User talk:Adraeus/Closed issues

'These issues are closed. Further comments will be deleted.' Adraeus 03:05, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)

Hunting Guides/Pre-Searing Ascalon/Green Hills County
Hey Adraeus, nice article :) In future though, please put any notes to other editors in the Discussion page rather than the article itself :) LordBiro/Talk 20:28, 15 Jun 2005 (EST)

After editing the article the only criticism I can make is that it is very personal. Articles shouldn't be personal journals of events. Instead of saying "I did this and got this and it was great" instead say "If you do this you will get this". If the reader likes the sound of the result then he might think it's great as well, but equally they might not. LordBiro/Talk 21:01, 15 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * I agree. I was simply too tired to edit it to fit that format. Adraeus 03:41, 16 Jun 2005 (EST)

Martin Lightbringer's complaints
What's with the arbitrary quest changes? I don't really mind 'Obtained from' vs 'Obtained by' and numbered lists vs bullets. But:
 * 1) If you're going to change one, change them all. Don't just change a couple and leave the rest.
 * 2) Perhaps seeking consensus on a template for all quests would be a better approach so that all of the quests stay consistent. Given that there are more quests going in, in different areas I think this is going to be more important.

Please followup to Talk:Quests or one of the Style & Formatting pages so we can start to define as a group how quests will be formatted. MartinLightbringer(CS) 23:54, 18 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * "Obtained by" doesn't make grammatical sense. The player obtains quests from Non-Player Characters, not by Non-Player Characters.
 * Numbered lists and bulleted lists should be used appropriately. This is not a "one or the other" issue.
 * I'm sorry, but that's not how a wiki works. I created Wikipedia's Company Infobox template, which is used currently on 450 articles. The Company Infobox template is the most used content template on Wikipedia. I am neither required nor duty-bound to implement the infobox on the thousands of other company articles in Wikipedia. Wiki is a collaborative tool. Editors create and edit articles together. If this were a static website maintained by a single person, then consistency would be necessary; however, a wiki is a dynamic resource. The concept of responsibility for adherence to principles of design that applies to other media does not apply here.
 * Consensus is an option and you can propose a request for consensus; however, if you are "hurt" by the change of "your" formatting, I suggest you find something better to do.
 * Adraeus 17:42, 20 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * As I said I don't really care about the language changes. Dialogue does make more sense than Mission Text. Your point re: Obtained from is fine. Your point re: numbered vs bullet lists is fine too.
 * My issue is not that you changed "my" formatting (in truth I took most of it from someone else as I recall), but that you chose to modify one Quest out of the list of content that was there at the time, add the Style & Formatting/Quests page saying this is how it shall be with respect to all quests while not going and retrofitting all of the other content there. You could have presented the proposed changes and said "I think these would be better and here's why..." before proceeding. As you said, Wiki is a collaborative tool. Which means you should actually take the time to collaborate with the community instead of acting unilaterally. Also, I disagree with your assertion that consistency isn't important. Consistency of presentation in a class of pages is important if this is going to be a useful resource for people. If consistency wasn't important then why bother defining the templates for the skills or creating any Style & Formatting pages at all for that matter? MartinLightbringer(CS) 09:09, 21 Jun 2005 (EST)
 * Well, I don't think Adraeus changing articles "arbitrarily" is a big problem. I have to say I do think consistency is important, as do Wikipedia. Thankfully they sum up the relationship more eloquently than I can though, "Clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required." The Style & Formatting section of the GuildWiki is important, but let's not lose any sleep over it!
 * Incidentally, I'm working on a little medal to give you for your work on the company infobox Adraeus :P 19:59, 21 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * I don't waste my time with open projects for the recognition. I try to help as much as possible; however, sometimes that's difficult when users like MartinLightbringer(CS) attack those who pose a threat to their perceived authority. Adraeus 03:25, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * I never asserted consistency is unimportant. I said the way consistency is achieved in static media differs from the way consistency is achieved in dynamic media, and that applying the former method of maintaining consistency to dynamic media does not work in collaborative environments. Unilateral action is what you suggested to me; hence, "If you're going to change one, change them all." Remember? You said that. So don't lecture me on what you failed to comprehend. Practice what you preach. I do know the value of the principles of design. The application of those principles, however, differs from medium to medium. By the way, quit using non-standard HTML to break lines. Learn how to use wiki technology first before you even think you can lecture me on proper collaboration. Adraeus 03:20, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * I agree with Martin (for the most part); Adraeus should probably have commented on GuildWiki_talk:Style & Formatting/Quests discussing his change, or he should have changed all quests across the board. Changing only one quest's formatting provides no good to the community whatsoever, and moreso breaks consistency, which I agree is important.


 * On the other hand, I disagree with Martin's point about arbitrary editing. Be bold, make your change, and see if it lasts.  Adraeus was right to make his change, and in any other article, I'd side with him fully.  However, since that change is fundamentally a change to article policy for a class of articles, he should have communicated with the rest of us in one way or another.


 * That said, I think both of you are being unnecessarily hostile (though, in great schoolyard tradition, I'll point out that Adraeus started it). Repeat after me: this world is made of love and peace! :) &mdash;Tanaric 20:16, 21 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * Puh-leeze. I changed far more than a single quest article, kids. I changed at least five or six articles. By the way, Tanaric, like I said before, the idea that "he should have changed all quests across the board" is not good practice. THAT IS NOT HOW A WIKI WORKS. Get used to it. Wikis are collaborative tools. Wiki projects are team efforts. If you don't want to be a team player, then wiki projects are not for you. Notice that I created the Style & Formatting/Quests article, which you think I should have commented on, and Kathryn Maulhammer expanded the article with syntax descriptions. That's how a wiki works. Initiative.


 * Again, I am not responsible for changing everything. You want a king? Pray to a god. You want someone to hold your hand? Ask your mom. Adraeus 03:01, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)

Quick Note
I expect you to delete this as you've warned, but I didn't see any other way to contact you, and I wasn't finished yet. :)

Just wanted to say that I agree with your point that you shouldn't have needed to change all the articles in question. There was a reason I stressed the "or" in that sentence. My point was that you should have communicated your intent that all the quest articles should be changed, so that the rest of us could have collaborated with you. Your changes are good, and I'm happy to help implement them (I have a lot of free time at work this time of year), but if you don't say your opinions about article style on the style page itself, there's no way for me (or anyone else, unless they're reading every edit) to know that such a change needs to be implemented.

Wikipedia may or may not work this way; I don't know, and I don't care. Here, we communicate together on all issues involving article standards, policy, and consistancy. Whether other wikis you've worked on act this same way is, all in all, fairly irrelevant.

Oh, and I didn't look to see how many articles you changed; I didn't care, so I used the number MartinLightbringer stated. Like I implied, I don't read every edit. &mdash;Tanaric 18:47, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * ...and so I did. If you disagree with an edit, you either change it or revert it. Bickering isn't collaboration. Adraeus 18:59, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)