elanthipedia talk:Manual of Style

This page is for discussing the Manual of Style in general, or changes to non-specific article standards.

Script Page

Here is my proposal for script articles. --Isharon 19:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Elanthipedia:Manual of Style/Scripts

Page Change

Due to the previous MOS being so bare-bones, I decided to integrate the MOS/new with the old one, and to parcel out each specific type of article to have it's own subpage. This is a work in progress, so bare with me. -Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi 16:55, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

Suggestion - have a MOS "contents" header with links to other MOS sections, or perhaps something similar to what I have on the Help pages. --Naeya ^(talk) 21:50, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

Damn, there you go making me look bad. Haven't you been told? I think of everything and if I don't think of it, it's not needed. Bah! Oh, I just had a great idea, I'll add a header for MOS with links to other sections! :P -Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi 18:18, 31 May 2008 (CDT)

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)

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)

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)

Attributions

Okay, here's the issue: I've had at least one issue of people taking info from other sites without attribution. So this brings up the question, of whether we should allow attributions.

Why is this a problem? Because then we have to decide what deserves it. Plus there's the whole fact that no site has any real right to use this info since we're taking copyrighted info from a commerical game. Let's hear some thoughts on the subject. -Moderator Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi^(talk) 03:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Information is always free to disseminate, but you can't always spread it in the form you found it. Copyright protects a specific presentation that someone has worked hard to put together. Attribution is appropriate when you are copying parts of someone else's presentation on a subject (quoting word for word from something). However anyone is free to view another's work, glean ideas from it, and use it as building material for your own project. Additionally, no one is allowed to claim another's work as their own, nor by not attributing it to the true author create the impression that it is your own work. If you figure out the Colonel's Secret Recipe for fried chicken, there's nothing to stop you from telling everyone what it is; but it's a crime to take his barrel of spice-mixture from his warehouse and sell it as your own.

Put in terms of practical use for a DR wiki: if (for example) Simu announces a game mechanic change you can tell whoever you want about it, but if you choose to do so by copy/pasting a GM's post on the subject you MUST at the very least attribute the source and the date they made the statement (preferably also a link to the site and the date you copy/pasted it, so that readers can check it for themselves). If another player discovers a game mechanic and posts about it on their own site, you again are free to transfer the information but not to use their words to do so without giving them credit.

This does not mean that quoting someone is polite; just because you aren't breaking a law doesn't mean people have to like what you've done. This is why reporters like to ask "Can I quote you on that?" before just printing a quote - it keeps their source happy and likely to provide more quotes later on. The advice I would give is that whether you are going to quote someone's exact words or just paraphrase the information, keep in mind that while they can't actually stop you from doing it they might still be offended. After all, this person is a useful source, and if you want them to ever be a useful source again you should try to keep them happy. --Aracin 18:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

compendiums & anatomy charts

So I was in Gersvinda's Natural Studies confirming the shop inventory for HE425, and I noticed some of the double red !! marks on a few items, so I went to each to see about resolving whatever issue they had. What I found was that both the covers, and the charts, were all over the place as far as how the item type was listed. If I can get some clarification on how each item should be flagged, I'll take on the project of updating these across the wiki to be uniform.

• compendiums: are these containers, or stackers, or both (or neither!). A sample item can be found here: Item:Slim compendium bound with plush starlight velvet
• anatomy charts: Should these only be "anatomy charts", or "trainers" as well? Then on a number of charts, I saw something similar to this in the free text:

Requires approximately [[requires scholarship skill::710]] scholarship to use. Trains both [[trains::Scholarship skill]] and [[trains::First Aid skill]].

And that would obviously stay, however these also train empathy for Empaths, so should that be added in too? Or do we only need to keep the 1st sentence (with the skill required section) with the tagging as an "anatomy chart". A sample item can be found here: Item:Dryad anatomy chart

Anyhow, let me know what the MOS overview for these should be and I'll try and clean things up a bit. --Kythryn 02:05, 6 November 2017 (CST)