|
|
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
|
| |
|
| After talking with Jac I don't understand the reason for the limit. The standard wiki code adds the 32kb+ warning because of compatibility with older browsers, which isn't really a problem for anyone. As far as server size goes - the Warbanners on the DB site are bigger than 32kbs so I doubt text-filled articles are that big of a problem. I can understand wanting to limit the excess - as this was started because of Ylith's double character article - but is there a real reason for the limit that isn't explained away by what I've said? --[[User:Shadow Taldrya|Shadow Taldrya]] 17:02, 1 February 2008 (MST) | | After talking with Jac I don't understand the reason for the limit. The standard wiki code adds the 32kb+ warning because of compatibility with older browsers, which isn't really a problem for anyone. As far as server size goes - the Warbanners on the DB site are bigger than 32kbs so I doubt text-filled articles are that big of a problem. I can understand wanting to limit the excess - as this was started because of Ylith's double character article - but is there a real reason for the limit that isn't explained away by what I've said? --[[User:Shadow Taldrya|Shadow Taldrya]] 17:02, 1 February 2008 (MST) |
| | |
| | Valid points both - but, if we aren't going to worry about size - what about length? There are some articles out there that are just way to frickin long and need cut down. There is no reason a member should write about every single little thing that happens to them. That's what the stories are for. Example: Wookiepedia doesn't write each individual detail that happened in a book, but put in the synopsis or just whats need to know. |
| | |
| | If we drop the size limit, by which your logical thoughts show we should, should we keep a length cap? |
| | --[[User:Tron|Tron]] 17:45, 1 February 2008 (MST) |
Revision as of 00:45, 2 February 2008
Articles are NOT to exceed 32kbs in size
Just for clarification for myself... I can understand that rule if the article can obviously be shortened (i.e. superfluous "fluff" can be taken out of character histories), but what about informative articles that are simply long? For example, take the recently completed CSP Planets articles: Judecca (38 kb), Caina (50 kb), and Antenora (38 kb). They are informative, they are concise... but they are long. Will this be strictly enforced or will there be exceptions? The definition of a "guideline" is somewhat obscure. -- RevengeX Palpatine 16:39, 1 February 2008 (MST)
After talking with Jac I don't understand the reason for the limit. The standard wiki code adds the 32kb+ warning because of compatibility with older browsers, which isn't really a problem for anyone. As far as server size goes - the Warbanners on the DB site are bigger than 32kbs so I doubt text-filled articles are that big of a problem. I can understand wanting to limit the excess - as this was started because of Ylith's double character article - but is there a real reason for the limit that isn't explained away by what I've said? --Shadow Taldrya 17:02, 1 February 2008 (MST)
Valid points both - but, if we aren't going to worry about size - what about length? There are some articles out there that are just way to frickin long and need cut down. There is no reason a member should write about every single little thing that happens to them. That's what the stories are for. Example: Wookiepedia doesn't write each individual detail that happened in a book, but put in the synopsis or just whats need to know.
If we drop the size limit, by which your logical thoughts show we should, should we keep a length cap?
--Tron 17:45, 1 February 2008 (MST)