YPPedia talk:Policies and guidelines/Archive 2

These votes are a matter of historical Yppedia record. Please don't modify them.

This page archives votes from YPPedia talk:Policies and guidelines. Archived discussions can be found here.

Pirate Codes on pirate pages

I propose that Puzzle Pirate Codes be banned from pirate pages. They can not be updated by anyone other than the player, by nature, and describe the person, not the pirate, in any case. In short, they are not of an encyclopedic nature, and as such do not belong on official pages. --Thefirstdude 17:13, 10 February 2007

Large portions of the code do focus on the player rather than the pirate. Only being able to be updated by the player themselves is also another strike against it appearing in pirate articles. -- Faulkston 18:11, 10 February 2007 (PST)

And that is why I moved my PPcode from the pirate to the user page a long time ago. Ban! --Arminius 20:24, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Oddly enough, I find the pirate codes to be less obnoxious than the lists. I'd have to call myself neutral on this one.--Fiddler 17:56, 18 February 2007 (PST)

I don't think anyone was saying they are obnoxious. They simply do not belong on pirate pages, as they refer to the player, not the pirate. -- Thefirstdude 18:05, 18 February 2007 (PST)

I think it's also well time for a vote on this alone. -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 18:32, 1 March 2007 (PST)

As the vote ended 2/5/0 and it's been about two weeks since the last vote was cast, I think we can call this done. Would one of the admins please add this to the main policy page and I'll take care of writing it up on the Yppedia:News page. --Muffynz 21:06, 17 March 2007 (PDT)

Support

• Support. Reasons above. -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 18:32, 1 March 2007 (PST)
• Support. Ypp code is about the player, not the pirate and should therefore not be on PIRATE pages. Pirates do not make good Yppedia editors, but players do (if we allowed pirates then there would be wenches all over the place...) --Whitemonkey ^(t/c) 22:54, 1 March 2007 (PST)

Oppose

• Oppose PPcode - can provide interesting insights into the pirate and player in a concise format.--Fiddler 19:23, 1 March 2007 (PST)
• Oppose removal of Pirate code - Reasons way above in the other vote.
• Oppose - can provide interesting insights into the pirate and player in a concise format.--Fiddler 19:23, 1 March 2007 (PST)
• Oppose - Let's not remove every single bit of individual aesthetic additions to the pirate pages. Pirate codes can be entertaining and offer a good rundown on an individual in one line. --Muffynz 19:36, 1 March 2007 (PST)
• Oppose - it's informational and limited in length. --Guppymomma 20:12, 1 March 2007 (PST)

Proposal to remove PEAR scores from pirate pages

As the stats and opinions change so often, I propose that we ban PEAR scores. --Whitemonkey 05:24, 1 March 2007 (PST)

In the future, please do not try to tie together two unrelated items in one vote. Especially when one of them has been brought up higher up on this page. --Guppymomma 20:11, 1 March 2007 (PST)

As the vote ended 6/0/0 and has been about 2 weeks since the last vote was cast, I think we can call this done. Would one of the admins please add this change to the main policy page and I'll take care of editing in the version to the Yppedia:News page. --Muffynz 21:04, 17 March 2007 (PDT)

Support

• Support deletion reasons above. --Whitemonkey 05:24, 1 March 2007 (PST)
• Support - That kind of thing belongs on user pages more than pirate pages anyway, especially the YPP codes – Covenant7 ^(t/c) 08:42, 1 March 2007 (PST)
• Support Pear score Pear scores are a function of statistics, which do change rapidly and are linked from inside the standard infobox.--Fiddler 19:23, 1 March 2007 (PST)
• Support removal of PEAR score - Way to fluctuating as stats go up and down and the base ideas offered are used in the pirate code. --Muffynz 19:39, 1 March 2007 (PST)
• Support the PEAR part of the proposal. --Guppymomma 20:11, 1 March 2007 (PST)
• I would like to change my vote to Support. -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 14:47, 4 March 2007 (PST)

Oppose

• Puzzle Pirate code discussion has been done already. PEAR scores are most definitely about the individual pirate, can be updated by anyone, and for most pirates, don't change that often. -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 18:24, 1 March 2007 (PST)

Image signatures

In order to be in-line with Ringer policies on the forum, image signatures are not allowed on the wiki. Please discus below.--Fiddler 13:09, 13 November 2006 (PST)

Support

1. Strongly support. --Barrister 13:32, 13 November 2006 (PST)
2. Support. --Ponytailguy 13:55, 13 November 2006 (PST)
3. Strongly support. --Guppymomma 14:59, 13 November 2006 (PST)
4. Support. --Yaten ^talk 15:11, 13 November 2006 (PST)

Proposal to add a no player ship name articles policy

It seems pointless to have to propose player ship articles for deletion and have voting. We should just be able to zap them right off the bat. There's no good reason I can think of for player owned ships to have their own pages. --Guppymomma 20:28, 5 December 2006 (PST)

Support

1. Support. --Guppymomma 20:28, 5 December 2006 (PST)
2. Support. --Thunderbird 20:29, 5 December 2006 (PST)
3. Support. --Fannon 20:47, 5 December 2006 (PST)
4. Support. --Barrister 00:04, 6 December 2006 (PST)
5. Support. --Ponytailguy 05:24, 6 December 2006 (PST)
6. Support. --Flamer 12:26, 7 December 2006 (PST)

Proposal to add a "no lists of standard-named ships" policy

I'm not sure it's appropriate for people to have complete ship lists on their pirate pages; off the top of my head:

• They're impossible for anyone but the subject of the page to maintain, which goes against the wiki tenet of pages being maintainable by the community.
• They're impossible for anyone to verify or confirm, which goes against another basic wiki tenet.
• They rarely add much to the page in question. (I mean, really... does it matter to you that Weirdbeard's sloop is called the Ugly Cod?)

On the other hand, names of custom-renamed ships can be interesting and impressive. Likewise, ship names (standard or otherwise) can be a functional and perfectly valid part of a broader narrative or biography. So I propose we set policy to say that pirate pages should not contain lists of standard-named vessels. --Ponytailguy 21:48, 30 December 2006 (PST)

Barrister brought to my attention that we are not covering crew pages under this policy change. If standard named vessel lists on pirate pages are all those thing mentioned above, should this policy apply to crew and flag pages as well? --Arminius 14:57, 5 January 2007 (PST)

Wondering same thing as Arminius up there, specially since I came across this in recent changes: Lunar Rogues/ships. User Thefirstdude even made a template for making ship lists and I still consider the same standards listed by PTG apply to crew pages. --Cecidrake 10:02, 6 February 2007 (PST)

Wow, I was totally unaware of this when I made the templates. The list on Lunar Rogues/ships is meant primarily for crew purposes - it is often very helpful to see a crew's ships when looking at the "Where are my vessels" list is inconvenient. I understand that most people really don't care, and that's why on the Lunar Rogues page it is inside a {{showhide}}. The template for My ships can then have a note added saying it should only be used for custom-named ships. I just saw so many recent pirate pages with ship lists on them, I thought I'd make a standardized form for them. --Thefirstdude 10:34, 6 February 2007 (PST)

Support

1. Support. --Ponytailguy 21:48, 30 December 2006 (PST)
2. Support. --Lilly 00:52, 31 December 2006 (EST)
3. Support. --Arminius 21:55, 30 December 2006 (PST)
4. Support. --Barrister 22:21, 30 December 2006 (PST)
5. Support. --Faulkston 22:27, 30 December 2006 (PST)
6. Support.--Cavaliers06 00:26, 31 December 2006 (PST)
7. Support. --Sagacious ^(talk) 00:58, 31 December 2006 (PST)
8. Support --Zava 05:27, 31 December 2006 (PST)
9. Support --Piplicus 05:32, 31 December 2006 (PST)
10. Support. --Guppymomma 06:43, 31 December 2006 (PST)
11. Support. --Yaten ^talk 09:57, 31 December 2006 (PST)
12. Support, so long as this affects lists only. Ship names in the text of the article are perfectly fine.--Fiddler 00:07, 4 January 2007 (PST)

Hence the caveat that it applies explicitly to lists as opposed to "broader narratives". :) --Ponytailguy 19:31, 5 January 2007 (PST)

Hiding large lists of pets and trinkets

In a similar vein many users have been taking advantage of the pet and trinket templates developed by by atteSmythe to showcase dozens upon dozens of trinkets. While these collections can add interest to an article they can also impair the readability of that article by other editors, specifically in the case of large trinket collections that are drawing upon dozens of huge images across the wiki. I propose that collections of larger than a dozen pets or trinkets (combined, not a dozen of each) be hidden behind a show/hide box. Good examples of this already in practice can be seen at Vova and Stevensam. On the latter page there is a quite noticable lag between the main page loading and the trinket box being enabled. If all of these trinkets were displayed on the main page it could seriously affect the ability of some readers to actually load the article, especially those on dial-up connections.

Consensus? Let's see if anyone else has something to contribute in the next couple of days; if not then I'll add it.--Fiddler 17:50, 18 February 2007 (PST)

Has it not yet been long enough? -- Thefirstdude 17:55, 18 February 2007 (PST)

Alright, it's been over three weeks now. This has passed and is going in.--Fiddler 08:06, 27 February 2007 (PST)

Support

1. Support. --Fiddler 22:29, 5 February 2007 (PST)
2. Support. Let's see more writing and less images. -- Faulkston 22:51, 5 February 2007 (PST)
3. Support. Ditto on Faulkston's comment. --Guppymomma 06:48, 6 February 2007 (PST)
4. Support. --Thefirstdude 15:34, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Neutral

1. Neutral. --Arminius 08:31, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Disallowing separate articles for stalls owned by a pirate

My feeling is that the type, location, owner and managers of a stall can all be included in a pirate article rather than requiring a completely separate and generally very short article. It's somewhat analogous to not allowing articles about player-owned ships. -- Faulkston 21:22, 11 March 2007 (PDT)

I have to agree with Faulkston on this. I think that based on past comments there are some that would have to put aside their feelings about lists on individual pirate pages in favor of not seeing a pile of stall pages. I also think that while a few building pages have cut the line close on NPOV, stall pages would become out right advertising. If they want to advertise they there is a spot in each ocean's forums for this. -- Cedarwings ^(t/c) 22:10, 11 March 2007 (PDT)

Unlike ships, stalls owned or managed by a pirate can be updated by any editor. It may require logging onto one of the oceans to check if it's not possible in all web browsers (i.e. not using the game client) to use the popup information box avaiable on the pirate page. -- Faulkston 22:24, 11 March 2007 (PDT)

Thirded. While shoppes have some global effect, as they have an actual separate visual space on the islands and such, stalls can be unlimited in number and have no other sorts of restrictions that make them unique in any way besides the names belonging to them and the fact that one pirate can only own one stall of each type on an island. Might as well just let them be dropped in pirate pages if people insist on having them. -- HolyApoc 17:33, 12 March 2007 (PDT)

Aye, combining them with the pirate pages seems most acceptable if they must be mentioned at all. --Muffynz 21:01, 17 March 2007 (PDT)

I think this vote is done, if the closest admin could add it to the policies page I'll archive the vote and add the results to the news. --Muffynz 17:05, 3 April 2007 (PDT)

Support

1. Support. -- Cedarwings ^(t/c) 23:26, 27 March 2007 (PDT)
2. Support. -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 12:03, 28 March 2007 (PDT)
3. Support -- Covenant7 ^(t/c) 12:19, 28 March 2007 (PDT)
4. Support --Muffynz 12:52, 28 March 2007 (PDT)
5. Support: Unlike shoppes, these aren't significant enough to warrant their own page. --Darkaardvark 13:31, 28 March 2007 (PDT)
6. Support --Arminius 09:27, 3 April 2007 (PDT)
7. Support --Tabzsheff 17:39, 3 April 2007 (PDT)

Disallowing bulleted stall lists in pirate and crew pages

I just realized we have not made this official after removing a couple of stall lists. Subject line is pretty explanatory. --Arminius 09:03, 3 April 2007 (PDT)

Tally - 1/5/2

Support

1. Support --Arminius 09:03, 3 April 2007 (PDT)

Oppose

1. Oppose. I don't see anything wrong with having a little bulleted list of stalls on pirate or crew pages. It doesn't take up that much space and it's informational. It's not like allowing individual pages for stalls. --Guppymomma 09:19, 3 April 2007 (PDT)
2. Oppose. This isn't something that will cause spam or clutter, like listing out one's whole fleet of ships. --Eurydice 09:39, 3 April 2007 (PDT)
3. Oppose. I must agree that a list of player owned stalls is not a major concern as far as pirate pages. It's informative into the trade aspects the player endeavors while they play. --Muffynz 13:37, 3 April 2007 (PDT)
4. Oppose. The in-game infopage lists stalls in avery awkward fashion - I'd understand if someone wanted an actual text list. --Zava 03:18, 4 April 2007 (PDT)
5. Oppose for all the reasons stated above. -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 20:36, 4 April 2007 (PDT)
6. Oppose. I think this is a good thing because it stops pirates with stalls going around advertising and making more spam! Also its a good way of stall owners to know that they can get loyal customers without hassling people. -- Jordal 19:18 23 April 2007

Neutral

1. I'm easy either way, in my opinion it has no real effect on the persons Pirate Page, but if its regarding space on servers that these few bytes will be taking up, then fine! --Tabzsheff 11:39 03 April 2007 (PDT)
2. I do agree that these lists have the potential to become spammy (some people own or manage 20 stalls and shoppes!), but I'm not convinced they're a major problem, nor totally devoid of useful information. I'd be strongly in favour of hiding longer lists behind show/hides, but I'm not sure how I feel about force omission. --Ponytailguy 22:27, 3 April 2007 (PDT)

It just occurred to me that I should have been more specific. After reading GM's and Eury's comments, I see no harm in bulleted stall lists in pirate pages. It is the brew/flag pages with bulleted lists that do really hurt the eyes and are almost impossible to maintain (again, see Verus Fidelitas). Would anyone mind if we reset the vote so that it only covers bulleted stall lists on crew/flag pages? --Arminius 16:33, 3 April 2007 (PDT)

There, problem solved. Check the page again. Show/hide functions are great friends as they don't diminish the amount of information on the page, (I could personally see a listing of flag merchant enterprises as being encyclopedic information) whilst maintaining an aura of readability. --Muffynz 16:44, 3 April 2007 (PDT)

Maybe the correct approach to this is to limit the list length like we have for number of trinkets before a show/hide function becomes mandatory? Say like 12 (just a number pulled out of the air) stalls warrants a show/hide function. -- Cedarwings ^(t/c) 21:12, 3 April 2007 (PDT)

That's a pretty good idea. -- Faulkston 22:22, 3 April 2007 (PDT)

Excellent idea! --Arminius 10:50, 4 April 2007 (PDT)

So has this been passed so that you CAN'T have stalls/shoppes listed on pirate pages? --Tabzsheff 16:20, 10 April 2007

No, it did not pass. -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 16:23, 9 April 2007 (PDT)

However, I think the recommendation to do a show/hide on any lists longer than 12 stalls or so is a sound one and would like to see that written over on the policy page. --Muffynz 18:53, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

Although I agree with the idea, I also agree with Guppy's comments here. -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 19:28, 23 April 2007 (PDT)

Proposal for hiding large galleries of portraits in crew/flag pages policy

It has become clear recently that a number of users are taking advantage of the use of galleries and it is turning some crew/flag pages into very long sections of pirate portraits. So along the lines of the pets, trinkets and other list restrictions, I am proposing a policy that all galleries that appear on crew/flag pages are limited to 10 before needing to be hidden in a show/hide bar similar to pets and trinkets. This would help improve the time to load pages, especially for those still using dial-up connections.

See examples here - EAC, Elysian Fields, Serenity, Beyond the Sea

Support

1. Support -- Cedarwings ^(t/c) 21:18, 7 September 2007 (PDT)
2. Support -- Tabzsheff ^(t/c) 16:11, 9 Septmeber 2007 (GMT)
3. Support, but I think they should be limited to 10 portraits period, and ban solo-pirate portraits entirely. The multi-pirate portraits serve little purpose, but they can be cool, and it's rare that they'd all happen to be in the same person's gallery. The solo portraits serve zero purpose, and with a link to the pirate article, are redundant anyway. -- Thefirstdude ^(t/c) 08:31, 9 September 2007 (PDT)
4. Support --Guppymomma 09:09, 9 September 2007 (PDT)

Hearty lists on pirate pages

Should not having hearty lists on pirates pages become part of the policy. See for example Porklove. The names aren't linked and don't add any additional information than that of the automatically generated page. -- Vorky 17:18, 3 March 2008 (PST)

That's pretty much the same as listing royalty or crew members without specifying additional information. Agree to not have non-augmented hearty lists on pirate pages. -- Faulkston 19:22, 3 March 2008 (PST)

At the german yypedia one can list hearties in the infobox: Honas_(Pirat). The feature was limited to the three most important hearties at first, but detoriated somewhat now: Pikatschu_(Pirat). --Alfwyn 05:52, 9 March 2008 (PDT)

Don't forget that the German Yppedia has its own set of policies and guidelines that may not match those here. -- Cedarwings ^(talk) 09:25, 9 March 2008 (PDT)

Sure, and they seem to be quite different when it comes to pirate pages (but right now there aren't too many people around over there, so it just seems to be a set of individual opinions rather than policies). --Alfwyn 09:48, 9 March 2008 (PDT)

Support

1. Support disallowing plain hearty lists. There is a game mechanism that was created to also protect folks who don't want to be listed as hearties and allowing lists on YPPedia has no such privacy protection. --Guppymomma 07:00, 7 March 2008 (PST)
2. Same as above. Lists and infoboxes should be as factual and current as possible, not ever-changing. --Fiddler 07:02, 7 March 2008 (PST)
3. Same as above. The information, if the pirate wishes for it to be seen, is easily viewable through their yoweb link provided on the pirate page. -- Cedarwings ^(talk) 09:25, 9 March 2008 (PDT)
4. Support. --Barrister 11:08, 9 March 2008 (PDT)