UDWiki talk:Projects/Guide Page Cleanup: Difference between revisions
Zaruthustra (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Sounds like a method of cherry picking the hard work of other users and passing it off without attribution. The very best guides on this wiki work because they are delivered as opinion pieces of individuals, removing that advice and placing it in a homogenised, dumbed down vanilla clip show is not a good idea. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | Sounds like a method of cherry picking the hard work of other users and passing it off without attribution. The very best guides on this wiki work because they are delivered as opinion pieces of individuals, removing that advice and placing it in a homogenised, dumbed down vanilla clip show is not a good idea. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I think we could still add attribution for people whose guides were incorporated into larger ones, but we need to prioritize. We have something like eight "zombie" guides with slight if any variations. This is a wiki, a venture that is ownership free (Kevan notwithstanding) and collaborative. the desires of authors for recognition, while perfectly valid, cannot be placed above the functioning of the wiki. and thats what having mountains of redundant text does. Secondly I'm not suggesting we delete anybody's work, merely that we incorporate some of it into easily searchable guides and delist the remaining texts. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]<sup>Still a Mod in His Mind</sup> 22:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | :I think we could still add attribution for people whose guides were incorporated into larger ones, but we need to prioritize. We have something like eight "zombie" guides with slight if any variations. This is a wiki, a venture that is ownership free (Kevan notwithstanding) and collaborative. the desires of authors for recognition, while perfectly valid, cannot be placed above the functioning of the wiki. and thats what having mountains of redundant text does. Secondly I'm not suggesting we delete anybody's work, merely that we incorporate some of it into easily searchable guides and delist the remaining texts. --[[User:Zaruthustra|Zaruthustra]]<sup>Still a Mod in His Mind</sup> 22:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
The shadowlord returns with proposals for quality works. Oh dear that won't survive long, don't you know we don't do quality or maintenance anymore? --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 03:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Have a vote or community ranking system. Its hard and impossible, but... {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 14:17, 3 April 2009 (BST) | |||
Would it be possible to organize them into more specific categories than "for survivors" or "for zombies" "for both," ect.? For instance, there could be a "reviving" section with guides for reviving and getting revived. In addition to making it easier to go through the guides, it would also encourage guide writers to make shorter ones in the future. --[[User:Uberursa | Uberursa]]<sup>this bear wants honey</sup> 20:06, 7 September 2009 (BST) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:06, 7 September 2009
This project
While I have no problem with you implementing an appraisal system for inclusion and placement on the page, this:
- "Much of this work needs to be consolidated into a few much smaller guides. In fact I would recommend creating Guides: The Survival Guide and Guides: Report On Zombies or somesuch to to clearly labeled as the main repository of knowledge for their respective classes."
Sounds like a method of cherry picking the hard work of other users and passing it off without attribution. The very best guides on this wiki work because they are delivered as opinion pieces of individuals, removing that advice and placing it in a homogenised, dumbed down vanilla clip show is not a good idea. -- 
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 22:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think we could still add attribution for people whose guides were incorporated into larger ones, but we need to prioritize. We have something like eight "zombie" guides with slight if any variations. This is a wiki, a venture that is ownership free (Kevan notwithstanding) and collaborative. the desires of authors for recognition, while perfectly valid, cannot be placed above the functioning of the wiki. and thats what having mountains of redundant text does. Secondly I'm not suggesting we delete anybody's work, merely that we incorporate some of it into easily searchable guides and delist the remaining texts. --ZaruthustraStill a Mod in His Mind 22:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The shadowlord returns with proposals for quality works. Oh dear that won't survive long, don't you know we don't do quality or maintenance anymore? --Karekmaps?! 03:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Have a vote or community ranking system. Its hard and impossible, but... DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:17, 3 April 2009 (BST)
Would it be possible to organize them into more specific categories than "for survivors" or "for zombies" "for both," ect.? For instance, there could be a "reviving" section with guides for reviving and getting revived. In addition to making it easier to go through the guides, it would also encourage guide writers to make shorter ones in the future. -- Uberursathis bear wants honey 20:06, 7 September 2009 (BST)
