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

[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)