YPPedia talk:Policies and guidelines


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

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.  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

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]


 * I think this issue should be broken into two seperate points. The bullit style listing of stalls has recieved some approval but the motion to remove or ban listed title/royalty hasn't been voted on.  Should there be a seperate vote on the archives to reflect this unresolved aspect?-- Haywoodx(t/c) 15:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing stops a king from updating a statement containing all royals and/or titled members to bypass this ban. Some flags (f.e. Barely Dressed) give titled positions to members who have a say in the flag leadership's decisionmaking, thus there should not be a different rule for royal and titled member lists. I oppose a rule against those (maybe quite uninventive) lists, but require past royals/titled members to be kept in some manner, if they have been listed - especially if they have their own pirate pages. I would prefer statements on how they contributed to the flag, but people more likely create lists. A list is better than nothing and something one could work with. I oppose banning of flag stall list also for similar reasons. --Kamuflaro 19:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Support no plain lists of royalty and titled members Oppose
 * 1) --Arminius 13:20, 10 February 2007 (PST)
 * 2) --Thefirstdude 16:40, 10 February 2007 (PST)
 * 3) --Faulkston 18:11, 10 February 2007 (PST)
 * 4) --Fiddler 17:54, 18 February 2007 (PST)
 * 5) --Tabzsheff 11:32 10 April 2007 (PST)
 * 6) --Sagacious (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Would also support not having titled members listed at all. Handed out to people like candy on Halloween in so many flags.
 * 7) --Top90 19:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) --Sashamorning 16:04, 10 February 2007 (PST)
 * 2) --nickynick 1:11 April 18 [PST]
 * 3) --Mistymate 17:00, 24 July 2008 (PST)  (Do support no plain lists of titled members.)
 * 4) --Kamuflaro 19:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

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 after a long period of non-editing
I came across Tutorial:Shops_BC a bit ago and noticed it has the 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 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)
 * FWIW, this is what I've done for my own pirate page, for the Reputation trophy, since I want to keep track of -when- I earned this trophy (by stage/level/rank/whatever-the-heck-it's-called). -- Franklincain (t/c) 15:06, 14 June 2012 (PDT)
 * on 2nd glance, I'm actually recording the date of the trophy's TRIGGER (not the trophy itself), so never mind... -- Franklincain (t/c) 11:40, 15 June 2012 (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. 20:22, 6 January 2008 (PST)

Clarification needed
A position on reputation or Ultimate lists is not necessarily a trophy. Should we permit information such as "Achieved #6 in Explorer reputation", or "Achieved #10 in Poker standing", even when they lack value-added information such as a date, since these may not actually be trophies?
 * I think that the #n in itself (where n > 1) is value-added information which cannot be gleaned from yoweb or anywhere else. As was mentioned in this discussion, it would be a daft to end up removing #1s and not #n from lists. Therefore - as I see it - either all ultimate/reputation/fame list entries on pirate pages should be allowed including #1s (provided that they are not strictly trophies, just redundant pieces of information) or that all ultimate/reputation/fame list entries on pirate pages be disallowed. I don't think there can be any commonsense compromise between those two basic solutions.


 * Given this choice between extremes then, I would prefer that all positions on a ultimate/reputation/fame list, including #1s, were permissible on pirate articles for the following reasons:
 * Firstly, presenting a #1 on a pirate page is redundant. However it is in no way more redundant than a pirate's current crew, title, rank, current flag, and so forth. Furthermore, while all of the aforementioned may quickly become outdated, a pirate will never lose his or her attainment of the #1. A pirate's attainment of #n (where n>1) cannot be found on yoweb anywhere, and therefore that is automatically not redundant information. It is also just as much an achievement for a pirate to reach a position on the ultimate list as it is for them to become a captain for the first time (for instance), so it's entirely appropriate to have these positions listed on pirate articles.
 * Secondly, any banning of list positions sets a bit of a dangerous precedent. Say we decide to ban all list positions from a pirate's page. What, then, is the point of keeping lists of renamed ships if we remove the standard-named ones (an analagous situation)? Why do we keep other bits of redundant information on the yoweb pages? If the fact that the data can't be easily verified is a problem, then should we not first consider banning lists of pirate-owned trinkets? The latter would free up one heck of a lot of space :p.
 * Finally, players put a great deal of time into updating pirate pages. Common sense says that all pirate articles should look decent and have roughly the same sort of format/layout applied to them, but this rule must seem rather weird, pointless and mean to new players. These positions on the ultimate/reputation/fame lists are not going to hurt anyone, but deleting the lists will definitely not endear people to the wiki.
 * Also, by way of disclaimer, I just want to reiterate that a phrase stating "I reached position #n on x list" (where n > 0) or a phrase to that effect is not a trophy spoiler (where is the mention of the trophy?); I understand that trophy spoilers are restricted to the trophy page and have no wish to change that. Trophy spoilers should rightly be de-trophyfied (atrophied?) :)
 * --Therobotdude 15:20, 11 April 2014 (PDT)

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)

Spoiler Policy
Can I suggest having a larger and more prominent note on the YPPedia's spoiler policy? Something like


 * No new game information may be added to YPPedia pages until it has been seen in-game on any ocean, including the Ice Ocean. For example, new trophies may be added if they have been seen on any pirate's trophy page, but not before. This policy is the same as the forum's spoiler policy but note that specific pages on the YPPedia may have special rules regarding what requirements must be met before information is added. Important: extracting information or game images from the data files for uploading to the wiki or forums prior its appearence in the game is expressly forbidden.

though some other wording may be better. Basically it's currently just a little note at the bottom of the Other Guidelines section, but something that we can point to and say "there's the policy" might be an idea. --Belthazar451 21:12, 10 June 2008 (PDT)

American English & British English
This is a topic I would like to discuss about, sometimes people have trouble between US and UK English, example:

A person creates an article and uses UK spelling. Then another person comes along and "corrects" it by changing it to fit US spelling. Then they both will probably argue about this.

I've searched a bit and have not been able to find a page about this.

So, how should articles be done? Discuss please. --Knowledge13 10:57, 14 June 2008 (PDT)


 * Have a look at this fun little conversation from last summer. --Fiddler 11:34, 14 June 2008 (PDT)
 * Ahh, yes a lesson well learned. I write in American English but leave already written British English variations alone. -- Haywoodx(t/c) 11:35, 14 June 2008 (PDT)
 * I use American English while writing articles for the sake of consistency, but use the correct spelling otherwise. Should I not be forcing myself? And on a side note, did we really need a whole new page in the YPPedia namespace so we could have this talk page? Surely the Style Guide talk page would be better, or the Policies and Guidelines talk page. --Belthazar451 16:29, 14 June 2008 (PDT)
 * No, we don't. My opinion remains the same as in the discussion linked to by Fiddler.  Yes, write articles in American English.  Comments & other personal opinions can be whichever English you choose to express yourself in.  As for the question of whether or not you should run around "correcting" things, in my opinion it seems like there are better uses of editing time. Mostly because the slight differences will not actually affect the ability of most users to understand the articles. --Guppymomma 23:22, 14 June 2008 (PDT)

Deleted pirates
I was clicking the random page button and ran across a pirate who is now deleted. I was wondering should there be a (defunct)tag or something like that made for pirates? I mean there is one for crews and flags already. --randompanzy 09:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bullet list of Ships on Crew/Flag pages.
Shouldn't the policy regarding listing plain named ships be extended to crew/flag pages based on the same issues that the information is so dynamic that it cannot be current material? While they can be traced through the ingame /vwho command, it seems rather redundant to verify plain named ships since I've seen up to 12 ships of the same type sharing the same common name (owned by one person).-- Haywoodx(t/c) 18:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Bump! Currently there is a crew page with a huge number of ships listed. Le Crocodile. I posted a query about this to Talk:Le Crocodile with no answers yet. Any admins want to weigh in on this matter? Chupchup 00:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I will just be bold and start a RfC on the matter.


 * Support restricting crew and flag articles from listing standard-named vessels
 * 1) Support. Consistent with pirate page policy and information is dynamic, as noted above. Chupchup 00:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, unless a listing of standard named ships is of some use in determining characteristics of the crew e.g. the crew collects ships named Gar. In that case, the ships would not just be all of the standard named ships available and would be permissible (as has been noted for some pirate articles and thus would also be consistent). -- Faulkston 02:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, while I think we shouldn't have too many policies, this one just extends the one for pirate pages, and the reasoning is much the same (too volatile, not interesting enough for the average reader). I think listing ships is only useful for selected ships with additional information provided, like ships used to store crew available items or ships that are set aside to be used by any officer for pillages. --Alfwyn 13:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Barrister 23:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Addihockey (talk•contribs) 14:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Shiplists for crews change too often anyways Kamuflaro 19:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support...(and *bump*)  ;-)   Looks like we've already gotten a consensus; but did this ever get "approved"?  -- Franklincain (t/c) 11:37, 8 July 2012 (PDT)
 * ...(*Bump again*)?... -- Franklincain (t/c) 14:55, 2 September 2012 (PDT)


 * Oppose restricting crew and flag articles from listing standard-named vessels


 * Neutral, and comments
 * 1) It seems obvious to me that we have consensus in support of the idea, but what we really need is for many of these consensus-based decisions to be moved from here on the talk page to the actual front page YPPedia:Policies and guidelines so that they are obvious and accessible for anyone who wants to check on them. Chupchup 18:16, 2 September 2012 (PDT)
 * "Many"? Which other votes have been agreed on but not codified? --Belthazar451 19:07, 2 September 2012 (PDT)

Restrict trophy triggers to main trophy page
Following up on User:Billynoleg's comments on the Talk:Portrait page, I propose that we restrict trophy triggers to the main trophy page. That is, the trophy page should be the only place to list what triggers a specific trophy.

My three main reasons for this are (1) that this would centralize the information for trophies; (2) that this would reduce the number of spoilers scattered throughout the wiki, and (3) that the trophy triggers are a subject of frequent and contentious updates. The last reason is, I feel, the strongest. I don't think we should have to track multiple pages that reference trophies. But if we allow trophy triggers on multiple pages, we'll need to ensure that they comply with the consensus requirements. That's a lot of extra work.

Support restricting trophy triggers to main trophy page. Oppose
 * 1) --Barrister 19:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Kamuflaro 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The Trophy template's trigger is optional. Supporting consistancy.
 * 3) --Addihockey (talk/contribs) 19:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) --Alfwyn 20:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) --Guppymomma 21:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 6)  03:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) -- Cedarwings (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) -- Faulkston 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) --Belthazar451 22:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) --Fiddler 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) --Top90 19:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) -- Billynoleg 18:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Well I suppose since it's my fault this is here, then I should at least throw my name on the list!
 * Reasons I added triggers to the individual pages is that I'd much rather not have to click and scroll unnecessarily. Interestingly, the reasons I was originally given (by Balthazar) were redundancy and attractiveness, not really the reasons above. There's other redundant data on the YYPedia, so that doesn't confront me (see ship data for the worst "offender" here). Given the "strongest" reason above, my opposition is weakening (ship info seems to be nailed down slowly, but agreed it less contentious than trophies). Still, I fall into the "oppose" camp. It's looking like I'm outnumbered.

Neutral

The third reason given by Barrister is the one I feel most strongly about. If trophy trigger information really needs to appear in multiple places, the information should be contained in a template which is included where relevant. That would mean there's only one actual information source to maintain. -- Faulkston 03:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Ooh! Ooh! Could we do that? It seems like a great solution as it would make all the "supporters" happy while at the same time eliminating my big objection, the superfluous clix. I am willing to help this "third way" solution if others think that's a good idea. Billynoleg 16:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am... unenthused by that idea, since it'd require a different sub-template for every trophy. That and it'd make editing difficult for new users... though that one's not neccesarily a bad thing when it comes to the trophy page. --Belthazar451 22:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We could do that anyways, this time the tag would be a yes/no decision for showing or not showing the trigger. We could add a trigger to wether an edit button is shown that redirects to the template to make editing the trophy page more comfortable, but I guess that would really be an overkill? Doing it sounds like slave labour to me, that should be split up. If it is what we want though, I'd help doing it. Maybe I should do a prototype anyways, but I don't have time to today anymore :( -- Kamuflaro 23:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a bad idea. While transclusion can be great for creating melange articles out of pieces using it for single snippets of information feels wrong.  It also makes editing far more difficult for each of the pages the sub-page is included on.  We've also seen what can happen when the general user base is allowed to edit a common template (Template:Infobox pirate anyone?) and the errors made editing these templates will propagate across the entire wiki. --Fiddler 22:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The editing isn't difficult, just look at the portal pages, the text is saved sperately and once the initial versions are made they could be protected. -- Kamuflaro 23:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're talking about a hundred and ninety-nine sub-templates, most of which would have at most four of five words. That's an order of magnitude more templates than the Portal subpages, for an order of magnitude (or two orders) fewer words. And then to protect them all would completely defeat the purpose of being able to edit them easily in the first place. And all of this is to replicate information which already exists in a good centralised location, so that it can be displayed on another page which is literally one click away. One click. --Belthazar451 01:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There would only be a template for a group of related trophies, not each individual one, though that's only a little reduction in template count but I see that using templates this way wouldn't work too well. Anyway I wrote if the trophy information really needed to appear in multiple places, not that it should. I don't believe that should be the case and should have made it more obvious.
 * I didn't believe that it was worthwhile debating these two points but since Belthazar451 mentioned one now... Not utilizing hyperlinks on web pages (where appropriate) means not using one of the primary features of the World Wide Web. The information may as well be printed in a book. Manual scrolling of the target page of a link can be avoided by using anchors as supported by the current Mediawiki version. -- Faulkston 02:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see this of mine is one for the trash barrel due to the reasons stated above. The edit button I had in mind is looking bad and would be inconsistent functionality-wise, if it didn't direct to the template editing page, because it should direct to the trigger definition editing page to make editing easier... Faulkston's idea of implementation was superior, but I assume it is bad for the same reasons as above. (Slightly harder to edit; Extra pages; Inconsistency of trophies having a trigger on the trophy page but not on the trigger related article/s; Decentralization and duplication of information that is currently centralized) -- Kamuflaro 06:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding Do Not redirect user pages to Policies and Guidelines?
Ahoy, As it has been said Here (Redirecting userpages) Redirecting user pages is harder to leave messages for users. I think it should be added as a policy or guideline to make it clear --Lcawte 09:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that some of the redirects from user pages to main space articles are automatically created by renames. An example is when an editor creates a pirate article using their user page and later moves it. In that case the redirect should be removed or perhaps not automatically created. -- Faulkston 17:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hoy! Just a note regarding leaving messages for other users: I can't imagine an instance where a userpage link would not be accompanied by the equivalent talk link (ie. history pages, recent edits, etc.). Thus, is this point really relevant?
 * [edit: I just saw that your two do not have a talk link accompanying your signature as in Wikipedia. What an odd and unfortunate quirk of YPPedia... that's an issue all of its own.]
 * As noted in the linked conversation, I think that in the YPPedia that the profiles of most pirates and users are mutually inclusive: that is, most users associate themselves solely with a single pirate (and of course vice versa). Because of this, I believe this use of a inter-namespace redirect seems an intuitive option to me.
 * Respectfully, - fyre  talk 19:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * However only messages added to a user talk page will cause a new messages alert box for that user to be included at the top of YPPedia pages. The alert persists until they've visited their user talk page. No, it doesn't work with non-user talk pages and I'm not sure it can be easily changed (and it may not be appropriate to do so). -- Faulkston 19:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Instead of a redirect, how about putting a link from a user page to pirate article(s)? That would preserve the user talk page functionality. -- Faulkston 06:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, thats what I've been doing when I find them. So if we added something to the policy it would be like: Dont redirect user pages, use a link insted. --Lcawte 07:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the function of the user talk page is unaffected when the user page redirects. - fyre  talk 09:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It sort of does though, when you sign your comment with the general -- 4x~'s it only links to the user page, which redirects to a pirate page or wherever then some people dont notice it and click discuss this page, which goes to the talk page of redirected article so it does a bit --Lcawte 09:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirects: does WP:NOTBROKEN apply to YPPedia?
There is a Wikipedia guideline which says, in part: ''There is nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, it is generally an unhelpful exercise, and it can actually be detrimental.'' One of the arguments against piping links is that it makes the article harder to read and edit in source form. I have noticed that among the gnomes here, piping links is a popular practice, and I wonder if we should examine that a bit to see if it's helping or hurting, especially when it comes to so many neophyte editors as we might have on personal pirate pages. Chupchup 14:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Piping links is also performed to avoid linking to a disambiguation page, which would be a valid usage of piped links. As for linking to redirects, I generally leave those alone because the redirect is performing its task correctly. If no pages were to link to a redirect page, there would be little point for the page to exist, unless someone uses the search box for the term or types it directly into the browser address bar. -- Faulkston 23:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirects for building, crew or flag articles are the result of the thing being renamed, and it is (I think) the biggest source of redirects here. These links need adjusting for two reasons: firstly, if it's now got a new name in the game, pages that reference it should use the new name too. The exception here is, say, a pirate article saying they used to be the captain of crew X, or whatever, though I've generally been making those piped links anyway because it's easier to tell what I've done that way. In the blockade histories, a piped link is neccessary to link the two flag names together, so it doesn't wind up with two separate entries in the win/lose records table. And secondly, things that get renamed once tend to get renamed again in the future, which can result in double and even triple redirects if we don't adjust the links as we go. Pretty much all of the rest of the redirects are from people creating redirects for abbreviations or colloquial terms, like "BK" redirecting to "Brigand King", which never really get linked to in the first place, and shouldn't really be used in encyclopedic articles anyway. --Belthazar451 23:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Multiple redirects are definitely things to be fixed; according to the Special:DoubleRedirects page, there should only be one level of indirection at most. -- Faulkston 02:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is because the wiki engine can't handle multiple levels of redirects, only the first one will be processed (dropping you on another redirect page). But yeah, as Belthazar mentioned, moves resulting from renames are the biggest source of redirects we have, and the names on the original pages should be updated anyway (in most respects at least). --Thunderbird 08:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that's why multiple redirects should be fixed. -- Faulkston 04:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's all well and good, but I didn't ask about multiple redirects, I just asked about the specific case where there is a valid redirect for something, and an editor comes along to "fix" it by piping a link and bypassing the redirect altogether. Let me give some examples, that commonly crop up in personal pirate pages. King redirects to Monarch. First Mate redirects to Title. Then I say that "Ljamethyst on the Ice Ocean is king of Stella Maris and senior officer and first mate of Privateers of Myra". Now by the principle of WP:NOTBROKEN, these links should not be changed to king and first mate, because they are not broken: they indicate possible future articles, the former usage is much easier to read and edit in wikitext, and it makes better use of the tool "What links here". Chupchup 05:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the probability that an editor (i.e. not a reasonably experienced one) creates an article for a pirate named say King and actually bothers to look at which articles currently point to King really should, even though the existence of a redirect would strongly suggest that they do so? They would be making good use of the what links here tool if they actually used it. One could regard it as removing future work which would be generated when a redirect was replaced with an article unrelated to the original redirect target; there could be a special page which I'm unaware of which lists redirects replaced by actual articles though.


 * Also I don't have any problem in reading piped links in the wiki source; I don't put too much weight on that particular reason for not replacing links to redirects. Do editors seriously expect that reading wiki source should be as easy as the marked up article? All the formatting is gone for starters. -- Faulkston 16:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is the kind of edit I'm talking about. Chupchup 09:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That was also a reduction of over-capitalization edit; it wasn't done just to bypass a redirect. -- Faulkston 01:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And, I don't see what the problem is with a naive user creating an article somewhere it doesn't belong. First of all, the article King already exists - it is a redirect - this is exactly what we're talking about. So such a user would have to clobber the existing redirect in the first place. Say they make an article about a pirate named King. All we have to do is move that article (via either cut-and-paste or rename) to a name such as King (pirate) and restore the redirect that was in its place. I don't see the difference between that and any other naively named article. Chupchup 09:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That would certainly be an easier task than having King be the pirate article and changing all of the articles linking to the former redirect point directly to the monarch article. Out of the pages in Category:Redirects with possibilities, which ones really would fall into the guideline of indicating possible future articles? Probably not king and queen (monarch), the various title directs - this particular guideline about not bypassing redirects probably doesn't apply so much for these particular cases. Possible to do task would be to check that redirects are categorized correctly. -- Faulkston 01:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, in this example we couldn't just restore the redirect. Either we would make "King" a disambiguation page, or restore the redirect and put a note like "king redirects here, for ..." on the article it points to. There always should be a way to find the proper article if the pirate name is (mis)linked directly. --Alfwyn 15:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anything before, because I don't think the whole issue that important. Currently I don't think it is worth to edit an article just to add those piped links (and certainly not worth an edit just to remove them). I don't see piping as such confusing and I see a minor advantage in it, because it will require less edits in the future should a redirect be replaced by a disambiguation page. But I guess I would have to dig up the discussion that led to WP:NOTBROKEN for a more informed opinion. --Alfwyn 16:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Solo portraits for a gallery
Is it permitted to have multiple portraits depicting the same pirate, collected in a gallery on a pirate page? If so, how should these files be named? What about portraits containing more than one pirate, how should they be named? Chupchup 12:12, 19 January 2012 (PST)
 * There was a question in the past about why solo pirate portrait images should be named Pirates-Piratename.jpg. The reason was that if there were multiple pirates in the portrait, the image would be named Pirates-Piratename1-Piratename2.jpg.


 * There's a preference for only having one solo portrait appearing in a pirate article (in the infobox). Without such a guideline, editors may end up replicating their entire portrait gallery (available in-game or via the infobox link). There still should be a reason to having additional images on a pirate page, rather than being a random sprawling mass. -- Faulkston 14:15, 21 January 2012 (PST)

Sentence case in headings, please
As you may know, I have been gradually migrating old articles over to sentence case in section headings, where they were previously in title case. It would make my job a whole lot easier if new articles were created using sentence case, so I don't have to constantly patrol those as well. I suppose I should have asked this before the ocean merge when a million new articles came into being. But thanks in advance for keeping it regular in the future. Chupchup 17:09, 6 May 2012 (PDT)


 * Also links should not appear in headings and neither should images, as consistent with Wikipedia style guidelines. -- Faulkston 11:59, 8 July 2012 (PDT)

Preserving historical information in articles
As we dig up outdated information in articles from before the ocean merge, I think we should keep an eye on what historical information can be preserved. Certainly, ocean names should be updated to the new ones, but I think we should attempt to retain distinctions between oceans pre-merge. For example, if someone governed an island on Sage in 2008, we should still link to the Sage article rather than the Emerald island that did not really exist in 2008. And if a pirate was created on Viridian in 2007, we can say she is a Meridian pirate now, but if her biography says she has been playing Meridian since 2007, that makes no sense; we should just change it to say that she was created on Viridian at that date. Chupchup 14:15, 13 May 2012 (PDT)
 * suggested phrasing - "...the OLD_OCEAN portion of NEW_OCEAN"...for example, quoting from what I wrote for my "main" - "Franklincain washed up onto the shores of the Viridian portion of Meridian back in 2007, and he settled down on Tigerleaf Mountain in October of that year." -- Franklincain 06:39, 16 May 2012 (PDT)

Other guidelines --> player-owned ships
I just noticed something, for which I am asking a clarification, please.

Quoting from "Other guidelines":
 * Articles about player-owned ships are not permitted.

I presume this refers to standard, un-modified vessels. If a vessel has been modified (bronzed and/or gilded items, for ex.), then I presume an article would be permitted in such a case.

The reason I ask this is that I have such an article myself (created in ignorance of this policy). If I have indeed acted in error, I'd like to know so that I can transfer that article's information over to some other (legal) alternative article, please...

Thanks. ;-)    -- Franklincain (t/c) 11:26, 24 July 2012 (PDT)


 * The policy applies to all player-owned ships, with no exceptions. --Fannon 11:41, 24 July 2012 (PDT)


 * OK. I've edited my list of ships accordingly.  Please go ahead and zap  that article, at your convenience.  Thanks!  -- Franklincain (t/c) 11:49, 24 July 2012 (PDT)

Government section in island articles
It has been suggested that since an island's government is displayed in the infobox, it should not be duplicated in the article. In some way I agree with this, because it is very hard to keep the articles updated when sometimes one location is changed and not the other. It is not the usual thing that new editors check for. On the other hand, it has been the standard since we began documenting this, and it brings the question of whether infoboxes are there to supplement information that is not otherwise written in the article - certainly it displays visually things such as an island image, and charts - or whether the infobox is there to also summarize information found in the article. We should also decide, if a change is deemed necessary, if we should go back and change all the articles at this time, or update them piecemeal. To me, neither method is ideal and is another good case against making a change. Chupchup 19:19, 1 January 2013 (PST)
 * I feel that the government should not be displayed in a section and only in the infobox's, however maybe displaying previous government in a section of it's own may be useful for historical references.

19:22, 1 January 2013 (PST)


 * The government section was initially included because of specific cases where the government of the island wasn't just "This flag controls it". Specifically, the old Winter Solstice way back in the day was governed by a person elected by all shopowners. That was included under the "government" section because it was the most relevant section. Over time, less and less islands have been governed in any kind of unique way. Frankly, though, I think this falls under the heading of "not worth it" in regards to making the switch. --Fannon 19:34, 3 January 2013 (PST)


 * If it's a matter of just clearing up, I can easily bring listings of all islands and just remove the government sections in a single sweep, or just work at it over time as people edit it. The section is redundant, but if it holds information that is not displayed in the infobox then it will be kept of course.

Exposing articles on disambiguation pages
Wikipedia's Manual of Style says that articles linked from disambiguation pages should not be piped links, so that the true article names are exposed. With this edit I was implementing that same idea on YPPedia, but I think it should be discussed here to see if we want to adopt the same guideline or if that is not desirable here, for some reason. Chupchup 06:16, 9 January 2013 (PST)
 * For island disambiguation pages, the roots of the use of the piped links goes back to at least October 2005 e.g. AzuMid template. It's been YPPedia custom to follow a similar layout for non-island-only disambiguation pages. I doubt it is worthwhile now checking and changing 800+ disambiguation pages to use non-piped links (not to mention only having one link per entry line if strictly following the Wikipedia's Manual of Style). Somewhat less than 800+ pages would actually need to be edited due to the use of templates such as the one previously mentioned; pages would probably still need to be checked to see whether they use a template or not. -- Faulkston 09:41, 13 January 2013 (PST)