themself? Or should they just go beacause of being uploaded by a banned user? Backsword

The reason for this discussion is to decide whether or not a policy should be created, Backsword. The non-existence of policy is not an argument against creating it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Backsword was just trying to say that aside from this proposed change, there are no other policy that would warrant the removal of these content, whether uploaded images or articles, as these are not, on their own, in violation of anything. I'm in agreement for speedy removal of said content or material, but only if said content or material is the exact same thing or reason that caused the ban in the first place. I would even say that repeated attempts at such is a reason for a ban extension. But I think ban circumvention should be covered in another policy. -- ab.er.rant 02:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok speaking purely in absolutes and hypothetical's, I believe that by definition anything a banned user does during the duration of their ban in an account intentionally circumventing a ban should be a candidate for speedy deletion by its very essence. If it is clear that the contribution is in fact positive then it can at discression be left, however I don't believe it should be required purely because of the situation the contribution was made in. If a user is banned they should not be making any contributions, postive or negative, that is the point of a ban. If they are still allowed to make positive contributions they are not feeling the full point of the ban. --Lemming64 02:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, so the default action should be to remove anything the banned user does, but with a little exception clause on really good contributions? On whose discretion should that be? I would say it'll become rather subjective on what exactly is a positive and useful contribution though. Since you explained it that way, and considering the potential problems this could cause, I think I'll change my mind and support the speedy removal of all content contributed by a banned user for simplicity's and clarity's sake on what constitutes a ban. -- ab.er.rant 03:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because something has a speedy criteria doesn't mean it has to be deleted - the deletion policy doesn't read "the following must be speedily removed", it says they can be. Discretion is already built into the policy, speedy criteria simply is allowing more options of what can be removed. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down, guys. Deleting everything that a banned user posts?

• First of all, you're not only giving the win to Punishment in the "Blocks are for prevention Vs. Blocks are for punishment" debate, but you're not only punishing the guy who got blocked, but also the wiki by removing legit contributions. Why?
• What happens if we find only later that User:B who's made a bunch of edits all around the wiki was in fact User:A who was banned for XYZ reason? Would we go find all his contributions and delete them? What happens if there were replies to them? What if they were modified/built upon by subsequent edits?

Delete sigs that were uploaded with the clear intention of violating a policy, if you want, but no deleting content that doesn't violate any policies. --Dirigible 04:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

But, as mentioned, that makes the block rather superficial don't it? I think we really need some resolution on the open proxies issue quickly. -- ab.er.rant 05:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In general, it's just not practical to retroactively delete the content unless it in itself violates policy. The open proxy/sockpuppet issue can at least be partially addressed by GWWT#Spam Control, at least for images, as it will slow the ease of account creation somewhat. In the case of Riven, if the re-uploaded image is only used on his user page and not in sigs, and no other policies are violated, I'll block the proxy if it's being used to bypass a ban, but not delete the new image ... but once the new image is used in a sig, it's both a user sig violation, as well as being an I1 issue with the violating version of Image:User Riven sig2.png. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Since we'd prsumably never block anyone because we don't want possitive contributions from them, I don't see a problem. There should of course be rules for removing policy violations, including whatever got them banned. But not violating policy would tend to be the message we want to send, right? And that's hardly in conflict with allowing legit content? Backsword 10:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Dirigible, I was saying we should have the option to delete them, not we will delete them. I trust every sysop we have to not intentionally remove legit content. However I believe this stipulation is totally valid as it would remove any doubt the sysop is doing the right thing, the simple fact is a banned user should not be uploading content whatever it is. Whilst you are right the punishment vs prevention debate is a whole other kettle of fish I think we have to accept a little of both does come in depending on the circumstance of the ban, because not all users are banned because the only thing they do is vandalise. --Lemming64 13:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And what I'm saying that we shouldn't even have that option to delete them. Destroying perfectly acceptable contributions is over the line and it leaves the wiki worse off than it'd have been if we kept those contribs; does that mean nothing? Reblock the guy if he confesses to be the same person as someone blocked previously if you want, delete anything he posts that violates policies if you want, but please leave the rest intact. Don't punish the wiki because you can't punish that guy, because he can evade blocks and whatnot. All these policies, these blocks, these mechanisms we have here, they're all geared towards one purpose: allowing and encouraging positive contributions to be posted on the wiki, while keeping everything else outside. What you're suggesting simply goes against that premise. --Dirigible 20:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I am not stating that every contribution a user has made should be deleted whilst using another account during the duration of the ban. I am saying that every contribution that user has made should be forfeit during the duration of a ban. Clearly it is obvious if it is positive and we and we want to leave it. However in the case where is it not so cut and dry, like the whole Rivenissue where he wasn't making negative contributions, however he was breaking his block and re uploading signature pictures that whilst aren't negative they aren't beneficial either there is currently no provision in place for unambiguously removing them. I understand your concern dirigible, but I think the sysops we have are intelligent enough to distinguish between what is clearly good and what is just "mucking about". I don't think it is at all out of line to have a speedy deletion criteria for content uploaded by a user circumventing a ban. I understand that we should be preventing them making these contributions through other policies, but until that falls into place I think this should be here for such situations. --Lemming64 23:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that some allowance for sysops discretion would be a good thing when it comes to removing content uploaded by users circumventing a ban. It isn't hard to distinguish between contributions that are meaningful and contributions that are plainly provocations. -- ab.er.rant 01:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think what we need more is Guild Wars Wiki:Don't feed the trolls. Here's the two scenarios:

1. Riven uploads that image, uses it as a signature, it violates policy, it gets deleted.
2. Riven uploads that image, but doesn't use it as a signature.
   • If you delete it, he'll just upload it again, the cycle begins again.
   • If you don't delete it ... nothing, it ends there.

For the first possibility, you don't need any policy that allows you to delete non-violating contributions. For second one, you only need that policy if you decide to feed the troll and play these delete/upload games with him; if on the other hand you don't let yourself get trolled and only delete pictures that actually are violating the policy, the problem solves itself. They may be plain provocations, but that doesn't mean you have to fall for them. --Dirigible 05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a sucker for provocations... :P but I see your point. -- ab.er.rant 05:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok you got me there. --Lemming64 08:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

G8: Delete content in accordance with policy regulations

I propose to add the following paragraph to the policy:

G8: Deletions which are described in as measures in any other policy (unless specifically worded as non-speedy).

Note that this is considerably less far reaching than the proposal above: Any deletion would still have to be grounded in any other policy explicitly allowing deletion. This only marks these deletions as speedy. --Xeeron 11:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you give a few specific examples of what this would affect? —Tanaric 18:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For example this sentence from NPA: "For text elsewhere, where such text is directed against you, removal requests should be directed to an admin to determine if the comments should remain, be archived, or be deleted". I want to have a clear speedy deletion paragraph for such deletions. --Xeeron 20:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't both G5 and A1 apply in that example? A1 especially seems to have severe overlap with the proposed rule. Backsword 10:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to limit speedy deletions to unambigious policy violations. -- Gordon Ecker 22:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"G8: Deletions which are unambigiously described in as measures in any other policy (unless specifically worded as non-speedy)."? --Xeeron 09:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of {{copyvio}}, which is currently used to tag both obvious copyright violations and ambiguous potential copyright violations. -- Gordon Ecker 09:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I oppose this speedy criteria. I don't want a single overzealous sysop capable of deleting something before others can see it and comment. —Tanaric 10:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

@Backsword: Not necessarily. The page could be not an article (so no A1) and attack someone else, not "its subject" (e.g. Tanaric being attacked on a hypothetical User page Xyz). I am sure I'll find more examples if I go through all policies.

@Gordon: I dont fully understand what you are getting at (admins deleting just because of a template, not looking at policy??). The basis for any deletion must be a policy (and under the wording of G8 an unambigous one), not a template.

@Tanaric: Fair enough. However I suggest you look at our Deletion log. What you dont want happens all the time. In fact the whole speedy deletion policy is based around the premise of admins deleting before others can see and comment. --Xeeron 11:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be more precise. I think our current speedy criteria are strict enough to be helpful, and I think the content in question is straightforward enough to trust any single sysop's interpretation most of the time. The situations covered under your proposed G8 are significantly less straightforward, and I think the process benefits by having the three-days delay so that multiple editors can comment on an issue before any action is taken. —Tanaric 11:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I would understand "subject" to mean whomever tha page was actually about, not it's pagename. I guess G5 could use some clarification. Backsword 11:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with backsword. G5 would make more sense if being about all attack pages that (only) attack anyone, the "its subject" part should go and then my example would be invalid.

Not agreed with Tanaric though: Your arguement is inconsistent. You want less sysop freedom by not having G8, yet without G8, you need *even more* sysop freedom to actually enforce policies. Without G8, sysops must never speedy delete something that is against policy, yet not listed here. Despite that, admins do so, at their own discretion, all the time. --Xeeron 12:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think what Tanaric is trying to say is that your proposed speedy deletion criteria is too general. All other speedy deletion criterias are well-defined but your proposal leaves to much space for interpretations. poke | talk 13:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I didnt use a good wording then. What it should be is: Giving admins a reason to delete speedy, if the any policy explicitly allows deletion. --Xeeron 18:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of something which may violate Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrighted content, but is in a gray area. Since the policy is pretty explicit about the deletion being non-speedy, either of Xeeron's two versions would work. I must've accedintally posted in response to this proposal instead of the above proposal. -- Gordon Ecker 22:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Guilds - speedy L1: Invalid Guild Name

Since GWW:GUILD requires the article name to match the name of the in-game guild, any guild page which is named in such a way that the corresponding in-game guild can obviously not exist due to the naming rules seems a natural speedy candidate. I propose using L for guild article speedies, since G is already taken by general. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Second! Perhaps we should add another as well; L2: images on guild pages that violate guildspace policy. See Guild Wars Wiki:Guild pages#Naming and contents for details. --trekie9001 • tlk • 06:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we would need a speedy, since it's just about moving it to the correct name? Also, there is a discussion ongoing that redirects inside the guild namespace can be kept. - anja 11:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Anja, I'm not referring to pages that are simply named incorrectly due to capitalization or such - I'm talking about pages for guilds that literally cannot exist at all because they contain disallowed characters or the like. There's no way to move them to the correct name because there isn't a correct name to move them to. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 14:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, there is: http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild%3AStrike_Force_Cake_Testing_Dept&diff=68733&oldid=62361 / Guild talk:Strike Force Cake Testing Dept --Xeeron 17:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, Xeeron, that's not what I'm referring to - I'm referring to articles that might be created along the lines of "Guild:Testing?!%" or the like - things that due to their nature are obviously accidentally created pages and not an honest attempt at a guild page. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

To add a real example, Guild:Fb精英团. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Couldn’t we tag them with G2? -- Indochine talk 18:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

G2 has always seemed rather vague to me, I don't like it - what exactly qualifies as a "test page"? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Pages made by mistake? Genuine test pages (to test something)? Some guild pages could qualify for G2. Anyway, Guild pages with names that can't exist in Guild Wars should qualify for G1 (unless it's a mistake - them it should be moved)... -- Indochine talk 18:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that "Fb精英团" cannot be used as a Guild name? poke | talk 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'm also against speedying these. Give the page creators a chance to do something to fix the issue, or at least figure out what happened; there's no particular need for these pages to need to be nuked with such urgency. --Dirigible 23:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless these pages violate another policy, I don't see any harm in leaving it there for a couple of days with the delete tag. There's a chance that the original page creator would come back and see the reason. It could just be a testing page, but there still is a small possibility of someone just making an honest mistake. Perhaps that person decided to create a guild page before creating the actual guild, without realising that a certain name is impossible? -- ab.er.rant 14:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point -- Indochine talk 14:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, Ab.er.rant and others, and I don't mind leaving this as a non-speedy. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 14:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarification, speedy I4

Is the speedy criteria I4, for violation of userspace policy, only meant for offensive content etc, not for images that's just wrongly named? That's how I've read it, but I've seen tagging with both versions for images with wrong naming (speedy and nonspeedy)

I suggest a minor clarification of that critera :) - anja 11:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, wrongly named should still be going through the 3 day process. --Lemming 11:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

How could we reword it so it's more clear? - anja 16:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

We could just add a bracketed exclusion (this does not include incorrectly named images) --Lemming 19:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The naming is part of the policy though. Misnamed images are technically a violation of gww:user as well as gww:image(s). - BeX 01:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would assume I4 was intended for the absolutes:

   * Libel or defamation.
   * Material patently offensive to others, including ArenaNet's competitors.
   * Material in breach of the wiki's policies or the game's terms and conditions. 

--Lemming 01:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Material in breach of wiki policies, including the user policy and image policy. :P - BeX 01:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Though naming is clearely a "breach", it isn't enough for a speedy, since it benefits the users more if we first tell them why and how things should be, etc. Or do you think naming is included in this speedy, Bex? I think the last bullet there makes it hard to understand again, the first two are great though :P
What, in other policies, tells what images can be (speedy) deleted? Do we even need that clause? - anja 08:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

We can easily drop that clause by simply changing all "page" and "pages" to "content". -- ab.er.rant 09:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that sysops are justified in using that reason for speedy delete. I personally don't speedy delete tag user images anymore unless I move the thing myself (which has lead to me just not dealing with them at all anymore). If that is not what the sentence was intended to mean, then it definitely should be rewritten, but at this point the meaning is pretty clear. - BeX 09:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Splitting

Is splitting an article and then deleting the source article legal under the GFDL? It seems to violate the part about attribution, and, if so, I believe this should be explicitly mentioned under non-criteria. -- Gordon Ecker 02:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing this is related to the project page I split up into manageable chunks. I should have moved the whole article to one of the sub pages I was splitting to then taken chunks out from there, that would have retained the contribution history. So I don't think it is a problem as long as it is done correctly, I certainly won't make that mistake again. --Lemming 15:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I5 - blatently misleading images

After seeing this Image:Commander Varesh.jpg it leads me to believe we are lacking a criteria which we have for redirects. This image is clearly not commander varesh, and has nothing to do with her, but it is in the place of the default image of that NPC. I can not think of any other speedy criteria I can apply except maybe G1. Any thoughts? --Lemming 19:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyviolations and page blanking

I've noticed that Category:Suspected copyright violations has a lot pages. When should these pages be deleted? According to the policy, I think they should be deleted after 3 days, but why don't we add the same 3 days mechanism from {{delete}} to the {{copyvio}} template?
Another question: Can empty pages, blanked by the author, speedy deleted with G3? See for example Kistral Ultimate and Creating a page. poke | talk 13:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Leaving the copyvio issue alone for the moment, I'd like to link to this conversation quickly regarding G3. I think that it should count as a G3 request, but we probably would need to clarify that in the policy. MisterPepe talk 19:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok another thing, can we delete pages like Talk:Topaz Crest (blanked after creating with vandalism) with G3? I will add this to RFC as I want to have some clear answers :D (to all 3 questions) poke | talk 13:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

G1 explicitly states "pages created as a result of cleaning up vandalism" which is what that talk page was. - BeX 13:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree talk pages created for vandalism should be speedy deleted after blanking. I also think guild pages, and user pages that are blanked by the user or the sole author can be considered a G3 by that user who does not understand the deletion mechanics. As for copyviolations I agree that should have the 3 day mechanism to give the author or other users time to rewrite the article if they wish. copyvio Images is a slightly tricky one as technically they are speedy right now. --Lemming 13:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Images can't be "reworked" without an entirely new image (unlike articles) and thus having them speedy'd isn't really a bad thing, since they'll have to be fully replaced regardless, and the red image link is better than a copyvio image. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So to sum this up: Pages, blanked by author, can be deleted with G3 (regardless of namespace); Pages blanked because of vandalism (without any content before), can be deleted with G1 and Copyvio should be deleted after 3 days (because of this I think we should add the +3 days mechanism to the copyvio template). What about our copyvio Windows screenshots we have around? It does not look like this topic will be resolved that soon and having the images around (even with copyvio deletion) does not make it better.. poke | talk 18:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we just delete them first while we discuss this? Having it keep showing up on the "candidates for speedy deletion" for so long seems a mockery of the category :D -- ab.er.rant 02:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I know there was one image that was tagged for speedy delete that was an obvious copyvio, and it didn't get deleted for weeks, despite having the source page clearly linked. And then there was another image that didn't have a correct source page that was deleted when it probably shouldn't have been. - BeX 03:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I5: Images with no appropriate content.

Propose - A1 for images. Does not apply to User-tagged or Guild-tagged images, as long as they are named in accordance with GWW:USER or GWW:GUILD. Thoughts? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently opposed, because the words "appropriate content" give way too much unchecked deletion authority to a sysop. I'd prefer a much stricter term and/or a definition of "appropriate content." —Tanaric 00:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "Images that are not what their name ...implies/suggests/?..." --Lemming 01:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I balk at speedying those when it's just as easy to rename them ourselves. —Tanaric 01:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we're more talking about images of the windows standard background or images of aircrafts, uploaded under NPC names and similar. - anja 08:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeh I am talking about instances where you have a picture of Spongebob Squarepants uploaded under the name Prince Rurik.jpg which appears by default in the NPC infobox --Lemming 08:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that already be covered by G1s "patent nonsense" criterion? -- Gordon Ecker 08:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

New Deletion mechanism

At the moment, we are using a method for the 3days deletion and for the guild cleanup (7days) which requires adding a date to the deletion templates. Especially the guild cleanup involves problems because the templates add a deletion template after 7 days. To active it the template or the tagged page has to be touched (editing without any change). Without this it will not appear in Category:Candidates for deletion and not in Category:Pending deletion.
The proposal is to remove the 3/7days mechanism on both templates which removes the need of adding the timestamp and using Guild Wars Wiki:List of candidates for deletion instead. The list shows all candidates and cleanup needing guilds and highlights pages which are pending deletion. By using this list we can remove Category:Pending deletion and Category:Improperly tagged for deletion. In addition there is no need for touching pages any more as the tagged pages instantly appear in the needed categories.
Are there any objections to change the mechanism? poke | talk 11:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Love the change, since it doesn't require touching or lots of categories. - anja 11:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against this even if I were an admin. :) Sounds good to me. -- (gem / talk) 16:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. =) I support. --Rezyk 20:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that this will not interfere with the time-sorted list in Guild Wars Wiki:List of candidates for deletion. Is this a proposal to remove the 3 day / 7 day criteria from the templates while retaining the 3 day and 7 day windows to contest deletion? -- Gordon Ecker 21:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The List of candidates for deletion will autosort, even without the timestamp built into the deletion template. Much goodness.

And may I just say, YAY!!! MisterPepe talk 22:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not meant to change anything of the policy. It's just the "background mechanism" by which you can identify pages pending deletion. poke | talk 21:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the list of deletion candidates and if removing the date addition to the delete-template does the trick in streamlining this, I'm for it. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 21:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So if no one is against it, I would like to start with the "take-over" poke | talk 11:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, new mechanism is live. poke | talk 14:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

G4: Housekeeping

In my opinion G4 is imba. You could nearly delete everything unneeded by using G4. I don't think this should be that mighty.. For example unneeded images can be deleted immediately without archiving them to Guild Wars Wiki:Not orphaned for example. Personally I try to avoid using G4 and I think it should be reworded. poke | talk 18:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it can be striked through, since G4 is basically covered by all the other speedies and regular deltions. They are all 'maintenance' on the wiki. It seems to me that G4 is a bit of a loophole... not sure if this was intended though. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 18:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It also gives the example of unused images, as far as I know they go through the 3 day process to give people time to removed the tag if they wish to re-assign the image somewhere. --Lemming 18:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

New Speedy: I5

"I5: User request. Personal images which are not used on other pages that the uploader's user pages may be deleted upon request of the user."
Or something like that as user pages can be speedy deleted but user images not (or maybe we should expang U1 to a general speedy deletion which includes the complete user space including images). poke | talk 14:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would very much like that, it seems odd user pages can get speedied but not user images. - anja 14:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I just treated any image that had User Username at the beginning of the name as effectively user pages and subject to U1 if requested. Probably not ideal but it is effectively the same thing. --Lemming 14:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. --Xeeron 15:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Couldn't we change the user category to be "user name space" instead of "user pages"? i.e.:

User space

These criteria apply to user spaces only.

• U1: user request. Personal user pages, sub-pages and images may be deleted upon request of the user, except in cases where the user page bears an important message (such as a banned user warning).
• U2: nonexistent user.

And then move i4 to U3 for all policy violations because we only have a deletion criteria for images that violate, nothing about pages. - BeX 15:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be perfect :) poke | talk 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we also have something to cover the Guild namespace? Perhaps combine "User space" and "Guild space"? AFAIK, the same speedies would be applicable to Guilds. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 17:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You couldn't really have user requested deletion of guild pages, unless you could deem who the guildmaster was perhaps. --Lemming 17:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's right. Didn't think of that. Perhaps it's best to leave the guild namespace to to the regular delete tagging. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 18:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Proviso for Images

Following on from the previous discussion perhaps we should have proviso somewhere in this policy: As images do not live in specific namespaces, any image prefixed with User will be treated as part of the User namespace item and any image prefixed with Guild will be treated as part of the Guild namespace. or something like that. --Lemming 15:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for this to also be included into the definition of user space on the new user page policy draft. - BeX 16:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that make a lot of sense. Preferable to a bunch of scattered rules. Backsword 16:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Draft

I made a new draft to include all those changes above. Guild Wars Wiki:Deletion policy/Draft 20070830. poke | talk 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles which cannot legally be deleted

Could someone familiar with copyright law write up a draft detailing which articles cannot legally be deleted under the GFDL? -- Gordon Ecker 02:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to those which would be needed in order to maintain any necessary attribution, or the like? Beyond that, I'm not aware of any clause of the GFDL which prohibits no longer making original material available. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to attribution. -- Gordon Ecker 00:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, no page should be un-deletable for that reason - the GFDL doesn't generally govern talk pages (as they're not considered released content), and every mainspace page should have an article history. The only case in which the article history wouldn't be linked with the page would be if content were copy-pasted over from another page, in which case the page in question should really be Move'd rather than copied and then deleted, such that the article history is preserved. Either that, or the original authors should transition the content over prior to the page being deleted, depending on circumstances (if the content is being moved piecemeal rather than the entire article, et cetera). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The item in question here is part of the npc render project, all the sections of the page were move to various other pages. so a single move was not really an option. --Lemming 00:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Then a further question I would have (and I've noticed the article now) is why we're worried about GFDL for project pages, given that they're aimed at facilitating content release, and not being actual content themselves? I.e. they're utility pages. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see the need to keep attribution for a wiki improvement project, once it is complete the whole thing could be deleted really. --Lemming 00:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Legally, I believe we would either need amend the copyright policy to say that all project page contributions made after a given date are public domain (and change the editing copyright notices to reflect that), keep the source page for a merge or split until everyone who has made copyrightable contributions releases their contributions under the GFDL or only add one user's edits at a time for a merge. Maybe we could write up a merging and splitting policy requiring that any merge be conducted by only adding one user's edits at a time with attribution, and requiring that the source article be retained for splits unless the split is likewise conducted by only adding one user's edits at a time with attribution. -- Gordon Ecker 01:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL does not make a distinction between mainspace content and Guild Wars Wiki: content, Template: content or any other namespace (including talk pages, Aiiane). It's all GFDL, it's all part of the Document (the entirety of the wiki), it's all someone's contributions and it all needs to be treated exactly the same way as far as the license is concerned.

As for being able to delete that page, we don't really need to do that, I think. We can just turn the page in question (Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/NPC models/Nightfall) into a redirect to somewhere else relevant (e.g. Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/NPC models). Then it can just be linked to from whichever pages that content got moved to (f.i. moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/NPC models/Nightfall in the edit summary or talk page). This would both preserve the history of that content and leave everyone's contributions intact. --Dirigible 01:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, our copyright policy is rather vague about what is released - we never actually define what the scope of the "document" being released is, our copyright page simply states "content". My argument would be that utility pages designed to facilitate the release of content (such as project pages) are not "content" in their own right, and thus not necessarily inclusive to the GFDL release, nor bound by it. You're correct that the GFDL does not make a distinction between the types, but the GFDL doesn't make a distinction between anything, purposefully - it's up to the site utilizing it to make it clear what it applies to and what it does not, and our definition of that is rather vague. Where exactly do you see something stating that "the Document" as expressed in the license language is the entirety of the wiki? I sure don't see that listed anywhere. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If project page contributions aren't released under the GFDL, wouldn't that make them unreleased, unlicenced content only usable with permission or as fair use? -- Gordon Ecker 01:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily a problem if they are - there's implicit permission given for viewing by uploading them to a wiki, and there's implicit permission for use in accordance to the project's goals by placing them on a project page. The reason I'm making an issue over this is because I highly dislike situations which force non-intuitive workarounds (constantly redirecting pages that serve no actual purpose anymore) to otherwise normal situations (page deletion). If that means amending our copyright policy, then I'm fully in favor of that, I'd rather change a policy once than have a number of echos farther down the road. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I should also note that the GFDL does not require acknowledgments to be linked directly to the specific pieces of a combined work to which each is ascribed - the attribution clause of GFDL is satisfied if you simply list the names of all of the authors who contributed to the work. Simply listing them all in the edit comment of the new page's addition would be enough to satisfy GFDL. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Every time someone clicks on "Save page" they're agreeing to "By clicking the save page button below, you agree to license your contribution pursuant to the GNU Free Documentation License (1.2 or any later version)". Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrights says "Content provided by individual contributors, which is original and does not infringe upon the intellectual property rights of any third party, is available under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 (GFDL)". Both of those seem to me to say that everything posted on this wiki (ANet materials excluded) is content licensed as GFDL. And aye, simply listing the contributors is enough, even though my personal impression would be that the redirect+link method is cleaner (and increasingly easier as an article's history page grows). Both are acceptable though.

As for the Document equaling the entire wiki, it's one of a couple possible interpretations of the license language that I'm aware of. Another possible one is that each article is a separate Document, and the entirety of the wiki constitutes a Collection (section 6 of the GFDL). In either case, the content of the Document, whatever that is, is GFDL and needs to be properly attributed, so that distinction isn't that relevant to the matter at hand. --Dirigible 01:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Either way, the copyright page could use some more detail - and I think it'd be worth it to investigate whether the GFDL is the best license to apply to all portions of the wiki. That said, any decision regarding licenses would probably need to go through or at least involve ArenaNet, so we may need to leave that for another day. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) In the case of projects the contributors are listed on the main project page. Would that count? --Lemming 02:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Deletion

← moved to Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Deletion_policy/Draft_20070830#Talk_Page_Deletion

Builds

How about a criteria for specific builds outside userspace? There is nothing to talk about, since it's a policy violation, and their existence may cause others to imitate, which is more work. Backsword 21:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

maybe "A1: a page that provides no appropriate information on its topic. This includes pages comprised solely of content that is forbidden by other policies." poke | talk 21:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not having widely known builds (such as 55 Monk & Touch Ranger)? Could we not include a {{Skill bar}} at the bottom of the page showing the basic skills needed? For example, a Touch Ranger would be

Vampiric Touch

Vampiric Bite

Plague Touch

Offering of Blood

Blank

Blank

Blank

Blank

where the rest a pretty much optional but it shows the basic skills needed for the build? — ク Eloc 貢 21:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A1 is useful, but only in mainspace, and I was talking about everywhere outside userspace, Wouldn't like them in template space, y'know?

If they're in template space, just move them to the appropriate location, whether it be userspace or mainspace. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Eloc, general terms and concepts are allowed and we do have articles on them, most at least. I rather not see specific builds in them though; they'd tend to become listings of such then. Backsword 21:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely true. GWW:CONTENT currently disallows them, but because Guild Wars Wiki:Policy/Builds is still being discussed they've been allowed to remain in a sort of flux state for now. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

user talk pages

← moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:User page#user talk pages

I1 Redundant Image

What kinds of images qualify for this tag? Lyra Valo 14:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicates, images that are so similar that one isn't necessary, images that have been replaced by renders, images that aren't required at all anymore, etc. - BeX 14:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help. Lyra Valo 14:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is in regards to poke's note on Fall's page, then I dont know. I personally wouldn't tag an orphaned image with a speedy tag. They might not be used, but they still might be useful/wanted, ya know? - BeX 16:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should change Redundant to Duplicate as a lot of people might not even know what Redundant means. — ク Eloc 貢 21:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

But redundant doesn't mean duplicate. An image could be redundant without being a duplicate. -- ab.er.rant 05:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

All the images that were tagged by me were duplicates, and had the same image already in use somewhere, some were orphaned but still duplicates. Fall 05:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As Aber said, redundant doesn't mean duplicate, though a duplicate can be redundant. It is just one of the many types of images that can be "redundant". The ones I listed up there probably don't cover everything. - BeX 07:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mayb we should post on the page what redundant can mean then? — ク Eloc 貢 11:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

redundant poke | talk 16:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. — ク Eloc 貢 22:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that is very helpful. We should do that with every word. —Tanaric 07:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, only if you say so. — ク Eloc 貢 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)