Editing Talk:Armed Forces of the Federated Commonwealth
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision
Your text
Line 19:
Line 19: ClanWolverine101, I'll admit I feel a bit inadequate in your continuing requests to critique your stellar works here. I honestly feel like I could not achieve the overall excellence you regularly score with your articles, though I'm skilled enough to recognize how great they are. Policy on BTW is ''not'' written by the admins; it comes from the editorial staff. I seriously urge you to give some thought to your writing/expanding of policies or creating 'how to' articles that lead others to standardizing similar articles that you've undertaken to improve. The [[Policy:Be bold|Be Bold]] policy should inspire you take charge and tell the rest of us how it should be done. You've earned that right to be the trendsetter and, at worst, if I disagree with an idea of your's, we discuss it from a standpoint of equals. ClanWolverine101, I'll admit I feel a bit inadequate in your continuing requests to critique your stellar works here. I honestly feel like I could not achieve the overall excellence you regularly score with your articles, though I'm skilled enough to recognize how great they are. Policy on BTW is ''not'' written by the admins; it comes from the editorial staff. I seriously urge you to give some thought to your writing/expanding of policies or creating 'how to' articles that lead others to standardizing similar articles that you've undertaken to improve. The [[Policy:Be bold|Be Bold]] policy should inspire you take charge and tell the rest of us how it should be done. You've earned that right to be the trendsetter and, at worst, if I disagree with an idea of your's, we discuss it from a standpoint of equals. I ''know'' you have your own ideas on how you'd do things differently. Follow that thought.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 04:38, 21 January 2012 (PST) I ''know'' you have your own ideas on how you'd do things differently. Follow that thought.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 04:38, 21 January 2012 (PST) − ::::Rev - As always, thank you for the kind comments. − ::::Regarding the 24th Arcturan, you are completely correct. I let a minor typo in the original TRO3050 throw me off. I have removed the note, as it is addressed elsewhere. − ::::I understand your point about the bibliographies. I think I was trying to conform to what I've seen elsewhere on Sarna. Perhaps you should start a discussion to streamline bibliographies? Just a thought. − ::::I do appreciate everything you bring up. The reason why I bring this to the attention of yourself and Frabby is because I knew I was doing something new, here. I knew there would be discussion on it, whether positive (see Frabby below) or negative (see Neuling's comments on the project page) and I wanted to handle that directly. I appreciate also what you said about standardization, but that is not necessarily my goal here. (See below). − ::::Thanks! [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 09:25, 23 January 2012 (PST) :Great statement, the "note" of the policy there comms not from the admins, but the admins follow the editors contributions and talks is great but i feel in last time, some contributors don't follow this, oh CW greate AFFC article.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 15:42, 21 January 2012 (PST) :Great statement, the "note" of the policy there comms not from the admins, but the admins follow the editors contributions and talks is great but i feel in last time, some contributors don't follow this, oh CW greate AFFC article.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 15:42, 21 January 2012 (PST) − ::::Thanks, Doneve! And absolutely, some don't follow this. That's why I wanted to bring it forward. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 09:25, 23 January 2012 (PST) ::I've finally found time to review the article as requested by CW, and to be perfectly honest, I can't honestly say I am totally happy with it. ::I've finally found time to review the article as requested by CW, and to be perfectly honest, I can't honestly say I am totally happy with it. ::While research and referencing are exemplary, I feel the article as such is too long, and not formatted well for readability. It ''might'' also suffer from information overload in the sense of information that isn't really relevant to the issue; for example, I feel the unit roster is far too detailed. I supposed it comes down to what you expect from a wikia article. CW essentially wrote a thorough report on the AFFC, which comes out as 117 kilobytes of (mostly) text. I would have preferred a shorter, more concise overview with all the relevant data easily at hand; in case I need to read more about something specific, I can follow a link to another article on a wiki, after all. ::While research and referencing are exemplary, I feel the article as such is too long, and not formatted well for readability. It ''might'' also suffer from information overload in the sense of information that isn't really relevant to the issue; for example, I feel the unit roster is far too detailed. I supposed it comes down to what you expect from a wikia article. CW essentially wrote a thorough report on the AFFC, which comes out as 117 kilobytes of (mostly) text. I would have preferred a shorter, more concise overview with all the relevant data easily at hand; in case I need to read more about something specific, I can follow a link to another article on a wiki, after all. − ::::I appreciate that, Frabby, and perhaps the screws could be tightened. Really what I wanted to do was establish the identity of the AFFC. That is why I included so much in the brigade sections. The normal brigade pages, and the [[LCAF]] article, have to concern themselves with the entire history of those commands. I concerned myself (primarily) with what they did as part of the AFFC. (Though I admit some more trimming may be needed.) [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 09:25, 23 January 2012 (PST) ::Finally, the formatting strikes me as a wall of text, with page-long paragraphs. I find that very hard to read, and have gone over the article cutting overly long sentences, inserting paragraphs, and rewording some convoluted parts. ::Finally, the formatting strikes me as a wall of text, with page-long paragraphs. I find that very hard to read, and have gone over the article cutting overly long sentences, inserting paragraphs, and rewording some convoluted parts. − ::::Interesting. I was hoping the graphics, etc. would avoid that feel. I am entirely open to making changes to reconcile that, and I appreciate changes you've made. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 09:25, 23 January 2012 (PST) ::Mind that I still think CW's work is very good. The above may sound as if I didn't like the article, which definitely isn't the case. Just some copyedits were required. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 01:09, 22 January 2012 (PST) ::Mind that I still think CW's work is very good. The above may sound as if I didn't like the article, which definitely isn't the case. Just some copyedits were required. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 01:09, 22 January 2012 (PST) − ::::Thanks! [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 09:25, 23 January 2012 (PST) ::Add-on about formatting: I think there should be no space between a full stop and a reference. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 01:25, 22 January 2012 (PST) ::Add-on about formatting: I think there should be no space between a full stop and a reference. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 01:25, 22 January 2012 (PST) − ::::Yeah, that's something I used when I put together the articles. I have no problem with dropping those for the final edition, and I will try to clean that up in the future. [[User:ClanWolverine101|ClanWolverine101]] 09:25, 23 January 2012 (PST)
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
ClanWolverine101, I'll admit I feel a bit inadequate in your continuing requests to critique your stellar works here. I honestly feel like I could not achieve the overall excellence you regularly score with your articles, though I'm skilled enough to recognize how great they are. Policy on BTW is ''not'' written by the admins; it comes from the editorial staff. I seriously urge you to give some thought to your writing/expanding of policies or creating 'how to' articles that lead others to standardizing similar articles that you've undertaken to improve. The [[Policy:Be bold|Be Bold]] policy should inspire you take charge and tell the rest of us how it should be done. You've earned that right to be the trendsetter and, at worst, if I disagree with an idea of your's, we discuss it from a standpoint of equals. | ClanWolverine101, I'll admit I feel a bit inadequate in your continuing requests to critique your stellar works here. I honestly feel like I could not achieve the overall excellence you regularly score with your articles, though I'm skilled enough to recognize how great they are. Policy on BTW is ''not'' written by the admins; it comes from the editorial staff. I seriously urge you to give some thought to your writing/expanding of policies or creating 'how to' articles that lead others to standardizing similar articles that you've undertaken to improve. The [[Policy:Be bold|Be Bold]] policy should inspire you take charge and tell the rest of us how it should be done. You've earned that right to be the trendsetter and, at worst, if I disagree with an idea of your's, we discuss it from a standpoint of equals. | ||
I ''know'' you have your own ideas on how you'd do things differently. Follow that thought.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 04:38, 21 January 2012 (PST) | I ''know'' you have your own ideas on how you'd do things differently. Follow that thought.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 04:38, 21 January 2012 (PST) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
:Great statement, the "note" of the policy there comms not from the admins, but the admins follow the editors contributions and talks is great but i feel in last time, some contributors don't follow this, oh CW greate AFFC article.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 15:42, 21 January 2012 (PST) | :Great statement, the "note" of the policy there comms not from the admins, but the admins follow the editors contributions and talks is great but i feel in last time, some contributors don't follow this, oh CW greate AFFC article.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] 15:42, 21 January 2012 (PST) | ||
| − | |||
::I've finally found time to review the article as requested by CW, and to be perfectly honest, I can't honestly say I am totally happy with it. | ::I've finally found time to review the article as requested by CW, and to be perfectly honest, I can't honestly say I am totally happy with it. | ||
::While research and referencing are exemplary, I feel the article as such is too long, and not formatted well for readability. It ''might'' also suffer from information overload in the sense of information that isn't really relevant to the issue; for example, I feel the unit roster is far too detailed. I supposed it comes down to what you expect from a wikia article. CW essentially wrote a thorough report on the AFFC, which comes out as 117 kilobytes of (mostly) text. I would have preferred a shorter, more concise overview with all the relevant data easily at hand; in case I need to read more about something specific, I can follow a link to another article on a wiki, after all. | ::While research and referencing are exemplary, I feel the article as such is too long, and not formatted well for readability. It ''might'' also suffer from information overload in the sense of information that isn't really relevant to the issue; for example, I feel the unit roster is far too detailed. I supposed it comes down to what you expect from a wikia article. CW essentially wrote a thorough report on the AFFC, which comes out as 117 kilobytes of (mostly) text. I would have preferred a shorter, more concise overview with all the relevant data easily at hand; in case I need to read more about something specific, I can follow a link to another article on a wiki, after all. | ||
| − | |||
::Finally, the formatting strikes me as a wall of text, with page-long paragraphs. I find that very hard to read, and have gone over the article cutting overly long sentences, inserting paragraphs, and rewording some convoluted parts. | ::Finally, the formatting strikes me as a wall of text, with page-long paragraphs. I find that very hard to read, and have gone over the article cutting overly long sentences, inserting paragraphs, and rewording some convoluted parts. | ||
| − | |||
::Mind that I still think CW's work is very good. The above may sound as if I didn't like the article, which definitely isn't the case. Just some copyedits were required. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 01:09, 22 January 2012 (PST) | ::Mind that I still think CW's work is very good. The above may sound as if I didn't like the article, which definitely isn't the case. Just some copyedits were required. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 01:09, 22 January 2012 (PST) | ||
| − | |||
::Add-on about formatting: I think there should be no space between a full stop and a reference. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 01:25, 22 January 2012 (PST) | ::Add-on about formatting: I think there should be no space between a full stop and a reference. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 01:25, 22 January 2012 (PST) | ||
| − | |||