GuildWiki talk:Dos and Donts

Slapped on Helping Out category, but maybe putting this into the policy category is more appropriate (I made that a subcategory of helping out for easier access). Should also be careful what to put in here and what in separate articles there, to prevent doubles. --Xeeron 21:00, 9 March 2006 (CST)


 * Definitely. Anything that has it's own policy page or Style & Formatting page should just link there. However, if the error is common (such as people putting the equippable item drops in monster articles), then I think a note should be made. Usability should always override tidiness in my opinion. --Karlos 21:11, 9 March 2006 (CST)

We don't need this
This is the first I've heard of this article, though I was aware of every point it raises. This article is instruction creep exemplified. New users will not read or will fail to heed it, and old users don't need this article. Policy will be handled invisibly by policy watchdogs (we have several). &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 18:00, 23 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree. This article is an example of bureaucracy gone wild.  If something like this is seen as needed, I would rather its structure (and its name) more closely followed Simplified Ruleset --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 19:05, 9 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Watchdogs unite! --Gares Redstorm 14:44, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Arf, arf. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 14:54, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think there are some positive sides though, like a nice place to quick-reference when politely asking someone to do, or cease to do, something. In many cases it sure beats just banning people, right Karlos...? -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 14:57, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * While I can see a reason for this type of article; I feel its current structure and even its title is unneccesarilly confrontational, which is why I said "beaurocracy gone wild" - a bit of an exageration, but the article does have a condecending/dictatorial tone in it to me. Not really a "nice place" to direct anyone.  I much prefer a page with a layout similar to the Wikipedia one that I mentioned above; or just merge the concepts here into GuildWiki:Guiding principles, which contains some of the info already, just structured in a way that comes accross as more open and inviting to continued participation of others. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 15:07, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * That's a good point, and mergin with GuildWiki:Guiding principles sounds like a fine idea. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 15:57, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I have to say, most of the points covered in this article are covered somewhere else. As far as editing the wiki goes, new users should (and probably are) directed to Style and formatting. Points such as "For character builds, make sure to start the article name with the profession combination (i.e. N/Mo, R/Any, ...) before putting the name of the build." should really be in Style and formatting/Builds.


 * I'm not saying that we don't need an article like this, but I do agree that at present this article seems redundant.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:25, 17 June 2006 (CDT)