GuildWiki talk:Be Bold

GuildWiki is an encyclopedia?-- (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?--[[Image: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 :) --- [[Image: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... [[Image: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. -- Shadow crest   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%2C_revert%2C_discuss_cycle is the same redundant article, and it works for them. --Honorable Sarah [[image: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. --[[Image: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 [[Image: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 [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 02:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

vs GW:CONTENT
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. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 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 [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 08:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

what to do with this
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 [[Image: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)