GuildWiki talk:Explain Yourself

-recent changes bump 3 &mdash; Blastedt(Talk) 12:33, 27 December 2006 (CST)- While I agree 3 days for cleanup is a tad harsh, people should learn to speak correctly before submitting things into a wiki. &mdash; Blastedt(Talk) 10:20, 27 December 2006 (CST)
 * This would conflict with other policies on the wiki. For everything else of this type, it just gets flagged with a stub tag.  We have a build-stub tag as it is that can serve this purpose, and the abandoned tag can be added if the stub isn't touched after two weeks.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:13, 27 December 2006 (CST)
 * But this would encourage them, and would be alot different from abandond, as they can make major edits, but if they do, and they're still not readable, abandoned doesn't serve the purpose. I also don't see the point of having unreadable trash on the wiki for a month plus.  &mdash; Blastedt(Talk) 14:18, 27 December 2006 (CST)
 * This is in direct conflict with the Guide to Writing Good Builds (which can be found on the Builds page). Opposed...I like good English and good Grammar, but this will mess up more than you're anticipating. Entropy 14:30, 28 December 2006 (CST)
 * Where is it in disagreement? I never saw anything like that T.T  PLease quote &mdash; Blastedt(Talk) 15:35, 28 December 2006 (CST)
 * Here is one place where it conflicts. "Voting after testing the build in game and leaving a detailed comment with the vote is prefered, but not needed to make the vote count."
 * Either way, this policy is pointless. Who are the people we have most problems with in regards to voting/vetting/builds in general? The people who don't (or can't be bothered) reading all the fine print about builds. If we make a new policy, what will we succeed in doing? We'll spread the word to long-time GWiki-ers, not the people who don't understand. The policy is just more fine print that will be ignored as kids come in with their "godly build" and flame everyone that votes it down. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 18:11, 15 January 2007 (CST)
 * This has nothing to do with voting....although, if we made it so there was links to this in the abandoned type template. &mdash;[[Image:BlastedtSigleft.jpg]]Blastedt[[Image:BlastedtSigright.jpg]]&mdash; 18:49, 15 January 2007 (CST)
 * It's got as much to do with voting as it does anything else (if anything, this has more to do with voting and build-building than any other policy we have). It's basically "plz speek inglesh" combined with "use common sense" with a little bit of "don't be a douche" thrown in. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 19:01, 15 January 2007 (CST)
 * It doesn't really have to do with what you have, but it's saying that a build saying JUST USE MENDING LOLOLOLOL isn't acceptable, but if you make a build using it and post it coherently, it's ok, despite just being mending, healsig, and frenzy. &mdash;[[Image:BlastedtSigleft.jpg]]Blastedt[[Image:BlastedtSigright.jpg]]&mdash; 19:06, 15 January 2007 (CST)
 * From a spellchecking point of view, it's good to know there's a policy like this: correcting a typo or two in a new build is no big deal, but finding a typo in one of those builds (you know you've seen them) where you need to practically rewrite the thing to clean it up...at least there's a "time limit" where you can ignore it if less than 3 days have passed without the fear it's going to stay around like that forever. Also this would make a good shout.  "Explain yourself!" :) -- Peej 09:46, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * I honestly don't see the requirement for a new tag (and by extension, new categories). If a build is in stub for over two weeks with no input to it, it can be tagged with the abandoned tag, then deleted a month later.  If a jibberish build makes it to testing, it'll get marked unfavored quickly and likely get deleted anyway.  Yes, these are longer than the three days proposed; but the entire reason that the abandoned has the duration it now has is to give people who may only visit the site once or twice a week a chance to clean up their build before it's eliminated.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:42, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Not The Place
This shouldn't be its own proposed policy; it should go in GW:WBE as a proposed change. — Jyro X 16:20, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Wait, what? This has like nothing to do with writing good builds, it's just common sense, lol.  Enforcing common sense should be enforcified. &mdash;[[Image:BlastedtSigleft.jpg]]Blastedt[[Image:BlastedtSigright.jpg]]&mdash;
 * How can you possibly say that this doesn't have anything to do with writing good builds? That's all this article/"Proposed Policy" talks about. Please "Explain Yourself". — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg]] 16:23, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * This is about like grammar. I dunno, but this has a new tag, and means of disposing with things that you cannot read. &mdash;[[image:Blastedt sig.png]]Blastedt 16:42, 30 January 2007 (CST)
 * Anything that you cannot read will likely get deleted anyway via the abandoned tag, as it won't make it to untested status if its unreadable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:44, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Failed
Delete? &mdash; Skuld 13:27, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * no &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 14:57, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * at least move it to failed on Policy &mdash; Skuld 15:00, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * *cries LOUDLY*&mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 16:49, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I wish this made it... --Mgrinshpon 10:32, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

delete me
this is totally contrary to AGF. --Honorable Sarah 00:30, 5 June 2007 (CDT)