Do we have one? No idea.
Do we need/want one? I think it would make things a lot easier for editors. The Minecraft Wiki style guide may be a good place to start picking things from.
To quote myself: Another argument in favor of the spacing is that it's how MediaWiki itself does it, as you can see by looking at the source of this section, which I created using the “start a new section” button.
Something I regularly see is references with a space in front of them. This just looks wrong in my opinion, especially since I never see this style on the English Wikipedia.
This is arguably even more important than the title/list/template formatting, since it affects how the article is rendered, and not just the markup code.
We do have one. As you can see in the header, it's a bit dated, and has been for a while.
I think a style guide is a good idea, and necessary for minimizing reverts and edit wars. Taking a cue from the Minecraft wiki, I'm interested to see if there is any consensus to be found in regards to notability standards, particularly as regards many poorly attested prerevision story elements, and for pages dedicated to specific decks and/or cards.
For smaller issues of punctuation and formatting, I think the Wikipedia Manual of Style is an excellent guide. To touch on a few relevant points, per Wikipedia, we should prefer straight quotes and apostrophes to curly (MOS:PUNCT and MOS:QUOTEMARKS), and there should be no space preceding or between references (MOS:REFPUNCT). As for mere code formatting, which does not impact the user-readable page, I cannot find a exactly equivalent rule (though I thought one existed), but I suggest we act in accordance with MOS:RETAIN - stick to the style previously established for the article.
Now I remember I actually read the thing. And I agree with the header... It needs a re-write.
I agree on the quotes and apostrophes thing. On RETAIN I am a bit torn. Some template calls are just hard to read without proper formatting. There I would really really like to update to improve code readability.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Drop your knees to the floor
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
I could see guidelines for templates with many arguments, and especially templates that allow included lists. However, I think imposing a style rule on spacing with headers or after bullet points in lists, or applying such a template rule to a template with only a few arguments, is unnecessary.
Well, the status quo is currently mentioned nowhere.
A good example for this is the fact the we italicize set name for example.
I think we should at least put some effort in to let people know how we would like our wiki to look.
The manual of style is a good place to start and it could be more specific on some points.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Drop your knees to the floor
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
[…]To touch on a few relevant points, per Wikipedia, we should prefer straight quotes and apostrophes to curly (MOS:PUNCT and MOS:QUOTEMARKS)[…]
Please don't do this. It makes text unnecessarily hard to read. I think we can agree that things should be made easy for readers rather than editors if possible. The English Wikipedia uses this rule because they were at one point facing the decision of going through every single article to refactor everything to use the typographically correct “curly” quote marks, or using the "straight" ASCII quotes for consistency. This concern simply does not exist for smaller wikis.
As for apostrophes, the curly version should be avoided, since it's supposed to be a single quote mark rather than an apostrophe.
It is not that I am unable to type the typographic quotation marks. I just don't see any upsides in introducing them to the text, so I will simply not type them.
They also make the wiki as a whole inconsistent because we never use them (and should never used them) for page titles. To link something to "Legend rule" for example, you will have to type [["Legend rule"|“Legend rule”]].
And nobody really types them. I think you are the only one, Fenhl.
You also made the point that ' is preferred over ’.
Making single and double quotation this weird mixture:
He said: “They changed the ‘Legend rule’ again.” (Complete typographic)
He said: “They changed the 'Legend rule' again.” (Your suggestion, at least how I understood it.)
He said: "They changed the 'Legend rule' again." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style)
To be quite honest I think the Manual of Style is just the best solution.
It is easiest to follow for editors and as a reader of this wiki it also reads best to me.
For me there are only downsides when typing typographic quotation marks and not following the manual of style.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Drop your knees to the floor
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
Do we need one?
Do we want one?
We have many ways to format the wiki mark up and archive the same results.
Just to give a few example:
== Title ==
==Title==
* List item
*List item
{{Template call|parameter1=value1|parameter2=value2|parameter3=value3|parameter4=value4|parameter5=value5}}
{{Template call
|parameter1=value1
|parameter2=value2
|parameter3=value3
|parameter4=value4
|parameter5=value5
}}
The question is should we all stick to a certain style so that we are all on the same page when editing the wiki.
I repeat my three questions from the start.
Any thoughts?
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
Do we need/want one? I think it would make things a lot easier for editors. The Minecraft Wiki style guide may be a good place to start picking things from.
To quote myself: Another argument in favor of the spacing is that it's how MediaWiki itself does it, as you can see by looking at the source of this section, which I created using the “start a new section” button.
Something I regularly see is references with a space in front of them. This just looks wrong in my opinion, especially since I never see this style on the English Wikipedia.
This is arguably even more important than the title/list/template formatting, since it affects how the article is rendered, and not just the markup code.
I think a style guide is a good idea, and necessary for minimizing reverts and edit wars. Taking a cue from the Minecraft wiki, I'm interested to see if there is any consensus to be found in regards to notability standards, particularly as regards many poorly attested prerevision story elements, and for pages dedicated to specific decks and/or cards.
For smaller issues of punctuation and formatting, I think the Wikipedia Manual of Style is an excellent guide. To touch on a few relevant points, per Wikipedia, we should prefer straight quotes and apostrophes to curly (MOS:PUNCT and MOS:QUOTEMARKS), and there should be no space preceding or between references (MOS:REFPUNCT). As for mere code formatting, which does not impact the user-readable page, I cannot find a exactly equivalent rule (though I thought one existed), but I suggest we act in accordance with MOS:RETAIN - stick to the style previously established for the article.
I agree on the quotes and apostrophes thing. On RETAIN I am a bit torn. Some template calls are just hard to read without proper formatting. There I would really really like to update to improve code readability.
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
A good example for this is the fact the we italicize set name for example.
I think we should at least put some effort in to let people know how we would like our wiki to look.
The manual of style is a good place to start and it could be more specific on some points.
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
As for apostrophes, the curly version should be avoided, since it's supposed to be a single quote mark rather than an apostrophe.
However I have no strong feelings on that as long as no one expects me to type in curly quotes.
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
They also make the wiki as a whole inconsistent because we never use them (and should never used them) for page titles. To link something to "Legend rule" for example, you will have to type [["Legend rule"|“Legend rule”]].
And nobody really types them. I think you are the only one, Fenhl.
You also made the point that ' is preferred over ’.
Making single and double quotation this weird mixture:
He said: “They changed the ‘Legend rule’ again.” (Complete typographic)
He said: “They changed the 'Legend rule' again.” (Your suggestion, at least how I understood it.)
He said: "They changed the 'Legend rule' again." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style)
To be quite honest I think the Manual of Style is just the best solution.
It is easiest to follow for editors and as a reader of this wiki it also reads best to me.
For me there are only downsides when typing typographic quotation marks and not following the manual of style.
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
It is much shorter now. I think the deck section could be even shorter since nobody is following the rather strict order of card types.
Should something be added or subtracted?
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!