Guild Wars Wiki talk:Be bold

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Thanks for the fixes, guys. I can't believe I checked for Draft Guideline templates but not proposed guideline ones! Hehe :) --Ari User Ari sig.jpg (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain the third paragraph? I don't understand it's meaning. -- Gem (gem / talk) 19:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it needs cleanup. Great proposal, btw.User Ereanor sig.jpgreanor 16:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed it definitely needs cleanup. Considering the nature of the guideline, go ahead and edit it yourself and see what people say! ;) As for the third paragraph? Basically, a large number of people editing in small changes to articles they read works much better to improve the wiki than someone deliberately looking through the wiki for things to fix. Also, I've found that on pages I've viewed a lot on wikis, I often skim past familiar parts of an article, which prevents me from noticing mistakes I hadn't caught the first time. Basically? Things that seem obvious to a newbie are gonna be much harder to find for an experienced editor. --Ari User Ari sig.jpg (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I see. That paragraph needs heavy rewriting. :) -- Gem (gem / talk) 00:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I did some rewriting, so... how's it now? -- sig 04:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou, that sums up what I was trying to say brilliantly. I tend to get too wordy sometimes! I'm making some more small changes soon to clarify things a bit, add more links to useful editing tools, and hopefully remove some redundancy. This is looking much better already, and it's looking really personalised for GWW and no longer like a jazzed up WP spork. Thanks again! :) --Ari User Ari sig.jpg (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
How does this guideline proposal look now? Does anyone see more issues with it that we might have missed? It hasn't received an edit or a comment in a while. --Ari User Ari sig.jpg (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How do pages look like[edit]

This is totally off topic, but I encourage everyone to open up this proposal, Guild Wars Wiki:Be bold, and compare it to wikipedia's guideline. When I open up our page, I first notice that it is just a proposal, because of the big sign at the top, then I read the article, end of story. When I open up wikipedia's page, I first look at a big picture that in confusing formatting spells out the name of the policy again. Then I notice the three other boxes on the side. Oh, there are that many other wikipedia guidelines? Interesting. You can listen to the article instead of reading, nice. And the same article exists in approximately 20 other languages. Great. However, after looking at the page for a good bit, I still haven't read one sentence of the article itself. That's just a small reminder for me not to get carried away with graphical gimmics. --Xeeron 12:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Part of this is that we don't use a silly nutshell graphic and instead just put the policy/guideline summary right above the first header, and we keep our policy/guildeline explainations reasonably short. The other part is that they have a great big sidebar for their important guidelines instead of a template that sits at the bottom of the page. It's a good point though: Policy pages and guidelines should be easy to read. :) --Ari User Ari sig.jpg (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


It's not an issue here? I would've thought there'd be a lot of temptation to not be neutral on walkthroughs. Is that not the case? Anyway, it DOES look shorter this way. --Ari User Ari sig.jpg (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We haven't had any problems with this. The only area that breaks against NPOV is the guild section, but it's pretty muh free playground for the guild members anyway and I think it's better that way. -- Gem (gem / talk) 23:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The one area where POV would matter is a build section, but currently we have none and it doesn't look like we will get one soon. So I don't see any need to stress that. --Xeeron 23:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It's an issue in the Guide to X articles. But NPoV is a joke in any case, so best to leave it out. Backsword 04:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was bold[edit]

I changed the word disencouraged to the real word discouraged. Since this is not a major change, I figured it wouldn't be a problem.--Yankeefan984 22:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this a guideline proposal?[edit]

NuVII User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg 11:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it was never approved? -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 12:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Then why aren't we discussing it? Or for that matter, where are all the previous arguments for/against? The couple of sections above are a little too short for any guideline. NuVII User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg 14:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Because obviously people are not interested in discussing or getting this proposal done.. poke | talk 15:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
If you feel this should be re-discussed, feel free to update it and then attract attention via Guild Wars Wiki:Community portal and Guild Wars Wiki:Policy. -- User Sig.png 04:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I just might do that, though I don't think there is much left to discuss. NuVII User NuclearVII signature 3.jpg 11:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
There's so much vandalism, I feel like we should have a "Be Bold... but answer a skill-testing question before hitting 'edit'." | 72 User 72 Truly Random.jpg {U|T|C} 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I feel like being bold and changing the tag to accepted, but I doubt that's the best thing to do. Seriously though, I don't see anything that's wrong with this guideline, so, accept it? I'd love to be able to refer to GWW:BOLD and have done so multiple times already. WhyUser talk:Why 18:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Just create the shortcut and link to it anyway.. As for accepting this page, get people involved with it again.. Use RFC. poke | talk 20:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
i say go go and approve.- User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 06:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunatly, we have no portal for this stuff. Just ask Gordon. Otherwise this would be done, methinks. Don't see anythinG peeps would find objectional. Backsword 06:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Much of it is common sense. I doubt the necessity of having this written out as a guideline, but it doesn't hurt either. de Kooning 15:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't even consider it a guideline, tbh. It mostly says "if an article can be improved, improve it." DURRR. Is that not the entire premise of a wiki? The users who don't already know that aren't going to be arsed looking through guidelines, they're either going to say "hmmm someone should add X to page" on the talk or just do it themselves. There is already an "edit" button at the top of the page, that kind of implies you can do whatever you want. –Jette User Jette awesome.png 04:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it could be an essay like the ones Wikipedia has, with some brief coverage of bolt, revert, discuss cycle. -- User Gordon Ecker sig.png Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The guideline seems find as is; I don't think we don't need to go as in-depth as Wikipedia does considering we're not near the size or not nearly as generalized as they are. Perhaps condensing the fundamentals of the BRD cycle into one section would work. --User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Wandering Traveler 18:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how this is a "guideline" but I see the purpose behind it. It's a good page but would it really change anything? Every time I edit a page it jut gets reverted by a wiki-addict. << Magic User Magic Icon.jpg Talk 21:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I was suggesting that we should classify it as an essay instead of something more formal like a guideline. -- User Gordon Ecker sig.png Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Magic, I have the same problem. People always look just at "how is this useful to me" without considering there are other people than them that use the wiki. Jette, it implies it, but watch out, because people get ridiculous on what is "allowed." 42 - talk 07:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)