YPPedia talk:Policies and guidelines/piratearticlesrevamp

'''Voting is now closed. Both propositions have been adopted.''' This page has been protected to prevent further edits. For further discussion, see this forum thread.

It's obvious that the current policy is super confusing for many players, both new & old. Because the YPP world doesn't work the same way as the real world in regards to news, famous people & people knowing or being able to research things about other people on a wide basis, it's extremely difficult to use any sort of Wikipedia-like policies to try to regulate a Who's Who list. The current policy is arbitrary and confusingly vague. In light of this, the proposal is to simply allow all pirates to have articles. There will still be community editing & tagging with requests for clean-up, third-person language, and discussions about content of those articles. There will also be appropriate moving of pirate articles if a conflict comes up where different people have the same name on different oceans and want a pirate article.

The second part of this proposal is that articles will not be deleted due to having a lack of content. Again, there will still be tagging with requests to expand or even Attesmythe's useful tactic of asking questions to help expand the content. There will also continue to be discussions about what constitutes wiki-worthy information about pirates and efforts to format pages in a pretty & readable way. Inappropriate language & comments and complete fabrications of information do not constitute a pirate page and those articles may be deleted if there is no information beyond the naughty bits. Articles with extremely poor content may also be considered for deletion after an appropriate discussion and waiting period after tagging.

Now that you've read through the suggested changes, please consider voting to let us know what the community wants. If you edit pages at all (100's of articles or just a few), you're part of the community. If you read the wiki, you're part of the community. Please login, then add your vote by editing each section below (there should be an "edit" link to the right of the section header) and adding something like this:


 * 1) Support/Oppose --~

(The --~ will make the wiki automagically fill in your username & the date.) You should also feel free to add your comments after your Support/Oppose vote or in the discussion threads listed at the end of this page.

Because rushing things is a part of what created this spirited conflict/debate, I'll say that the voting period will remain open until it seems like there isn't much voting going on and a consensus has been reached (generally defined as around 75% support or oppose). The main page of the wiki has been updated with a notice about the vote, but we could use everyone's help in informing the community that there's something up for vote so please mention it to your fellow players interested in such things. --Guppymomma 12:36, 3 June 2006 (PDT)

Forgive me, I'm not 100% on the best way of doing things, but might I propose that these votes not be held at the same time. The impact of both proposals is far reaching, and have totally different ramifications if both are passed together, as opposed to simply one passing and one failing. I know I varying levels of support either idea indervidually, but I strongly oppose them both being passed together. I know that we like the idea of getting things done, but if we scupper this one up by rushing things, it is going to be incredibly hard to reverse. --Therack 23:55, 3 June 2006 (PDT)

All pirates may have an article provision
Allow all pirates to have articles. There will still be community editing & tagging with requests for clean-up, third-person language, and discussions about content of those articles. There will also be appropriate moving of pirate articles if a conflict comes up where different people have the same name on different oceans and want a pirate article.

''Note: These pirate articles will still need to follow policies already in place such as those requiring truthful, fact-based information and not using inappropriate language. This proposal does not involve the current policy on user pages.''

Support

 * 1) Support. --Llamadog903 09:18, 12 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 2) Support. I'll also suggest that after we give this a try for at least a month, policy be assessed to see if it's manageable for the editors and administrators in terms of workload and working for the wiki community in general.  --Guppymomma 12:36, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 3) Support. --Toppyhopp
 * 4) Support. Unlike a printed encyclopedia, the space actually costs nothing. If the entry is rubbish, it won't be read anyway. --Dylan 13:25, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 5) Support conditionally. I agree with Guppymomma's suggestion for reviewing the policy after a trial period. The previous requirements seemed fair and logical, but I doubt that people will suddenly be moved to write drivel in the wiki - the sort who would add drivel are the sort to ignore the policies anyway. --Taelac 13:31, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 6) Support. --Featherfin 13:41, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 7) Support. I can think of lots of pirates who've done lots of things, but never wanted the positions of responsibility. --AtteSmythe 15:11, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 8) Support. Heartily agree with AtteSmythe; the current provisions do not include important royals, admirals, event-runners, and dozens of others that have had an impact on our game. Let everyone have a page.  As long as we can delete the "Omgz I got bannded!" types we should be fine. -Juventus1 15:37, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 9) Support. Standards of notoriety are bound to change, and as long as it doesn't get out of hand with the "i r teh pirat, u gib po, doub?" it should be decent.  --Gloraelin 15:42, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 10) Support. --Bel pirates 16:00, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 11) Support conditionally. I agree with Juventus and Gloraelin that if the wiki mods could delete people's pages those "pres butan giv poez" people will have their user page deleted--Eguee 16:32, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 12) Support. As long as poorly and badly written articles can still be propsed for deletion, although I do understand this is going to increase the work of the main wiki editors.--Cecidrake 16:37, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 13) If the arcticles can be policed effectively, try it for a month and then look over how it went. --pevarnj (t/c) 16:45, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 14) Support. We have people (myself included) willing to go through and clean up the pirate pages that have been poorly written yet still have some content, so why not allow contributors to write up articles about people they deem important to their piratey experience? The conditions previously used to deem a pirate worthy of a pirate page have been almost insulting, IMHO.--Chemicalgirl 18:35, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 15) Support on the following condition: That while anyone may make a pirate page, pages are still held to a practical standard. Pages with no content, no formatting, nothing outside of a name and crew can be proposed for deletion. Pages that are one continuous paragraph of drivel about being banned by their little brother can be proposed for deletion. Stubs are retained and hopefully expanded. Personally, I would love to think that one of the admins decides this to be their new job and they do nothing but check pirate pages all day long to ensure they are correct, readable, worthwhile, and entertaining. Being that the admins have enough work on their plates already, I volunteer to do that myself thus fulfilling my own condition of support. The power of the wiki editor in hand. --Muffynz 19:07, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 16) Support. It eliminates much confusion on the policies, and allows all users to determine who is important and who isn't (by virtue of us reading those we believe to be important).  Never much cared for the idea of soembody else deciding what was, and wasn't, important for me to know, but I did understand the reasoning behind it.  Muroni aka --Muroni 19:44, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 17) Support --Msmyers 20:23, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 18) Strong Support. The only things that are important are style and npov when it comes to pirates.  The absence of "interesting" information is information in and of itself.  The fact that someone is a nice guy is at least as meritous of having a page as being enough of a barrel stopper for everyone to talk about. --Shanoyu 21:10, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 19) Support this is a very good idea User: Jojofroyo
 * 20) Support --Lovelytini 22:50, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 21) Support --Barrister 23:18, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 22) Support. --Trogo 1:15, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 23) Support. It will always be way too hard to decide what constitutes a "famous pirate", so I think this is the way to go. – Covenant7 (talk/contrib) 02:45, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 24) Support. I think that this is a very good idea myself. Seeing that I'm one of them pirates that has been playing a very long time,  and is some what known on the Viridian Ocean, but hasn't wanted to have the responsibility of Monarch or Captain!  I think that as long as the pages are kept clean looking and follow the format, that they should be considered for the wiki! --Alley 04:16, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 25) Support. Most of the people putting pages up are pretty informed, I don't think the casual annoying players will have the patience to post drivel about themselves Steveconygre 05:56, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 26) Support. I think its a great idea. --Neih neih 08:25, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 27) Support. Please keep the same standards for factual, encyclopedic content and third person POV. --Shantybones 09:27, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 28) Support. --Chiajedi 10:13, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 29) Support. I believe every pirate deserves a spaces on the YPPedia as long as the information is pertinent. --Darkspaces13 12:54, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 30) Support. Every pirate should have the right to be read about. --Sophiag 14:52, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 31) Support. This is a great Idea, and will be useful for blog type purposes and roleplay :D --Keto Wrin 15:03, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 32) Support_Whoknew1 14:24, 4 June 2006 (PDT) Having pirates post whatever they want is a good idea. The current status of YPPedia is pretty hard to understand, and I agree with those who support this act.
 * 33) Support--Piratemikey 16:50, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 34) Support --Drhou 16:53, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 35) Support --Raiva 17:02, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 36) Support--Konck1 23:11, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 37) Support. Is the wiki running out of room? Do we need to get rid of some pirates pages to make room for others? No? Then why do we have to restrict the people that have the right to a wiki page? --Buzzjunkie 12:10, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 38) Support. The people most distressed by a large number of random pirate pages are the wikiholics that like to browse recent changes or use 'random'. For everyone else it's just fine - they will never see pages they don't care about. It would be a problem maintaining standards if thousands of pirates made pages, but the hassle-barrier is sufficiently high that I don't think we'll see that happen. --Ruby spoon 01:38, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 39) Support. --Redbeardsage 03:04, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 40) Support. Jezabella 05:06, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 41) Support. --Kmf 05:50, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 42) Support. Finnigan
 * 43) Support. Ringropes
 * 44) Support --Lizardme 13:24, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 45) Support. I stand by my original criticism, but it's vital this passes in one form or another.--Ponytailguy 13:46, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 46) Support. Current policies may be seen as confusing, and I've seen a handful of pages created by people who don't realize what the rules are. I'm sure the vanity tagging has probably put some people off in the past, but by current policy, we pretty much have to do it. But I agree with some others, this kind of change will probably need reviewing after a bit to see if it actually works. --Thunderbird 14:08, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 47) Support--Skull13 15:18, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 48) Support--ISC Lib 21:52, 5 June 2006 (PDT) We have some very clever people playing here and I would like the chance to read about them
 * 49) Support - This is a good idea, however, with the various names, if some names overlap with other articles, it could cause a problem. May I suggest using MediaWiki's Subpage feature to place all the pirates in a Subpage of their ocean. Wikimedia has information about using this feature, if it's enabled. --Pichu0102
 * 50) Support-- If it takes stuff like this to get ppl less cristisim to the wikinewbs, then be it this way. I support.--Mildina 07:37, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 51) Support--Lizardorb 13:06, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 52) Support--Aenea grace 14:22, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 53) Support --1ikate 14:40, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 54) Support --Grayside 15:16, 6 June 2006 (PDT) A positive step toward a worthy goal, I believe a prominent namespace for Pirates, Crews, and Flags is also a good fix for searchability concerns.
 * 55) Support--Altoids21 12:54, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 56) Support --SeanaMO/Ceylon 19:38, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 57) Support --ZingZang 00:09, 8 June 2006 (PDT) The community eventually sorts itself out. Point is - if only famous pirates were allowed to post, how would those post who have a lot to offer, but may just not be able to reach that "ULT" status in swordfight. :)
 * 58) Support --Ttami 01:37, 8 June 2006 (PDT) In the german Y!PPedia pirate articles are allowed for every pirate on the indigo ocean. Its a good way to present your pirate to the community. We use   (Pirat)' to separate these entries from others.
 * 59) Support --Ravendruid 01:48, 8 June 2006 (PDT) I certainly see no reason to limit those who wish to have info about themselves in a easily accessable place, so long as they keep it clean.  I definately see no detriment.
 * 60) Support. --Quiglin
 * 61) Support. Give it a go for a month, at least... --Nickster v (t/c) 08:39, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 62) Support. This is not an encyclopedia, this is a social environment. Any information on a pirate's acchievements is good enough to be posted in here. --Sbenza 09:44, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 63) Support. Why not?--Tiger Hunter 13:39, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 64) Support --SpudBoy4 14:16, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 65) Support --Millroy 03:41, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 66) Support! --Homullus 11:12, 9 June 2006 (PDT) I don't see the worry. Even if the individual pages are stupid, vain, and devoid of content relevant to most pirates' experience, the fact remains that people have to do something worthy (in terms of the original policy) for anyone to be of interest to another wiki user, let alone to be cited and linked on a page.  The do-nothing egomaniac will have his/her own page, and nobody will ever read it.
 * 67) Support. The only downside to this is that sometimes there will be more spurious search results, but I think that's pretty minor and easily outweighed by the value of how people will feel about being able to have their own pirate pages. --KeithIrwin 11:49, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 68) Support. I think the downside to this might be the fact that other pirates might write rude things about other pirates. (Pinkythepink 22:48, 9 June 2006 (PDT))
 * 69) Support. --sure Tinneydude 10 June 2006
 * 70) Support --Spelunk 10:44, 10 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 71) Support --DanLynch 19:12, 10 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 72) Support --Some can be made into s or something like that, and the ones with insultuous content should be deleted. Of course, people could just make their own user pages on this wiki, if they knew about it. Jfingers88 11:33, 11 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 73) Support --Being able to have such user pages is a must for the YPPedia. Liquiddoom 14:26, 11 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 74) Support. --Crash68 19:15, 11 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 75) Support Fava 01:24, 12 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 76) Support conditionally. --Aethera21 06:26, 12 June 2006 (PDT) I also support the idea of a trial period.  Give it a month, let people review what's been posted and revote.  Also, definitely still support deletion of the above mentioned "I lub my crew giv me poes pls" pages.
 * 77) Support. Rappak 08:07, 12 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 78) Support --Rixation(t/c) 08:52, 12 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 79) Support --Skydiv 18:03, 12 June 2006 (PDT
 * 80) Support --Komainu 09:52, 12 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 81) Support --Goldfeather 9:56, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral. I think everyone should have a pirate page or no one should have one as you can't really say who is famous as not many are famous to everyone.Yohohobob 00:27 4 june 2006 (GMT)
 * 2) Neutral. What determinates if a pirate is famous or not? I think all pirates may be free to have his own chance to have a pirate page, but we should restrict these pages to pirates in a crew ranked Pirate or higher. --User:Revolutionbr 15:12, 4 June 2006 (GMT -3)
 * 3) Neutral. I'm not TOO worried about zomg u giv poz!!? pages, because those people are rarely going to have the motivation to learn how to create their own page... Even better, they'll likely not even notice when it gets deleted. However, I do still would prefer having some minimum requirement, such as having won or been a runner-up in an event, been a monarch, or captain of a crew. --Emerson 18:05, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 4) Neutral, leaning toward support. I will support either one of these two proposals being passed, but not both.  I am inclined to support opening the requirements for having an article written about a pirate, but I am still of the firm opinion that if you cannot compose five relevant, well-written lines about yourself (or if somebody else is struggling to do the same) then your pirate really isn't that notable.--Fiddler 05:40, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 5) Neutral. I thought the original intent behind the policy changes was to increase the usefulness of the wiki and reduce the burden on the admins. I fail to see how this change by itself accomplishes either of those goals. In fact, it will create more work if all pirate pages will be policed by the admins for content. That's why I'd like to see pirate, crew, and flag pages segregated from the main pages and held to a lower standard. This would allow the admins to simply ignore them and also give wiki users the ability to exclude them from searches, recent change lists, etc. --B licker 10:50, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 6) Neutral. While i disagree that EVERY pirate should be allowed a page. I do believe everyone with something UNIQUE to add should be allowed to have one. If everyone can have one there will be thousands of greenie players who all post (pirate) wants to become captain of his crew, own lots of ships, and become king of a flag, of these players most could play for less than a month before quiting. -Icefrogger13
 * 7) Neutral. I think that while it is helpful to have pages to find out about pirates, more than their in-game page, I don't think it's fair for anyone to say who is or is not 'famous'. It just embitters people. That said, there will be a lot of clutter and vanity pages if everyone is allowed a page. --StephenP123 15:02, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 8) Neutral. While I think the idea itself has merit, there's a possibility that it may also be open to abuse and/or additional work on the part of the admins. I agree with B_licker and PTG that there should be a separate namespace that has somewhat different standards in regards to content. --Joedigriz 17:18, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 9) Neutral I have no feelings to this in eithrt direction. Just that the regulations we deside on is followed. If Pirate A get an article for Reason X then Pirate B get an article for the same reason.--Kinocha 17:25, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 10) Neutral I can see the value of keeping pirate articles to just the user page, but on the other hand, those like me who have a pirate name that is different from their user name might find some use in it. I could go either way... Nicolaes 10:41, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 11) Neutral --Valien 06:07, 10 June 2006 (PDT) I'm for it either way I guess. I do enjoy reading good pirate articles and don't enjoy reading poorly written ones.
 * 12) Neutral - Well, as long the pirates like to have their names showed up in wiki, or have a good excuse to have your own page (long time Senior Officer or Winner of an Event), they should have a page. But not every cabin person should have yours. And course, delete the ones that is offensive or bad spelled. --Knirt 10:30, 10 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 13) Neutral -- I believe that most pirates should have a page, but must meet some type of pre-req. Something like fleet officer or above, they could by-pass this pre-req if they've won 3rd place or above in any major event, and even those that win more than one tan familar, etc. --Dragonlilly 15:45, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose --LonelyDucky 07:11, 6 June 2006 (PDT) The YPPedia is an encyclopedia, not some place where people put up random junk. Of course, most people probably aren't patient enough to even read about making a page, let alone making one. But still, for the above reasons I strongly oppose this.
 * 2) Oppose. Let's just stick to our little user pages. Leave the articles for the really big names. -Siouxdax 17:47, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 3) Strong Oppose. There is nothing wrong with setting requirements for adding a pirate's name to the wiki as long as they are universally kept. In fact, the previous requirements were fine. While someone could just purchase a position to meet the minimum, they will be more likely to have contributed to the community and the wiki (since they paid to get their name in the wiki) than someone who played for 2 weeks and posts drivel about how they got banned unfairly. --Whitefire 13:09, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 4) Strong Oppose. Letting anyone have a Pirate page is not a problem of space, it is a problem of administration time. Who can moniter a few thousand Pirate pages? Misinformation would be rife, and the Wiki's reliability would become a joke. -- Von Weber 14:34, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 5) Oppose. Every player already has an article - Userpage. I'm currently for the idea of only having pirates with notability having articles - with at least some half decent content to flesh it out. Most(?) people come here barely know what to shove on their Userpage - let alone a proper article to themselves. Opinion subject to change - but that is my feeling now. --Sagacious (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 6) Oppose conditionally. I could support the total dropping of notibility requirements, but not if the deletion provision is removed; the poorly-written and substance provisions are what make it an attractive choice for me. --Emufarmers 14:35, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 7) Oppose. Stub articles (and their links) indicate unique information exists, even if not yet written. Removing all would be bad, but allowing all pirates a page is the opposite evil; it encourages noisy prose intended just to link vanity pages. This costs the reader who seaks concise, useful information. Vandalism monitoring costs will also increase proprotionally to the number of minor pirates added.  15:39, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 8) Oppose. Sure, if the page was rubbish then no one would read. But a wiki is meant to be informative and is an informal encyclopedia. Clogging with useless information seems counter-intuitive (and makes the Random page much obsolete). --Andi kan 22:45, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 9) Oppose. Every pirate that wants an article gets an article at User:piratename. To actually have an official YPPedia article, a pirate should have done something important/noteworthy; you don't see John Regularguy in the encyclopedia, you only see people of sufficient import. Of course, this requires a definition of what sufficient import is, but that's a whole other can of worms. As this proposal stands, I must vote no. --TheUnderlord 01:03, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 10) Oppose. If people want pages for vanity, create a website using one of the Many free websites on the internet. Show off all you want to show off, and then hand out the website. The wiki should be here for historical fact and information. Its for people who have truly achieved something in the game not for every tom, dick, or harry. It will eventually get swamped and will devalue what i feel is an accurate, factual, supportive document. Drake
 * 11) Oppose. I started out on the other side of this - as a lurker, generally, I'm wary of any policies that smack of elitism, since MaxTarting != Fame in my book. However, the point regarding the User pages is a good one, and has swayed me to the opposition side. -Taxpig 08:20, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 12) Oppose. Wilt 09:35, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 13) Oppose. Same reasons as Sagacious (2. on the list). Also as much as i would like to have an article about me, it annoys me that those are in the same space as the truly valuable gameplay related articles, which makes it impossible to efficiently browse the recent changes list for gameplay information updates. Furiss 12:25, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 14) Oppose. There are too many pirates on the ocean for this to be viable and I don't want to see YPPedia turn into a home for, to borrow the Wikipedia term, vanispamcruftisement. While new categories for notability might be fine, opening it up to every cabin person, pirate, etc. on the ocean is a recipe for chaos. Crystallina 13:33, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 15) Oppose--Skellious 14:31, 4 June 2006 (PDT) as above, maybe for important people, but not every tom, dick and pirate.
 * 16) Oppose. Echo Callistan's comments. --Yaten talk 18:56, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 17) Oppose. This is YPPedia, not Myspace. Leave all of your pathetic 'hobeez' and 'liekz' for some other database.Quakeypoo 21:06, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 18) Oppose. I would support a loosening of the requirements, but I think this would open the door to a substantial number of junk pages (pages that will require substantial attention from other editors), especially when coupled with the second proposal. --Zava 08:04, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 19) Strong Oppose. This whole debate started, from the intent of "let's clean up the wiki, get on the new format, etc." It just seems these two proposals are the result of HWFO. It does not make sense to open the floodgates. Seeing as it looks like both of these will pass, I see dark days ahead for the wiki. The standards in place were fine. Asking that people make at least capt/crew/monarch before having a page at least made a good faith effort at ensuring pages were given to people who support the game, through subs or dubs (while certainly it was not always the case, see good faith effort)What these two proposals will do, combined, is destroy any semblance of a signal to noise ratio. That is bad. I think these are reactionary proposals, and should have been sat on for some time, refined, before being thrown into a lynch mob for the purpose of subduing people. --Igniknot 10:32, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 20) Oppose. I've been thinking about this one for a while, actually. But really, it's down to one word...User Pages. Or is that two? Bah. --Cloak' 11:08, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 21) Oppose. While I don't condone the deleteing of pages deemed too short that meet current eligibility requirements, I don't think that the pages need to be opened up for everyone. The pendulum does not need to swing that far in the other direction.  --Kraggard 20:47, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 22) Oppose. --Majortom 00:32, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 23) Oppose. Most pirates have little to no content that anyone would be interested in knowing, and they already have their Userpage to post their idle thoughts about their own greatness. I imagine once it's passed, word will spread through the community like wildfire, and we'll have a million "i m a pirat in "XXX omg sex pirates lawlz" if u want 2 talk press 111111!" pirate pages. Sure, they might get nuked, but you could save yourself the trouble and just keep it limited to the important people. --Phade 09:05, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 24) Oppose --Yunafied 10:34, 6 June 2006 (PDT) As much as some players who don't fill criteria deserve to have pages because of other means of fame/notoriety/"worth" it may get too hard to maintain and keep pages to standard if every player can make a page. Perhaps loosening criteria for a Wiki page would be a better alternative to opening the floodgates.
 * 25) Oppose --Angelbeaver 12:27, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 26) Oppose, leaning towards neutral. We most definatly should not allow everyone to have page. Unfortunatly the current alternative is worse. What is required is the original stance. Move away from the checklist approach and change it to what I believe is its original intent... The following categorys of people are automaticly notable, others may still be noteable but require a reason as to why they are.--Therack 23:35, 3 June 2006 (PDT) Changed from neutral to oppose based on the fact that It's looking like the other proposal will pass, and I'm 110% them both passing in conjuction.--Therack 05:39, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 27) Oppose.  --Filthysword 11:44, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 28) Oppose.  --Coolj31 3:54, 7 June 2006 (EST)
 * 29) Oppose.  After having to jump thru hoops to get my page like I wanted combined with what was allowed I think this would be a very bad idea.  There are enough people as it is that use bad grammer, and will just post to be there.  --Stlnmyhrt 23:23, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 30) Oppose.  --Angara 6:41, 8 June 2006 (CET)
 * 31) Oppose --HiimEric2001 09:47, 9 June 2006 (PDT) Everyone having their own page is something for a Facebook or Myspace. Not right for a wiki.
 * 32) Oppose --Roust 00:08, 12 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 33) Oppose Gererally the who of any certain ocean who worked hard to achieve any thing of note should have a page, what is considered to be important should be what is up for debate. Having a huge list of pirates with no attributes is like having a phone book listed in the wiki, do you read that? --Dcyborg 06:44, 12 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 34) Oppose: as much work as the current famousness qualifier is, the work of pruning and maintaining countless personal pages, and keeping them up to standards is far too great. --Bendotc 15:24, 12 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 35) Oppose --Krysthepirat 15:51, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

Comments
Re: Eguee: This happens to be untrue; the only thing which is presently up for discussion is the status of pages for pirates. User pages will retain their current status regardless, which is that they are left alone except in cases of obscenity or categories which are not allowed. (Any user is permitted to have a user page.) --Emufarmers 20:54, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * Maybe every pirate whose name is mentioned on another page should get their own article. I don't see the point in making fresh articles for everyone when the page is linked from nowhere and the contents of which could be very short and of no real use. Making this proposal open to everyone having a page - makes Userpages redundant.--Sagacious (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2006 (PDT)


 * I personally always saw the User page as just that. About the user; the person behind the pirate. Pirate pages in my mind are about the pirates we roleplay, be as it may that people roleplay to different extents. Take a look at the difference between Feegle and User:Feegle to see what I mean. --Featherfin 12:04, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * Featherfin makes a great point; for my user page, I just put a few personal likes/dislikes of me in real life, not my pirate's favorite puzzles, etc. User should be tantamount to "Human being behind the monitor", while pirate should be "Character we role-play as." (Juventus1, not sure why I can't get it to display like before.) --12:53, 4 June 2006 (PDT)~


 * Neutral 8 - Fantastic idea. What about a Pirate namespace? That would be an ideal in my view. --Sagacious (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * The idea of a pirate namespace is so enticing that it makes me want to go ahead and propose it right now: Or do people think it would be too much if we had all that on the voting block at once? --Emufarmers 20:41, 4 June 2006 (PDT)

Re: Muffynz: While I expressed a similar sentiment (elsewhere) over pages being able to be handled through the normal processes of deletion, I'm not so sure now. Little drivel pages might be easy to take care of, but what about pages which describe, in reasonable terms, a pirate who isn't really notable at all? The whole idea behind these standards, after all, is to ensure that there has to be a level of renown about a pirate which would make somebody actually want to do a search on him or her. Still, the unlimited space a wiki provides does make the idea of a more open-ended "as long as it makes sense" policy enticing; I'm just concerned, as others have noted, that this could prove to be extremely arduous for the regular wiki editors. It's great that you're volunteering to shoulder some of the burden, but in the long term, it would probably take several people to monitor all this. --Emufarmers 20:41, 4 June 2006 (PDT)

Re: Muroni, Yohohobob: While concern over having work "filtered" seems intuitive, the entire idea of a wiki is, after all, to have all work peer-reviewed. One of the disadvantages of a peer-review system is that other people are able to determine how much of your work is seen. The advantage is...That people are able to determine how much of your work is seen. To be honest, I haven't seen a lot of instances of anything which could be termed censorship here; at least not directly. I have been concerned about the admins doing such things as a bloc, but recent events have convinced me that there's enough diversity of opinion, along with the open format of a wiki, to ever allow this to sink to the level of admins deleting pages which they happen to see as "not good enough," or deleting things because of ingame politics. The admins here are way, way, better than that. --Emufarmers 20:41, 4 June 2006 (PDT)

Re: Pichu0102, We already use a system of having the ocean in brackets after the pirate name if there are two pirates with the same name on different oceans - but only if there are separate players behind them. See the disambig page for Millie and you'll see how we cope with that issue. --Sagacious (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2006 (PDT)

Re: Sbenza, this is indeed an encyclopedia, and is not a social environment (at least not in the sense that the game is). It may be about a game, but the forums are much more suited for social interaction than the wiki. --Emufarmers 20:49, 8 June 2006 (PDT)

Articles will not be deleted for scant content provision
Articles will not be deleted due to having a lack of content. Again, there will still be tagging with requests to expand or even Attesmythe's useful tactic of asking questions to help expand the content. There will also continue to be discussions about what constitutes wiki-worthy information about pirates and efforts to format pages in a pretty & readable way. Inappropriate language & comments and complete fabrications of information do not constitute a pirate page and those articles may be deleted if there is no information beyond the naughty bits. Articles with extremely poor content may also be considered for deletion after an appropriate discussion and waiting period after tagging.

Support

 * 1) Support User: Siras
 * 2) Support User: Revolutionbr
 * 3) Support User: Jojofroyo
 * 4) Support. --Guppymomma 12:36, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 5) Support. --Whitefire 13:10, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 6) Support --Dylan 13:26, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 7) Support. Scant content takes little room, and as long as it is sensibly organized, its presence does not detract from the usefulness of the wiki. --Taelac 13:27, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 8) Support. Any info is better than none --Kinocha 13:38, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 9) Support. --Featherfin 13:41, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 10) Support. better to have some information then none -Jacktheblack 15:19, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 11) Support. If unique/notable information exists, but simply hasn't been written, do not delete. 15:23, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 12) Support. -Juventus1 15:38, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 13) Support. The page may not be completely finished, or is still being researched.  Better to stub it than remove it completely.  --Gloraelin 15:43, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 14) Support. --Bel pirates 15:59, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 15) Support. As Jack the black said it's better to have some info then none. Yohohobob 00:32 4 June 2006 (GMT)
 * 16) Support. --Cecidrake 16:39, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 17) Support. Just because something doesn't have a lot of information yet does not mean it should not be included. If human history worked that way, there'd be historical holes all over the place. --Emerson 18:01, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 18) Support Conditionally. Deletion for lack of content would only make sense if we didn't have stubs. The condition to my vote for this idea is that pirate pages not remain for pirates who played for only a week or two and haven't been on in a year. If the name/ account's been purged, so should be the corresponding Pirate Page. Otherwise, I support this strongly.--Chemicalgirl 18:42, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 19) Support. Although the new templates suggested make it much easier for folks who just want facts to skim those and ignore the rest, and those who choose to add fluff to do so, that doesn't address the issue for the writers or owners of the name, only the readers.  I never liked "busy work" back in school.  I don't like the idea of folks going crazy trying to think of something interesting to say about somebody, just to preserve history.  Furthermore, 150 pages saying the same "interesting fluff" is going to be very stale and boring.  I'd rather we have some interesting pages and unique, and some bare bones, than many that all look like form letter copies of each other with only the names changed, or ones that are just outright embarassing with silly content provided, again, just to preserve the history.  Muroni aka --Muroni 19:47, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 20) Support --Msmyers 20:24, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 21) Strong Support. For pretty much the same reasons as the last provision, but also because it doesn't hurt anyone, including the wiki, and its content. --Shanoyu 21:13, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 22) Strong Support see Shanoyu's remark for shared opinion. --Lovelytini 22:51, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 23) Support --Barrister 23:18, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 24) Support. As stated a time or two above, the stubs serve a purpose. Adding an active pirate caveat would definitely be beneficial, but there would have to be a stated guidline as to when inactivity is considered to begin - I'd hate for someone to be on vacation for 3 weeks, only to find their page deleted upon their return. --Taxpig 08:27, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 25) Support. --Shantybones 09:24, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 26) Support. If somebody passes the same requirements that somebody else did to get their own page on YPPedia, then they should get that page. Wiki writing skill or wiki-loving friends shouldn't be a factor in the decision. These pages still provide a purpose and shouldn't be lost. Wilt 09:35, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 27) Support. --B licker 10:50, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 28) Support. --Keto Wrin 15:05, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 29) Support_Whoknew1 14:16, 4 June 2006 (PDT) Definitly a good idea.
 * 30) Support--Piratemikey 16:50, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 31) Support --Raiva 17:03, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 32) Support Conditionally. "Needs more information" is better than "No information available". However, if the namespace for pirates (and perhaps crews and flags) is separated out, then this policy might need to be revisited in the future and tweaked for the main pages. --Joedigriz 17:18, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 33) Support. --Yaten talk 18:56, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 34) Support--Konck1 23:11, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 35) Support Quote Jacktheblack: better to have some information then none --Buzzjunkie 12:10, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 36) Support. Jezabella 05:06, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 37) Support. --Kmf 05:47, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 38) Support. --Drhou 06:01, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 39) Support. --Aluinda 07:50, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 40) Support --Lizardme 13:24, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 41) Support. As long as there's something quantifiable, it'll probably get expanded eventually...though it may take a lot of prodding to do so. --Thunderbird 14:08, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 42) Support--Skull13 15:18, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 43) Support. There seems to be some vehement dislike of short articles that I cannot figure out. In this case it creates problems between the policy that let pirates have these pages and the desire to remove "stub" articles.  Leave short articles alone and instead create a policy that forbids poor writing.  Content is content even if it is terse and space isn't/shouldnt be an issue.  --Kraggard 20:42, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 44) Support. --Poochy 23:30, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 45) Support. --Majortom 00:32, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 46) Support there doesn't need to be a lot of information or it to be useful. Sure, dub it as a stub, but don't delete it.--Lethallizard 10:46, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 47) Strong Support - Some effort must be taken to fix an article, or determine whether or not it can ever be fixed, before it is summarily marked for deletion. I offer Noquarter, marked for deletion less than 12 hours after page creation, as evidence that community discussion is needed before article deletion. "To break is divine," indeed. --AtteSmythe 09:36, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 48) Support--Aenea grace 14:24, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 49) Support --1ikate 14:41, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 50) Support. Deletion of scant information is still deletion of information.  Incorrect or offensive information is something else. --Grayside 15:19, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 51) Support--Altoids21 12:58, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 52) Support. --Filthysword 11:47, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 53) Support --ZingZang 23:58, 7 June 2006 (PDT) No Problem. But how will pirates feel about others being able to edit their pages or articles ?
 * 54) Support --Ravendruid 01:54, 8 June 2006 (PDT) Unless the space is critical, I see no reason to delete information, no matter how scant it may seem. Besides, I would much rather read a short article that had a little bit of relevant info than a long article that was just filled with rambling in order to meet some arbitrary length reqirement.  In fact I'd like to see the whole "stub" designation done away with all together.
 * 55) Support. -- Quiglin 08:38, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 56) Support.  --Angara 6:41, 8 June 2006 (CET)
 * 57) Support --SpudBoy4 14:17, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 58) Support --Homullus 11:12, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 59) Support. Something is better than nothing. --KeithIrwin 11:51, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 60) Support --Spelunk 10:45, 10 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 61) Support User:Funkychickn9
 * 62) Support Fava 01:25, 12 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 63) Support Rappak 08:10, 12 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 64) Support --Komainu 09:53, 12 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 65) Support --Krysthepirat 15:15, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral. -Siouxdax 16:55, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 2) Neutral. I don't like the idea of getting even more articles just sitting dormant, bearing a Pirate stub - especially if we are to allow every pirate to have a page. But I have no firm reason to seriously object to the proposal. --Sagacious (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 3) Neutral. While I wasn't a proponent of this in the first place (I raised some of the aforementioned points at the time), it was voted on and approved; and while it's good to see the forum community weighing in on this, I don't know if I really like the idea of people being this reactionary, especially on a wiki (not that I'm a saint in that regard). Given that some of the people who are supporting this now supported the original proposal, I think they should at least elaborate individually on why.  I missed the discussion and feces-flinging on the forums over this, so you'll have to excuse me if I'm ignorant of already-discussed reasons. --Emufarmers 14:35, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 4) Neutral. Scant can have many meanings. Use common sense between stub and deletion. --Muffynz 19:07, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 5) Neutral (conditional). Some articles are worth keeping, but because not many people can contribute to it, its contents become limited. We need to give time to pirates to gather info and expand on it. However, this is assuming the article itself is important enough, and not useless info. --Andi kan 22:49, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 6) Neutral. Under the current provision where who is notable is defined, and you require content if it is somebody who does not hit those categorys works well, and as such I would support this motion. If we moved down the path of Every man and his alt is allowed a page, then I suddenly swap over. I have an unused alt on Hunter. If everyone can have their page, I promise I will create a Capnrackham_(Hunter) page with the sole content of "Capnrackham is an alt of TheRack, with able/novice across the board" --Therack 23:55, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 7) Neutral. Dependant on what "extremely poor content" actually looks like and the outcome of proposition one.  There will be countless pages that have no meaningful content, and the administration and additional work for editors will be vast unless there is a firming up of what is currently very subjective.  I half-agree with Fiddler in his opposition.  If you can't think of something useful to say about yourself, then you're not note-worthy enough, but on the other hand, you should be afforded the same rights and privileges as other pirates who pay the same sub as you or buy the same dubs you buy.  The fact that someone doesn't excel in the social puzzle enough to become a successful captain or monarch or other "person of note" shouldn't preclude them from having a page.  They may be a Cabin Person with Ultimate everythings.  That's pretty noteworthy to me.  --Redbeardsage 03:10, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 8) Neutral--ISC Lib 21:57, 5 June 2006 (PDT) This is one of those it depends on how scant the article is. Some folks can convey a lot in few words while others use many words to say nothing.
 * 9) Nuetral I can see the value of it, as long as some standard is still kept for things that truely offer nothing. --Phade 09:13, 6 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 10) Nuetral. Maybe if there were a periodic review & deletion of inactive name only pages it would keep the stubs down. --SeanaMO/Ceylon 19:38, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 11) Neutral I don't have a problem with short articles, nor do I think the wiki will be flooded with useless crap. My concern is that articles will be started with the best of intentions, then forgotten about. It's these false starts (while perhaps not numerous) that can't be deleted because they may have "some" information (no matter how out of date). Either way, the wiki will survive and adapt. Nicolaes 10:41, 8 June 2006 (PDT)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. I cannot dare to think how many stub pages will be left in the wiki to take up space. --Eguee 16:39, 3 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 2) Strongly Oppose. I am still of the firm opinion that if you cannot compose five relevant, well-written lines about yourself (or if somebody else is struggling to do the same) then your pirate really isn't that notable.  I will, however,  support this proposal if minimum qualifications are kept for obtaining a pirate article.--Fiddler 05:49, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 3) Conditional Oppose. I dont think it matters what the content of the page is, as long as its valid information. But having pages for pirates who havent been on the game for months, regardless of subscription is a waste in my eyes. My vote is conditionally upon Only deleting those that are full of useless information, and from inactive pirates, as paying for dubs or subscripion doesnt cover yppedia protection. Drake
 * 4) Oppose. -- Von Weber 14:37, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 5) Oppose. I really think that it just detracts from the usefulness of the encyclopedia as a whole if there are just a few lines of rubbish. It gets in the way of searching and fills up the stub list... as Fiddler said, if you can't even take the time to write a decent 5 lines, you really don't deserve to have a page. --StephenP123 15:02, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 6) Oppose. So long as sufficient warning is given, I can't think of a good reason to allow essentially contentless pages to stand. --Ruby spoon 01:38, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 7) Oppose. See my comments above on the first proposal. I feel a disturbance in the wiki. It's as if the involved majority of editors who try to help suddenly cried out, and were suddenly silenced. --Igniknot 10:38, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 8) Oppose.  I think allowing pages to stay that simply have one or two very bad written lines will take away from the whole reason for being on the wiki in the first place.  For information of that pirate.  I can already look you up in game and see you are the captain of such and such a crew.  There is no need for a whole page for that.--Stlnmyhrt 23:27, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 9) Oppose, for new pirate articles. --Nickster v (t/c) 08:39, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 10) Oppose --Valien 06:09, 10 June 2006 (PDT) I'm with the Fiddler's comments on this one as well. If pirates have a page then they should at least put something worthwhile in it. After a while if nothing is there then the page should get removed IMO.
 * 11) Oppose - Well, firstly, the pages should be considered for deletion. But dont delete them before at least talk with the one that created the page, he should have its own motivations. If they are not strong enough, go ahead and delete, or put it into discussion. --Knirt 10:34, 10 June 2006 (PDT)
 * 12) Oppose. Others have stated it multiple times, but to reiterate, I see no good reason to create a page with 1 or 2 lines of mediocre information that you're unlikely to ever visit or adminster again after its initial creation. I support keeping the wiki clean, not cluttered. --Rixation(t/c) 09:00, 12 June 2006 (PDT)

Comments

 * In response to TheRack: pages of alts are merged into the main pirate in pretty much every case I can think of. Assuming the alt's main is known. --Thunderbird 01:11, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * I'm taking this one as far as it can go... I have aprox. 25 alts, most of which are not used. With a "All pirates deserve pages" clause 1 or 2 of them are different enough to justify their own page. What about players who legitimatly play 2 different pirates. What if 2 seperate pirates, both equally famous on their own suddenly reveal themselves to be the same at a latter date. Further, what if that novice able alt's main is truely unknown. A full and unconditional everyone gets a page is very scary teritory.--Therack 02:34, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * I fail to see how any action taken regarding those situations would be earth shattering, I also fail to see how twenty five alts each with their own page would be earth shattering. Creating a series of pages that say "This person is an able/alt" would seem to fit pretty clearly under vandalism policies for the same reason making an article on various world leaders and pointing out that they are not known to play puzzle pirates would.  You're making a semantic split that just isn't relevant.  This hardly votes away the ability to deal with outright douchery. --Shanoyu 05:20, 4 June 2006 (PDT)
 * You have my point nailed. I totally agree that spaming the wiki with pages about alts is at the very least vanity and most likely vandalism. My issue is that when you cross the boarder to explicitly say "Every pirate gets a page, and it don't matter how much content you got there", unless you put some further criteria in, you are saying "Yes it is ok to have a page about that able/novice alt" Your argument about a page of world leaders to have never played the game has no relation to this.--Therack 03:29, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * It says what it says. If there is a novice/able alt who people think is important enough to have a page about, why not?  After all, 80% of the ones that would be written about are event characters. --Shanoyu 23:25, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
 * For what it's worth, event characters generally do get pages under the current policy. ("Players who have made significant accomplishements or achievements or who have obtained a high level of notoriety may also be listed..."; even without that phrase, though, there is a tacit acknowlegement that such pages are excepted, as it is with Ringers and Ocean Masters. So relating this to alts is probably a red herring; there is some debate over it, but it doesn't really relate to the issue at hand.  The only event characters whose existence has really been challenged are the demons, who have no real individual characteristics beyond slight flavor. [See Talk:Plaguedemon and Talk:Wardemon]). --Emufarmers 00:04, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
 * To refocus, the "able alt stub page" issue only comes up if both proposals get through. Indeed it not relevent if this passes and the other fails. It is only a major concern if they both pass combined.--Therack 01:43, 9 June 2006 (PDT)
 * Icefrogger13's vote was under the wrong heading so I moved it for them. Yohohobob 20:43 (GMT)

Re: Muroni: The over-templating/-standardization of pirate pages could certainly be an issue, but it's one which might be better addressed elsewhere. Whether or not biographical information qualifies as "interesting fluff" or not, it still remains that a pirate's wiki page doesn't serve much point if it contains no more information than that pirate's info page (that is, what's accessed through a /who ingame). --Emufarmers 20:35, 4 June 2006 (PDT)

In my expirience, putting complete rubbish on free and nearly infinite space is OK (extra emphasis on OK), but it shows that your posting something just to post it. Just to junk up the site woth more stuff, know that nobody will care to read it, AND make people less interested in the wiki because of the rubbish posts IS a sure sign of stupidity. Even though this is technicaly not so bad, it is pretty dumb. If your IQ isn't twice your weight, you may not understand what I'm trying to implify, and that's ok. Mine is.

See what I mean? Whoknew1 17:38, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
 * I don't think "rubbish" is likely to be added to pirate pages to pad them out; erronious and irrelevant information is filtered out of the wiki pretty well by the regular editors (this is a wiki, not a forum, so frivolous material can and will be removed; the "filler" in your comment is acceptable only because this is a talk page). To be perfectly honest, beyond biographical information and achievements, there isn't usually that much which can be added to a pirate's page which anybody would be interested in: The portrait links and basic stats are all available either with a /who ingame, or via Yoweb.  Frankly, where I would worry about rubbish entering the wiki is with the passage of the first proposal here, although it is possible that the same "filter" provided by editors would keep new pirate pages clean (sheer numbers could be overwhelming, though). --Emufarmers 20:59, 8 June 2006 (PDT)

Links to relevant discussions

 * In Tips & Tricks:
 * http://forums.puzzlepirates.com/community/mvnforum/viewthread?thread=38634
 * http://forums.puzzlepirates.com/community/mvnforum/listthreads?forum=4 (locked)
 * In Global Parley: http://forums.puzzlepirates.com/community/mvnforum/viewthread?thread=38493 (locked)
 * YPPedia_talk:Vanity_guidelines

Implication of Pass/Fail
There's an ambiguity here that I think needs to be cleared up before we can gauge what the voters' intent is. If the revamp fails, which policy is implemented? The original vanity guidelines, or last week's change that started this all? I know it affected my voting - I'd vote to go back to what we had in the first place (notability guidelines with consensus req. to delete articles, just like any other article) if that was an option. --AtteSmythe 11:18, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * I think it's quite apparant that the New Coke policy would not achieve a consensus if a vote was held, so it just makes sense to revert to the original one. :-/ --Ponytailguy 11:25, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * I agree. The "New Coke" policy would never have gotten aproved if it was a vote, and the and  should be sufficient. --Kinocha 11:32, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * In fairness, there was a vote. It just didn't have this widespread publicity. If the consensus (ha!) is that nonimplementation of one or the other of these proposals goes back to Old Coke, I may have to change mine up... --AtteSmythe 11:34, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * Because there was a vote and it did technically pass into policy, the implication is that we would continue with the New Coke and continue discussion again from there. --Guppymomma 11:53, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * I'm pretty sure that if the scant content provision is approved, but the all pirates may have an article provision is not, we will essentially be going back to the old policy, with exception to marking pages that would otherwise get a tag for deletion. And at the moment, it looks to be the way this one is going. --Thunderbird 12:00, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * Think of it like this, though. If we held a vote on returning to the original vanity policy instead of just reverting to New Coke, it would almost definetly pass. Likewise, if we held a revote on New Coke as a policy, New Coke would lose. This should be quite apparant, even to its most dedicated supporters. Given that it'll take a week to vote through anoy other proposal, and most articles that are currently tagged, if we resume New Coke, have just over a week left on the wiki under that policy, can we revert to it given the likelihood of adopting a totally different policy in the forseeable future? --Ponytailguy 12:04, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * I have concerns that some votes are 'sheep' votes, that is, a support vote made purely because someone followed a few links and read a few comments - and decided to 'go with the flow' and vote 'support' - with no real reason. I only suspect that is the case for a couple of votes - but I suppose this is an open vote and I/we have to accept the outcome reguardless. I do disagree with Oppose/Neutral votes made with no explanation however.
 * Moving on - can I/we have some feedback on the idea of implementing a Pirate: namespace as an addition to the 'Every pirate can have an article' idea. I'm just curious as to the opinion of admin/techies/others. (and yay - I broke my PC installing Linux. So I probably won't be doing so much editing over the next day or so as I'm currently using a CD boot OS...) --Sagacious (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * Sagacious took the words right out of my mouth: There are a rather large number of votes, particularly on the side of support (there's only one "commentless" vote for either proposal from the neutral and oppose sides), from users with little or no previous editing history. While it is true that there could have been discussion on the forum thread, it still does not bode well that so many of the votes supply no reason; I suppose this will come off as sounding elitist, but I am getting the sense that at least a few of the support votes are motivated by more of an, "uh oh, somebody wants to delete my page!  I'd better support this" attitude than anything else, although I wouldn't paint more than a -perhaps sizable- minority but perhaps a of votes with that brush, but...A bit of poring over user contributions did bring to my attention that one support voter only a half an hour later admitted, "I have zero idea of how the wiki works and was only testing it. I can't seem to find my page either. Could you delete it if you haven't already? I can't recall everything I wrote either so I don't know where the 'vanity' is."


 * My concerns about the voting aside, if these measures are defeated, then the existing guidelines would remain in effect: "Must be a captain, etc." for one, and "articles lacking content go bye-bye" on the other. If the former passes, but not the latter, then we go the the point where any pirate may have an article, but said article must contain measurable content.  If the latter goes through, and not the former, then "must be captain..." stays, and those pirates who meet that criterion, but whose articles lack significant content get to retain their pages.  Of course, this means that having one pass but not the other may or may not be desirable to different people (hence those conditional votes you see, which do complicate things), which...Well, having both of these on the platter at the same time might have been too much.


 * I would definitely like to see the first proposition defeated so we can consider a more moderate proposal, less likely to cause concerns about "opening the floodgates," unless of course the second one is defeated...Which just brings us back to the difficulty of these conditional votes. I'm definitely liking the sound of the pirate namespace idea, whichever way things go, since it sounds like it could solve some of the problems likely to emerge from this.


 * Finally, I might add a word regarding timeframes: As noted elsewhere, we could always hold off on the actual deletions of pages until after matters are more suitibly settled. We don't have to worry about 200 articles suddenly vanishing overnight. :) --Emufarmers 21:02, 5 June 2006 (PDT)


 * Just a little reminder that it is not required to comment on your vote when going for Support/Neutral/Opppose. Sometimes the case may be that there have been other comments that a user feels covers things.  It is also not required to be a big editor of the wiki.  Folks that use (and I define use as reading and/or editing) the wiki may have input into what they want to read on it.  If you spot a user voting that seems extremely new and you suspect they're just an account created to be a sockpuppet, please feel free to send a PM to an administrator or to Eurydice (the current wiki OM) so it can be looked into.  Yes, there is discussion & debate of the ideas & ideas brought up in comments, but we are not here to debate individual people's votes.  If you want to sway people's minds, present good information for them to take into consideration.  --Guppymomma 07:42, 6 June 2006 (PDT)

Er, and on a slightly quieter note, should we continue to add the tag to articles which would call for it, or should we wait for the conclusion of this? --Emufarmers 21:08, 5 June 2006 (PDT)
 * From my perspective, it'll be easier to rally the troops to actually save these pages if we know what pages are deemed unworthy. Mark away, and I won't have to contact everyone twice. --AtteSmythe 21:27, 5 June 2006 (PDT)

So uh, in light of the new familiar policy, if these both fail will that necessitate a vote on whether or not winning tan familiars makes you worthy of a vanity page? --Shanoyu 16:58, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
 * Looks like. --AtteSmythe 17:45, 7 June 2006 (PDT)
 * Would both need to fail, or just Proposal Part I? Part II really doesn't seem (to me) to have any bearing on the tanfam issue, regardless of whether it passes (which it looks like it's going to). --TheUnderlord 22:36, 7 June 2006 (PDT)