elanthipedia talk:Manual of Style/new

This page is for discussing the proposed Elanthipedia:Manual of Style/new, which would replace the existing Elanthipedia:Manual of Style.

Style Page Format Discussions

Eh, I wrote not to edit until things had had time to be discussed, then promptled began editing. Well, at least I'm a dedicated hypocrite. -Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi 03:38, 20 April 2008 (CDT)

Events discussions

There is a very long (and interesting) discussion on a variety of events-related topics that would be helpful to consider in writing this section. In particular, it covers issues of IC/OOC knowledge, what kind of information qualifies as significant, and when to use PC names. --Basselope 14:12, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

NPCs Discussions

Article naming conventions

To include as much info as possible and help with searching, NPC page titles should include the entire name (first and last) but no titles (General, etc.). However, there should always be a redirect page from the first name only page. -Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi 14:06, 19 April 2008 (CDT)

I disagree. They have been changed back and forth a few times, but I think the first-name only approach is working well. --Aetherie 03:40, 20 April 2008 (CDT)

In order to be fair, until a consensus is reached on this point we should hold off writing that section. I'm going to put a note in to indicate that it's still evolving. --Farman 10:46, 20 April 2008 (CDT)

I'd like to echo what Aetherie said above. As I recall, there was a fairly involved discussion about this a while back. I'm currently trying to find it. I want to say that it started because of changes to the Alicia Crowther article... --Basselope 13:13, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

In my opinion using First name for page titles is best, unless there is a disambig reason to further qualify it. (you can use the DISPLAYNAME directive of the wiki to edit the displayed name, iirc). Searching for Sirolarn Tirof-Sorvendig will still find the Sirolarn page, and a redirect from his fully qualified name won't hurt either. It also helps given the fact that "family" names can change, (due to a person/NPC clearing it, adopting someone into the family, and marriage). First names are almost always guaranteed to be unique, "full names" can change. --Callek 12:41, 20 April 2008 (CDT)

This discussion is now almost 8 years old and the style page still says this is under consideration. Taking a look at the current convention for the vast majority of NPC names, as well as the same convention for PC pagenames, it looks clear that a first name only convention was predominantly adopted, in particular for the Alicia Crowther article that began the discussion in the first place. This is further supported by the NPC template being set up to allow inclusion of a full name, titles, and aliases in the infobox. In the interest of consistency and the version that fits the current situation the best with the least amount of fixing, I have changed the manual of style to reflect this.--ABSOLON (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2016 (CST)

Use of disambiguation pages (and redirects)

Aside from the discussion on how to name the article, I'd like to discuss this passage from the proposed new Manual of Style:

"When at all possible, avoid making pages for two individuals, even if they are closely related."

I believe this is a bad idea. Doing so would result in pages with information on two (or more, as in the case of Penelope) characters, sometimes with absolutely no connection other than a similarity in names. Disambiguation pages exist for a reason, and this particular suggestion would do away with them entirely. The information presented on each page should be semantically connected; the similarity in names between two characters does not meet this standard. --Basselope 13:13, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

In this case, I was meaning more along the lines of the husband and wife combined pages I sometimes run across.Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi 17:24, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

Caraamon, can you provide an example? Furthermore, could you please explain where you see disambiguation pages being used improperly, thus necessitating the statement ("When at all possible...") above? --Basselope 18:21, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

Item Discussions

I think item titles should be the entire item name, minus any articles (a, an, some) (this will help or else everything's going to index under either "a" for "a,an" or "s" for "some"). In addition, since I added the core noun field to the item template, we may want to force each item to index by their core noun rather than whatever descriptor happens to be first. I can make the template do that if desired. -Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi 14:04, 19 April 2008 (CDT)

I personally kind of hate item articles since there are literally thousands of items in the game, but most people seem to want them, so... I'm ignoring this one ;) --Farman 14:19, 19 April 2008 (CDT)

Ditto. --Aetherie 14:42, 19 April 2008 (CDT)

Likewise. --Basselope 14:12, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

I think the reason we started doing item articles in the first place was to avoid having stats, LOOKs and other such info on shop pages. It kinda exploded from there. The articles can stay in the names for all I care, as long as the sort name of the article (ie what it's sorted by in the category) is set to something else. Example: User:Naeya would be sorted under U in the Category:Elanthipedia Admins unless we did the quick sort change to read [[Category:Elanthipedia Admins|{{PAGENAME}}]] (to sort by Naeya instead of the namespace User). Alternatively, it could have read [[Category:Elanthipedia Admins|Naeya]].

--Naeya ^(talk) 15:06, 19 April 2008 (CDT)

Well we should figure it out, either all or no articles included. Oh, and as for indexing, we could just do it by the core noun like I mentioned. -Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi 03:19, 20 April 2008 (CDT)

I am all for letting the item articles exist. I'm not sure if our current "category" system with these is the best way to handle all this, but unless we install a special mediawiki extension, it is the best we have. I'm not particular for/against the (a/an/some/etc.) but if I had to choose, I'd say without. and where possible, sorting in categories by "primary noun" is best as well, imho. --Callek 12:41, 20 April 2008 (CDT)

Uh, just to be sure I haven't been too confusing, I am using articles to mean the english language type of word, "[[1]]." I meant to start a debate about whether pages should be allowed to begin with a/the/some/an. -Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi 16:30, 20 April 2008 (CDT)

Reading this thread over again, I think everyone understands the difference, but yeah we are using the same word in two meanings. My objection is to the existence of item pages in the first place, but that's another topic. The question of whether to include grammatical articles in page naming has more general applications beyond item pages, however.

So I'll weigh in with a strongly agree that articles should not be included. An item page represents and describes the general, idealized item and not a specific one; therefore there should be no article in the title. --Farman 12:51, 18 May 2008 (CDT)

Item templates

The proposed new manual states that appropriate templates should be used, but provides no directions or guidelines on where such templates can be found or how to know which templates would be appropriate. Furthermore, there are an enormous number of templates available. How can a new user (one possibly new to using wikis) going to find them? --Basselope 14:12, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

Once I've finished the item templates, I'll link them in. Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi 17:24, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

As a general point when making a new article about anything, people should be directed to emulate existing ones, including all formatting with templates, etc. --Farman 12:51, 18 May 2008 (CDT)

Forged Equipment

I was working on an combat item template when it struck me that forged items are going to be a major pain in the butt. Not only are they all named the same, the possible variations are nearly endless. Therefore, I think we should have one page per template, listing the commonly found versions, as well as their makers. I made up a possible example at Bastard sword (forged). -Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi 16:39, 20 April 2008 (CDT)

Conversation Transfer

It occurred to me that standardization seems to be a big issue all accoss subjects. Take a look at this and see what you think. --Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi 13:55, 19 April 2008 (CDT)

Yeah, excellent project, and a huge one to tackle... you've certainly bitten off a lot ;) Standardization is something that I feel strongly about, as uniformity of presentation makes the info a lot easier to use. We already have a vestigial Manual of Style page though. I'm going to move the new one to Elanthipedia:Manual of Style/new so it can be worked on it there.

I also did a little editing to remove the reference to "admin approved". Admins don't have any special rights above other users to determine what the style should be, I see our role more as facilitators and mediators should any disagreements or other conflicts arise among the community. Naturally, admins are usually users who have demonstrated a high degree of participation in the wiki, but that doesn't exclude other users from participating as fully in any area of content should they choose. I think it's important to maintain a community-focussed approach in a wiki so everyone feels welcome to contribute. To that end I'll also un-protect the page. Also this would be a natural to announce in the Projects page or on one of the Town Green sections. --Farman 14:12, 19 April 2008 (CDT)

Well that's odd, I specifically did a search for style and came up with nothing. Oh well. As for protected and such, you're right, I suppose. It just seems like if we don't set down a standard quickly, by the time the argueing has ended, it'll be even more disorganized... -Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi 15:02, 19 April 2008 (CDT)

I agree about standardizing articles. The way it's usually worked is that someone 'adopts' a certain area of the wiki and works out and lays down a standard. But given the nature of wiki's it's pretty much a given that it will get messed up along the way ;) A certain amount of sloppiness is inevitable since it's so massively collaborative.

About searching, I've also long noticed that the search tool doesn't seem to give very good results... Naeya, is this something that can be improved? --Farman 23:22, 19 April 2008 (CDT)

This whole project sounds very useful; it may be worth mentioning "titles" in this, but O well (speaking of which, I think the title template may need some cleanup, for better understanding too). Anyway, this all seems great.

As for Searching, I think we may be best to modify the actual wiki template a bit and utilize google searches instead of wiki searching, ignoring the categories won't hurt us that much, since the wiki search does not yet support "proper" category-based/limiting searches it seems. --Callek 12:41, 20 April 2008 (CDT)

Article Content vs Length

I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts on when articles should be broken up. Obviously, when the file size of the original page starts pushing the upper limits (as in the case of the original Necromancer article) it's kinda a no-brainer. Beyond that, what criteria are used? Specifically, take a look at Prydaen Terminology and its associated talk page. Here we've got two conflicting viewpoints, both with very valid pros and cons. I see other areas of the wiki I'd like to fiddle with, but I'm hesitant to make organizational/structural changes without a general consensus. --Ogoh 01:53, 17 May 2008 (CDT)

I break down the page only when a section is large enough to stand on its own without destroying the flow of the original. I would never break down a long library book, for example. I would not break down the Command Compendium with thousands of one-sentence pages about each command, but I probably would break off entire sections of commands based on command type.--Symphaena 11:50, 17 May 2008 (CDT)