GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/GuildWars.com information

The spart

 * There was no consensus on departure from the bug-for-bug treatment of update notes. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 20:54, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Also, that discussion is not relevant here, as it was about the section heading for the update, not the update notes themselves. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 20:56, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * That's your take on it. Those who were involved at the time chose to end the discussion on a different conclusion. We do not copy their formatting, never have. this is what's at issue here. Do we copy ANet's website formatting when we copy game update test? The answer is no. Never has been yes. They never wikify their links, they don't have the same colors or bullets. It's a very weak argument. Copying text != Copying crappy formatting. --Karlos 20:59, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * To be fair, with respect to game updates and guildwars.com news, we have been adhering, as close as simple wikitext permits, to the formatting (or "structuring") from the official site. Does not mean we can't change the practice, but just want to set the records straight. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:03, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Yet, we have not been copying there formatting verbatim. That's the bottom line. Now, I am fine with a debate on whether the format I put them in is more readable, makes the page too long, whatever. But to RV by basically retroactively opening a debate that was closed because the outcome was not satisfactory is unfair. It is clear (to me) we can format thing more clearly if we need to. If others disagree with the way I did it or think the jumbled up paragraph is better, that's fine. But to debate that we copy everything they say verbatim has already been proven wrong. there is not a single game update on this wiki that copies the formatting of the ANet site verbatim. Not one. --Karlos 21:09, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

I think typos and formatting should be discussed separately. With respect to format, I think it is fine if we restructure the information to enhance readability. Let's forget the predecents and figure out what makes sense to do. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:59, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Anythig to enhance readability/legibility should be Ok. Bolding, Italicising, Bulleting and even tabulation should be fine. As long as it does not present the information in a different way or alter the text. --Karlos 21:35, 15 June 2006 (CDT)

I feel that formatting changes to improve readability, provided the original context, spelling, and meaning is kept intact, should be permitted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:18, 15 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I would like the wiki to use better formating and possibly correct some typos for the wiki links to work nicely. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 02:24, 16 June 2006 (CDT)