Difference between revisions of "CrawlWiki talk:Style guide"
Ion frigate (talk | contribs) (→Factual articles vs guides, separate them on different namespaces?) |
(what should we call the guides namespace) |
||
| 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) | ||
Revision as of 05:10, 21 December 2012
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? --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). --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 articles (as in, not strategy guides) to things that are fairly universally accepted. -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. --Flun 04:10, 21 December 2012 (CET)
