Editing Battlestar Wiki talk:Be bold in updating pages
Discussion page of Battlestar Wiki:Be bold in updating pages
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
This policy is not followed. We should just delete it. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 12:18, 11 June 2006 (CDT) | This policy is not followed. We should just delete it. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 12:18, 11 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:With respect, I think you misunderstand the policy. --[[User: | :With respect, I think you misunderstand the policy. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 12:19, 11 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
::I have read it correcly, and by now memorized it. I think the policy is not followed with the "Recent Changes" section reading "Have an idea or though? Post it here on the Quroum." It contradits this policy, thus it should be deleted. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 12:22, 11 June 2006 (CDT) | ::I have read it correcly, and by now memorized it. I think the policy is not followed with the "Recent Changes" section reading "Have an idea or though? Post it here on the Quroum." It contradits this policy, thus it should be deleted. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 12:22, 11 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
::::I'm just following his princible argument in [[Template talk:Location Data]]. If something has no use, it should be deleted and the article should be on how people get their information. If there was no inovation allowed, this policy should be removed, revised according the [[Template talk:Location Data]] princible for deletion. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 12:54, 11 June 2006 (CDT) | ::::I'm just following his princible argument in [[Template talk:Location Data]]. If something has no use, it should be deleted and the article should be on how people get their information. If there was no inovation allowed, this policy should be removed, revised according the [[Template talk:Location Data]] princible for deletion. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 12:54, 11 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
::::That's reasonable. I've restored [[Cylon listening post]] to stand as an example while we discuss it. --[[User: | ::::That's reasonable. I've restored [[Cylon listening post]] to stand as an example while we discuss it. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 13:04, 11 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
I disagree on the removal of this article. It does require a bit of work, of which I will start on immediately. This article states the "flavor" and dynamic nature of what a wiki is. We need to taylor this to what Battlestar Wiki is, however, given its nature as an encyclopedia with some speculative information whose POV would be intolerable on other wikis. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:13, 23 June 2006 (CDT) | I disagree on the removal of this article. It does require a bit of work, of which I will start on immediately. This article states the "flavor" and dynamic nature of what a wiki is. We need to taylor this to what Battlestar Wiki is, however, given its nature as an encyclopedia with some speculative information whose POV would be intolerable on other wikis. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:13, 23 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
::I see what you're trying to say, Shane, but following the letter of the "law" here for a single article (where all can see past and present easily) doesn't help in using the spirit of the wiki to affect the needed change, whether we delete, move, fold, spindle or mutilate the article. Let's let all chime in now. If you see an item on the changes I've made to personalize the policy to make it more useful, or where you think my change is outright wrong, do so and document it here. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:54, 23 June 2006 (CDT) | ::I see what you're trying to say, Shane, but following the letter of the "law" here for a single article (where all can see past and present easily) doesn't help in using the spirit of the wiki to affect the needed change, whether we delete, move, fold, spindle or mutilate the article. Let's let all chime in now. If you see an item on the changes I've made to personalize the policy to make it more useful, or where you think my change is outright wrong, do so and document it here. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 16:54, 23 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
:::The policy in it's current format is still considered under deletion and nothing should be changed until this is finshed. Admins are not absolute. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 17:37, 23 June 2006 (CDT) | :::The policy in it's current format is still considered under deletion and nothing should be changed until this is finshed. Admins are not absolute. --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 17:37, 23 June 2006 (CDT) | ||
*{{keep}} Ideas: 1. Replace "bold" with "assertive" or something implying "correctness". 2. This is more applicable to content than format. Restrict to content. New policy for formatting and "mechanics". Maybe the "make an example and discuss" policy. Sorry, got to thinking out loud. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 17:07, 23 June 2006 (CDT) | *{{keep}} Ideas: 1. Replace "bold" with "assertive" or something implying "correctness". 2. This is more applicable to content than format. Restrict to content. New policy for formatting and "mechanics". Maybe the "make an example and discuss" policy. Sorry, got to thinking out loud. --[[User:Gougef|FrankieG]] 17:07, 23 June 2006 (CDT) | ||