Template talk:StrategyWiki welcome

Bolding
How 'bout the tildes? A lot of people over look them. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Well I made the change but apparently tildes don't bold very well. Argash 17:11, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Protect
Should we protect this template as itis used a lot?--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions) 07:16, 9 September 2007 (CDT)
 * But nobody knows where it us :P. -- Prod (Talk) 08:23, 9 September 200
 * I really don't see it being necessary as of now. -- 11:51, 9 September 2007 (CDT)
 * DB's just protected it, is there any reason why?--Rocky http://media.strategywiki.org/images/thumb/7/78/Rally-X_Rock.png/25px-Rally-X_Rock.png (Talk - Contributions)
 * Because Argash made a bad edit to it. -- 11:04, 10 September 2007 (CDT)
 * How was my edit bad? --Argash 22:09, 10 September 2007 (CDT)
 * It wasn't necessary, that and you made the change without discussing it with anybody first. -- 22:12, 10 September 2007 (CDT)
 * I made the change for clarity to make the users name and the welcomers name stand out better but I guess I'll now run every change I ever want to make past everyone else from now on. Sheesh no wonder all these people sign up then don't contribute. --Argash 03:04, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
 * It doesn't matter, and I'm referring specifically to widely used templates or policies, you don't need to discuss to add content to game guides. You changed a widely used template without discussing it with anyone, that was the problem. Nobody is going to yell at you or protect an article because you added guide content to the main namespace. Don't confuse widely used templates and policies with guide content. And quite honestly, a good majority of those user signups are automated, most people sign up for the sole reason of them being needed logged in to edit. -- 09:04, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
 * I understand that it seems a little stupid for us to be snapping at you for this edit, but as Charitwo says, unless you really know what you're doing (i.e. are a sysop), any edits to critical/protected templates should be discussed first, even if it's only to make sure people know your intentions. I hope you understand. -- 11:10, 11 September 2007 (CDT)
 * I would actually support Argash in that he knows what he's doing. However, all changes that are globally visible that are "subjective" should be discussed first, irrespective of who is doing it. -- Prod (Talk) 11:35, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

"5 golden rules" <- wtf?
Where was the discussion for this addition? I can see that some of those are valid points, but I don't think the welcome message is the best place to outline them. A link to a page in the StrategyWiki:Guide would be more than enough to emphasize our "golden rules". Having this blue box (for me) cuts out the flow of the text (similar to an advert in the middle of a paragraph), it's appearance is very distracting, and it altogether makes the welcome message look... bad. I truly don't care who put it in or what committee they're the head of, changes to templates such as this one should always be brought up in community issues and discussed thoroughly before they are implemented. I have reverted the specific change until this discussion actually takes place, so you'll need to look through the page history to find the revision with it. -- 18:04, 7 October 2007 (CDT)
 * You got me. It completely slipped my mind to bring it up anywhere; I was just toying around with an idea I had. As you say though, it didn't turn out so well, and so I won't be recommending this or bringing it up for discussion anywhere. Again, I apologise for making this stupid mistake. :-( -- 00:58, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
 * Uh, apology accepted. Anyway, I can see that most of those were valid points, and I would support adding them back in if they were introduced in a slightly different format, it's just that the sidebar-esque appearance (for me) was kind of distracting. -- 15:45, 8 October 2007 (CDT)