Guild Wars Wiki talk:Game updates
Policy or Guideline?[edit]
Which do you this is better for this to be, a Policy or a Guideline?
Policy[edit]
- ...
Guideline[edit]
- As theres already to many policys, plus policys seem to be to strict (no say)--Dominator Matrix 01:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd have to say Guideline with this one as they are only Game Updates and don't need an entire policy backing it up. If vandalism should occur, a simple warning and/or block would suffice fine. — ク Eloc 貢 16:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
IDK[edit]
- ...
Discussion[edit]
Treat the game updates pages the same as you would for any other page; that is, if considerable vandalism comes to it, sysops can feel free to protect it and block vandals. Game updates are nothing unique to require their own guideline or policy. If you really something like this requires notice and information, it's already covered in 1RR, ADMIN and COMMONSENSE. --
Brains12 \ Talk 10:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, that last policy didn't gain enough support and was thus marked as a failed proposal. -Auron 10:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- @ Brains, Common sense is not your answer to everything; to be honest not everyone has it. I am leaning more towards guideline anyway for this, so it will be re-done. How are they not unique, they are given 3x more vandalism than most pages. Well I am going to fix this up a bit and prep it for a guideline draft, maybe you will like it better then :) --Shadowphoenix
15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The only recent situation I can think of that needed protection was the Game updates/20080417. Are we making policies and guidelines because of one incident? An incident which was dealt with by sysops without any existing documentation specifically about game update pages? I wouldn't mind if this was just a formatting guideline, seeing as we have them for just about everything else (but one could argue that the formatting is done right anyway because Emily is usually the first to make a new update log and she formats it fine), but the specifications for protection and blocking simply aren't needed. --
Brains12 \ Talk 16:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to make this a guideline draft, I would perfer you wait until I finish re-doing it before you make comments on it ok ;o) --Shadowphoenix 16:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to make this a guideline draft, I would perfer you wait until I finish re-doing it before you make comments on it ok ;o) --Shadowphoenix
- The only recent situation I can think of that needed protection was the Game updates/20080417. Are we making policies and guidelines because of one incident? An incident which was dealt with by sysops without any existing documentation specifically about game update pages? I wouldn't mind if this was just a formatting guideline, seeing as we have them for just about everything else (but one could argue that the formatting is done right anyway because Emily is usually the first to make a new update log and she formats it fine), but the specifications for protection and blocking simply aren't needed. --
- @ Brains, Common sense is not your answer to everything; to be honest not everyone has it. I am leaning more towards guideline anyway for this, so it will be re-done. How are they not unique, they are given 3x more vandalism than most pages. Well I am going to fix this up a bit and prep it for a guideline draft, maybe you will like it better then :) --Shadowphoenix
When I saw this page I just thought WTF? Sorry but why do we need a guideline (or a policy or whatever!) about an article? Let's create a List of skills guideline to explain how to use the template! Or let's create a Main Page guideline which says that it cannot be edited and instead the editcopy should be edited!
Sorry, but this page is a completely wasted space. poke | talk 16:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- While I wouldn't put it the same way as Poke, I think there are far too few things to "enforce" for game updates for it to warrant a guideline. The formatting is pretty straightforward the same as on the official site. And a guideline just to say "keep the official wording" is too much to me. The "Dealing with vandalism" section just comes out wrong. 1RV is in place to prevent revert wars, and that does include revert wars done "in good faith". What is stated in that section is "ignore policy" and apart from that "use common sense", so I don't think it's needed at all. - anja
16:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really see how this is necesarry either. The vandalism and notes section seem particularly redundant with already enforced policies. Removing those, you are not left with much. I think the Update Page is taken care of well enough. I don't think it warrants a guideline. Mohnzh say what? 16:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm joining the "not necessary" crowd as well. Everything written here, with the exception of the "how-to" is more correctly and completely covered elsewhere. I wouldn't mind keeping the intro text and rewriting the "Posting Updates/Formatting" section into a Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Game updates though, if only to kinda generalise or formalise the style and convention that's being used. -- ab.er.rant
07:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm joining the "not necessary" crowd as well. Everything written here, with the exception of the "how-to" is more correctly and completely covered elsewhere. I wouldn't mind keeping the intro text and rewriting the "Posting Updates/Formatting" section into a Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Game updates though, if only to kinda generalise or formalise the style and convention that's being used. -- ab.er.rant
- I don't really see how this is necesarry either. The vandalism and notes section seem particularly redundant with already enforced policies. Removing those, you are not left with much. I think the Update Page is taken care of well enough. I don't think it warrants a guideline. Mohnzh say what? 16:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
