Archive:Policy proposals

From Hattrick

Archive of discussions on proposed new policies.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed policy as outlined below. Please do not modify it. The discussion has been closed and no further edits should be made to this page.

The voting result was 9 in favor, 3 against and 2 neutral (8-2-2 without admins). The arguments against this proposal were carefully analysed and outweighed against the arguments and votes for the proposal. In the end, the decision was made to go ahead and ACCEPT this proposal. As a result, it is in force as of 3 December 2014. --Pelotas (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2014 (CET)

Proposal: adapt non-notability criteria

Short policy summary: to allow for all players, notable or not, to have their name as the article page name without the teamname present. Thus Emin Muhammet Oğulbay instead of Lokomotiv Veltem Back-on-Track/Emin Muhammet Oğulbay. In the unlikely case that multiple players exist with the exact same name (on the wiki!), the articles will be created with added playerid in the name: Emin Muhammet Oğulbay (id=232603427).

Opinion overview:
Agree (9): Bilke5, chukcha, Gragox, lleida, Pelotas, Pitufopoulos, Sipos, Sorlac, teles
Neutral/Unclear/No Opinion (2): ernanna, Kritan
Oppose (3): Escafeld, Marcel3, Nightwish

Full proposal explanation:
Hereby I would like to make a new proposal regarding player notability. The current proposal regarding player notability defines clearly the difference between notable and non-notable players, with notable players being National- and/or U-20-team members or HT Masters top scorers. Basically it seems to me that there is nothing wrong with this classification. However, it is also stated that there are too many players and that not all can enter the wiki, which is probably the reason why for non-notable players, the policy states that non-notable players should only be created as part of a subdirectory, such as Lokomotiv Veltem Back-on-Track/Emin Muhammet Oğulbay instead of Emin Muhammet Oğulbay.

I propose to keep the notability classification, but also to revise this policy to allow ALL players to be created directly without using a subdirectory.
Two downsides: 1) All current non-notable player pages will need to be moved. 2) The risk for having two identically named players increases.

Upsides: 1) It will make editing and specifically linking so much more straightforward! 2) We can get rid of the teamname in the article, it doesn't make sense! 3) The probability of having two identically named players minor and can be resolved easily. My proposal in case of players with the same name: multiple articles will be created, each named ==> firstname lastname (id=playerid) <== and a disambiguation page can be created, such as for instance for Sam Smith on wikipedia.

PS: note that this November this wiki turned 9 years. the policies for both Notability and Players have not been adapted since 2009 and have been agreed upon by probably not more than ten users in 2006 or so...

Please state below your comments, thanks! --Pelotas (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2014 (CET)

Comments/Remarks/Concerns:

I like that idea,but, what if somebody want a different form, like this one Oscar Iruña (Atletico Bizancio), using the name of the team instead of Atletico Bizancio/Oscar Iruña ?? i like the first one, the name of the team is essencial for the recognition of the players i think, the ID of the player put it in the player info or in the description instead --Sorlac (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2014 (CET)
I agree, but the policy currently states that every non-notable player has to be made as Atletico Bizancio/Oscar Iruña. The proposal would be to remove the teamname completely and change this to Oscar Iruña. It would only become Oscar Iruña (id=388375092) when there are at least two different players named Oscar Iruña created on the wiki! --Pelotas (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2014 (CET)
See also this example from Wikipedia: [1], [2] and [3]. For us, the id will always be enough to differ between players, so I propose to take that rather than the birthdate or the nationality. --Pelotas (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2014 (CET)
My view is that the current policy team name/player name is correct & also logical. There's no need to change it. Regarding expected standards of behaviour - that user is clearly in breach, he's been advised mulitiple times he's in breach & has continued to be offensive & confrontational. In my view he should be denied access to the wiki & also reported to the GM's. --Comment from User:Escafeld from the Hattrick forums [4]
In my opinion it is completely not logical :). Why have a teamname in the player article name? It makes the article name longer, less convenient to find players and makes linking to players cumbersome (redirects all overthe place!). Also, in theory the article name should be changed each time the player is transferred! Moreover, the suggestion to use player (team) (used by Bilke5 and Sorlac) makes sense as it is more clear than team/player, but has the same issues as the current proposal. As such, imho changing to that one is the worst option, after 1) moving to this policy and 2) keeping the current one. --Pelotas (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2014 (CET)
I agree to change the name policy to a easier one, i like the name (team) if you ask me, the ID and other data you can read it in the profile, i will wait the opinion of other people :) --Sorlac (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2014 (CET)
As I said, I am completely against moving from the current teamname/playername to playername (teamname), as this would mean changing all the current player pages for only very little improvement, as the main issue remains. The current policy proposal is to move from teamname/playername to playername. Again, just to clarify, the ID will ONLY be used in case there are two or more players with exactly the same name on the wiki, as we cannot put them in the same article. --Pelotas (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2014 (CET)
I oppose to everything that this guy Pelotas says and advise!
Who says that we need to have only one way?!? Who???
This is wiki for some stupid game and everyone is allowed to write about their own team and players in every way they want. Ofcourse, as long as nobody is being hurt. And that's the only RULE!!!
As I wrote before, team name in front of player is stupid. Every page needs to starts FIRST from what is it about. So player name should be first when entering his page.
And who says that we need to change players headline everytime he changes/transfer team?!?
We don't!!! Only if we want and have time... That's all.
Pelotas, I'll ask you for the last time. Don't edit or re-edit my work!!! Find you're self some real work that can be done here and be helpful for a change...--Bilke5 (talk) 03:00, 14 November 2014 (CET)
On one hand I am disappointed by this reaction and on the other I just don't understand it, as I thought you would agree completely. Did you actually read the lines above? Look, as I said before, a wiki is a place where everybody CAN edit, but that requires enforced guidelines/policies/rules to make sure the structure remains and not everything becomes a mess. By proposing this policy, I was hoping to resolve the issue we've been having, as all player articles would named after the player name only, which seems the most logic to me. I don't understand why even this is not good enough for you, as I understood you even wanted to remove the teamname from the article title? So basically you only want player articles like Emin Muhammet Oğulbay (Lokomotiv Veltem Back-on-Track), even more so than Emin Muhammet Oğulbay ? Note that this policy would also remove all redirects! --Pelotas (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2014 (CET)
You're NOT admin, you're NOT moderator... so back of from other peoples work!!! Edit your own pages what ever you want, leave mine and back off! Stop being such a pain in the ass! --Bilke5 (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2014 (CET)


I think the pages for non-notable players should follow one collective guideline. Otherwise, this wiki will be a complete chaos when everyone is just doing whatever they seem to think is right. Since these pages are mostly made as addition to someone's teampage, the policy of teamname/playername is the only viable option. Just like everything else related to the team should be filed under teampage/matches, history, records, or any other kind of clutter. --Marcel3 16:45, 14 November 2014 (CET)
Ok Marcel3, I completely agree with the reasoning that we should have one clear policy. You've put your name in the list of people that Agree, however you state that teamname/playername is the only option, while this policy is trying to change the policy to just playername. Do you agree with the policy of changing to playername, or do you prefer sticking with teamname/playername, in which case you actually Oppose the proposition. --Pelotas (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2014 (CET)
In that case I'd probably lean more towards oppose, because outside of one team's own hobby-project, these type of players bear no significance towards the HT-world and can just be considered an extension of the teampage. Exception is for notable players (e.g. Bob Sunesson) who do deserve their own page. --Marcel3 22:10, 14 November 2014 (CET)
I can understand your point on the lack of significance, but I think there we have to use common sense because in fact, there are only a few users on this wiki and the pages they create are indeed as you put it one team's own hobby project. Probably less that 0.01% of all players in hattrick are notable according to the criteria we use here. So basically, do we want to constrain the few wiki usersthere are and cause the majority of all articles to be put under a (very) long, search-inconvenient and illogic namespace or just allow all players to be created in the standard, straightforward and logic manner anyway. I mean, for wikipedia I understand the notability criteria, as they prevent the wiki from exploding as every person on earth creates their own wiki page. However for the hattrick wiki, does it really matter? The difference between notable and non-notable for all-in-all a game is quite ridiculous :) All players can be created, there is no rule on that, so why force them to be in a longer namespace? Moreover, in my opinion, this wiki SHOULD be an extension of the team page, the more users the merrier. So yes, there should be policies, but this one was clearly derived from wikipedia through good faith, but imho it's missing its purpose. Also I cannot else but agree with Bilke5 that the current policy doesn't really make much sense that way. The player name should not only be first in the article name, it should be the ONLY thing in the article name. By the way, currently there are 41,251 pages, of which 4,203 are redirects! Of course not all redirects are are because of players, but still surely the biggest part. All redirects together these are more than 10% of all pages. Crazy! --Pelotas (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2014 (CET)
I put my name on the oppose list, as I don't see any need for change.
And for the record, I think we actually do need one uniform policy. Nightwish (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2014 (CET)
i agree with the proposal as long we can take it, however I believe that there are other priorities, but give an order appointing the players following a line (without naming a team the way it currently exists) seems logical and benefit many other users. I do not understand certain attitudes of some members here, I will ask them to act with sane and not stupid as erroneous redirects, thanks--Sorlac (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2014 (CET)
I think it is not good form: Hetvehely/Attila Ráskai. You can see that the actual name of the team, does not match the title. --Sipos (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2014 (CET)
I agree to name players with their name as it won't change (until user use gear features) while player's team can change over time. Adding id when another player exists with same name is correct, first come, first served --teles
I do agree the current format is ugly and unnecessary. It might have some remote sense when there were hopes this Wiki will be an integral part of Hattrick but that obviously never materialized. However, if the change causes too many broken links, I would advise against the change. User:chukcha
There won't be broken links as redirects would be automatically in place. However cleaning up the pages so that they immediately point to the right name might take some time for all the users that have followed the policy thus far. --Pelotas (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2014 (CET)
When this votation will be over? --Sorlac (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2014 (CET)
There is no definitive date, but I'm in no hurry. Mostly because I would like more users to have a look and vote, but also because there is no outspoken favorite, currently it's standing 7 For, 3 Neutral, 3 Against which is not quite convincing. On the other hand, I've been reading the wikipedia poll guidelines which is basically saying that the result doesn't matter that much, but the admins should weigh out the arguments, this is difficult for me since I have a strong opinion on this and infact I should be neutral. Another reason why there's no hurry :) Let's see where we stand end of November. --Pelotas (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2014 (CET)
Fair Enough :)--Sorlac (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2014 (CET)
I do agree with the changes that are proposed. It is too relative to qualify a player as "non-notable", whoever is taking his/her time to create a player's page is because him/her really thinks that player deserves to "trascend" and be known because of something. Therefore I agree with the proposal. Pitufopoulos (talk)
no, me not neutral be. the existing sistem not good is. Pitufopoulos, good point make.--Bilke5 (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2014 (CET)