Warcraft Wiki talk:New Enhanced Writing Style

From Warcraft Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon-policy.svg This policy is under proposal.
  • A consensus must be reached by voting before any action is taken.
  • Please read the policy voting policy before voting.
To vote
Click [Edit] in the upper-right hand corner of the votes section, and add your vote in one the following methods:
  • {{vote|Yes|~~~~|optional comment}}
or
  • {{vote|No|~~~~|optional comment}}
Then click Save page and you are done!
Replace |~~~~| with |sig=~~~~|| if you have a complicated signature!
Some proposals may have options other than yes or no. To use these, simply replace Yes/No with your desired option name.
To discuss the vote
Click [Edit] in the upper-right hand corner of the comments section.
The voting process
If one side has reached five votes and has outnumbered the other by 3 to 1 for seven days, that side has won and you may make the following changes based on the outcome:
  • If Yes has won
    1. Replace {{Policy proposal}} with {{Ratified}} on the article.
    2. Archive the votes (Warcraft Wiki talk:New Enhanced Writing Style/Archivevote) and remove {{Policy vote}}.
    3. When implementation is complete, replace {{Ratified}} with {{Adopted}}.
  • If No has won
    1. Replace {{Policy proposal}} with {{Rejected}} on the article.
    2. Archive the votes (Warcraft Wiki talk:New Enhanced Writing Style/Archivevote) and remove {{Policy vote}}.

Votes

Yes
  1. Yes — foxlit (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC) - (Originally proposed)
  2. Yes --SWM2448 02:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC) - (It is about time someone codified these important style guidelines. Many users have been improving articles like this for a while now.)
  3. Yes --k_d3 03:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC) - (This style has the kd3 stamp of approval.)
  4. Yes Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 04:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC) - (Finally some consistency, lets get the ball a rolling.)
  5. Yes Dark T Zeratul (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC) - (These guidelines are exactly what we need to see on every single article on this wiki, no matter how small.)
  6. Yes User:Doomer007/Sig 9:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC) - (Very helpful guidelines for users, especially for those that are new to the Wiki.)
  7. Yes Sraw (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC) - (However I feel that there should be more "However"'s in this article.)
  8. Yes Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 16:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC) - (Can we get an infobox on it when it is made into an actual policy? I'm thinking we could call it "War Against Boring Articles".)
  9. Yes --Wynthyst (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC) - (I think it is a great idea! I think becoming 420% more legendary is absolutely what we should do!)
  10. Yes Deludo (T If silence is golden why arent monks rich•CSpecial:Editcount/Deludo Peasents employed to do the work for me so far) 20:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC) - (Surely one click is one click too many why not just have a single page with an advanced filter at the top for navigation?)
  11. Yes --SCARY WIZARD (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC) 19:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC) - (We need to include stuff about speculation.)
  12. Yes Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC) - (Approve, every article is written like this anyway.)
  13. Yes —kanegasi τκ 04:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC) - (However, I cannot, however, stand the usage of however, however, if the numbers are adjusted, however, I'll be okay with it.)
No
  1. No Jon Irenicus (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC) - (I cannot in good faith support this bill. Any community that utilizes bearded gnomes with poor cleanliness to champion its official policies is not one I care to be a part of.)
  2. No Aliok (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC) - (Bah humbug. ಠ_ರೃ)

Comments

Withdrawn. It has come to my attention that this proposal currently lacks infobox, or even a navbox to easily navigate between similar policies; fails to use nearly enough images and internal links to exciting articles, and does not cite its wild assertions of Wowpedia's superiority to all other WoW information sources. However, its non-compliance with the content and writing style guidelines is even more egregious: the article contains only one proper use of "however," making this policy proposal decidedly poor. This might take a dozen months or so to rewrite to conform to those policy, at which point we might just have to put it up for a vote again. — foxlit (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm also deeply saddened by my apparent inability to find some sort of a "policy withdrawn" tag to put on the article/vote. I've settled for marking everything with |doc= to suppress categorization, but if anyone has a better solution... — foxlit (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I might be able to design one, however, I do not have the time at the moment, however, I could find the time, however, it seems it would likely only be used here so I don't imagine I would create such a tag, however, I am saddened that you did not think ahead about adding an infobox to said policy changes, however, I am excited for the future changes that could take place soon... however, oh a squirrel... Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 20:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://warcraft.wiki.gg/index.php?title=Warcraft_Wiki_talk:New_Enhanced_Writing_Style&oldid=1750953"