GuildWiki talk:Personal sites

I'd probably agree with something like this &mdash; Skuld 02:52, 29 November 2006 (CST)
 * It's not really written up formally enough to be implemented yet. But that's a minor thing, this would be quite difficult to police I'd say and I don't think that people are using the GuildWiki as "their personal webspace" at the moment, there's just a large number of longish user pages.


 * I like the fact that people can get a little creative on their user page, the place would be intolerably boring if it was all just documentation. We're not getting paid for this, there's nobody looking over our shoulder making sure we're working all the time. I'm sure all of us at some stage have "wasted" time mucking around with the layout of their user page and browsed through other people's as well. What's the harm in having a user page which says a bit about what your and your characters are doing in the game, why not have a bit of fun with it, otherwise I'd feel like I'm being employed as a librarian to catalogue a neverending stream of information. Our user pages give us a personality here, I like the fact that I know the contributors here a bit, you know we're a community, not a bunch of nose to the grindstone robots. I'm not sure how you define a page length but I'm sure mine would be longer than a page, does my help guide have to go? Am I abusing the user category? --Xasxas256 03:19, 29 November 2006 (CST)


 * I'm fine with that, I don't it when users with nothing but a user page, like it says in the article, using it :as their home page &mdash; Skuld 03:22, 29 November 2006 (CST)


 * Where's an example I can peruse over? I don't remember seeing many user pages like that myself but our definitions might be different. The last one I can remember was that guy with the picture of the warrior who offered a running service. --Xasxas256 03:28, 29 November 2006 (CST)


 * User:Prince Morda? Not trying to single anyone out here, just the first that I ran across with a good size page and no edits other than to their page (and one talking to Skuld).
 * Personally the only thing that I'm going to worry about on userpages are things that could get the wiki in trouble. Illeagle activities, stuff frowned on by ANet (porn, gold selling, etc...), etc....  --Rainith 03:38, 29 November 2006 (CST)


 * gulp* O_O... --Jamie [[Image:Jamie.jpg|24px|(Talk Page)]] 03:45, 29 November 2006 (CST)

Point-by-point:


 * User pages should be short and concise.

Text doesn't hurt anything, though. A ten-page treatise on why I love Dragon Slash takes up less server space than a single picture.


 * GuildWiki is not your personal web page host.

Who uses their user page this way? I've yet to see anyone fill up a page with stuff unrelated to GW, other than an "about me" paragraph here or there.


 * GuildWiki is not your personal blog.

Who uses their user page this way?


 * Do not create pages for your guilds or characters.

I agree, but this seems to be a matter of taste rather than strict necessity. Are a few extra pages in someone's user space that big of a deal from a technical perspective?


 * GuildWiki bandwidth is not for hosting images of your characters and their accomplishments. Nobody cares what your armor looks like.

If a lot of people are looking at your picture, then they do, on some level. If they aren't, then you're not really eating bandwidth, are you?


 * User pages longer than a page should be deleted.

Uh, who's going to police all these user pages? Measuring "a page" on the Internet is clunky, anyway.

&mdash; 130.58 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2006 (CST)


 * What about clutter on Special:Recentchanges? &mdash; Skuld 03:50, 29 November 2006 (CST)
 * The suggested policy does nothing to cover that. People can make 100 edits tweaking a short page as easily as they can spend 100 edits editing a long one. Heck, mine's pretty damn long and I've only made 53 edits in about a year, with no more than five in the same day. Recentchanges spam comes mainly from people who don't know how to really use the wiki software and are trying to do fancy layout tricks (e.g. all those pages with tables, rounded borders, &c.). Just plopping text on a page, even if you get pretty anal about it and save all the time, won't spam Recentchanges much. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2006 (CST)


 * Yay for 130.58! Agree totally with ya and I don't know why this issue has suddenly come up again, I don't see it being a problem anywhere. While User:Prince Morda may not be much of a contributor presently, I don't have any objections to that user page (although giving credit might be nice but that's got nothing to do with the issue at hand). --Xasxas256 03:53, 29 November 2006 (CST)


 * Ummm, yeah. Just found this propoced policy and noticed that I should be more active with the user page stuff. As you might notice from my user page, I really think that we should allow longish user pages with a lot of stuff. However, we should clearly have a policy for such cases as the one mentioned above. We should think about deleting user pages of anyone who does not contribute to the wiki otherwise. I tried to suggest this earlier when I noticed people making advertisement user pages without benefiting the wiki in any way and the above mentioned user is another good reason for this policy. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2006 (CST)


 * 130.58 has a spot on analysis IMO. I'm not opposed to policies on user page content, but this really goes against the grain of everything we have said about user pages in the past. I do not agree with even one of the points in this article as it stands.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 06:13, 29 November 2006 (CST)
 * Agreed. A policy could be written up on what is and isn't permitted; but I really don't currently see anyone abusing the userpages and this current proposal has more flaws than advantages.  I have no problem with a policy clarifying that userpages should not be used as your personal web-page host - but it's not an urgent matter to me as I haven't seen it done as yet.  No argument that GW shouldn't be used as a blog; but where is this abused currently?  Eliminating subpages for characters and guilds is fine (I have no problem deleting mine for this - I rarely update them anyway), but again, what abuse dose this address?  I haven't seen anything to indicate that anyone has caused site issues from this.  The user page length restriction is just silly to me - especially as different resolutions would define how much material is a page differently - what's taking up a full page at 1280x1024 (or higher) could be multiple pages at lower resolutions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:22, 29 November 2006 (CST)


 * Another point that Barek just propmted me to think of: while we have no idea how much money GameWikis makes from pageviews, we must presume that a profit is made. Unless Gravewit were to say that a user page being used as a blog was causing a problem, I don't see what problem there is in it remaining.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 12:31, 29 November 2006 (CST)


 * Xas states, "We're not getting paid for this...." You mean you're not? :P
 * For me, I don't like users with elaborate user pages that don't contribute, yet you see them edit it, as stated above, 100 times. Probably because they don't know how to use the preview button and that's the last you see of them until they want to upload a new image of their new armor or add a new character. Besides being a pet peeve, they aren't doing anything essentially wrong. As Rainith stated, if gold selling, porn, excessive foul language will be cause for immediate action. And I can confirm that Shade can write a full page praising Dragon Slash ;) &mdash; Gares 13:58, 29 November 2006 (CST)

I wrote this in like 5 minutes so it's obviously incomplete and needs much input from the community. The idea came from seeing the trend of user pages and expectation that if this trend continues there will be more content in userpages than the wiki. There is certainly confusion inherent in what is an acceptable userpage and what is not. The rules should be relaxed, and it would be enforced simply by watching an overabundence of recent changes from a userpage (a userpage that is too large usually shows itself with multiple image edits and subfolders). An important issue certainly is the question of how much money they make from pageviews. Regardless of bandwidth the images take space on the server's hard drive, which costs money. Examples of userpages with abit much or are just plain weird:
 * User:Oblio Example of your average user page, quite reasonable and nothing to complain about.
 * User:Gumby has uploaded lots of images including different versions of every skill
 * User:ST47illustrates the common use of subpages to create a good sized homepage, even the person who created them complained they should be deleted for lack of content
 * User:Baron Will ScarlettThis guy enjoys using guildwiki as a Flickr
 * User:Samurai snackshows how to make non-content with cheese and a snack golem
 * User:XxxPaineXxx/Elites Making a checklist of everything is very popular. Doesn't priest of Balthazar do this?
 * User:DKS01 Just past what I think is too much
 * User:Helena Okay, the skills are funny, but it's a waste
 * User:Crowley I don't even know what this is

The way it works is when people see other userpages with those things, they think it looks like fun, so they copy them. Such is the case with skill checklists, pictures of their characters, and usertags. Spayced 14:21, 29 November 2006 (CST)
 * Well I use my page to keep info I need to check for wiki. Since I dont always update from the same computer, its way easier for me to keep this here.  I do agree that user page can make us feel more in a community then some random editer but some people do have irelevent stuff on their page or dont contribute to the wiki.  I think the trouble come from how to choose when its useful or not and what is to big.  I think it come to do we want userpage at all, if we do I say dont police  them unless they are way too big ( 100 of image) or that they use offesive language.&mdash; ├ A  ratak  ┤  14:29, 29 November 2006 (CST)
 * No offense, but some people against this have pages I would delete. Don't you have to be in the game to capture skills you don't have? If you are in the game you certainly have access to a priest of balthazar. Spayced 14:36, 29 November 2006 (CST)
 * I still fail to see the issue here. With one exception (the user page with multiple large images), I fail to see how any of the user pages referrenced pose a significant problem to bandwidh or server memory.  There are far bigger concerns without messing with drafting a policy for something that isn't an issue.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:55, 29 November 2006 (CST)
 * Yes I do agree that skill unlock is too much, all those gray icon skill too. I personaly think we should only alow thing that is related to wiki like what image need update, what article need rewriting and stuff like that. I just dont like when they make something way fancier then needed.  A page with texte to keep tract of what elite you needed doest hurt the bandwith much but when you make hundred of image in gray to keep tract of it, that become a problem to me.&mdash; ├ A  ratak  ┤  14:58, 29 November 2006 (CST)
 * While I don't use the gray icons, I have no problem with them either. At under 2k each, their memory and bandwidth requirements are pretty minimal.  This was discussed when they were first being loaded - as was much of the stuff being re-re-re-discussed in this proposed policy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:01, 29 November 2006 (CST)

A thought - could an option be put on the recent changes page to exclude changes to user pages? Surreality 15:56, 29 November 2006 (CST)
 * &mdash; Skuld 15:58, 29 November 2006 (CST)
 * The option already exists. Select "User" in the namespace dropdown, then click the "Invert Selection" box and click "Go" --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:59, 29 November 2006 (CST)
 * Dang it ... Skuld was quicker again ... lets face it, if I can't outpace Skuld on a talk page, I have no hope of ever returning to fps games. :-( --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:01, 29 November 2006 (CST)
 * LoL, yes I just went found that out for myself as well actually. But if this is the case already then why worry about clutter on the recent change page? Just turn it off. Surreality 16:08, 29 November 2006 (CST)
 * Probably not a good idea for admins to isolate a section of the site, and some ppl want to ignore builds :p &mdash; Skuld 16:11, 29 November 2006 (CST)