Help talk:How and when to add emphasis

Do NOT delete.

First, this is a work in progress. You are welcome to add to it and make it better. Unless you have specific objections, leave it alone.

It might be useful on Wikipedia as well but it is intended to help people write better articles here.

Unless you can state a specific objection, I'll pull the delete tag tomorrow.

--Max 2 03:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I could add to it, but it still wouldn't increase its relevance and appropriateness. It's not just the current content I object to, it's the purpose of the page; I don't think it's necessary. In general, the only emphasis we use that looks suitable is italics and bold. That applies across the board where English is concerned. Also, some of the things on the page aren't "emphasis" - links, tables, and conjunctions, for example.

I don't think we've had problems with people leaving out emphasis where it's required; the toolbar in the editing window has buttons to make things easy, people are usually aware of general formatting, and articles aren't in heavy demand of emphasis.

If someone did have a problem with emphasis that had to be outlined, one could explain it to that person (it's unlikely to be a large number of people), or simply link to Wikipedia, where the information is a lot more detailed, appropriately located, and with useful links to related subjects. For example, I could say to you to use capitalisation and bolding less on talk pages - it looks like you're shouting too often, so you have the appearance of being cranky or annoyed (which can frustrate readers or invite baiting/trolling, which in turn affects you), whether or not you actually are annoyed. (I think that's something Defiant Elements eloquently pointed out to you on your GWW talk page.)

I'd be fine with moving the page to your userspace if you don't want it to be deleted, but it's probably best not to keep it in the help namespace. pling 10:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Last point first – In user space, this would no longer apply to the wiki as a whole. This is a wiki thing, not a personal thing. It should not be deleted and it should not be moved.

From observation, this is not all that uncommon a problem. You seem to have gotten the point that mark-up is not the problem in most cases. You failed to get the point that structure and writing style have a profound impact. That failure means that the article needs improvement.

The style for discussion is completely different from the style for articles. Yes, I shout a lot on discussion pages. I get angry when people tell lies. That has little to do with this article. A lot of your comment is an ad homium attack that seeks to divert attention from the purpose of this article. As such, it is a kind of lie. STOP IT!

And that gets back to a more general issue: The manipulators thrive on disruption. They like to delete things rather than make things better. They want real issues hidden, not discussed. You want this on Wikipedia, where its relevance to this wiki will not be obvious.

--Max 2 11:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pling's points here. Like all other policy I would rather begin these when the patterns and habits of the wiki have become apparent and we need to document any specific conventions or oddities to help newcomers catch up with the way we're doing things here. With the community so small and no actual content from the game to figure out formatting for such an effort on such a specific topic seems premature and overly prescriptive.

My observation with GWW is no matter how detailed or complex the rules someone will always find a way to disrupt - possibly even using the rules to do it. Disruption is better dealt with by a firm, fair sysop team - I think we have this so at the moment that is all we need. -- Aspectacle  13:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Would it be reasonable to say that this might be relevant if done right? Is it really necessary to delete or move it?

I think you are correct about rules and disruption. You miss the point that deletion of work in progress is one of the main mechanisms that causes disruption. You are also assuming that the SysOp team has no stake in causing disruption.

--Max 2 14:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to be the end-all, be-all for English and its rules. The most I would go for would be some links on the main help page pointing out the Wikipedia help pages related to whatever topics we deem necessary. This page isn't necessary here. --JonTheMon 17:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I see myself agreeing with the others here, Max. This just does not seem to be necessary here. --hnzdvn 19:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That is begging the question. This is and will be tailored for articles that describe Guild Wars 2, a game, where there will be many articles with similar structure. Wikipedia covers a broader spectrum, requires a greater flexibility in format and has to allow for a much broader range of styles as a result. Further, that seems to be what was done on GW1, and the result there is, shall I say, inadequate.

And what is this crap about necessary. That is just an excuse to be destructive. Would anybody find this useful?

--Max 2 19:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And we have another reversion without discussion. --Max 2 19:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not an appropriate help page for this wiki. The scope of what you're going for is too large, and at most you would make a couple comments on a generic style guideline. --JonTheMon 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You removed the deletion tag while the discussion was ongoing and indeed when every other person in the discussion agreed with deletion; putting the tag back was appropriate. Also, reverting without discussion isn't always bad - it's bad when there's an edit war going on, when the change is large, or when discussion is going against reversion. pling 21:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How the hell do you know it isn't appropriate? I haven't finished writing it. Hell, I'm not even sure the list of topics to be addressed is correct. All I know really at this point is that similar stuff on GW1 doesn't go where I think it should go and I want to try something different. Now you lot come along and call it 'inappropriate' and want to delete it!

Have either of you read the discussions about 'the spirit of wiki'? One of its main themes is identify something that should be done and start doing it. Others will then pitch in and help (maybe). The main sign of a sick wiki is how quickly creative stuff is deleted. That seems to happen very quickly around here.

--Max 2 23:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It is common civility to not run around changing things to your way of thinking when others are actively discussing and disagreeing with you. Taking action before a discussion is complete is a sure way to increase hostility towards you and your plans. Apparently common sense, civility and politeness have to be rules before they can be requested?

Your edits are not standard main space edits about known game content - which is the main type of contribution we encourage without considerable input from others. Main space content can be easily confirmed and ratified by other players without discussion and doesn't need agreement to proceed. Essentially in this how to page you are taking it upon yourself to make rules for the community to follow without express community consent. Creative or not, if the community doesn't want these rules then the community has the right to request you stop. This is what we are doing right now. -- Aspectacle  02:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And there you have the problem. A help page should never be considered rule making in any way. If something is a rule, or even a guideline, it should never go on a help: page. By its very nature, anything on a help: page is advice or tutorial in nature. The whole premise behind deleting this page is wrong. I think it is just an excuse for being destructive. If I had put this in main space, your argument would hold. It would even apply to wiki space articles. But this is not a main space article. It is in help: space. --Max 2 17:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

Unless someone says something specific in response to that last point. I will remove the {{delete}} tag tomorrow. --Max 2 00:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete or move imo. Most wiki text is either a title, text, list, or link, and none of those make frequent use of emphasis. --JonTheMon 01:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jon. Most of the use of emphasis I've seen so far is probably better covered in page formatting guides which will come later.

You talk about your creativity being crushed by us disruptive, destructive contributors but the wiki isn't a vehicle for you to write creative essays on the correct use of emphasis in the english language. It is to document the game and information related to that game. There are great guides for english elsewhere - personally I would not think to look here for help of this nature because that is not what this wiki is for. -- Aspectacle  01:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Titles, lists and links all provide emphasis. There are also some piss-poor guides and one of the most notoriously bad aspects to English textbooks is that they are directed at producing literature, and not on expressing information clearly. And that is destructive non-contributors.

The lack of guidelines will also create disruption. They are needed now, when the material is starting to be entered, not after everything has become a disorganized mess. This stuff is the foundation on which a well organized wiki is built. You want to put in the foundations after the building is half complete? --Max 2 02:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to you removing the delete tag again, if you do so it will be replaced... again. The discussion is still ongoing and until it is not the delete tag should not be removed. If you truly wish to pursue this then I suggest moving it to your userspace and revising it there. --hnzdvn 02:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Everyone here apart from Mtew agrees that the page should be deleted and his comments have been responded to. Frankly, I don't see this discussion expanding beyond Mtew disagreeing with deletion and everyone else agreeing. I think another sysop should delete or move this soon. pling 15:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I see three (maybe four) people bent on destruction. Two of those have a vested interest in assuring chaos reigns. It shows their powa and makes others fear them. Hurray for the powas that BE. --Max 2 03:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Four plus all those people who are reading this, and just think "omg, I agree" while shaking the head.. poke | talk 12:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)