CrawlWiki talk:Style guide - Revision history

Derrek: remove broken link

2014-06-01T09:18:44Z

remove broken link

Roy: added my thoughts

2013-02-18T19:40:47Z

added my thoughts

Flun: what should we call the guides namespace

2012-12-21T03:10:07Z

what should we call the guides namespace

Ion frigate: /* Factual articles vs guides, separate them on different namespaces? */

2012-12-20T21:54:40Z

‎Factual articles vs guides, separate them on different namespaces?

Ion frigate: /* Factual articles vs guides, separate them on different namespaces? */

2012-12-20T21:51:25Z

‎Factual articles vs guides, separate them on different namespaces?

Palin: /* Factual articles vs guides, separate them on different namespaces? */

2012-12-20T21:04:40Z

‎Factual articles vs guides, separate them on different namespaces?

Flun: added sig

2012-12-20T15:47:21Z

added sig

Flun: separation of factual articles and guides on different namespaces?

2012-12-20T15:47:08Z

separation of factual articles and guides on different namespaces?

New page

== Factual articles vs guides, separate them on different namespaces? ==
My proposal for this is:

* Factual articles go on the main namespace
* Guides go in the guides namespace. These can be more subjective in their content.
* Specific tips on factual articles can remain on those articles, but they must be accepted by the general community.

Any comments on this setup?

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 ::IMO that would be too complex - even if we could do that, people would rarely read the strategy section, because they might not notice or might not bother to.  I think the system we have now for articles is good, though some articles need to be brought up to this standard: separate facts and strategy within the article itself, and as Flun says, keep the strategy given in factual articles (as in, not strategy guides) to things that are fairly universally accepted.  -[[User:Ion frigate|Ion frigate]] 22:51, 20 December 2012 (CET)
-: Does anyone have preferences on what we should call namespace for guides? Just "Guides"? An example article would be [[Guides:bob's SpEn Guide]]. --[[User:Flun|Flun]] 04:10, 21 December 2012 (CET)
+: Does anyone have preferences on what we should call namespace for guides? Just "Guides"? An example article would be '''Guides:bob's SpEn Guide'''. --[[User:Flun|Flun]] 04:10, 21 December 2012 (CET)
 :One downside of using a separate namespace that only the main namespace is searched by default.  This might make finding strategy articles more difficult.  What about just using a convention of prefixing all the strategy articles with whatever name you choose (say, "Strategy:") but not actually make that a technical wiki namespace? -- [[User:Roy|Roy]] 20:40, 18 February 2013 (CET)
 :For what it's worth, I'd prefer to keep strategy tips in a clearly labeled section within the article, rather than having to click on a separate article for each strategy item. -- [[User:Roy|Roy]] 20:40, 18 February 2013 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:40, 18 February 2013
Line 13:		Line 13:

	: Does anyone have preferences on what we should call namespace for guides? Just "Guides"? An example article would be [[Guides:bob's SpEn Guide]]. --[[User:Flun\|Flun]] 04:10, 21 December 2012 (CET)		: Does anyone have preferences on what we should call namespace for guides? Just "Guides"? An example article would be [[Guides:bob's SpEn Guide]]. --[[User:Flun\|Flun]] 04:10, 21 December 2012 (CET)
		+
		+	:One downside of using a separate namespace that only the main namespace is searched by default. This might make finding strategy articles more difficult. What about just using a convention of prefixing all the strategy articles with whatever name you choose (say, "Strategy:") but not actually make that a technical wiki namespace? -- [[User:Roy\|Roy]] 20:40, 18 February 2013 (CET)
		+
		+	:For what it's worth, I'd prefer to keep strategy tips in a clearly labeled section within the article, rather than having to click on a separate article for each strategy item. -- [[User:Roy\|Roy]] 20:40, 18 February 2013 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:10, 21 December 2012
Line 11:		Line 11:

	::IMO that would be too complex - even if we could do that, people would rarely read the strategy section, because they might not notice or might not bother to. I think the system we have now for articles is good, though some articles need to be brought up to this standard: separate facts and strategy within the article itself, and as Flun says, keep the strategy given in factual articles (as in, not strategy guides) to things that are fairly universally accepted. -[[User:Ion frigate\|Ion frigate]] 22:51, 20 December 2012 (CET)		::IMO that would be too complex - even if we could do that, people would rarely read the strategy section, because they might not notice or might not bother to. I think the system we have now for articles is good, though some articles need to be brought up to this standard: separate facts and strategy within the article itself, and as Flun says, keep the strategy given in factual articles (as in, not strategy guides) to things that are fairly universally accepted. -[[User:Ion frigate\|Ion frigate]] 22:51, 20 December 2012 (CET)
		+
		+	: Does anyone have preferences on what we should call namespace for guides? Just "Guides"? An example article would be [[Guides:bob's SpEn Guide]]. --[[User:Flun\|Flun]] 04:10, 21 December 2012 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:54, 20 December 2012
Line 10:		Line 10:
	:Is there any way to add a "Strategy" tab like the Discussion one? Or something similar. My opinion is that if we want strategy completely separated by facts, the strategy section should be something integral with every page, like Discussion (any similar highlighted link in the main template should do, but a separate tab would shine). --[[User:Palin\|Palin]] 22:04, 20 December 2012 (CET)		:Is there any way to add a "Strategy" tab like the Discussion one? Or something similar. My opinion is that if we want strategy completely separated by facts, the strategy section should be something integral with every page, like Discussion (any similar highlighted link in the main template should do, but a separate tab would shine). --[[User:Palin\|Palin]] 22:04, 20 December 2012 (CET)

−	::IMO that would be too complex - even if we could do that, people would rarely read the strategy section, because they might not notice or might not bother to. I think the system we have now for articles is good, though some articles need to be brought up to this standard: separate facts and strategy within the article itself, and as Flun says, keep the strategy given in factual (as in, not strategy guides) to things that are fairly ~~universal~~. -[[User:Ion frigate\|Ion frigate]] 22:51, 20 December 2012 (CET)	+	::IMO that would be too complex - even if we could do that, people would rarely read the strategy section, because they might not notice or might not bother to. I think the system we have now for articles is good, though some articles need to be brought up to this standard: separate facts and strategy within the article itself, and as Flun says, keep the strategy given in factual articles (as in, not strategy guides) to things that are fairly universally accepted. -[[User:Ion frigate\|Ion frigate]] 22:51, 20 December 2012 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:51, 20 December 2012
Line 9:		Line 9:

	:Is there any way to add a "Strategy" tab like the Discussion one? Or something similar. My opinion is that if we want strategy completely separated by facts, the strategy section should be something integral with every page, like Discussion (any similar highlighted link in the main template should do, but a separate tab would shine). --[[User:Palin\|Palin]] 22:04, 20 December 2012 (CET)		:Is there any way to add a "Strategy" tab like the Discussion one? Or something similar. My opinion is that if we want strategy completely separated by facts, the strategy section should be something integral with every page, like Discussion (any similar highlighted link in the main template should do, but a separate tab would shine). --[[User:Palin\|Palin]] 22:04, 20 December 2012 (CET)
		+
		+	::IMO that would be too complex - even if we could do that, people would rarely read the strategy section, because they might not notice or might not bother to. I think the system we have now for articles is good, though some articles need to be brought up to this standard: separate facts and strategy within the article itself, and as Flun says, keep the strategy given in factual (as in, not strategy guides) to things that are fairly universal. -[[User:Ion frigate\|Ion frigate]] 22:51, 20 December 2012 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:04, 20 December 2012
Line 7:		Line 7:

	Any comments on this setup? --[[User:Flun\|Flun]] 16:47, 20 December 2012 (CET)		Any comments on this setup? --[[User:Flun\|Flun]] 16:47, 20 December 2012 (CET)
		+
		+	:Is there any way to add a "Strategy" tab like the Discussion one? Or something similar. My opinion is that if we want strategy completely separated by facts, the strategy section should be something integral with every page, like Discussion (any similar highlighted link in the main template should do, but a separate tab would shine). --[[User:Palin\|Palin]] 22:04, 20 December 2012 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 20 December 2012
Line 6:		Line 6:
	* Specific tips on factual articles can remain on those articles, but they must be accepted by the general community.		* Specific tips on factual articles can remain on those articles, but they must be accepted by the general community.

−	Any comments on this setup?	+	Any comments on this setup? --[[User:Flun\|Flun]] 16:47, 20 December 2012 (CET)