User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Archive02

Talk

Suggestions

Builds

Rants

Tools

Encyclopedia GaileGrayica

Guides

Farming

Price checks

Projects

---

Previously on TEF

---

• Join – May 2010
• May 2010 – Nov 2010
• Dec 2010 – Feb 2011
• Feb 2011 – May 2011
• Jun 2011 – Jul 2011
• Aug 2011 – Aug 2011
• Sep 2011 – Sep 2011
• Oct 2011 – Nov 2011
• Dec 2011 – May 2012
• May 2012 – Dec 2012
• Jan 2013 – Dec 2014

---

First!

Don't mind me. A F K When Needed 22:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Sup TEF? --adrin 05:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hallo. Adrin? This reply is best viewed in Firefox, unless you use some other browser.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Beware

they are out there, The Capitalization Police. lol Sorry, just had to as your ealier edit comment. Warm Huggs.MystiLefemEle 10:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

lol. ty. (To be fair: their cause is just. Grammar can has importance.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Bugs

That's not a talk page, and I posted on the IPs talk about removing it. I don't really think it serves a purpose to leave it there. All that will happen is that it will get archived to "Non-issues", and similar ones are already there (meaning no one actually looks at them, and it will just happen again). -- FreedomBound 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I should have trusted that you would have taken time to leave them a note. Good job.

I do think it serves a limited purpose: there are a lot of ppl that read the wiki, but don't contribute (and don't necessarily review histories); they would benefit from leaving the comment/reply. Also: reversion sometimes comes across as harsh (even though it's not much different from replying to the original note).

However, I think your argument is stronger than mine; I will refrain from restoring such comments in the future. (BTW: what do you recommend doing if the contributor is an anon IP?)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that reversion can come across as harsh, so if it's not vandalism, I have a tendency to leave a note on their talk page (registered user or not), explaining myself. Sometimes I don't bother if they're doing something like listing common drops, but I would do so if there were multiple drops being listed (which shows that they're really trying to help, but don't understand the policies/guidelines). As far as I'm aware, even IPs get the little message bar when they have a new post on their talk page, so unless they're on a really flaky dynamic IP, they'll probably get the message sooner or later. -- FreedomBound 15:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Nika

It isn't a bug, that's for sure. There aren't any game mechanic errors (you know what i mean) and all skills work as they should be. - J.P.Talk 03:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No mechanical errors? /agree. Skills work as intended? individually, sure. Is the build working as intended? I can't believe that. Can you help me understand why you do? (BTW: why are we discussing it here, rather than on her talk page?)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Bullets

Hi Tennessee, stocking up on spare bullets for your charr rifle? (joke) re: Sunjiang Dist. Looks much nicer.MystiLefemEle 10:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, thanks! (PS Tennessee is the stately adjective modifying the birth certificated name, Ernie Ford. Almost everyone calls me TEF.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

TEF it shall be :)MystiLefemEle 07:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And nice to meet you. :-)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Lolwut?

Care to explain the logic behind this edit? I'm mostly confused, but perhaps you thought you had a valid reason for doing that. That is how people request reconfirmation as per the policy you quoted. Misery 19:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I apologize.

This doesn't seem confusing and contradictory to anyone else?

• The label at the top marks the topic as closed and requests that people no longer comment. (Perhaps that template should be changed or at least removed from that page.)
• Wouldn't it make more sense to create a new page (or at least a new subpage), so that comments that were made in October 2009 about Auron's potential as an admin in 2009 are not confused with his actual actions in Aug 2010?
• Wouldn't people have been chastised (and reverted) if they had added comments in November 2009?

I realize I'm arguing that the policy is confusing rather than whether I was correctly applying policy. Normally, there's an announcement that there's an RfR in progress; since I hadn't seen one, I put 2+2 together and came up with 22.

Anyhow, I am sorry for adding to the confusion rather than reducing it (as I had intended).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not alone, the format confuses me as well, and I had the same questions going through my mind as you, a while back. G R E E N E R 20:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

idk whats going on and im involved D: at one time Wyn added it to current, then rv'd herself and told me adding my vote didnt make it current. soo......... yeah??? — Scythe 21:09, 27 Aug 2010 (UTC)

The request for reconfirmation section is what bureaucrats use as a basis to decide whether or not to start a reconfirmation. That section should not be confused with the support, oppose and neutral sections which should only be edited during an RfA. I can only read my monitor at the moment by shining a bright light at it, so I'm not really in a position to review the policy or tag and see if it could be clarified. My understanding of the Wynthyst event is that she saw Scythe updating his request for reconfitmation and originally thought it was a new vote, so added Auron to the list of names with recent requests for reconfirmation, then reverted it. Cursed Angel however seems to have added a new vote (with terrible reasoning) as far as I can tell, so Auron could be readded to that list. Misery 21:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Grape juice

Interesting and in a way, very truthfull.
Juice anyone :).MystiLefemEle 09:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

River Skale

"After you!" - "No, after you." - "No, I insist, it looks like you were here first." - "Oh, but I just happened to type more in a shorter period of time, I can put my words after and take pity on you."

I'll stop editing that talk page ; ) G R E E N E R 18:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

LMAO. Ditto.

Thanks for opining. I like Visitor's idea of being more helpful to newbies and hope her(?) execution meets her goals. I thought you did a better job of encouraging her than I did.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Gaile section

Wow, that's nice! I was thinking... Someone should do that! It's very convenient to have all of that in one place! Thanks :) --Lania 15:56, 03 October 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you! In fact, I was inspired by your recent response on Gaile's page that quoted her responses about the use of macros. (Perhaps I should move it to a separate page that makes it easier to transclude... and add a tag that gives people permission to edit in my user space. Then, every time Gaile says something for the ages, the quote and source can be preserved for future generations to enjoy.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Now transcludable! See User:Tennessee_Ernie_Ford/Gaile_sez. (Lania: you have explicit permission to add/update/etc the page in the spirit etc.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

YAY!

A one man revert war .. I love it :p *hugs*, Manny --Manassas 10:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought of reporting myself for the one-revert policy, but decided you might want that honor.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nah ... not my style. --Manassas 07:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

How about top of the trivia section?

because bottom of the page looks to .. weird :/ --Neil • 17:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's support for making voice acting a more prominent part of the trivia section. Before moving it to the top, though, I recommend adjusting the template's spacing, color, borders (none at the moment), and so on. Take a look at Anomaly, Bug for other bullet templates (those also tend to appear at the bottom of their sections).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Curiosity killed the cat, you know.

But I'll satisfy it anyways, or try to as I'm not sure where I lost you. The Trial of Zinn isn't a chapter of GW:B, and that page should only be listing the Beyond chapters, thus it shouldn't go there. However, I do not think it is part of the War in Kryta just as half of the Ebon Vanguard Allies stuff is not (as they're more of a part of Hearts of the North which prelude and include the War in Kryta). I personally think the story of Zinn (from the Trial to the end of the war) is a prelude to a future chapter, much like the Keiran/Gwen stuff was, and much like the Evennia-going-missing-in-Ascalon is.
Hence, I disagree with your reasoning (you said that the trial was part of the War in Kryta), but I agree with the removal (it's not a chapter on its own). -- Konig/talk 03:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem I have is that ANet hasn't clearly defined GW:B, so we're making IMO arbitrary distinctions about what fits and doesn't. For the purposes of discussion, I think your idea that Zinn's trial is a prelude to something else is interesting and even likely. In terms of documenting the game, we can only go on what has been released.

Since the trial component came out at the same time as WiK and since its completion was required for the original WiK and remains required for TWiK, I don't see any way to separate it out from WiK, short of John Stumme coming out and saying so explicitly (and, to be honest, I think even he keeps changing his mind about some of this stuff).

However, as I suggested earlier, I can see that there's no easy way to settle this now, while the storyline is evolving and our articles are volatile. So, let's keep looking for ways that we can agree on the outcome — I'm reasonably sure we're not going to agree on the rationale(s) any time soon. (Thanks for satisfying my curiosity.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"In terms of documenting the game, we can only go on what has been released."Well aware and this is why I say we should call it "independent within Guild Wars Beyond" until further notice (that is, it isn't a chapter, isn't part of a chapter, and should remain in Category:Guild Wars Beyond like the "Gwen and Thackeray" and the Scavenger Hunt pages were). As for the release/requirement piece, same can be said for half of this page. -- Konig/talk 04:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

I just wanted to give you a bit of clarification on the Feedback space. Any suggestion posted ANYWHERE in the feedback namespace (whether as an actual user suggestion or on staff talk pages) can be used by ArenaNet legally as all posts in that namespace are under the same licensing. It is preferred that people create an account and their own personal feedback:user space, but if they simply have a single idea they want to convey on a staff talk page, that's fine. If they are continually posting suggestions on staff pages, then it becomes a problem that can lead to a temporary suspension of their editing privileges, and the potential removal of their suggestions from the staff pages, based on administrative discretion. I do appreciate your attempts at clarifying this for people.

I would suggest that you simply ignore Boro and 000's crap, (Nathe can probably be included as well) because regardless of what anyone tells them, or what evidence is presented to them, they are so jaded they will never acknowledge that the suggestion space is anything but a waste of time, or that ArenaNet is anything but fail. -- Wyn talk 01:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I get that some players will never see ANet as the actual source of the game they love to play/stop-playing. However, my recent comments relating to feedback are for the silent majority who read, but do not contribute to the wiki. I post to remind people that, in fact, ANet is paying attention; I don't expect to change the mind of the naysayers.

Similarly, I think we should encourage people to post in their own feedback space, but I acknowledge that's more about my sense of fair play than about wiki policy. Sure, the entire feedback space was created with a licensing meant to give ANet carte blanche in using the ideas posted within them, but that doesn't mean that we should make it easy to distract the few ANet staff who regularly respond. It seems to me that, sometimes, posting an idea on e.g. Regina's page is an attempt to end-run the suggestion process and put one's idea ahead of the queue.

That said, I value your opinion, so let me know if (after reading the above) you think I have gone overboard in (a) reminding people that ANet does listen and (b) that there is a preferred place to post suggestions.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, I just wanted to make sure you were clear that a suggestion being posted on Regina's page doesn't take it out of the running for consideration by the developers. Your initial response to the IP on her page seemed to indicate that it would, so I wanted to make sure things hadn't gotten miscommunicated somewhere. You know me, I'm a firm believer in the suggestion system we created (lol could be cuz I had a lot to do with it). -- Wyn talk 09:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It is, indeed, a good suggestion system.

And you're right, I made it seem as if it really had to be in the IP's space. I personally don't like it when ppl's post suggestions on staff pages (as mentioned, it seems to be jumping the queue, but it also ends up more likely to be missed by other devs and wiki lurkers). However, I need to watch out that such prejudice doesn't bleed into my advice. Thanks for the reminder.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Activating new GuildWiki?

[1]

you said to post here, so yeah. It would look as though you are activating your account on the new GuildWiki, link me? :D –alistic 21:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I was activating my [2] account and wrongfully edited my GWiki user page to claim my UserID. (I was thinking Wikia pages would be all the same — instead, PvX requires editing the pvx@Wikia page and, when it's ready, GWiki will require editing the gw@wikia page.)

Could you translate what you mean when you ask, "link me?" — Thanks  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

naw I was thinking that you had gotten the new guildwiki address before everyone :P so i was asking for the link, but duh you have to edit your pvx@wikia account :P its not like the extension is going to look at every Wikia wiki –alistic 22:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I'm sure I won't receive advance notice of the move (I'm out of the loop atm). I had been thinking that I only have a single Wikia account, so I need to remember I am going to end up with multiple curse/curse-related accounts.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Guild Wiki has moved!

Guildwiki has finished moving and can now be found at guildwiki.org.--71.22.59.148 00:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I had just reclaimed my account as you were posting this!  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

For future reference

1) Lore goes at the top, not into the notes. 2) Nicholas isn't the only collector who gives information about trophies. Gotta fix many of your changes to my additions to the lore of the trophy items now. :/ -- Konig/talk 04:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Mostly, I am interested in keeping things straightforward (more of my edits are about making things easier for people who want a quick answer). I know you are interested in lore (and making it comprehensive, as well as accurate), so I try to take my cue from your edits. tl;dr, even before your note, I was already changing how I view and edit the intros for trophies.

1. I tried to follow the attribution already in the article; I apologize if my copy/paste also ended up incorrectly attributing to others (Nicky, in particular).
2. Sometimes it's appropriate to include lore in the intro, but not always. My general feeling is that lore belongs with trivia/notes/lore (at bottom) unless it's woven into the game. After I changed a couple, I realized that might be more debatable than I first thought, so I stopped moving things down.
   • Stuff that Nicholas says might or might not be true to other NPCs (he dishes out a lot of rumor and speculation, I've noticed). <-- not necessarily helpful in intro
   • Things that come up all the time (e.g. skree wings for Black Moas) probably belong in the intro.
   • Regardless, not everyone is deeply interested all aspects of lore, so it helps most readers to see a standardized introduction, e.g. blahblah is a trophy that drops from x, followed by any in-game utility, followed by local color (where appropriate).

I'll take a look at your fixes to any of my edits — if I have concerns, I'll raise them here or on your talk before editing.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at a couple of the edits, and I do have some concerns. Players cannot use Glowing Hearts to start fires, so I'm not sure that it helps readers to see that at the top of the page. Who says that they can be used to start fires? In what context? Does everyone believe that? Or only some NPCs?

I fully support including superstitions, rumors, etc in the article, however I don't think they always deserve to be a headline...at least, not in the way some of them are currently phrased.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the glowing hearts - Nick states it as fact (and having used them for such in fact!). Perhaps, with trophies, it would be best to separate via a different paragraph. It's not so much that they are "headline" but rather that it's not trivia (as it is part of the in-game universe) and it's not notes (which typically is reserved for notes on mechanics), and for consistency the lore's added to the top. It's done this way for every other article outside the trophies, and only not the trophies because, except in rare cases, the lore was never added to them.

TBH, I find the "they drop from x in y area" to be 100% pointless, as such information is in the "Acquisition" section - you're literally duplicating information on the article. -- Konig/talk 05:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not all lore is equally interesting or important. I think this wiki's articles should distinguish Lore from lore — the first includes things critical to understanding what's going on in the game universe; the second is trivia within that universe. Sure, it doesn't belong in Trivia b/c, as you say, it's about the game universe and this wiki has used Trivia for behind-the-scenes items of interest.

Things that Nick says...well, he's a story teller. No one else in the game seems to count him as an authority; I'm not sure that we should either. I think Nick's tiny bits of color about people/places/things belong in a Lore section; when there's no distinct section, Notes is the catch all for everything that doesn't fit elsewhere — the things that most frequently won't fit are, indeed, about mechanics, but even Nick's own article includes non-mechanical factoids about him in Notes.

I'm not persuaded by the "it's done in other articles" argument because people who like lore have updated those articles; I think there are other considerations. Custom isn't the same as policy or guidelines; we're both using examples from elsewhere and claiming what we think suits people best. You think lore should go at the top and I think only Lore belongs there. I think that makes this a discussion worth having publicly.

Incidentally, not everyone finds it easy to learn from tables/bullets, so the "x drops from y in area z" is useful to a lot of people, especially those who don't frequent the wiki. You are right, the data is repeated, but the form is different.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Granted, you two are discussing a much deeper issue at the moment, but take a step back and look again at this statement, "Glowing Hearts can be to create small fires by striking two together." Reading this, verbatim, would have confused me had I not skimmed through the above, and I'm sure that if it had been a few years back, I would have been double clicking on the glowing hearts in my inventory like mad. Wherever you two decide to put the info, make sure that it's easily seen as no more than a story, as it is technically false. Something like, "Locals say that striking two together will create a small fire." or the like. G R E E N E R 09:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I fail to see a difference between "Lore" and "lore" - outside capitalization. Lore is lore, the story of the game is the story of the game. There are things that are directly linked to what we see, and things put in to make the world feel more fleshed out. But it's all one thing: lore. There is no difference except for how "in-your-face" it is in the game itself, and a vast majority of the lore we know is not in that "in-your-face" group. Most of the lore going into articles has been from that hidden group that you must look outside the main content to see. If, using your explanation, "lore" went elsewhere, then we'd have only the manual quotations on the top. I think I can easily say that 90% of the non-lore sentences on in-game items that are at the "introductory paragraphs" are stuff that's either a) repeated down below or b) unnecessary and obvious (e.g., what Etham the Artisan was before the War in Kryta "Etham the Artisan is an artisan, a type of NPC that crafts rare materials in exchange for materials and money.") - essentially, the non-lore information that's there is merely unnecessary filler to prevent an empty white space up there, which is almost always removed when we get lore added (and that which isn't, is usually either highly important or moved to notes).

As for where lore information goes - while it's been discussed multiple times (and eventually all lead to the same conclusion: lore at the top - if not an entire stagnation of the discussion/going off that topic), it has been in the same place in a general sense for... well, since before the wiki (on wikia). And not always necessarily by the "lore lovers."

tl;dr

I don't see why we should fix what isn't broken and change the general format used (even if not a rule or guideline) for a vast majority of articles just for the trophies for lore that is no more unimportant than what is on most other articles. However, as Greener points out, wording is very much important.

Oh, and if you want to see what an article looks like with lore on the bottom, it was done before, and it looked fugly and out-of-place imo. And for an example for seeing the difference of if all lore was on the top or if just the "Lore" (as you call it) is... see this and this, or this and this, or even this and this. Which of those sets would you rather have?-- Konig/talk 10:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that we are effectively communicating. I am not arguing that every trophy page should be changed; I am arguing that not all lore belongs at the top. In the dozen or so recent changes to trophy articles, my main goal was to help the intros to be useful/relevant and readable. In several cases, I thought the lore was relatively trivial and therefore misleading to the central purpose of the article. In some of those edits, I was over-enthusiastic about the placement of lore and, as time went on, I became more conservative. In response to specific points:

• Bad writing makes any article bad; the placement of lore has little to do with that issue.
• Not all lore is equally important, interesting, relevant, or accurate. Not all of it deserves a prominent place in any given article.
  • Nick is a story teller; he has his version of events, but that doesn't make them reliable. (Heck, even Shiro has his side of the story.)
• We should do things because they are best for the wiki — doing things the same way for 5 years isn't sufficient to keep doing them; it's also not a reason for changing things. But, since I'm not advocating that we change every article or even every trophy article, it's not clear to me why we are discussing this. I was only concerned with recent edits. (And, as I noted about, I agree that I was not conservative enough in my initial edits.)
• There's no comparison between articles about prominent figures and trophy articles; very few trophies are central to understanding Tyria or playing the game. Even so, not every piece of data about e.g. Shiro belongs in the introduction or the main body of his article.

I respect your views on the relative importance of lore; I hope you can respect my views on the relative unimportance of some specific bits of lore.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I never saw you as arguing for the lack of updating the trophy articles. Rather, what I was arguing is "why should the trophy articles be any different?" - my point being that there's dozens of "less important" lore that is at the top of the article for every other kind of article topic, so I see no reason why it should be different for trophies. In regards to your bulletpoints:

• No comment (full agreement).
• While they may not be equally relevant or accurate (the later being a definite case for some situations), I'd have to disagree on the other two. Lore makes the fictional world what it is and the wiki is meant to document it. There is next to no reason that I can see which calls for lore information to be split up into multiple areas. We do not have armor ratings of an NPC in three different places on the article, so why should we have such for lore information? I understand that you don't think all lore is equal, but that really shouldn't mean that we should document them in separate areas of the article. Likewise, I don't think that "the top is prominent" - rather I think "more flashy and less "wall of text"-like is prominent" (e.g., the armor rating template, the infoboxes, and lists are generally seen more by people than paragraphs, as it is more attractive to those looking for fast information).
  • Nicholas is not completely subjective. Firstly, he gives us rumors and folklore, and we document things as rumors and folklore. Secondly, he gives us cold-hard facts (like the glowing hearts bit - he actually used the hearts for fires). Perspective do change things, hence why I had to revert the Shadowy Remnants change, because if I didn't then it would of stated Nicholas' opinion as fact, but perspectives shouldn't be ignored - otherwise there would be no reason to have History of Tyria or the War Chronicles, because those too use perspective and in some cases is incorrect.
• My point wasn't about what the article is, but rather what it says. If we kept the "unneeded" lore information - the "less important" lore - out of the articles, the old versions is what we'd have. A [[less prominent situation. Some articles wouldn't even exist if we kept out the "less important" lore.
  

I do respect that you view some lore to be unimportant, though I greatly disagree as all lore is necessary to create a more living world, but I merely greatly disagree with the separation of lore, and I disagree with the "up top is prominence!" mentality. For instance, references are greatly important - as important as what's being referenced, if not more so - but it if was put up top it would block the page. Also if the bottom had walls of text rather than the top, it wouldn't look good. Likewise, if we listed lore in bulletpoints, it would be unnecessarily long. Realistically and simplistically speaking, the top is the best place for lore as it would be the best place for paragraphs. Not due to importance, but due to the looks of the article.
To show that bulletpointing lore is a bad idea: The notes section of the charr article was full of lore, which made it unnecessarily long - even after greatly expanding the paragraphs, it's shorter than with bulletpoints (both in page length and byte size). -- Konig/talk 22:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

minor note on contractions like this

ain't nothin' wrong with 'em -- certainly not grammatically. just a matter of stylistic preference, of which I don't believe we have a uniform one on this Wiki.
at any rate, overuse appears pretentious. but anyway, good editing with you, as always | 72 | 17:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There ain't nuffin' wrong w/colloquialisms, but there ain't nuffin' better about them, either; I have yet to see the article that reads better because it uses contractions. As you suggest, too many cannots or do nots can make an article feel pretentious, so often, the better choice is to rephrase to avoid the need to choose between e.g. "is not" and "ain't."

Regardless, we don't need to have specific policies or guidelines that say that articles have to be well written, but all of us edit intending good and appropriate writing. In your post above, your use of contractions is an excellent example of both, but that doesn't mean the same stylistic preference suits this encyclopedic knowledge base. I think this wiki does have a very strong preference for semi-formal language, which doesn't leave much room for contractions.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I am afraid I must disagree there. It is a very stiff and pretentious register that does not make use of contractions, would you not say? The modern trend to avoid them is -- well, I have not the foggiest how I would describe it! | 72 | 21:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't, don't, can't, doesn't, shouldn't, etc - those kinds of contractions are hardly colloquialisms, whereas "ain't" and "nuffin'" most certainly are. The former are fine on articles, the latter wouldn't be. I don't think a page should be edited specifically to remove acceptable contractions, but if you're editing something else on the page then I guess it would be fine. - pling 21:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

More or less what Pling said | 72 | 22:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)