UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Templates and Namespaces
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
Since you're starting this discussion based on one instance of usage you didn't like - which was later deemed alright - I contend this needs to be put on ice until such a time as this is actually needed. (In the interest of things that actually do need doing.) -- Amazing 03:50, 30 May 2006 (BST)
erm, no amazing. This was not done based in only one instance. I have already seen plenty of people using the exploit for trivial things. But, even if it were based on only one instance, why not discuss it ? I think that if we decide when and how the exploit could be used we could avoid drama in the future, were more people are aware of the exploit. --hagnat mod 04:01, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- Uh.. I didn't see any discussion about this back then, and it's been going on for a while. That was the reason for my statement. If that's not the case, then nevermind. I recall GANKBUS' page being used, in full, like this - and there was no discussion of Policy back then. Hrm. But whatever. I don't know if this is really an exploit or simply a sometimes-misused feature. -- Amazing 04:04, 30 May 2006 (BST)
Anyway, i am thinking now that we could allow people to only host their signature in pages like this, and then use the exploit only as wild cards when creating templates that use several small templates. Anything but that should use the template namespace. --hagnat mod 04:24, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- Absurdity. If someone only uses a template on one page (or a collection of extremely closely related pages, e.g. the suburbs and the danger level box, or the {{Malton Neighborhood Watch/MMW}} on the Malton Neighborhood Watch page.), then there is no reason why it should be forced into the template namespace. If more than a handful of users or pages include it, then yeah, it should usually go into the template namespace, but this should be decided on a case by case basis.
- I use {{User:Xoid/Character}} as a matter of programming practice; modularisation of code that is reused. Should it be forced into the main namespace if no one else uses it? I don't see why. Wikipedia is actually trying to force people into using the exploit to rid their template namespace of so much trite crap. I don't see why we should do any different. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:31, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- My personal guess is that if all things are moved to "Template:", they are then subject to being regulated by the Modship and public opinion. -- Amazing 05:51, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- You could be right. Vista's decision in allowing, but limiting the "outside of the screen text" allayed my concerns about setting a precedent. There can no longer be any possibility of someone overwriting the entire menu, or surreptiously replacing the mytalk with a link to goatse or something through the use of div tags. (Yes, that sort of shit has happened before, which is why I was so adamant that the outside-the-page-area text be removed. Without the linking, size or background modifications required to do that sort of thing, there isn't much abuse that can be done with it.) –Xoid S•T•FU! 11:28, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- Could such abuses not be handled through the current Vandal Banning system? -- Amazing 18:53, 30 May 2006 (BST)
- Blatant ones like a goatse link masquerading as the "my talk"? Definately. There may even be a policy for insta-banning of people who do that sort of shit. With cases where it is not that blatant may be another story. As for the GANKBUS page thing… I wish I was allowed to kick the guy in the nuts — that was a blatant abuse the feature. –Xoid S•T•FU! 23:51, 30 May 2006 (BST)
Extension given to Groups as well as Users.
Not wanting to foobar myself with any sort of Amazing drama I stumbled on this discussion and find it sartalingly similar to something I have been working on so I would like to test the waters before I goof up completely. To start with I like some sig templates and feel these should be allowed as the policy draft suggests. I am using inserted sectoions with in my own Userpage and would like to continue to do so. I have been considering the use of a template stored in our groups space which would be inserted on to the recruitment page. See Josephine's Generals/Rec. The reason that I chose to store this 'template' inside the group namespace is Group pages have up until now been off limits to edits by those outside the group. I hoped that this would cut down on potential vandalism. I would like a place to store the document for reuse and the include architecture seems the perfect method. No authors from outside the group really need access or have any need to make use of the content so I felt the Template: namespace would be cluttered with our content. Segragting into our own namespace seems the most reasonable palce for this template. Perhaps the Policy Draft could be extended to include group spaces as well as users. Thanks for your consideration. --Max Grivas JG·T 02:23, 26 June 2006 (BST)
