Talk:Constitution

From Toadwater Guide

Jump to: navigation, search

Constitution formatting

It is my opinion that the constitution should be formatted as closely to the original forum version as possible, especially the numbering of paragraphs. I recognise that the way I did it initially was not easy to edit, but bear in mind that this is a protected article, so only the wiki admins can change it anyway. I think the best thing is to scrap the standard ease of use policy (which I completely agree with) on this page in favour of readability and formatting. </two cents> --Spider 11:34, 6 Jan 2008 (CST)

This version's readability is better than the forum version

...with the possible exception of lack of supersection headings. But I could argue that some sections could easily have been put under different supersections. Elimination of supersection headings eliminates these types of arguments, eliminates issues with folks proposing CCRs to figure out how to number/renumber things, and allows future additions to not be constrained to always fit under Constitution, Government, or Players.

Also, let's say we did format it to look like the forum copy initially. The wiki copy is still the controlled document so why, when future changes are added, should we continually use awkward formatting to keep it looking like something old that was formatted (not very well, I might add) for the forums? Out with the old, in with the new, I say! --Clatra 13:49, 6 Jan 2008 (CST)

This version (and my version as well) lack one rather important aspect, which is the 4.1 numbering, the indented lists are not 100% clearly numbered. I will work on formatting the wiki better to include the numbering system, I didn't have time to look up how when I did the initial format.
Additionally, the constitution draft was set up with it's numbering and sections etc. for a reason. I don't think you have the right to change that purely because it was easier for the wiki editors. If the elected viceroys were to discuss changing the format and agreed it was better as you have made it, then I would have no problems, but for the moment we should try to leave it as close to the forum draft version as possible. Spider 15:26, 6 Jan 2008 (CST)

Fixing typos and other errors

As gatekeepers of this document, should we Toadwikiadmins fix obvious typos? What about obvious capitalization errors? What about obvious punctuation errors? What about not-so-obvious errors that make parts of the Constitution more confusing (or contradictory) than they should be?

Mainly I am talking about future changes from CCRs. I personally think mindless copying-and-pasting changes from the forums "typos and all" into this document due to strict interpretations of the Constitution are overkill. I think we should be given broad authority to keep the Constitution correct and consistent lest it turn into a convoluted mess. In real life I work with living documents all the time and without empowered gatekeepers, I assure you this will happen and, I fear, the gov't forum will become clogged with CCRs to fix typos. --Clatra 19:26, 6 Jan 2008 (CST)

I'm all for keeping the constitution accurate and clear, but that is not our job as wikiadmins. If there is a glaring error, or you feel some part could be clarified, then either create a CCR if it's a large change, or just point out the problem to the viceroys and see what they say. Blind copy pasting from the forum might well introduce SPAG errors, but it's better to have minor mistakes then to have people accuse us of altering the constitution for our own benefit etc.
Ultimately, the purpose of this page in the wiki is to have it somewhere easy to find, and to ensure that it is consistent. If the constitution is a complete mess and makes no sense, it should still be here in the format because that is what the players have agreed on. --Spider 07:40, 7 Jan 2008 (CST)
Personal tools