elanthipedia:Town Green (policy)
| Town Green policy discussion post | |
|---|---|
| This policy section of the Town Green is to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines here at Elanthipedia. | |
| Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the File:Button sig.jpg in the edit toolbar). Please add new topics to the bottom of this page. | |
| Town Green |
|---|
| Town Green |
| Policy (post) |
| Technical (post) |
| Assistance (post) |
| Miscellaneous (post) |
Elanthipedia Style Discussion
Hey folks, head over to Elanthipedia:Manual of Style/new and Elanthipedia talk:Manual of Style/new to give your thoughts on the discussion of a LARGE project of standardizing the wiki.--Naeya (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2008 (CDT)
Any interest in creating a skill ranking page for each skill? it can be added to the current individual skill pages. zairius.com has a few old pages like this. the one problem would be verification i suppose. however i would find these incredibly interesting as well as other "number-crunching" players. dying to know who is #1 in whatever skill.
How to handle obsolete skill articles when DR 3.0 is released
I think we need to set a policy on how to handle this since a large number of articles will be impacted. I am posting this because we're starting to get edits along these lines. (edit--I just noticed I had left this part out Farman 17:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC))
Since some skills are being removed completely and others are being combined, it's not so clear as in the past when most (all?) examples were skills that were simply renamed whole eg Transference skill.
IMO the goal of Elanthipedia is to preserve information about DR, and that includes obsolete and discontinued systems. We preserve articles about old spells, and should do the same for old skills.
So I propose that we keep old skill articles as they are, with a prominent link at the top of the article to the new skill. --Farman 18:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I think that in the case of skills that are simply getting renamed, a redirect is appropriate providing mention is made in the new article about the previous name. --Farman 18:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. This site is not just about providing functional information about the game, but also historical information, such as how systems used to be. That being said, I believe functional should take precedence over historical, when they conflict. -Moderator Caraamon Makdasi(talk) 19:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. I think any such conflicts should be easy to resolve in how the articles are written. We could also do the article/old structure when needed, although it should be rare.
For anyone else reading along, when the time comes to transition articles, the {{obsolete}} template should be useful. I'm still not convinced that anyone besides us reads the town green though ;) --Farman 18:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)