Talk:Blockade tricks

Clean up
What else needs to be done to clean up this page? --Polny 09:01, 18 June 2006 (PDT)
 * I just fixed a few minor things. My observations: Only the first use of the article title should be in bold, no other words. The article in general need a bit more expansion. --Sagacious (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2006 (PDT)
 * "Only the first use of the article title should be in bold, no other words"? That's just wrong. Even if it's in the style guide, it's wrong. --Ponytailguy 11:05, 18 June 2006 (PDT)
 * Explain? I've always been told "Only the first use of the article title should be in bold, no other words". --Sagacious (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2006 (PDT)
 * Been told by whom? That's never been YPPedia policy, and I'm also not even sure it's Wikipedia policy. Bolding and italics provide powerful tools to emphasize and draw attention to certain words without having to create sections dedicated to them. --Ponytailguy 13:19, 18 June 2006 (PDT)
 * A-ha... it isn't policy or even guideline to de-bold things. You should avoid using bold in the first sentence/paragraph of the article, but beyond that, provided it's tasteful and has meaning, go nuts. --Ponytailguy 13:21, 18 June 2006 (PDT)
 * Since there seems to be confusion, let me reitreate a few words from my previous comment: Generally, bold should be avoided, but if it's used to make a point, to emphasize something, or to draw attention to something, and not just for the sake of bolding something, it does have a place in an article beyond the first occurance of the article's name. This should not be interpreted as "apply it madly to any article, anywhere you want", just that appearance of bold text does not mean an article requires cleanup or removal of that bold text. --Ponytailguy 14:04, 18 June 2006 (PDT)
 * I think Sagacious was referring to the (perhaps unwritten) policy of only bolding the first instance of the article name itself, but you're right. I would say, though, that the bolding, as it presently stands, is probably more than needed: It looks like the author treated each section as a seperate article for the purpose of bolding, thus and bolded the first usage of each section's name within that section. --Emufarmers 19:06, 18 June 2006 (PDT)


 * I'd advocate using more plain language for the average person who isn't familiar with military terms. "Phalans" and "Cordon" are exmples of what I'm referring to. Or at least fully explain those terms.  --Guppymomma 15:20, 18 June 2006 (PDT)

Opinion?
I'm not sure I understand why this page should be tagged as an opinion. The tricks can be described in a completely factual way. Any opinions about the ethics of using the tricks belongs on a separate page or the forums. --Barrister 14:50, 18 June 2006 (PDT)
 * Yes they could, but are they not one person's side of how to do things? --Sagacious (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2006 (PDT)
 * It's not opinion. As you said, it's factual information.  If you think it should be tagged opinion as it's one person's method of how to do things, you could say the same thing about everything on the wiki....it could be one person's way to not play the sailing puzzle normally, but to just booch it all the time.  There are no statements that say any of this is the "best" or the "worst" methodology.  It just presents methodology.  I say remove the tag. --Guppymomma 15:14, 18 June 2006 (PDT)
 * This seems like it's another facet of the issue manifested with Boothhook's Rumbling Guide; I think we need to settle how we handle strategy pieces more generally. --Emufarmers 19:08, 18 June 2006 (PDT)
 * But this isn't strategy. This is example. Nobody's advocating that people engage in these practices... in fact, I think it's fair to say that when people game the game like this, while OOO might be impressed with their initiative, they don't smile for long. The rumbling guide, and every strategy guide, advocates a specific method or methods. This page only has factual information on it; You CAN, not you SHOULD. --Ponytailguy 19:20, 18 June 2006 (PDT)

Making a blockade sinking without being at war with the defender
I don't know if there will be a precedent-setting ruling on this trick. I've put it in now because it has been used. --Polny 09:40, 28 October 2006 (PDT)

Grand Frigate Gambit
Shark posted a great image of a GF Gambit. I'd like to include it somewhere in the wiki - is there a more appropriate page, or should I make a 'special tactics' section? Perhaps a 'blockade use' section on each of the ship pages would be nice? --AtteSmythe
 * Here looks like as good a place as any to put it to me. I posted a pic of it somewhere too, on the red sea at haloween from a first person perspective, may or may not be as good as Shark's pic.  Use your best judgment.  --Looseweed

Avoiding Player Blockades
Flags can schedule blockade events or scuttle Brigand Kings to avoid player blockades on a given weekend. Should that be noted here? --Jutecloth 08:42, 25 October 2007 (PDT)

Gaining ocean-side entry for defending ships
This part sounds rather historical for me, should we remove it or just mark it as such? --Kamuflaro 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's actually been done, so I'm going to change the second paragraph. --Jutecloth 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)