I think we should scrap the layout copied from GW and create our own layout for this page. The option is to copy the edit history over from GW, but I think it would be nicer to rework the page into something unique to this site.


Can someone please update this page according to Real Vetting. GCardinal 00:26, 23 May 2007 (CEST)

It already has been. The only change that needed to be made was that Real Vetting needed to be moved into the official policy section, which I already did. It is just disguised as "Official Vetting Policy" and can be found under the "Build policies" heading. I don't see what else needs to be done. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:30, 23 May 2007 (CEST)


How about adding the attribution to original authors instead of deleting? Or was the page so bad that you wanted to start from scratch? --Hhhippo 11:45, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

I don't know, yet, how the original author wants it attributed. I'd have to ask him, wait for a response, then proceed to attribute it correctly, all the while it would sit as a copyvio. The info can be used (and retrieved, naturally) but not until we attribute it in the manner specified by the author. -Auron 11:48, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
Ok, is see. Maybe we could, as a temporary solution, replace all the pages that Tanaric wants wiped by a comment stating we follow the corresponding policies on GuildWiki, and a link to that. In case of PvXwiki:Administrators of course also the admin list should survive.
I hope it's not a copyvio to follow a policy that someone else has written... --Hhhippo 12:10, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
K, sounds good. Could you do that for each article once I wipe it? -Auron 12:13, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
Done. I don't have the admin list, that has to be digged out of the archive. --Hhhippo 12:48, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

Proposed Policies in Well Established Policies

Should I update the templates up top and give them quick links like PvX:SIGN for instance? —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 01:23, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

Just did it. I just got caught up in something else and neglected to do that. However, I can't think of any good acronyms for any of them other than YAV, so for now, unless someone else can think of some, the rest don't need acronyms. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:27, 5 August 2007 (CEST)

Pimpin' Policies

I'm tired someone else add blurbs about all the policies. It's a much needed improvement because we have so many policies. This way, it's easier for newer users to adjust to the way the wiki works. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 21:51, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

Thanks. Looks good. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 21:55, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

I fixed your yellow. Also, if you look at the nav bar, the color is different than the rest of the frame. If you're going to change to a different color, make sure it makes sense: ex. Light blue links on mud yellow is not a pleasant color combo. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 21:58, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

Looked alright to me. It's just a color though, nothing to throw a fit about. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 22:04, 13 August 2007 (CEST)
I wasn't throwing a fit :/ —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 22:09, 13 August 2007 (CEST)
Sorry, I meant that I'm not going to be prissy about RVing my color changes. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 22:25, 13 August 2007 (CEST)
Instead of talking about colors, perhaps adding the remaining blurbs would be mighty awesome. I'm watching Star Trek right now. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 22:56, 13 August 2007 (CEST)
Enjoy your Star Trek. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 23:15, 13 August 2007 (CEST)
I check back during commercials, but thank you, I will. Very much. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 23:21, 13 August 2007 (CEST)
 :-) - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 23:22, 13 August 2007 (CEST)

Alphabetical Order?

Not a big deal (except to me 'cause I work at a library), but the first bunch of PvX policies are in alphabetical order, but PvX:NONO through PvX:Guides aren't. Is there a reason for that, or can I alphabetize them? --Wizardboy777 SigWizardboy777(T/C) 00:44, 26 September 2007 (CEST)

Go ahead. — Skakid9090 00:53, 26 September 2007 (CEST)

Squeeze it

Currently, we have like, 10 billion policies. Kind of a bitch to memorize them all and for new users to get acquainted with them. This is the Bull's Charge of policy proposals. Much like Bull's Charge offers bar compression as a cancel stance and a snare, this offers policies a place to be jammed in together.

Now, of course current links (e.g. PvX:WELL would redirect to PvXwiki:Builds#Builds Work Well for example) would remain intact and functional. Existing policies would be archived. Now, while this compression scheme isn't the exact one we have to follow, I do feel it is needed. What benefits could this offer PvXwiki?

  1. Easy introduction for new users
  2. No policy overload to scare off existing newbies
  3. No more reliance on Guildwiki policies: we have a distinct community and have distinct needs.

The policies would remain exactly the same but with more sections added on and slight grammatical modifications to maintain consistency and flow. Each of these compressed policies would go through the same hoops as any new policy, naturally. Remember, however, that these are not new policies.

Compressed Policies

Current policies

Compressed policies

PvX:NPA, PvX:DIS PvXwiki:Don't be a dick
PvX:EB, PvX:ARCHIVE, PvXwiki:Editing User Pages, GW:CONTENT, PvX:REDIRECT PvXwiki:Editing
PvX:ADMIN, PvX:EVAL, gw:Guildwiki:Administrate users, not content PvXwiki:Administrators
GW:AGF, PvX:YAV, PvX:MAA PvXwiki:Users
PvX:OWN, gw:GW:IMAGE PvXwiki:Content Copyrights
GW:GNA, GW:NOT PvXwiki:We are not

Remaining Policies

  • Guildwiki:Only revert once
  • PvXwiki:Article retention
  • PvXwiki:Guides
  • PvXwiki:Ignore All Rules
  • PvXwiki:Requests for adminship
  • PvXwiki:Sign your comments


—ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake 13:11, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Was just talking about this with Wizardboy, though I was thinking of deleting unneeded policies. The disadvantage to this is that we'll have longer policies to read through, though I suppose a lot of them are already short. My other thought was to simply make a new header higher up on the page and say "these are the important ones - read them first, the rest you can get to when you have time".

I don't think RfA should be treated as a policy - it's a process, plain and simple. I also think SIGN, GUIDES, IGNORE, AGF, and YAV should be guidelines. (I don't particularly want to have to deal with a whiny kid who's trying to use a perverted interpretation of IGNORE, AGF, and YAV to defend his semi-vandelous acts.)

On another note, are we actually going to write up DICK? I know I did on GW2W, but it's one of those sacred red pages over here. :o -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 13:23, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.