Wowpedia talk:Player character page policy

There used to be a different policy for player character pages - does anyone know what happened to it? This new one, and the updated PC tag, seem much more oriented towards RP purposes than previously - perhaps the old policy will contain information that can be used to broaden the scope of this version? --Anaea 11:13, 23 January 2007 (EST)


 * Are you referring to the Personal Articles Policy? If I had to comment on the PC proposal, I'd suggest that we maintain that PC articles remain in the User: sub-article namespace. Keeps things tidy and makes sure we can always match up User: to PC. This is mostly being followed now and I think works well. --Tusva 18:29, 23 January 2007 (EST)


 * I agree. For my own purposes, I keep the content in User:, but I have a redirect with the plain name (e.g., Nariana points to User:Montag/Nariana) so templates I use that make links automatically will work correctly. Not sure if this would work globally, but it works for more unique names. Edit: By the way, what does "don't put any material on the page that requires it to be updated frequently, or is only meant for the player" mean? Like, what kind of information or situations does this apply to? 22:33, 23 January 2007 (EST)

No, it definitely predated the Personal Articles policy. I didn't even know about PC articles when I set up my User page - maybe a month and a half ago? It's not a big deal, I just didn't remember as much information about RP being in it before. Personally, since I'm on a PvE server, I see more utility in the User page as a complement to server pages (e.g. listing guilds, rare craftables, etc.) Re: frequently updated material I'm assuming things like character or crafting level pre-cap, or quests you're working on. Things only meant for the player might be an offline version of the friends list, or notes to yourself (ZOMG I need that Dragonhawk Hatchling!) --Anaea 08:18, 24 January 2007 (EST)

I just noticed that a great deal of this information was copied over from the "Guild Page" policies - and hadn't been updated to change "guild" to "player character." I fixed this where I noticed it. Incidentally, it might be helpful if an admin? moderator? or whomever wrote the note at the top of this policy could elaborate a little more on the difference between an "objective" PC page and a "wikisquatter" page. --Anaea 09:51, 7 February 2007 (EST)


 * I suppose the best way would be to describe what doesn't fall in the objective category. Officially, a non-objective PC article has anything that can be considered WP:NPOV. Simply stated, something like player-bashing, or using the article to vent your own frustrations without a reason, or an article with too much self-promotion is considered wikisquatting. It's something that contributes only to yourself and not to the community. Of course, a guild article is a form of advertisement for that guild, which is fine, but it also exists as a resource for other community members. An article called "Tod Is A Ninja Looter And A Douche" does provide a warning that Tod is a ninja looter, but it does not really help the community in an objective manner. Simply stated, PC articles need to have the community in mind, too. (As a side note, I did not write the clause at the top of the policy.) 18:57, 7 February 2007 (EST)


 * Thanks! The examples helped. :) --Anaea 11:40, 8 February 2007 (EST)

I don't really agree. I think individual, not too well known player characters should not have an own page in this encyclopedia. If you want one, why not make it on User:Yourname/Charactername ? Salaskan 13:26, 17 February 2007 (EST)


 * ...It honestly hadn't occurred to me that people would create character pages separate from their user page. I completely agree with you on that one.  So if this does refer to User/Character pages, we should add that to the policy because you're right, it isn't currently mentioned.  The User page might also be the policy that I recall being less explicitly about RP. EDIT: Judging from  this policy it seems that we are talking about character pages under the auspices of the User page. --Anaea 17:00, 17 February 2007 (EST)


 * More and more player pages are popping up, and a lot of them seems to be pure vanity projects. It's messing up the wiki. I would wish for a policy that restricts player pages, but I don't know how to go about it? Where do I start such a petition? I would suggest that a PC page is only warranted in extremely rare cases (e.g. Leroy Jenkins), and that if you wish to add information about characters it should be included in a section of "Notable Player Characters" on the guild page (or in very rare cases on the realm or battlegroup page). --Ballistae 13:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)


 * I disagree. Because we're a wiki devoted to WoW and not to broader topics, I think we can afford to list not-so-notable characters, especially if they're kept in user subpages. It gives the player community a definitive place on the wiki and encourages creative development for fan-fiction and roleplaying. This draws in editors with good writing skills. I also think it makes the wiki community stronger to allow people to show off their characters in their own fashion without simply resorting to the Armory or other character profile sites. Keeping character pages allows us to compete with both. 15:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)


 * So far, Salaskan, that is the policy. 15:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Player Characters
I think that player characters should be sub articles for the server they are related to. There are a ton of PC articles that are created by users who do not own them and then it causes problems when they reject having that PC article under their username. I propose that PC articles be separated from fan fiction designation, fan fiction will almost always have a WoWWiki user associated with them. -- 22:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Votes

 * Yes :


 * No :

Comments
Agreed with that. Nothing to really add, tbh. -- 22:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I approve this idea! I'd go ahead and move my articles to Sisters of Elune, but I wanna wait and see if the motion carries or not.  ~ Doc Lithius (U)(T)(C) 00:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Other than that, I didn't really know there was a problem. Could you link an example or two, for me? (Something so that I can get an idea of how bad the problem is) -- DuTempete  talk  |  contr  16:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What about categorization? Should they just float, like user sub-pages?  Does the namespace automatically categorize them?  And, by virtue of not being in the user namespace, wouldn't they be listed with the orphans?
 * Wattw and Kalielar are a couple of recent examples where PC articles were moved to be sub-articles of their creators userspace where they turned around moved them back to the main namespace because they weren't their characters. -- 23:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm a bit late here, but as I posted on the recall page, I feel that providing users their own personal web space (essentially) on the wiki is against the spirit of the wiki in general, and serves no real purpose. Fan fiction, while it does have artistic merit, does not necessarily contribute anything to any user's understanding of the Warcraft universe, and may in fact hamper it depending on the exact nature of the content. Also, and in particular, I feel that Wowwiki providing hosting space for "owned" content like the guide mentioned above is a gross misuse of the wiki, and strongly against the spirit of it in general. In short, if someone wants to make their own private work, they need to do it on their own private webspace. If they want to post it here, they need to follow all of the rules and be interested in the collaborative effort that makes this wiki what it is, not to expect any sort of supervisory control or special priveleges by posting on a user page. --Maldian 16:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm of two minds regarding your concerns, Maldian. Concerning fanficion and player character acticles, on some (many?) servers these stories are regarded as server lore.  While the events that are depicted in the fanfiction or player character articles might not be a part of the official Warcraft universe, each individual story combines to create a server environment or history that is entirely unique of other servers.  Most of my insight comes from Feathermoon US which embraces this ideal, but there we've tried to cultivate a community that embraces this sort of thing.


 * In regards to whether or not these articles embrace the philosophy behind Wiki, I'm not sure if I am knowledgeable enough to provide good feedback on that. I'm a relative wiki neophyte, having only until recently used this site to research lore and incorporate it into my characters, who very well may have articles on this site.  If we accept that these fan-made articles are important in the sense that they contribute or flesh out a server, there leaves the problem of ownership.  Rather than being an article about the server and thus community property, these characters are unique creations by individuals who probably don't want to have other people flagrantly edit these articles - who else would know more about a character on a server than his creator?


 * I think in this WoWWiki is in a unique position. Many sites do not seem to allow personal content to be added.  However, this personal content could arguably have a place on WoWWiki due to the nature of World of Warcraft itself.  Despite having a linear story, many of us have used the environment to mold our characters and, with enough people interacting and involved in the community, have thereby impacted the environment in which they're based.  Coming to the site and viewing articles on well-known characters from Feathermoon US, I get insight into the pixelated faces that make up our little piece of the universe and have learned and participated in events that are considered server lore due to their impact, the number of people involved (typically of both factions), and by how well-known those events are.


 * I like the idea of putting characters under a server. This serves to further align server-specific content to those environments in which they occurred.  It helps to flesh out our little piece of Azeroth and further brings the people of that particular server together by hopefully generating a community feeling - while solving the ownership problems that have apparantly occurred!  I think that the problem with doing so, however, is retaining that ownership feeling for those player character articles.  I honestly feel that they should be maintained primarily by by their creators and not left to a public ownership, by virtue of being the creation of that individual.  That very well may defeat the spirit of the wiki (and I'm certain it does, having read the front page again), but I'm not certain of what steps should be taken to resolve that and leave it in far more capable hands than my own.


 * Of course, I'm obviously a role-player here and my opinions may be biased by my perception of the game and also the community in which I participate. I'm just throwing in my 2[[Image:Copper.png]] and hopefully providing another perception - in addition to yet another wall of text.   17:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing that's opened up with the Wikia move -- Wikia's willing to open up a separate wiki for each server. They have five of them so far:  see the bottom of http://www.wikia.com/wiki/World_of_Warcraft.  These wikis welcome character and guild write-ups, rp, fanfic, server history, and lots more.  Might be possible to start organizing a relationship between WoWWiki for the over-arching gameplay and lore and such, and Realm wikis for the more server-specific details.  Would that make sense?  Catherine 01:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My comment is a few months late, but here it is...
 * The Wikia realm wiki solution would be okay if it covered nearly all the realms before we let WoWWiki users loose in that space. It would burdensome to expect users to start a realm wiki, if they are the first to make/move a player character there. I also would like when people throw around the term "spirit of the wiki", they at least explain what they mean by that or link to someting. I admit I've been guilty too, but I'll try to be better. A shared idea is only good, if it is really shared. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 12:35 PM PST 6 Dec 2007



Player character articles/pages okay under user namespace
Diff: Not worth going through the whole policy process for this, I believe. My change is minimal, so please complain here, if you disagree or comment if you want more clarification. -- Fandyllic  (talk · contr) 12:27 PM PST 6 Dec 2007
 * Policy change:
 * Player character pages/articles are also okay living under the author's user namespace.

Eliminate character sub-pages in the server namespace
I would like to start to clean up the server namespace. There is a lot of cruft in there, but the server pages themselves are probably OK for now. As far as this policy is concerned, I would like to propose the following:

Player character pages are no longer allowed in the Server namespace. They should be moved or created in the User namespace as fan fiction - or moved to the main namespace if the character is especially notable as mentioned in the comments below. The effect of this policy amendment will be to remove all mention of use of the Server namespace as appropriate and to move/remove the existent character pages as appropriate.

Votes

 * Yes :


 * No :

Comments 2
I feel like this proposal may lead to the erasure of relevant information, like Server:Blackrock Europe/Indalamar. Xporc (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That character should probably be moved to the main namespace as an especially notable character, like Alamo. -- (•) 14:48, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not, but who gets to crawl through the thousands of users that would get deleted to know which ones are relevant or not? Xporc (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There's less than 1000. Most of them would get moved to the User namespace by default. -- (•) 15:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So that means Oxhorn (who is notable) will be the article instead of a redirect? (although that article will need a major overhaul)
 * If this is the case, why not create a template that includes the notable characters such as those mentioned above and Leeroy Jenkins. 15:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. -- (•) 16:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Notable characters this is what I got so far. 10:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)