|This page documents an official policy on the English EQ2i. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Please do not edit this page without first ensuring that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss it first on the talk page.|
This is the Editing policy. Editing at EQ2i may be simple, but good editing is never simple. These are some tips to editing a good page in a way that works smoothly with other contributors. You may also want to see the see also section at the bottom of this page.
Perfection not required, or, the joy of editing Edit
It is wonderful when someone adds a complete, well-written, final draft to EQ2i. This should always be encouraged.
However, one of the great advantages of the Wiki system is that incomplete or poorly written first drafts of articles can evolve into polished, presentable masterpieces through the process of collaborative editing. This gives our approach an advantage over other ways of producing similar end-products. Hence, the submission of rough drafts should also be encouraged as much as possible.
One person can start an article with, perhaps, a single location of a monster. Another person can add that they know the monster's race and type. Someone else can round off the article with additional information such as the zone in which the monster thrives, special strategies for defeating it, or a picture or the monster in it's natural (or unnatural!) state. Another person might fix the spelling and grammatical errors that have crept in throughout these multiple edits.
As all this material is added, anyone may contribute and refactor to turn it into a more cohesive whole. Then, more text will be added; then, more refactoring, and the article will gradually evolve ever closer to the ultimate final draft.
During this process, the article might look like a first draft—or worse, a random collection of notes and factoids. Rather than being horrified by this ugliness, we should rejoice in its potential, and have faith that the editing process will turn it into brilliant prose. Of course, we don't have to like it; we may occasionally criticize really substandard work, in addition to simply correcting it. It is most important that it is corrected, if it can be corrected. For text that is beyond hope we will remove the offending article to the corresponding talk page, or, in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The latter action should not be taken lightly, however.
On editing styles Edit
Generally, different people here have different editing "styles". Some people edit lightly and focus on contributing new content. Others prefer to improve and greatly expand existing "stubs" and articles. Some like to make relatively small copyediting (such as grammar, spelling, clarification, and syntax) changes, as well as adding new links.
These parts sum up to a much greater whole that is EQ2i as we know it.
There are also different editing styles in the sense of how bold people are willing to be. Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we'd make little progress.
- Some EQ2i editors do not beat around the bush at all. They believe changing a page should happen immediately if you see a problem and thus avoid having that problem propagated, especially when a great number of edits are happening all at once.
- Some EQ2i editors prefer to watch pages and either post commentary on talk pages before making updates or simply wait until some time has lapsed before editing something a previous editor has created, especially when large additions and major revisions are going to be made.
- An intermediate viewpoint believes that dialogue should be respected, but at the same time a minor tweak should be accepted. In this view, to edit radically or not will often depend on the context—which seems reasonable enough.
There is a place for all of these attitudes on EQ2i.
Removing content Edit
With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, lest the original author be discouraged from posting again. One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work destroyed without warning. Whatever you do, try to preserve information.
Reasons for removing contentEdit
Reasons for removing bits of an article include:
- Violation of policy
- Copyright violations
- Inaccuracy, or where the accuracy of the controversial information cannot be established due to lack of source citations
Alternatives to removing content Edit
- Providing an accurate intro or summary while keeping the content
- Moving text within an article, perhaps to a 'Comments, 'Speculation' or 'Analysis' section
- Moving text to another article (existing or new)
- Adding more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
How to remove text properly Edit
If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that. However:
- Preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page of an article.
- Describe, on the talk page, why you made the change.
Even if you delete something that's just plain false, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so preserve a comment to inform later editors that it is, in fact, false.
Removing vandalism Edit
Note that you of course do not need to write brilliant prose to remove vandalism. Just remove it, and say "removed vandalism" in the edit comment field. See vandalism.