GuildWiki talk:Wikidrama

Should this be in GuildWiki:Wikidrama? --◄mendel► 08:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need this? Kinda self explanatory imo. And it hasn't got anything to do with GuildWars or anything related to GW, and we're not Wikipedia. -- - talk 21:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it suits Category:Candidates for deletion, not GW:. --- -- (s)talkpage 21:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a term that comes up now and then on the wiki (45 page text matches), and I feel new editors should be able to look that up. --◄mendel► 22:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This either belongs in the GuildWiki: namespace or the User: namespace, but the mainspace should be reserved for documenting the game. This article is simply misplaced.-- (Talk) (Contr.) 07:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Userspace IMO. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 08:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Imo mendel has been making quite a lot of stuff in guildwiki: namespace that belongs in User: tbh. — Warw/Wick 17:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a definition of "wikidrama" in the mainspace (by which i include GW prefixes)? A)It's a fairly self explanatory term B)It isn't related to the topic this wiki's purpose is to document C)This isn't a great definition anyway and D)We don't do this for any other wiki-language (er, do we?) and besides which, if we define wikidrama anywhere surely it should be as part of a policy, not just a random page in the GuildWiki namespace-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps assimilate it into NPA? It kind of resembles a personal attack, to a much lesser extent. PossessedLinebeck 18:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

mm, I was more thinking it might have its own policy as it can be considered er "disruptive to the wiki", though a specific clause in NPA would also be an appropriate place for a definition. Though tbh, wikidrama is sometimes unavoidable and er, 'productive' in its's own way - such as in rfa/policy debates. It is also often provoked by the actions of those in positions above the reach of policies, i.e. sysops/bcrats and as such any policy on the subject would be rather pointless. My point in simply that we don't have definition pages in the GuildWiki mainspace and never have had, the only place where we define terms like this in that namespace is within policies, but since we dont have or really need one on the subject of wikidrama, i vote in favour of deletion-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...Seconded. PossessedLinebeck 18:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Cobalt, you make good points, but your conclusion doesn't follow. You're right in that most of written content about this wiki's culture (the "meta", if you will) is gathered in policies (and in various talk pages and archives), but that doesn't mean if can't be in a policy you can't write about it. --◄mendel► 05:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that there is nothing to say we can't have pages to define specific wiki-terms, we just never have had them and haven't had any requests for them which somewhat suggests such pages are unnecessary. Besides which, in the case of the term 'wikidrama' i think the definition is fairly self explanatory - it's drama on the wiki. And also the context of its use should indicate its meaning - if a user sees the term wikidrama being used, they are likely seeing some wikidrama - how many of those 45 matches are actually instances of wiki drama itself? I'd bet quite a few - people saying things like "stop this wiki drama" etc.-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)