elanthipedia talk:Manual of Style/new - Revision history

ABSOLON: /* Article naming conventions */

2016-02-10T16:49:03Z

Article naming conventions

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:49, 10 February 2016
Line 21:		Line 21:
	: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 <code>Sirolarn Tirof-Sorvendig</code> 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. --[[User:Callek\|Callek]] 12:41, 20 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 <code>Sirolarn Tirof-Sorvendig</code> 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. --[[User:Callek\|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 [[Template:NPC\|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.--[[User:ABSOLON\|ABSOLON]] ([[User talk:ABSOLON\|talk]]) 10:49, 10 February 2016 (CST)

	===Use of disambiguation pages (and redirects)===		===Use of disambiguation pages (and redirects)===

Maintenance script: /* Item Discussions */

2008-05-18T17:51:02Z

Item Discussions

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:51, 18 May 2008
Line 50:		Line 50:

	::Uh, just to be sure I haven't been too confusing, I am using articles to mean the english language type of word, "[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_%28grammar%29\|article]]." I meant to start a debate about whether pages should be allowed to begin with a/the/some/an. -[[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]] 16:30, 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, "[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_%28grammar%29\|article]]." I meant to start a debate about whether pages should be allowed to begin with a/the/some/an. -[[User:Caraamon\|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. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 12:51, 18 May 2008 (CDT)

	===Item templates===		===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? --[[User:Basselope\|Basselope]] 14:12, 29 April 2008 (CDT)		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? --[[User:Basselope\|Basselope]] 14:12, 29 April 2008 (CDT)
	:Once I've finished the item templates, I'll link them in. [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]] 17:24, 29 April 2008 (CDT)		:Once I've finished the item templates, I'll link them in. [[User:Caraamon\|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. --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 12:51, 18 May 2008 (CDT)

	===Forged Equipment===		===Forged Equipment===

Maintenance script: /* Article Content vs Length */

2008-05-17T16:50:13Z

Article Content vs Length

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:50, 17 May 2008
Line 77:		Line 77:

	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:Prydaen_Terminology\|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. --[[User:Ogoh\|Ogoh]] 01:53, 17 May 2008 (CDT)		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:Prydaen_Terminology\|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. --[[User:Ogoh\|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.--[[User:Symphaena\|Symphaena]] 11:50, 17 May 2008 (CDT)

Maintenance script: New section: Article Content vs Length

2008-05-17T06:53:53Z

New section: Article Content vs Length

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:53, 17 May 2008
Line 73:		Line 73:

	:: 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. --[[User:Callek\|Callek]] 12:41, 20 April 2008 (CDT)		:: 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. --[[User:Callek\|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:Prydaen_Terminology\|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. --[[User:Ogoh\|Ogoh]] 01:53, 17 May 2008 (CDT)

Maintenance script at 23:21, 29 April 2008

2008-04-29T23:21:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 29 April 2008
Line 29:		Line 29:

	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. --[[User:Basselope\|Basselope]] 13:13, 29 April 2008 (CDT)		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. --[[User:Basselope\|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.[[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]] 17:24, 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.[[User:Caraamon\|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? --[[User:Basselope\|Basselope]] 18:21, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

	== Item Discussions ==		== Item Discussions ==

CARAAMON at 22:24, 29 April 2008

2008-04-29T22:24:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:24, 29 April 2008
Line 29:		Line 29:

	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. --[[User:Basselope\|Basselope]] 13:13, 29 April 2008 (CDT)		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. --[[User:Basselope\|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.[[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]] 17:23, 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.[[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]] 17:24, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

	== Item Discussions ==		== Item Discussions ==
Line 50:		Line 50:
	===Item templates===		===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? --[[User:Basselope\|Basselope]] 14:12, 29 April 2008 (CDT)		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? --[[User:Basselope\|Basselope]] 14:12, 29 April 2008 (CDT)
	:Once I've finished the item templates, I'll link them in. [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]] 17:23, 29 April 2008 (CDT)		:Once I've finished the item templates, I'll link them in. [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]] 17:24, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

	===Forged Equipment===		===Forged Equipment===

CARAAMON at 22:23, 29 April 2008

2008-04-29T22:23:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:23, 29 April 2008
Line 29:		Line 29:

	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. --[[User:Basselope\|Basselope]] 13:13, 29 April 2008 (CDT)		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. --[[User:Basselope\|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.[[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]] 17:23, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

	== Item Discussions ==		== Item Discussions ==
Line 49:		Line 50:
	===Item templates===		===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? --[[User:Basselope\|Basselope]] 14:12, 29 April 2008 (CDT)		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? --[[User:Basselope\|Basselope]] 14:12, 29 April 2008 (CDT)
			:Once I've finished the item templates, I'll link them in. [[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]] 17:23, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

	===Forged Equipment===		===Forged Equipment===

Maintenance script at 19:12, 29 April 2008

2008-04-29T19:12:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:12, 29 April 2008
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==Style Page Format Discussions==		==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. -[[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]] 03:38, 20 April 2008 (CDT)		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. -[[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]] 03:38, 20 April 2008 (CDT)

			==Events discussions==
			There is a very long (and interesting) [[Elanthipedia:Town Green (policy)/Archive\|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. --[[User:Basselope\|Basselope]] 14:12, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

	== NPCs Discussions ==		== NPCs Discussions ==
Line 19:		Line 22:


	===Use of disambiguation pages===		===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:		Aside from the discussion on how to name the article, I'd like to discuss this passage from the proposed new Manual of Style:
Line 33:		Line 36:
	: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 ;) --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 14:19, 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 ;) --[[User:Farman\|Farman]] 14:19, 19 April 2008 (CDT)
	::Ditto. --[[User:Aetherie\|Aetherie]] 14:42, 19 April 2008 (CDT)		::Ditto. --[[User:Aetherie\|Aetherie]] 14:42, 19 April 2008 (CDT)
			:::Likewise. --[[User:Basselope\|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 <nowiki>[[Category:Elanthipedia Admins\|{{PAGENAME}}]]</nowiki> (to sort by Naeya instead of the namespace User). Alternatively, it could have read <nowiki>[[Category:Elanthipedia Admins\|Naeya]]</nowiki>.		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 <nowiki>[[Category:Elanthipedia Admins\|{{PAGENAME}}]]</nowiki> (to sort by Naeya instead of the namespace User). Alternatively, it could have read <nowiki>[[Category:Elanthipedia Admins\|Naeya]]</nowiki>.
Line 42:		Line 46:

	::Uh, just to be sure I haven't been too confusing, I am using articles to mean the english language type of word, "[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_%28grammar%29\|article]]." I meant to start a debate about whether pages should be allowed to begin with a/the/some/an. -[[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]] 16:30, 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, "[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_%28grammar%29\|article]]." I meant to start a debate about whether pages should be allowed to begin with a/the/some/an. -[[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]] 16:30, 20 April 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? --[[User:Basselope\|Basselope]] 14:12, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

	===Forged Equipment===		===Forged Equipment===

Maintenance script: description of page with helpful links to what is being discussed

2008-04-29T19:06:04Z

description of page with helpful links to what is being discussed

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:06, 29 April 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
			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==		==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. -[[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]] 03:38, 20 April 2008 (CDT)		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. -[[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]] 03:38, 20 April 2008 (CDT)

Maintenance script at 18:13, 29 April 2008

2008-04-29T18:13:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:13, 29 April 2008
Line 4:		Line 4:
	== NPCs Discussions ==		== NPCs Discussions ==

	===Article naming conventions==		===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. -[[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]] 14:06, 19 April 2008 (CDT)		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. -[[User:Caraamon\|Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi]] 14:06, 19 April 2008 (CDT)