Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for comment

From Guild Wars Wiki

I suggest that when adding a new bullet point, ~~~~~ is used to date the request. That way it is easier to get rid of old requests which currently make this page a bit long. --Xeeron 09:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem with old topics is that they are actually not closed yet.. poke | talk 11:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just cleaned it up, but I think the thing that most contibute to making the list too long for usefulness is the fact that it's dominated by policies. I feel any suggested policy change is an RFC in iteself, so the policy page already serves that purpose. Only listing other issues here would make it a more useful page. Backsword 21:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Can a request for comment be removed? The no Sarcasm one should probably be taken down, it's actually been rejected now. I would do it but I don't know what the procedure is. Dancing Gnome 15:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit this page like other pages in the wiki. If there is a point up that you feel no longer needs comments, take it down. --Xeeron 15:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone feels a request for comment someone else placed up here is no longer needed, can they remove it? I ask this because Gem has removed some requests for comment which had discussions which were no more inactive than some of the ones which remained. This looks like someone enforcing their own agenda without the consent of the original request. Anon --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:58.110.140.18 .

I don't see any problems with their removal. Feel free to put them back if you want to comment on those topics and are interested in seeing more people comment on those topics. And also feel free to stop stalking Gem's edits. -- ab.er.rant 12:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

When you take down a RFC here, I suppose it's just good judgement on whether or not the discussion is over with or if it's not. — ク Eloc 貢 16:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry if I removed something that wasn't sorted out or unnecessary. I did check all of those pages pretty quickly. -- (gem / talk) 19:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 being banned for purchaceing gold for guildwars 2 Am I able... 3 Map RfC 4 Split 5 This 6 Guidelines are NOT Policies

[edit] being banned for purchaceing gold for guildwars

← moved to Help:Ask a game question

[edit] Am I able...

To request for comment on things that are non-wiki related, but still on the wiki? So far everything on the list relates to a project, or a proposal. I just want something of mine commented on.- Vanguard 16:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but don't feel disappointed, when nobody is interested in ;) poke | talk 16:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll just add it and after a month without comment I'll remove it. Or maybe just a couple of weeks, or something.- Vanguard 16:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map RfC

Why did the RfC GMCs wanted get removed? There was still discussion going on. I didn't put it up, but I need someone to help me finish up the project. Could that please be returned? Why would an RfC get removed when the discussion had a comment from that day that ended with a request? Mohnzh say what? 15:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It was probably removed because someone thought everyone interested had already seen it. A lot of old RFCs were recently trimmed. -- Gordon Ecker 03:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split

I would like this split into one page for policy RfCs, and one page for content RfCs. There is significant seperation in the groups interested, and even in when induviduals are interested in one or the other. Also, it'd make both pages easier to read. Backsword 08:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not just split it into multiple sections? Or better yet, leave out policy and guidelines stuff from here. Those are probably more appropriate on GWW:POLICY. -- ab.er.rant 10:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please only use new sections; multiple pages will not have the same effect. poke | talk 11:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'd also prefer new sections over pages. While I do agree that policy/guideline stuff is more appropriate on GWW:POLICY, there are times it needs to be here; in cases where there is a major change or one is about to be implemented. Having it in it's own section would help make this page more useful both for those that are and also those that aren't interested in policy discussion. --Kakarot 13:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather have multiple sections, it isn't that cluttered mostly. Just having one page to check is convenient. - anja 14:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There should be only one page to keep everything centralised. If the page gets to cluttered, we should cut down on the not so important RfCs. --Xeeron 19:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine how it is right now actually. We don't get a lot of people putting up things for RFC and the list doesn't really get really cluttered. And when it does, someone goes through and removes the inactive discussions. — ク Eloc 貢 00:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This

If anything, move it to GWW:RFR imho... — Why 23:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

RFR is more for in game research, isn't it? -- Wandering Traveler 23:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. But it's a research project, whether it relates to the usual wiki business or not. It could also be left here, I don't really care. :P — Why 00:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be removed, it doesn't really have anything to do with wiki business. Otherwise we could end up having RfCs for user contests and the like, which would detract from the real purpose of the RfC page. --Freedom Bound 15:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you really want, you could use the community news section of the Community portal.. poke | talk 15:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines are NOT Policies

I think it needs to be remembered by many (who seem to think otherwise by their comments) that Guidelines are NOT Policies. They are meant to be there to help people, not to restrict them (as they have been used to do) when they propose something that is not specifically listed in the guideline, but does follow the stated intent of the point in question. 42 - talk 05:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the difference between "restrict a small change" and "restrict massive change across multiple pages made without an attempt to reach consensus." Guidelines are perfectly fine to quote when restricting the latter. -Auron 05:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not missing anything, Auron, as many others are. The "change," in the case of the templates I created for use, is not a change. It follows the stated NPC formatting guideline. Read it here.

Also, read the formatting page, the header brown section. "If it doesn't fit the purpose, you are free to modify it". What is in use on the pages these templates are intended for is not even close to being anywhere near a standard. These would help that by aiding the editors to fill them in more completely

That being said, I am not modifying anything, I am following the guideline others try to throw back in my face and claim I am "changing" it. People are arguing against the guideline by arguing against something that follows the guideline.

It gets to a point of ridiculousness. I have had someone tell me that because my template wasn't specifically listed in the example area, then it was a "change." 42 - talk 05:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Then that person is crazy, and you should ignore him. Some people quote guidelines and try to follow them like they're law. Those people are wrong. If you have specific cases where people tried to wikilawyer with guidelines, link me to them and I will tell those people to learn how to wiki.

Many people have disagreed with you on various points across various pages and projects, and they've sometimes formed consensus against your changes in several areas. That doesn't mean they're quoting guidelines, that just means they don't think what you're doing is a big enough improvement to warrant the work involved. I honestly think most of your heartburn with "guidelines vs policy" stems from your refusal to work with people, and not with their perception of any formatting guidelines or policies. -Auron 06:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

^^ I have stated repeatedly that I feel your dialogue templates add a level of complexity that is totally unnecessary for the little benefit it provides. If we wish the wiki to be edited by the community (registered users and non registered users alike) we really need to keep it simple. Basic text editing (indents, bold and italic) are very simple concepts that pretty much ANY user can grasp. The use of templates however (especially those with non instinctive variables like yours) are actually very difficult for new/inexperienced editors to use, and would simply lead them to not edit, which is something I personally think we should avoid. If someone doesn't do the formatting right, but does add the dialogue, it's very simple for another editor to go in and fix it the way it is now. If, as you say, the pages you are looking at do NOT have the dialogue, which I actually find rather hard to believe, there still would not be enough of a benefit, imo to add this level of complexity. And I would have to totally disagree with whoever told you that going from formatted text to the use of a template does not constitute a change. If I were you, and you have perfected your template, feel free to subst it while you add the dialogue to all these pages you say are missing it. The subst would eliminate any need for the template to become any part of a guideline anywhere, and could simply be used by you as a tool. I personally think your time would have been better spent just adding the missing dialogue but that's my opinion. -- Wyn talk 06:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the difference between changing font size, position, font, and bold/ital/etc for every header in a book versus hitting a style called "Header" and one called "Body". I mean, come on-- =main=, ==sub==, ===subsub===? Get with it! <Font size>, '''bold''', etc are stuff every user grasps, why on earth should we regularize the model? | 72 (U|T|C) 14:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In the main, I agree that keeping as much as possible inline is a good idea. That said, however, good templates do have their place. When it is clear to the user that they need only "fill in the blanks", the level of utility is quite high. Also, on a more pragmatic, labour saving note, it does make changing the format (e.g. when a new {{ask}} icon is added ) much less tedious. Once things stabilize, one can always go back and use "What links here" or a wikibot to subst as desired. --DryHumour 15:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Templates have their place, I agree, I just don't feel this is one of them. -- Wyn talk 18:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) My "heartburn" is from me suggesting ideas that are constantly being opposed and/or nitpicked for various unsupportable reasons.

"If, as you say, the pages you are looking at do NOT have the dialogue, which I actually find rather hard to believe, ". Go check Ragnvald and Tjorvi Throstson and then look at the rest of the explorable area res shrine Norn, and tell me how much dialogue is missing.

Wyn, if you have a problem with the names used, feel free to suggest improvements. Read the Formatting/NPCs guideline on dialoge (both the example and the specific section later), and point out specifically how the use of my template violates that guideline.

Since there is no form listed, how can I be changing the form? All it says is to list the dialogue. This template is intended to do just that. If I do add it to the pages that need it, then you tell me I shouldn't have until it was finished. If I wait until it is useless, I get told the information is already there, and this is not needed.

72, the area this template is intended for, there are many indents, and in this case, in-game icons in use as well. The line of dialogue is the exact same in the cases this would be used on. The only difference, and the reason for any variables, is the specific text by each Norn is different. 42 - talk 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A careful reading of my post will yield significant sarcasm crop. | 72 (U|T|C) 04:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Wyn's suggestion of keeping it as a subst is the best idea so far. Tun it into that, and we'll post it on the formatting guideline. This way, your hard work isn't wasted, your tool is made available to the public, and new editors wouldn't have to deal with templates they may or may not understand. A subst will also be less susceptible to vandalism, so everybody wins.

Unless, of course, if you are hellbent on a template. I don't see why you would do that, but whatever. NuVII 09:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)