GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

GuildWiki talk:Be Bold

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

GuildWiki is an encyclopedia?--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 19:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what to change it to, ok? Lord Belar 19:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fansite?--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 19:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
That works. But shouldn't you be bold and change it? :P Lord Belar 19:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It's still a proposal :) --- VipermagiSig.JPG-- (s)talkpage 19:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This is already an unofficial policy, I'm not sure what the point would be to adding it now. Kinda late anyways... Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 20:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know either, it started here. Lord Belar 20:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Better late than never. And you can't call upon an unofficial policy to back you up on anything. --Shadowcrest 05:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

this is not really a policy object, as the bold change/discussion model is the primary method of wiki-functioning. kinda like having an instruction manual for a car include a like about the vehical being designed to move forward most of the time. that being said, the wikipedia:Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle is the same redundant article, and it works for them. --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 07:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure about the point of this, but it seems like a good one. Wouldnt most people contribute anyway? Although, to the new wiki editor, posting your opinion over the opinion of an admin may seem a bit.. Stupid =P. GW:YAV is sort of like this policy, though. --Warwick sig.JPG Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 00:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, its not entirely the same as YAV. YAV just tells them not to belittle themselves, especially in comparison to others. This one tells them to change whatever they think should be changed. --Shadowcrest 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I was actually searching for a Bold policy the other day and was surprised to find we didn't already have one. I was forced to use GW:YOU in its place. This would be a useful policy to have, although for the most part it's already in effect. Some things are just nicer when they're official. :D Felix Omni Signature.png 00:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Everybody screams for a GW:BOLD policy, and then I tell them theres a proposal for one and nothing happens :( --Shadowcrest 00:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
prolly because there is no opposing modus operandi. wikis that operate based on the "be mild" priciple are empty. --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 02:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

vs GW:CONTENT[edit source]

This sounds like its essentially the same as GW:CONTENT. Boils down to putting content on pages and not worrying about whether or not you added it right and stuff. —JediRogue 23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. GW:CONTENT is about systematically NOT trying to do anything that looks fancy but makes things more complicated to edit. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 08:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

what to do with this[edit source]

So, this has been sitting here for over 2 months. AFAIK, nobody has opposed, and it's been used multiple times for instruction to newer users, etc. What should be done with this? --Shadowcrest 01:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This would be one of the things I'd advocate being a "GuildWiki value" instead of a "GuildWiki policy". It's not like we are banning cowards around here. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 05:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Is this still here? If we support the sentiment anyway then why don't we just make it a policy. It's already taking up a few Kb of space on the wiki, just in the proposal category instead of policy, so i really can't see an argument against making it official :-| --Cobalt | Talk 19:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes[edit source]

I noticed this ""It's easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission."" was in the links section. Shouldn't it be in a notes section? It doesn't link to anything. Ariyen 03:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no notes section, I'd be wary of creating one just for that quote. Maybe put it near the top of the page. Felix Omni Signature.png 03:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
can you place it where it feels to be? er needs... Anyway, I just noticed it in the related area and didn't feel like it should be in that spot. Ariyen 05:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
It could be placed at the end of the Be BOLD section as it's own paragraph, I think it fits quite well there — Viruzzz 09:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I Agree with Felix, I think it should be towards the top, not at the bottom where it doesn't belong. It doesn't need it's own spot either as it's a Quote and quotes are usually found towards the top of pages. Ariyen 18:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I just think it would look snazzy as a sort of summarizing quote for the policy. Maybe we could find some for the other policies too. Felix Omni Signature.png 18:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we should do something like gww does except you know, not with a quote that's that long. I find the accent bar and quote to be stylish and modern. ∵Scythe∵ 19:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Summarizing quote, I'd go for that. Ariyen 21:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I would have just applied this exact policy/guideline :P --TalkpageEl_Nazgir 21:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Lol, Yea, but I'm still pondering where at up top that it should go. Ariyen 22:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
...besides, fortune favors the bold. Nwash User-Nwash-Eyes.png 18:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
http://www.notquitewrong.com/rosscottinc/2011/01/14/the-system-458-forgiveness/ --◄mendel► 15:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)