User talk:EowynA
Wiki Editor
Greetings. This is a blanket note being sent to all the Editors of the CaidWiki. It has been approximately a year since most of you have held this position. The editor position on the wiki requires a bit more responsibility than the regular user, as you are a go to resource for people needing help and are a reviewer for the areas allocated to you (as shown on the Help:Team). If you'd like to remain as an editor for another year, please reply to this message. If you'd like to become a regular user (no responsibility, but still have the ability to edit anything any time), please reply to this message. If you have any questions feel free to contact me. Thanks! --Kolfinna 11:21, 7 August 2009 (PDT)
Yes, please, I'd like to remain as editor. --EowynA 12:31, 8 August 2009 (PDT)
- Great. Thank you for your service. --Kolfinna 19:01, 8 August 2009 (PDT)
Squires, Apprentices, Protege's and bears oh my!
Eowyn, I've noticed that on several pages (including Jamal Damien Marcus and Augustine von Freiburg) folks have started listing their Squires/Apprentices/Man-at-Arms etc. I was thinking of adding this into the default populace template, but was looking for a word that could cover all the terms (squire, apprentice, protege, man-at-arms, retainers, guards, student, etc etc etc). The best sub header I could think of was "Associates". Can you think of a good catch all term? --Kolfinna 11:05, 28 August 2009 (PDT)
I think Associates works - perhaps Formal Associates, because they are not just hanging out together, there is a formal relationship established, in which one person is the teacher, mentor, or sponsor, and the other(s) are being taught, led, helped. It is usually 1 to many. That is, one mentor may have several mentees, so to speak, but usually one is squired to only one person at a time - serial monogamy, as it were. --EowynA 12:48, 28 August 2009 (PDT)
Vocabulary
Eowyn, I've noted several places (most recently Caitriona's entry) where indefinite words like 'recently' and 'currently' are used. Do you think we might discuss a policy/recommendation/advice for the Editors that dates --even general ones like '1980s' are preferable?
Giles
Fine, and I agree that even a decade is more specific - but I was editing this at work, and cannot go to Facebook or her email address from here. I was planning to ask her about this this evening, and then fix it. This particular item will likely be up less than a day. But I wanted to put it in while I noticed it. I think such words are are fine for placeholders - but also function as a flag that it needs to be refined. --EowynA 13:45, 20 October 2009 (PDT)
