User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Archive 04

They
For the grammar demons out there: TEF uses they for the missing third person, gender-neutral pronoun. This has wide-acceptance among a number of people, although, afaik, it hasn't really been adopted by the largely white-male dominated krewe that gets to write the rule books. And, to be fair to their point-of-view, there are a good number of herstorian types who eschew its use as well. However, until someone comes up with an acceptable substitute pronoun to use when the person is known, but the gender is not confirmed, I'm stickin' with it.
 * Good: I know that Chris is a good person, having spoken to them online many times. However, they have never mentioned their gender to me.
 * Bad: I know that Chris is a good person, having spoken to him/her online many times. However, he/she has never mentioned his/her gender to me.

&mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 04:07, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Style overhaul
There's an argument to be made about considering a style overhaul, but you won't catch me making it anytime soon. &mdash; if, hypothetically, you were to make this argument (which I understand you are not), roughly how would it go? -- ◄mendel► 09:30, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I have to stop lmao. That's an admirably sneaky way of teasing out conversation from recalcitrant ppls.


 * Then, hypothetically, I might cleverly point out how much easier GWW has become recently in terms of finding info on the page, general navigation, presenting like data in an alike way, etc. And that those ease-of-use improvements have come in part due to style changes. GWiki has its own style, but it appears rooted in its origins (data >>>> form) rather than fit for its current purpose. Worse, the style hasn't been logically extended throughout: navbars sometimes, not others. Info boxes without (much) info. Awkwardly split pages. On longer articles, the most needed/used info is sometimes awkwardly placed.


 * So, theoretically, I imagine that I might be able to point out that we might want to grow from pretty good to good into consistently very good to excellent.


 * You might ask me why didn't I want to get into a style discussion sooner rather than later. Did I wish to avoid volunteering for significant work (and bot building/testing)? Did I want to avoid a style overhaul convention (which can be tediously dull)? Did I want to avoid implicit criticism of the loyal and more talented wikians who were here before me? Well, yes, all of above.


 * More importantly, I have been weighing in my mind whether there's a more fundamental shift that GWiki should consider and whether, with whom, and where to discuss it. Over the last few months, my watched-list has gone from active to quiet. Recent activity is more often measured in hours than minutes. Heck, the number of vandal-edits has dropped dramatically since I joined. Notably, (some) previously frequent contributors have moved attention from here to there.


 * I don't think we're asymptotically approaching the point where there's nothing much to edit (plenty of stubs, out-of-date guides, missing guides, old styles in use, ...). Significantly, this wiki still seems to be getting a lot of traffic (a recent estimate suggested it might still be getting 2x as much search-engine directed visitors as GWW).


 * So, with lots of traffic and relatively fewer contributions, what's the best use of time for GWikians? I don't have an answer, theoretically or otherwise. I'm convinced that there are things that GWiki does much better than GWW, but I have trouble articulating what exactly those might be. I am even more convinced that GWiki fills a critical function for players, but, again: what exactly is that?


 * So, before re-fitting this wiki better towards its purpose, I'd like to consider the purpose it does serve. My current brain dump about GWiki's advantages or unique place in the GW universe include that GWiki...
 * tends to embrace new concepts/approaches more quickly than GWW.
 * tends to support new contributors better.
 * does not seem to demand or assume advanced skills, titles, or abilities in offering advice.
 * is more likely to be able to offer something that's missing than either PvX or GWW (e.g. the Nick farming guide here that doesn't assume leetness of toons nor of players).


 * &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 23:35, October 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hah, now I see what's on your mind, and I look forward to the day when you might be prepared to make such an argument. :) What we seem to lack is a user interface designer (sometimes called information architect) who structures the presentation (and workings) of the wiki more along the actual needs of its users. It's a lot of work.
 * Another point is that we are the wiki with sister wikis in almost every Guild Wars language, and if we were in control of our skin, we'd have interlanguage links to all of them. As it is, we could probably use some custom Javascript in the meantime.
 * And I ought to actually go and look at gww. -- ◄mendel► 01:36, October 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * re: looking at GWW: yes. Take a look at any trophy, any title, any party item, and any holiday (for starters, anyhow). And, now that I've brought up the daily activity slow-down here, do you have any thoughts on that?


 * re: UI Designers &amp; info architects: I know good ones from bad ones, but I'm not one myself. I get the principles and can help a team avoid catastrophe; I can recognize good design-for-purpose. I'm not able to go much more beyond that.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:44, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

encouraging comment
I see what you tried [ there] and [ there], but [ this] and [ this] actually worked well (or should). -- ◄mendel► 11:12, October 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks &mdash; the differences between theory and practice of taking GW:AGF to a emoboldened extreme.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 23:49, October 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with the individual responses is that I actually need to have a somewhat accurate impression of the person I am replying to - when I'm doing this, AGF isn't another mechanic to do things, it means I actually get a little bit interested in the person (well, in the case of Vipermagi, I already am ;-) and adress myself to my impression of them; and if that's off, so's my response. --12:31, October 16, 2009 (UTC) &mdash; This almost signed&trade; post was made by Mendel on the date/time indicated, who apparently was too distracted to notice the number of ~ in his sig.
 * Would I get in trouble for copy / pasting that into my preferences, calling myself A F K When Needed and linking to myself instead of to you? A_F_K_sig_2.jpg A F K When Needed 17:46, October 16, 2009 (UTC) Pure epic...
 * It's too long for a signature, though I agree TEF's edit is win (thank you!). -- ◄mendel► 21:57, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Ernie
Hai. A F K When Needed 17:10, October 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * TEF doesn't know anyone who responds to, "Ernie." Do you?  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 23:51, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * I do. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 10:51, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

I don't know you.
So hi.-- (Talk) (Contr.) 02:01, October 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * And hello yourself!  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:22, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Bad news and Iffy news.
I discovered on Monday that the most important day of my life up to this point will be on the 23, which is why I had to scrap my Rurik costume, so don't expect anything from me. But the slightly better news is, after the 31, I'm going to try to revive the GD&D group.--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ is hosting a Card Creation Contest! 00:47, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yay! [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 01:14, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Most important day? You are visiting the moon? (or something not so fun) Either way, gl! And thanks for headsup about GD&D; I wondered if/when.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 03:14, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Who's Ernie ?
Objects are often referred to as female, e.g. she's a fine ship (bad example, but whatever >.>) A F K When Needed 14:49, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ernie? Who is this Ernie?


 * If TEF had been addressed, they might say that, sure, Cap'n Kirk's would say of the the Enterprise, she's a fine ship. However, Kirk would never say,  her twin sister, the Constellation is pretty good, too. Instead he might refer to, her sister ship or (possibly, just possibly) her twin ship. In any case, what makes us think that shields might be boys instead of girls?  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 16:47, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well maybe someone mistook the shield handle for a... y'know... A_F_K_sig_2.jpg A F K When Needed 11:39, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are personifying an object, then it seems to me you can use any terminology that can metaphorically apply, so there's no reason not to call the two ships "twin sisters," especially if someone starts feeling especially poetic. (They are the same class, almost identical in appearance, though whether they were built at the same time or not is something I'm not going to bother checking.)  It pretty much just comes down to "sister ship" being a commonly accepted personification.  (Though personifying a shield does seem odd, unless it's magical enough to have intelligence or something...)   Nwash  [[Image:User-Nwash-Eyes.png|link=User talk:Nwash]] 11:56, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not that one can't call two ships, "twin sisters;" it's that no one ever does, despite the poetry. And sure, someone might mistake the shield handle for a, y'know...but somehow I think Georgia O'Keeffe might paint things a little differently.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 16:47, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * Even sister cities exist. RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 17:15, October 29, 2009 (UTC)