• Hey there, I noticed you edited some of the pages I created or edited yesterday.

    You mentioned that I should only link the first instance of something and that I should only bold the title subject once.

    As someone who used the wiki frequently (especially on mobile) before editing It, I strongly disagree. Having to sift back through the article for that one link you wanted to chase up can be really annoying and needlessly so (especially on mobile) 

    as for the bold, again, if something has no page to link to and yet its of great improtance (like the person/thing the article pretains to) then It should stand out to the reader and not just the first time. It just makes it look better. 

    I was talking to another editor about this: if its not wiki policy then it should be.

      Loading editor
    • Let me get back to you on that.

        Loading editor
    • sure :)

        Loading editor
    • Alright, so here's the thing. We only repeatedly link a given article if the current article being written is very long. Even then, though, we do not link every instance of a given word. That would just be distracting.

      Regarding the bolding, Some wikis do inded bold every important term, but that is a completely subjective determination that can be made by every editor. We always try to avoid any policy that requires almost total subjectivity on the part of editors, since that interferes with wiki consistency, which is the value that should be upheld above all.

      The only objective standard is to bold the term that is the name of the page. This is the standard used by other online encyclopedias like the Britannica, and was the original standard used in the original paper encyclopedias long ago. Please understand, what you're proposing would be too subjective and would require a central editor to go over every page to make sure that the same consistency of what was bolded is true across every page and every editor -- an impossible amount of work (even for me!). Instead, if a term is important enough to be noticed, that's what a hyperlink is for.

        Loading editor
    • Your points here are contradictory: "we cant have central policies...therefore you should abide to the policies I made up"

      Most of what you said here I agree with/already knew but as you say yourself 'its subjective'.

      You said I should highlight the subject in bold, which I've done, but then you retroactively changed it to take them out, only leaving 1.

      If its subjective and we cant have central policies, why cant you just trust me and leave me to my work.

      You've went back through and made changes that I would have made anyway and in some cases you've made new mistakes that I fixed after you. 

        Loading editor
    • Let me be clear: I did not say we didn't have central policies. I said we avoid policies that require total subjective determination when in regards to editors. We only bold the first instance of the article's title, as there is no point in bolding it more than once save in the instance of an extensive article such as the ones pertaining to the major army factions.

      You are more than welcome to work here, and we are grateful to your contributions. None of this is meant to be taken as personal or derisively, and we hope to see more from you. If I have come across as such, I apologize.

        Loading editor
    • Its cool, I'm not taking it personally, I just felt like it looked a lot better and that, if I did it on my articles it wouldn't necessarily be a problem.

      On mobile, every sub section is hidden under a drop down tab, so if you read half way through an article and feel like you want to read more about x, then you have to close and open a bunch of drop down menus and hunt around for the one instance where it was a link. 

      Similarly, on the PC version, I feel its better to have character names stand out more against the red background, it allows you to navigate the pages easier.

      Maybe its because I'm Dyslexic and highlights help with that issue. that could be a reason in and of itself to do it though.

      I'll abide by your rules though, I'm not looking for a fight or anything, I just wanna make the wiki as complete as it can be and put all the research I've done to good use.

        Loading editor
    • Hey again. Im struggling with translating a source and thought I'd reach out to you and any of the other editors that might be around. 

      Battle bestiary timeline
      The reason I'm struggling with it is because it states that the "Old Slann" created the amazons.

      Now, this being second edition, these ideas were not yet fully formed and it seems (even from the other points in the timeline within this very source) that Richard Halliwell conflated "Old Slann" with "Old Ones" when he was creating this lore. There was no first gen slann back in these days and the slann weren't even the slann back then, that was a catch all term for the frog people that made up the bulk of the lizardmen.

      In the rest of the lore, not only in this book, but in later editions, Rigg, one of the Old Ones created the amazons and this isn't just a myth, the amazons have the ability to summon her to the real world.

      Gamesworkshop, to this day, likes to use terms and misspellings to imply the info is coming from a certain perspective. For example: empire scholars will often say things wrong or believe false information because they think they're so smart, they don't know what we know and they live in a pre-modern science world. Like with the British empire naming places "Peking" instead of "bejing" and stuff like that. "Old Slann" might be another instance of this, were he's trying to talk from the perspective of the now primitive lizardmen or the highly misinformed empire, where "old slann" means like "the porgenetors, the father gods" that kind of thing.

      So the question is, what do we believe  and what should be put in the wiki? did the first gen slann create the Amazons? are they referencing Rigg? or did the Old Ones as a collective group create the amazons and then perhaps Rigg freed them or something which is why she became an exile?

      Its like there is one missing piece of lore that should connect these two threads but I've yet to find it. Let me know what you think.

        Loading editor
    • Reading it again "Old Slann" is almost certainly "Old Ones", it just felt like I was making too many leaps in logic to translate "Old Ones" to just Rigg on her own. still, any input would be appreciated :)

        Loading editor
    • Sounds fair. If you want to put a theory down, put it under (and/or create) a "Trivia" headline on the article.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.