YPPedia talk:Policies and guidelines

From YPPedia

Old and resolved discussions have been moved to Archive 1. Old and resolved votes have been moved to Archive 2.

Contents 1 Barnstar? 2 Nicknames & comment signing 3 "The YPPedia is not Wikipedia" as a formal guideline? 4 Defunct ocean pirates 5 Foreign language oceans 6 You beak it, you fix it... 7 Current Goals 8 Pirate articles do not belong to one person 9 Banning titled/royalty and stall lists from crew and pirate pages 10 Two Archives? 11 Remove {{inuse}} after a long period of non-editing 12 Bureaucracy & potential snowballing 13 Familiar Template 14 Trophy Lists on Pirate Pages 15 Links to crews/flags 16 About standard ship names and pirate pages

Barnstar?

What's the YPPedia equivalent of the barnstar? AySz88^-^ 09:46, 13 October 2005 (PDT)

We don't have one... but we should! --Barrister 13:17, 13 October 2005 (PDT)

Hehe. That's cute. What should we use here? Stars as well? --Guppymomma 10:44, 18 October 2005 (PDT)

Something piratey, of course. --Barrister 11:26, 18 October 2005 (PDT)

Could be a fun Mariner's Muse contest, to design a basic barnstar for YPPedia. – Yaten ^talk 13:50, 18 October 2005 (PDT)

Well I made something seeing as good work's been cropping up all over. I forgot to watch the image size, so you'll just have to resize it to your needs.

--Guppymomma 17:42, 17 January 2006 (PST)

That bARRnstar is the cutest star evar! It should definitely be used. Funnybones 17:59, 11 March 2006 (PST)

Ha Ha Ha I like it funny idea.Sounds Good.--Lpmike 15:38, 18 May 2006 (PDT)

This has been unused for WAY too long. I created a page for the bARRnstar showing how it may be used, and granted one to Guppymomma, for all that she's done (yes, I've been noticing). Without wanting to deprive others of the joy of spreading it around, I'll let others bestow them on whomever they deem worthy. (And honestly not nominating myself... I know I've done far less than others around here.) Sashamorning 22:42, 5 February 2007 (PST)

Was YPPedia:Barnstars not good enough? You can click on each image and see, under "Links", all the users that have been awarded that barnstar. I think that the barnstars could be highlighted in the community portal, if anyone ever gets around to re-working it.--Fiddler 22:51, 5 February 2007 (PST)

... I guess I missed that boat. Must have been looking in the wrong place when I searched for it. My bad. In any case, still underutilized.  :D Sashamorning 22:57, 5 February 2007 (PST)

Nicknames & comment signing

Personally I find it difficult to spot a writer's comments in a longer talk page if they're using a nickname for their signature completely different from what name shows up in the Special:Recentchanges log. I'd like to propose a policy where we request that users who would like to use their pirate names for signatures do what Jasandrea has done if their pirate name is markedly different than their user name. She put in "Pirate / Username" (i.e. Jacquilynne / Jasandrea). --Guppymomma 12:21, 8 March 2006 (PST)

I second this. We need a policy on this. It makes things much easier to be able to see who signed it. As long as we have it standard, pirate/username instead of some being username/pirate. --pevarnj ^(t/c) Look at this! 15:42, 8 March 2006 (PST)

"The YPPedia is not Wikipedia" as a formal guideline?

It's just so tempting to suggest we underline the point. While there's a good deal of similarity between the two, we have a different mandate, different obligations, an incredibly different community structure, and a different site on the whole. Wikipedia is certainly a model we can strive to emulate, but users who expect identical systems and practices are not going to find them. --Ponytailguy 08:26, 13 June 2006 (PDT)

Defunct ocean pirates

This conversation is moved here from Talk:Paladin

I see Barrister put the Ice category back, but is it still appropriate when I don't go there anymore? Category:Ice Ocean pirates says it's "Pirates on the Ice Ocean" and I'm not really on there anymore, but then again, Category:Azure Ocean pirates. --Paladin

If you have a pirate on Ice the category is justified as far as I know.--Angelbeaver ^(talk) 06:21, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

I have pirates on pretty much every ocean, including some you've probably never even heard of. --Paladin

If they are under the same name I think you should/could tag them. But I'd get an Admin opinion first really.--Angelbeaver ^(talk) 06:26, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

It's up to you whether you want to reveal your alts, which you'll have to do as justification for all the ocean tags. You should also decide whether it adds value to the article - I control Attesmythe on all oceans, but only really play on Midnight. With all the edits around those category inclusion, it may have been presumed to have been an accident. --AtteSmythe 09:42, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

I don't think this should be up to me, there should be a policy. Though it may be hard to enforce now that you allow everyone to have a pirate page, it may be all the more important if you don't want the categories to lose all meaning. I don't regularly visit or edit the YPPedia either, so I really wouldn't know what the common practice is.

It's not about revealing alts because they're all called Paladin. I only log on regularly on Midnight and Cobalt. I still only consider myself a Midnighter. I used to play regularly on Azure, but it's gone now. I also played fairly regularly on Ice, but I can't even log in there anymore now and I occasionally log on the other oceans to see if certain people who do play there regularly are on. And on top of all that, I've been to Indigo a few times too to say 'Wie gehts?' to the locals.

This almost looks like a perfect case to have a policy discussion around. If you ask me, I should only be in Category:Midnight Ocean pirates, Category:Cobalt Ocean pirates and Category:Azure Ocean pirates, the last one being an exception because the ocean is gone and the category now simply has a completely different function from the others. --Paladin

Here's my argument in a nutshell: Given that the owner of an alt is unknowable, and given that revealing an alt's user's identity against their will is against the terms of service, alts must be revealed by their users. Given that the current pirate page policy allows a whole wiki page (of encyclopedic content) for every pirate, surely every pirate page can be tagged with an ocean category if the user desires. That said, I would also support the creation of "Defunct (ocean) pirates" categories. --AtteSmythe 19:45, 26 July 2006 (PDT)

But the real question is not when to put the category on someone's page. What I'm asking is: what do the categories really mean? Do they mean I have an alt there? That I've been there once? That I log on there occasionally? That I log on there more than on all the other oceans? That I was active there, at some point? --Paladin

Foreign language oceans

Continuing the discussion started at Talk:Opal_Ocean#Island_links

What policy should we follow when dealing with foreign language oceans? This wiki is written in English, primarily for the English-speaking players of the English-speaking oceans. There is a German wiki that, I assume, will deal primarily with the German-language oceans. When Korean oceans are created I expect a Korean wiki to be created as well. So should we present any information about the foreign language oceans at all on the English YPPedia? It is possible (and likely, in my opinion) that future foreign language oceans will not be clones of existing oceans - how much information should we present here to help guide English speaking players on the foreign language ocean? --Fiddler 20:53, 15 December 2006 (PST)

Past precedent (Indigo Ocean) included an English language page for each archipelago and island and complete government and building lists. I feel that this is too much information to be maintained by the primarily English-editing players. I think that English pages for the foreign language islands should be named the foreign name of the island as opposed to the English name, should contain the standard charts, spawns, and island designer information, and should point the reader to the foreign language wiki for government, building, and history information. I've created a mockup of how I envision Anegeda-Insel. --Fiddler 20:53, 15 December 2006 (PST)

Hmm, if we go with your mock-up, I'd change the History section to Origin so it's clearer that it should not be continuously updated. --Barrister 23:47, 15 December 2006 (PST)

You beak it, you fix it...

Should we codify the expectation that if a user moves a pages, alters a template, etc... that that user is also expected to fix any pages that that changes breaks? If a user creates a disambiguation page should we expect them to fix all the pages that linked to the original article?--Fiddler 11:53, 19 December 2006 (PST)

I think that's a little advanced for many users doing a simple move. If we create a policy, I think it should apply only when someone creates a disambig page. If you're advanced enough to understand disambiguation, you're advanced enough to fix the resulting breakages. --Barrister 11:56, 19 December 2006 (PST)

Current Goals

I have seen a lot fo pirate pages with a "current goals" section. I think such information belongs in the user page, since it makes the pirate page look more like a résumé. Thoughts? --Arminius 08:41, 3 January 2007 (PST)

Is it really that injurious to the quality of the wiki to have people list goals? It's a reasonable enough thing to include, IMO. :-/ --Ponytailguy 19:29, 5 January 2007 (PST)

I don't mind a mission statement, but things like "buy a falchion", "paint my war brig black and gold", and "become the governor of an island" are... well... not that wiki-appropiate, IMHO. --Arminius 20:56, 7 January 2007 (PST)

I agree with Arminius. What's wrong with keeping such things on a user page instead of a pirate page? Goals aren't encyclopedic. I have to research it but I could swear it was already stated that goals are not acceptable for pirate pages. I'll be back when I find the quote. --Lilly 15:49, 8 January 2007 (PST)

I disagree with the premise that mission statements and goals are unencyclopedic, but perhaps more pressingly I think you're both missing something a bit more important: YPPedia != Wikipedia. Do I like people using their crew/flag pages to recruit? No, I find it tacky and more than a bit pathetic. But if a crew wants to enshrine certain goals, missions, philosophies or other overarching ideals in their YPPedia page, I don't see why they should be obstructed from doing so. Mission statements and stated goals can actually add a great deal of value to an article; as you might have noticed, the vast majority of crew/flag articles are just an infobox with a public statement. These pages will never be updated. These pages will never be used. It's unlikely these pages will ever be seen to begin with, let alone read with any interest considering there's just a public statement and an infobox to be seen.

To take another angle... we're distinct from Wikipedia in a number of ways. For example, we do not have a "no original research" rule, because almost all of the information in the YPPedia is exactly that. Crew, flag, and pirate goals and plans, while you may not believe them to be encyclopedic, strictly speaking (a point I'll reiterate my disagreement with), they certainly add value to pages and provide more information about the crew, flag, or pirate in question than just a bulleted point list of "Been there, done that, got the black-gold t-shirt." And that, in my opinion, justifies their inclusion in a resource that isn't just here to serve information, but to make that information interesting and accessible.

Wikipedia is intended entirely as a reference material and is written largely by academics and for academic purposes. We, on the other hand, exist entirely to support and engage a community, and there are better ways than imitating Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica to reach that end. This is probably the most important gap of all. --Ponytailguy 18:05, 8 January 2007 (PST)

More or less keeping in line with the agreements on standard-named ship lists, I do not mind certain goals and philosophies as part of the article, as long as they are part of the narrative. What just kills me, is separate sections, titled "Current Goals" et al. where people bullet pointless goals in the most unimaginative fashion, providing no extra richness to the article. I do not care if they want to buy a falchion. I do not care if they want to paint a brig black and gold. I do not care if they want to keep their PEAR score above 140. If, however, they do achieve these things, especially under interesting circumstances (e.g. won a falchion in a tourney by beating Silverdawg, pillaged 48 hours straight to get enough poe to paint that brig black and gold, won an island playing poker) then I would love reading about it. I am not proposing that we ban sections involving goals, mission statements and philosophies, but I think we should take a closer look at what is presented, and in what fashion. --Arminius 09:39, 9 January 2007 (PST)

I understand your point of view. I do, actually, keep in mind that YPPedia isn't Wikipedia. I think the problem is simply that I'm having trouble putting aside my own preferences, instead of letting things slide if the community really wants something. But it's easy to believe that policy and guidelines back up my opinions when it is so rigid in its "YPPedia is an encyclopedia. All articles must be encyclopedic" stance. I think it would be beneficial to new editors like myself to include a, dare I say, mission statement on this or the YPPedia:About page, stating this wiki's objectives. I think it would have helped loosen up my mind a little to read that this wiki isn't expected to be fully encyclopedic instead of reading the exact opposite. I still don't think goal lists add much to a page, but I can accept that it is merely personal preference and I need to let it go.

I have one question, though. Can we be more rigid about the goals listed, as Arminius suggested? To further clarify, I'm not sure why ownership of standard name vessel lists aren't acceptable but lists of goals to own standard vessels and other readily available items would be. Perhaps a larger discussion on this topic is needed? --Lilly 19:23, 9 January 2007 (PST)

Pirate articles do not belong to one person

Lately there has been a trend among editors to regard articles about their pirate as belonging to them. This tends to lead to resentment when other editors come along to add, subtract, or re-format information. Perhaps it is time that the informal policy of "Your user page belongs to you and is about you. The pirate article is about your pirate and belongs to everybody." is codified and presented here.--Fiddler 22:29, 5 February 2007 (PST)

I like what Wikipedia says on this. "Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars) I also remember somewhere something along the lines that "if you don't want it to be changed, don't post it." It's really the best policy to follow. I think, at heart, most users know that their pirate page can be edited, they just don't WANT it to be edited. Sashamorning 22:54, 5 February 2007 (PST)

Something similar is on the bottom of every edit screen here at YPPedia: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." --Guppymomma 06:49, 6 February 2007 (PST)

Right, I knew that I saw it somewhere around here... forest/trees phenomenon. Sashamorning 16:08, 10 February 2007 (PST)

The problem is that no one can tell which ocean one is in and people just edit for fun that is a huge problem that needs to be addressed immediatly i cannot believe that we still have this problem. i dont even care if we take the Wikipedia free online encyclopedia approach and not let people edit bio's at all but i believe that the best thing to do is to make it so that the only people who can edit it are the creators does that sound fair--Larry789 15:15, 21 April 2007 (PDT)

If there are pirates with the same name on different oceans who are played by different players, then it is possible to set up a disambiguation page which points to separate articles for each pirate. As for people editing "for fun", editing the YPPedia is not a job (except for the Ocean Master Eurydice for whom it is only one of her tasks). As long as the edits add encyclopedic information, there's no problem. If there's disputes over accuracy of facts presented, the talk page for the article is where to discuss the issue.

The Wikipedia approach is only one way of doing things; in fact one of the Wikipedia guidelines is that editors should not create autobiographies. It doesn't say that editors can't create biographies for other people. However only allowing the creators to edit biographies is the other extreme but then the YPPedia would fail to be a collaborative work for pirate biographies, which could also suffer from bias. Note that the creator of a pirate biography article may not be the player of that pirate.

I'm not in favor of either the Wikipedia nor the only creator editing permitted approach. -- Faulkston 18:36, 21 April 2007 (PDT)

Banning titled/royalty and stall lists from crew and pirate pages

I would like to propose the banning lists of royalty/titled members and lists of stalls from flag and crew pages (nothing against shoopes, just stalls). Please see Verus Fidelitas for an example of why this needs to be done. Also, royalty/titled lists are way too dynamic to keep up to date, plus they are available in the new Flag/Crew info link in the infoboxes. Cheers! --Arminius 13:20, 10 February 2007 (PST)

While I understand your point, especially with regard to that page, I think that flags are often defined by their royals, if not their titleds. The stalls/shoppes may be overboard, and hard to maintain, of course. If the problem is with space, we could make it a hidden bar like some of the trinket lists. However, personally I don't see a need to removed royal/titled lists altogether. Just my 2 poe. Sashamorning 16:04, 10 February 2007 (PST)

I agree with both of you. I find royal/titled lists obnoxious on flag pages. I mean, seriously, the infobox isn't there for nothing. It does have an available field for royalty - but anyway, as Arminius said, the link to the in-game info is both always up-to-date and convenient. Also, stall lists are definitely obnoxious, and add no value to the pages whatsoever. Shoppes, however, are always nice to see. If shoppe lists were encouraged, it may encourage more new shoppe pages. --Thefirstdude 16:40, 10 February 2007 (PST)

If the lists are nothing more than what can be seen on the relevant in-game accessible info pages, then they're not adding any additional information. In contrast some flag articles show various positions assigned to particular flag members. However it would be even better if they described what the members do and have done in their positions. -- Faulkston 18:11, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Ah yes, Faulkston raises a good point. How about royalty/titled lists not allowed on flag pages unless it adds something beyond their names? I'm sure someone here can come up with a better wording for that... --Thefirstdude 19:25, 10 February 2007 (PST)

I'm not a big fan of single-word bulleted lists in the article; we should be encouraging more use of both the infobox list and the capability to have the infobox link back to the in-game info page.--Fiddler 17:54, 18 February 2007 (PST)

I have only just recently been adding to the Yppedia, and im quite enjoying it, regaring the shops/stalls I have no problem with them being listed on a pirate page, but if its a question of space on the servers then no problem in removing them for me. As far as the Royalty/Titled list's I think its a great idea to go into more detail as to what their roles are etc.. I know in the Flag im in we assign Roles to the Royal members! just my 2 PoE worth!! --Tabzsheff 11:32 10 April 2007 (PST)

i dont get the big deal!!!!!!!!! just let the pirate/captain/monarch decide its really as simple as that--nickynick 1:11 April 18 [PST]

Two Archives?

Why do we need two archives? I realize one is newer stuff and one is older but that's really just over complicating the process as they're all resolved issues. One in my opinion would be quite sufficient. --Muffynz 12:56, 28 March 2007 (PDT)

I split the archive because it was too long to be useful in any meaningful way. Archives are split for the same reason they are created in the first place. -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 12:57, 28 March 2007 (PDT)

It might be wise to separate votes from discussions anyway, as the former are the ones we'll need to call upon the most, and being able to get to them quickly is thus a plus. --Ponytailguy 15:27, 28 March 2007 (PDT)

That is a good point... however, votes are fairly evident in the Contents box. If someone else wants to do it, though, I'm all for it :) -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 15:30, 28 March 2007 (PDT)

Remove {{inuse}} after a long period of non-editing

I came across Tutorial:Shops_BC a bit ago and noticed it has the {{inuse}} template on it. However, the article has not been touched by BehindCurtai since July 2006 (ironically, the template was added 3 months after this). Personally, I think if an article has not been touched by a person for two weeks to a month, it is not actively undergoing a major edit, and thus should have the template removed. Thoughts? --Thunderbird 21:54, 29 March 2007 (PDT)

Agreed. The status of actively undergoing a major edit requires at least one edit per week, of not more. -- Faulkston 23:49, 29 March 2007 (PDT)

Also agreed. Two weeks seems like a reasonable time to ask for edits if it is to be considered an active major edit. I shouldn't talk, my {{inuse}} ^(Usage) tag has been on the Social puzzle article for over a month. Time to get back to that. --Muffynz 00:00, 30 March 2007 (PDT)

Bureaucracy & potential snowballing

Just wanted to see if anyone wanted to discuss the policy pile that is growing these days. I notice that in the past few months there has been a lot of proposed policy in the vein of what's allowed and what's not allowed. Is the reason for all this officializing of policy so there's something to point to as backing if a user complains about an edit removing x, y, or z? I just want to make sure folks have realistic expectations of new wiki users editing articles, because with the growing number of policies, the policies & guidelines page will eventually turn into a big ol' manual that may intimidate users or turn them off from bothering to learn about policy. "In Section 2343.234324A.2343.343.6592343F, it specifically states you can't write about your nose hairs in your pirate article." ;) I guess I'm just saying that policies are fine, but just don't get too mad at users who have trouble wading through the policies and mistakenly create things with content that's been disallowed. Personally I'd rather not see the level of bureaucracy snowball to where all our good editors just spend all their time trying to enforce numerous policies on little read pirate pages instead of working on creating & improving materials that people use a lot. --Guppymomma 09:34, 3 April 2007 (PDT)

Admittedly something I absolutely despise about Wikipedia is how every single action is governed by a twenty-screenlength policy with a name like WP:ANAL, WP:BUREAUCRATIC, WP:NEEDLESSLY_VERBOSE or WP:JUST_PLAIN_STUPID, and those who haven't memorized all of them are treated as children. It's worth remembering that the YPPedia, is in some ways, a part of the customer support system,, while Wikipedia exists entirely as an academic resource. We want to, and as part of our mandate, are required to foster a sense of community and endavour to create useful documentation that laypeople are not only able to edit, but want to edit. When we bite newbies for relatively minor things, we only shoot ourselves in the foot. --Ponytailguy 22:23, 3 April 2007 (PDT)

Familiar Template

I would like to bring up the familiar template that people use on their pirate pages! If there was a way to change the tamplate so you could change it saying FAMILARS WON or just FAMILIARS.

Firstly, this should have been on the relevant template's talk page. But to answer your question, this template is meant to be used for familiars that were NOT won - i.e. bought or received as gifts. For familiars that were won, the Infobox pirate template has support for displaying up to 10. -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 16:22, 9 April 2007 (PDT)

Sorry took my so long to respond to this.. you said here "But to answer your question, this template is meant to be used for familiars that were NOT won - i.e. bought or received as gifts." if you could direct me to the template info page then shall bother you no more about this but so far i have found only 2 templates, those on the page's of familars won and also on other pages! A page that i regulary update "Badkittycat" i have added the Familiar she Owns twice, and both times it has been removed because another pirate won it!... WHY? -- -- Tabzheff ^(t/c)

Trophy Lists on Pirate Pages

Ok I've seen a few pirate pages recently that have their trophies listed in bulleted form. I know that trophies are not to be on pirate pages per Policies and guidelines but what about lists? Are pirates allowed to list there trophies on there page? For example I came across the page for Faraday. In to the trophies aquired are listed in the achievements subsection? Is this ok? Not ok? If not if they are referenced in Biography/History would that be ok. I for example am very proud of the fact that I attained Ultimate in Battle Navigation and have a paragraph about it in my biography. I guess what I'm asking is where we draw the line on trophies. A subsection showing all the trophy graphics is clearly not allowed and it would seem that mention of special ones in a historical write up is probably allowed but what about lists and other middleground? --Kgarrett1969 09:07, 8 June 2007 (PDT)

One could cast this question as a value-add proposition. Some editors have put dates on when or where they were awarded a particular trophy; this information is not available on the in-game trophy page linked to from the infobox. Therefore this would be allowed. A plain listing of all or almost all trophies doesn't add any more details not already shown. -- Faulkston 18:08, 8 June 2007 (PDT)

What about trophies awarded for contests? Are those images allowed in pirate articles? They are already visible on in-game pirate info pages and trophy pages. -- Faulkston 22:46, 5 January 2008 (PST)

I believe that the same rules apply. If it is visible on the info pages there is no need to show it on the Yppedia page. That is what the yoweb trophy link is for. -- Cedarwings ^(t/c) 23:38, 5 January 2008 (PST)

Agreed. -- Muffynz^(t/c) 20:22, 6 January 2008 (PST)

Links to crews/flags

I see two styles here. The first style links every crew/flag once in an article and the second links only to existing crews/flags. The first style has the advantage that upon creation of a page the links will already be in place and one doesn't need to search the yypedia for pages mentioning the crew/flag. But it has the disadvantage of creating many wanted pages (do we really want to copy yoweb to YYPedia ?) and potentially polluting the namespace (e.g. creating mislinks that would need disambiguation upon creating of an article, but are usually overlooked). I'm not looking for a definite must-do policy here, but rather for opinions on what style to use, and if it is worth trying to steer people towards using one of the styles. Personally I would be happy to leave everyone using their favourite style. --Alfwyn 08:39, 29 February 2008 (PST)

Folks can just use their preferred method. A lot of these crews/flags are small and doing YPPedia pages can often be a fleeting desire that's abandoned for more exciting things in game. While the wanted pages list does seem to bother some, I actually tend to not look at it because generally it's not a useful metric of pages that are needed. The pages that tend to be needed are about game issues and not the linked to crews/pirates/flags. --Guppymomma 07:03, 7 March 2008 (PST)

About standard ship names and pirate pages

Why is this rule in place? I mean I understand not allowing unpainted ones. But a have a ship i recolored but never wanted to rename because the standard name was special to me. It is the ship i use the most and is my favorite so i'm asking for a modification to the rule.

I am sorry if this isn't the right place to post this still sorta new at this ><

Recolored ships are far too common (much more than renames, many ships on Midnight are alternate colors from the time the game assigned random colors to ships). The rule was put into place mostly due to some of the lists certain pirate pages had. --Thunderbird 21:25, 3 April 2008 (PDT)

i guess thats understandable thanks :)

What the policy is trying to prevent is a simple list of vessels (even if it is only 1). If you wish to write a paragraph about the ship, why it is special, and any other information about it (first ship owned, ship you have found to be most successful for you, etc.) then that would be acceptable. But a simple icon of the ship type with the name of the ship and the color it is painted is not and is the reason it was removed from the article about your pirate. -- Cedarwings ^(talk) 22:32, 3 April 2008 (PDT)