Template talk:Ch2

/Archive

FPE
Should we add something about getting info from the FPE? 22:05, 24 March 2006 (CST)

Time to get rid of these
We are 10 days away from release. This template has served its purpose, and it's now time to get rid of it, methinks. Please post objections quickly, as I will do it in a day or so otherwise. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I think the EXACT opposite... There will be numerous inconsistencies adn inaccuracies in our information. The tag serves to distinguish which were pre-release info only, and which one has been verified to be correct post-release.  Perhaps modify the text in the box, but keep it. -PanSola 04:27, 18 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm thinking this tag's text needs to be changed to:
 * "The Following article has been based on Pre-release Factions information, this tag remains here until it can confirm this articles status with the post-release version of Factions"
 * Simple there to confirm that the information is not 100% correct with the retail version of factions --Jamie 04:32, 18 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I think the standard general disclaimer suffices for noting that the information can be possible wrong. My understanding is that this tag was always intended as a warning to editors, not readers. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I would support changing the role of the tag then. The release of a campaign is a sufficiently unique event that IMHO we should get specific disclaimers as opposed to using the general one.  In general, GuildWiki can be wrong and is not responsible and stuff, but in this particular case I believe it is good to mark which info were based on pre-release previews and which one have been confirmed.  In general, GuildWiki will be mostly correct, but with occasional inaccuracies here and there.  In this specific event, I expect a LOT of information to be incorrect, and without a way to easily notice which one has been confirmed the value of GuildWiki as a community resource will drop greatly.  Of course ppl can alway check the history and stuff, but I am expecting a lot of errors on the wiki based on pre-release info, AND a huge influx of players (either new or those who have dropped GW for a few months) who are relatively inexperienced with all the features of GuildWiki (even one so clearly marked as History). -PanSola 04:55, 18 April 2006 (CDT)


 * In that case, for consistency, we should add this tag to all Factions-related articles that lack them. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Agree. I was kinda pushing for that a few months ago but didn't get anywhere )-:. -PanSola 05:21, 18 April 2006 (CDT)


 * what about bot-replacing them with and  tags? gets the "prerelease" bit off and still markes them as needing updates. --Honorable Sarah 10:38, 27 April 2006 (CDT)


 * No, I think it's better to edit the template itself. I think is best left for things that we know are no longer correct. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 16:48, 28 April 2006 (CDT)


 * then why does the template say "Possibly inaccurate information" ? ;-) --Honorable Sarah 15:31, 3 May 2006 (CDT)

Use of term "deprecated"
Can we find a more user-friendly term? This language is understood by those of us in the computer industry; but isn't really common usage elsewhere; and I suspect would be least likely to be understood by those who have English as their second (or third) language. I'm not sure the best substitute language; possibly simply saying "phased out", or simply remove the line entirely. --161.88.255.140 11:35, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
 * "Phased out" sounds best to me. --Rainith 11:45, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

Deletion
All inclusions, besides the ones used in talk pages for examples have been removed. Is it time for a template delete? -Gares 11:02, 26 July 2006 (CDT)