Talk:Zos Shivros Channel (outpost)

followed by is a violation of Only revert once. 66.173.227.152 10:56, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

Trivia
Come on, Skuld, Every three letters are someones tag. every 3 words "came from somewhere". is Return of the Yeti a referance to return of the jedi? No! it's just a common use of three English words. get someone from the creative department say it, and then we could include this kind of comments. I can assure you I can find a 'referance' to most if not all mob and location pages. Foo 11:20, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

Special reasoning for including ZoS?
My understanding is that ZoS is an alpha testing guild; however, listing it here seems to go against the standard policies on not mentioning guilds in articles unless there's documentation from ArenaNet for it. I have no problem with it if its documented by Arenanet; otherwise, I think we should stick to standard policies in re: to guild names not being listed in the articles. Note: ZoS was once added to the article Zos_Shivros_Channel (which is now a redirect to the mission article), and I had reverted it out of there and discussed it some in my discussion page with Stabber (no one else joined in on that conversation).

Note: I agree with anon above: we have a re-revert taking place here again without it first having come to the discussion page. If we expect newcomers to the wiki to take our policies seriously, then the regular contributors must also take them seriously. As a result of a recent full-out revert war taking place, I am being much more careful about this myself, and would hope others would as well. --161.88.255.140 11:22, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Come on guys, we just got done this crap! Ok, my thoughts:
 * Zos has no more indication that it is regards to the guild ZoS than any other 3 or 4 letter word used in the game. I might think different if the name of the location was "ZoS..." but it isn't.
 * We don't post guild info in general, if this is an alpha guild that is no longer around, even more reason not to post it.
 * Now I might accept that the note is true if we had some sort of confirmation from ANet in some way, but barring that it should be removed.
 * As for the revert war issue. I don't think we're there yet.  No one has reverted anything more than once.  Foo reverted something once, and Skuld reverted to an edit that he didn't do in the first place.  Then Foo did the right thing and brought it into the talk page.  (note: I know that isn't quite following the letter of the law, so to speak.  But I'm inclined to feel somewhat lenient.)  --Rainith 12:14, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Rainith: Good point, I just re-read 1RV and noticed the fine distinction. If Skuld had made the original edit, then his revert would have been a re-revert.  But as he was a third party, it technically was not a re-revert per the current policy. --161.88.255.140 12:27, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I actually wasn't sure on that point (I don't think I've read the article since it was first created and don't have time to give it a read now (at work)), but it made sense to me to view it that way. I don't think any of these edits were made in anything other than good faith, but I stand by my views (about the Trivia section of the article) as I listed them above.  I would like to hear other's opinions.  --Rainith 12:32, 12 May 2006 (CDT)