Thread:Ironwestie/@comment-2170536-20140423022613

I noticed that you have made a few changes to the Manual of Style; were any of them in response to my post? In general I have no issue with it, but I do feel a couple of points should be discussed.

I apologize that this is going to be somewhat long, and I in no way intend to insult or offend you with this. This is merely my point of view, and if you disagree with it I respect that.

First and foremost, I disagree with the notion that our goal is creating an encyclopedia of Hay Day. There are some encyclopedic elements, but our overriding goal should be (in my opinion) to help players succeed at the game. Perhaps that is a subtle point, but because of it we have the freedom to include a lot of content that would otherwise not be appropriate for an encyclopedia (tutorials, advice, tips and tricks). Furthermore, these shouldn't be restricted to "non-encyclopedic" parts of the wiki; people aren't reading about "cheese" for the sake of cheese; they want to know what it is used for, hoe long it takes, how much it costs, etc. but also what a fair price to pay is and whether or not they should hold onto it or sell it. If other words, they want to know how cheese most benefits them, which is where we differ from an encyclopedia. And we should be sharing that information in the most direct way possible, which would be on the various pages. Larger strategies (like starting tutorials) should be their own articles, but we should be liberal with our "tips and tricks."

Secondly, while I do believe in NPOV for the most part, it's not always appropriate to take it too literally in a game guide (common sense always prevails, after all). Unlike real life there really are good and bad choices in the game, assuming that you agree that more money, higher levels and the like are "good things". That doesn't mean we don't share opposing points of view, and there may be multiple methods of achieving those same goals, but we shouldn't be getting too crazy about being completely NPOV about all things (I am not saying we are, or even that you are insisting that we do, but the bar is necessarily higher on an encyclopedia than it would be here and I just want to make sure that is recognized).

Also: NPOV isn't really about writing in the third person. The way the guide is currently written it seems to be the most important element. While an encyclopedia entry that strictly relates items of fact should usually be written as such, the NPOV is really maintained by refraining from offering opinions and ensuring that opposing views (if there are any) are fairly represented. First-person tends to violate NPOV because it implies the author's POV, but much of the "beyond the immediate facts" information really falls in the "how to" realm (which Wikipedia explicitly states that it isn't, which is why it restricts second person). While possible, "how tos" become awkward and unnatural when written in the third person.

So my suggestion would be to split NPOV from third-person style in the guide, and offer suggestions as to where third person is appropriate and where second person would be more natural.

Other than these two points I am very much in support of the style guide and how you have been organizing the wiki. I hope this didn't come across adversarial, because it was absolutely not meant to be. I am happy to discuss anything I've brought up, or any other subject for that matter. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130823072743/spottra/images/thumb/e/ea/Spsig.png/60px-Spsig.png ( talk ) 18:26, April 22, 2014 (UTC-8)  