At this time the policy isn't complete, but we can start discussion of a few points:
- Whether or not the Team:XXX namespace for non-notable teams is the best option
- Where to draw the line for articles about users (which should exist and which shouldn't)
- Where to draw the line for articles about players
- What else should be included in this policy
-Catalyst 21:55:19, 2006-04-08 (UTC)
First the Team: namespace needs to be created. I'm not aware does Wikimedia restrict the number of namespaces, but I think it would be a very good idea to have a Team: namespace. --Jhattara 06:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there's no restriction, and even if there were I think the Team: Namespace is important enough to have one. I've moved my page there (Team:Bremerton Bombers) but I think this policy will have to be passed before we move other teams there. -Catalyst 19:33:07, 2006-04-09 (UTC)
- Having a Team:Namespace would at least be better than having individual teams somewhere deep in the User:Namespace/Team area. I don't know who will policing the Level 1 articles, but well some restrictions on the use of the main namespace seems logical to me. --Oligarf 16:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is at all necessary, and certainly not the "level 1 notability" requirments. I kinda think that someone, not saying who, really likes to write regulations. Which is okay, but I think this wiki suffers from lack of (in-depth) participation. Rules such as these are only going to make that worse, as people create pages, have them deleted, are referred to "policies," on and on. The wiki should be fun, lively, and not taken as seriously as all that.
Furthermore (you knew there'd be one), there is simply not enough discussion/participation in this (or the other) policy debates to warrant making a serious decisions. It is unfair for 3 or 4 people to determine the fate of a wiki that belongs to hundreds of thousands (regardless if only a few thousand actively use it). Unless we can drum up REAL debate, these policies should be decided VERY carefully, if at all. The consensus and naming convention policies are relatively practical--this policy is full of value judgments and so I think it should be nixed right now, in its inception.
Or better, severely narrowed. I'd suggest just stating the difference namespaces notable and non-notable teams should be placed in. The parameters given for "level 1" teams make nice guidlines, but they should ONLY be suggestions. If there is some question about whether a particular team or manager is truly notable, it be could be decided on a case-by-case basis in that page's discussion page. The "Level 1 article restrictions" should be trashed altogether. As well as the various levels of notability.
I think it fine to say all non-notable teams should go in a derivitive namespace, and the team:namespace seems a good idea. But again, I think the definitions of notability should be guidelines and NOT policy.
(I mean, we haven't even been able to have decide on a freaking logo. And now we're trying to decide on serious policys? The wiki is too young for this.)
--septimusjm 17:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I agree that the policies simply aren't getting the participation they need to actually determine them on a grand scale, but I was attempting the opposite when I made IPD. Policies have been sitting dormant for ages... the only reason I wrote this one was that the Naming Conventions policy really made it essential. Consensus was written because it had ~10 inbound links already to what was a nonexistant page. So, I actually don't like writing policies, or I would have written 20 by now :-). However, I do see the necessity for some sort of order... we get ~5 new team articles per day. That needs to be regulated now, or else when we actually write a policy some months from now, we're going to need a team of people to actually organize all the articles.
It's not that I'm trying to make things difficult for people. I want the opposite for the wiki. But you must admit that when we have articles titled "Hattricklistan" that are doing nothing for the wiki, we need to do something about it.
I think the policy is attempting too much at the moment, but again I thought we would have more input than this.
And when you talk about in-depth participation, I have to say that writing an article about a hattrick team is much less of in-depth participation than policy writing and organizing all those articles... at least 60% of wiki editing and contributing goes far beyond just the writing, and that's just inherent to a wiki.
We're too young to establish full policies, yes, but we need to have something. And I think Consensus, Notability, and Naming Conventions are three essentials to the wiki... no, they don't need to be policies, but they do need to be written. I'd like to see some organization to the growth of articles we have... right now the wiki is very, very far from navigable. We need to work on organization, and Notability and Naming do that. Consensus is fundamental to any wiki.
Believe me, though, I'm far from enthusiastic about writing policies. I merely think that we need to get something done policy-wise, and no one else seems to want to write anything beyond something copy-pasted from the Wiki, so I took the initiative. -Catalyst 21:00:34, 2006-04-28 (UTC)
Hmm. A week later, and no discussion even on policies? Maybe the wiki doesn't need more policies, then, but more participation? --septimusjm 15:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I never suggested the wiki needs more policies. The wiki needs guidelines to control the chaos. But yeah, we need more participation too... if you exclude people writing articles involving their own stuff (pseudo-clubhouses), then we only have about 10 contributors. However that has nothing to do with policy... there's no reason to believe that number would decrease if we had more policy. -Catalyst 21:04:59, 2006-04-28 (UTC)
- Also, sorry that I haven't been around to respond to everything that has been added, but I've been following the U-20 election as well as working a lot on the Hattrick Wikipedia article, which I must say is coming along very nicely. -Catalyst 21:19:38, 2006-04-28 (UTC)
It's not policy in general, it's this one. I think it'd work better if (a) simplified and (b) reframed as "recommended usage" or something. People's first reason for writing articles here is usually to talk about themselves and their (crappy) players. Just don't want to put too many hurdles in their way, until participation is somewhat higher.
Btw, what the heck is going on with that logo competition? Can we have a vote or something? --septimusjm 21:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I've been meaning to say a few words on notability & have finally got round to it. After reading through this discussion I agree with most of what septimusjm says. I don't believe any arbitrary judgements about a team's notability should be made at all & that all users regardless of the level or success of their team should if they wish be able to create a wiki article in the main namespace. What difference does it actually make that a team article is in the team namespace rather than the main namespace?
Another consideration is that if a consensus develops around notability & the guidelines are adopted as policy then when new users come to the wiki to create an article about their or other non-notable team then it's almost guaranteed that they will do so from the main namespace. What then, is the article marked for deletion for being in the wrong namespace or does an admin create a new article but in the team namespace? Seems like a lot of messing about.
One point that Catalyst raised was that team articles are in effect pseudo-clubhouses. The ability to create team articles here on the wiki may have an impact on the number of users willing to purchase a clubhouse subscription. However this is something that the HT's would have to look at if at any point it became clear their income from clubhouse subscriptions was falling due to use of the wiki. Judging by current usage I can't see this ever being a large scale problem. If it were then the HT's themselves would have to decide on a policy not wiki admins or contributors. --FFHF-Escafeld 17:20, November 16, 2006 (UTC)
A few notes. First, it's obvious to me that we are losing the battle with team articles in the main namespace, and this must be considered in establishing any policy. If we are to establish a policy, we should also consider the work that will need to be put forth to enact it, otherwise why have policies? As far as the situation of team pages being pseudo-clubhouses, I don't see it as a major problem until the HTs tell us otherwise.
I think you underestimate how easy it would be to move NN-teams into the team namespace. We simply would need to press the move button at the top of the page, and move it to Team:XXX. I don't think that's really difficult.
However, all this said, I am content to change my opinion on this, as at this time I don't see a problem with having all team articles in the main namespace. Moreover, I don't have the ability to create the Team: namespace, so if we go in that direction, that will require Tjecken's intervention (which is not really a problem, just something to consider). I'm not going to decide one way or the other, but it would help to get more input on this matter. It seems like policies are rarely given any input, which is of course problematic since they will shape the Wiki in the future. -Catalyst 20:31:52, 2007-05-07 (UTC)
Do we have a consensus to accept this policy proposal? --Jhattara 11:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- IMHO it's pretty straight forward. No objections from me. --EchoMan 11:56, December 4, 2008 (UTC)
I have one single thing where I'm not sure: I think it could be better to separate the "Specific notability guidelines" from this policy and to distribute it on various sub-policies. Why? I think it could make changes easier to vote and it wouldn't mean questionning the whole policy. Opinions on that?--Mod-Karlthegreat 04:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- and now I've also changed some wording from guideline to policy both in my previous comment and in the policy itself. I should remember to think twice before writing something or I should at least get some sleep before writing stupid things...--Mod-Karlthegreat 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's better for now to accept them as a single policy as it's probably quicker and cleaner way. In a later stage they can always be discussed and changed separately. --Jhattara 13:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the way it's written right now looks good and non-controversial. Thumbs up from me. --Mr Wednesday 20:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)