Talk:Generic resurrect

Deletion
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Generic_resurrect

I'd say, there is quite a lot here to link to! ~ Nilles (msg) 13:05, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * The generic icon can just point directly to Resurrect (action), and all those links to here go away. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:17, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * Now I see, it's not the icon, but the text description. As long as we use the generic resurrect within builds, we will likely require this redirect. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:19, 6 December 2006 (CST)

I mean do away with the whole thing. There is no such thing as a generic res. Rebirth/Sunspear sig for out of battle, res sig for in battle, chant/renew for hard res. All can and should be specified, generic will just force bad choices &mdash; Skuld 13:31, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * This was already discussed pretty extensively over at GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Builds, and any suggestions to eliminate it should probably be made in that forum in order to prevent fragmentation of the discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:35, 6 December 2006 (CST)
 * This has already been discussed to death and generally agreed on some time ago. Going through the discussion it seems that only 2 people had reservations at the time, compared to at least five who approved. Skuld took part in the initial conversation but didn't object until everybody else had set it up. I'm removing the tag - it's far too late in the day to delete this now.


 * For the record, here's the people who said they were in favour:


 * Spot
 * Xeeron
 * Gem
 * NieA7
 * LordBiro
 * Vallen Frostweaver (post-approval)


 * And the people who said they were against:


 * Abberant80 (appears to change their opinion to neutral after the discussion)
 * Rapta
 * Barek (post-approval, didn't know about the discussion)
 * Skuld (post-approval, knew about it but didn't object until later)


 * --NieA7 14:55, 7 December 2006 (CST)


 * It's never too late to delete - policies and community opinions change with time - but I agree with removing the delete tag.
 * As for my position, not sure why I'm tagged with being against this - I just pointed Skuld towards the other conversation on the subject. I'm more or less neutral to the concept; but I was and still am against the use of a question mark as the icon symbol for the optional slot (which was part of that same discussion). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:31, 7 December 2006 (CST)
 * True it's never too late to delete, but this has only been in effect for a couple of weeks where it took over a month to get finalised - that's just silly. As for being against, I scanned through the first part of the discussion you linked to above (GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Builds) and tried to pull out those who expressed a definite opinion: I read the first bit of your comment about the icon and mistook it to mean you didn't like the whole concept. Or, to coin a phrase, "whoops". I've stuck you out the list above, maybe I'll read things properly in future ;) --NieA7 17:09, 7 December 2006 (CST)