Difference between revisions of "Talk:Shrine (disambiguation)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
It -is- an issue when information gets out of hand or too difficult to read. Consistency is also important when the general gist of chronicling and understanding certain professionalisms contributes substantially to lore experience and contribution. However, this particular article is not crippled by such a presentation. I would wager a guess that being -this- preoccupied and -this- overwhelmingly anal about such superficialities, under the guise of absolute conformity, is actually more of a deterrent than a benefit to both the project and the people who contribute to it at large, especially when it is being substituted for content, and especially when it has reliably infringed upon others and their work for almost an entire real-life year. Consistency in punctuation and grammar is important when it is not done at the expense of everything, and everyone, else. In that light, you are right - not enough Chroniclers consider consistency to be an issue. This is because content, not correct comma-splicing, is more important to them - something that this wiki should be all about. [[User:Asara|Asara]] 01:59, 29 April 2008 (GMT) | It -is- an issue when information gets out of hand or too difficult to read. Consistency is also important when the general gist of chronicling and understanding certain professionalisms contributes substantially to lore experience and contribution. However, this particular article is not crippled by such a presentation. I would wager a guess that being -this- preoccupied and -this- overwhelmingly anal about such superficialities, under the guise of absolute conformity, is actually more of a deterrent than a benefit to both the project and the people who contribute to it at large, especially when it is being substituted for content, and especially when it has reliably infringed upon others and their work for almost an entire real-life year. Consistency in punctuation and grammar is important when it is not done at the expense of everything, and everyone, else. In that light, you are right - not enough Chroniclers consider consistency to be an issue. This is because content, not correct comma-splicing, is more important to them - something that this wiki should be all about. [[User:Asara|Asara]] 01:59, 29 April 2008 (GMT) | ||
:I'm sorry, but I don't see that at all. Given there -are- other Chroniclers - several tens of them - there is no excuse for the minimal content addition over that timeframe of which you speak if content is important to them in the least bit. Looks like to me the concern is near-completely absent, so the next best thing is to just work on what someone actually has expressed having an issue with and tried to solve (namely me and consistency), even if it is "minor". In any case, it is impossible for something to be done at the expense of something else when the latter is already dreadfully minimal. --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 06:05, 29 April 2008 (GMT) | |||
:Also regarding your first comment, thanks for the note, although the redundancy doesn't show so removing the extra categorization/placing the extra one is irrelevant. [[User:Asara|Asara]] 17:31, 26 April 2008 (GMT) | :Also regarding your first comment, thanks for the note, although the redundancy doesn't show so removing the extra categorization/placing the extra one is irrelevant. [[User:Asara|Asara]] 17:31, 26 April 2008 (GMT) | ||
::That doesn't make it any less redundant. --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 17:42, 26 April 2008 (GMT) | ::That doesn't make it any less redundant. --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 17:42, 26 April 2008 (GMT) | ||
Revision as of 06:05, 29 April 2008
Hi! I just wanted to mention that putting {{Template:disambig}} already takes care of Category:Disambiguation, so you never need to categorise pages with the disambiguation template. --Krypton 23:51, 25 April 2008 (GMT)
Why are they being capitalised? They aren't the beginnings of sentences. --Krypton 15:48, 26 April 2008 (GMT)
- Starting bulleted lists without caps looks ugly. The periods you've placed I could care less about. Asara 17:28, 26 April 2008 (GMT)
- My opinion is just the opposite. If you capitalise it, you make it an incomplete sentence, so it becomes grammatically and aethetically (this latter one being my opinion) ugly. Disambiguation lists should be comparable to lists in sentence form; you wouldn't capitalise each item in the list of "I enjoy the following activities: sunning on the beach, practising martial arts, and wasting lots of time." --Krypton 17:42, 26 April 2008 (GMT)
- Well, if you want to make an issue out of what's subjective, up to you, but in the end there are a lot more important things to get held up about! Asara 19:15, 26 April 2008 (GMT)
- I'll leave that to the folks who don't already have something to be held up about! --Krypton 19:28, 26 April 2008 (GMT)
- Sorry, Krypton, voting in agreement with Asara, capitalize the bulleted items. Corvax 19:03, 28 April 2008 (GMT)
- My only concern is that everything be consistent. Everything's far from consistent as is, and that applies to more than just capitalisation of the bulleted items. Should we end with periods? Should every term in the disambiguation list be briefly described? And wherever exceptions are applicable/necessary, the reasoning should be in writing for future reference. --Krypton 20:57, 28 April 2008 (GMT)
- Sounds good to me - that's actually also why I wondered why you hadn't uncapitalised the other bullets in the other disambigs which were already capitalised. Other than briefly describing each item, caps, periods, and other frivolous things really don't matter as long as it looks neat and organised. Asara 23:51, 28 April 2008 (GMT)
- It can't look "organised" if there isn't complete consistency in the approach. I'd say it'd be quite sloppy, really. As for uncapitalising other disambiguations (or, given yours and Corvax's decision, capitalising instead, as the case may be), I've only done it when the page is in need of other changes. Not enough Chroniclers consider consistency to be an issue - though it is a huge one - and if I make all the consistency changes, not enough ever will. --Krypton 00:43, 29 April 2008 (GMT)
- Sounds good to me - that's actually also why I wondered why you hadn't uncapitalised the other bullets in the other disambigs which were already capitalised. Other than briefly describing each item, caps, periods, and other frivolous things really don't matter as long as it looks neat and organised. Asara 23:51, 28 April 2008 (GMT)
- My only concern is that everything be consistent. Everything's far from consistent as is, and that applies to more than just capitalisation of the bulleted items. Should we end with periods? Should every term in the disambiguation list be briefly described? And wherever exceptions are applicable/necessary, the reasoning should be in writing for future reference. --Krypton 20:57, 28 April 2008 (GMT)
- Well, if you want to make an issue out of what's subjective, up to you, but in the end there are a lot more important things to get held up about! Asara 19:15, 26 April 2008 (GMT)
- My opinion is just the opposite. If you capitalise it, you make it an incomplete sentence, so it becomes grammatically and aethetically (this latter one being my opinion) ugly. Disambiguation lists should be comparable to lists in sentence form; you wouldn't capitalise each item in the list of "I enjoy the following activities: sunning on the beach, practising martial arts, and wasting lots of time." --Krypton 17:42, 26 April 2008 (GMT)
It -is- an issue when information gets out of hand or too difficult to read. Consistency is also important when the general gist of chronicling and understanding certain professionalisms contributes substantially to lore experience and contribution. However, this particular article is not crippled by such a presentation. I would wager a guess that being -this- preoccupied and -this- overwhelmingly anal about such superficialities, under the guise of absolute conformity, is actually more of a deterrent than a benefit to both the project and the people who contribute to it at large, especially when it is being substituted for content, and especially when it has reliably infringed upon others and their work for almost an entire real-life year. Consistency in punctuation and grammar is important when it is not done at the expense of everything, and everyone, else. In that light, you are right - not enough Chroniclers consider consistency to be an issue. This is because content, not correct comma-splicing, is more important to them - something that this wiki should be all about. Asara 01:59, 29 April 2008 (GMT)
- I'm sorry, but I don't see that at all. Given there -are- other Chroniclers - several tens of them - there is no excuse for the minimal content addition over that timeframe of which you speak if content is important to them in the least bit. Looks like to me the concern is near-completely absent, so the next best thing is to just work on what someone actually has expressed having an issue with and tried to solve (namely me and consistency), even if it is "minor". In any case, it is impossible for something to be done at the expense of something else when the latter is already dreadfully minimal. --Krypton 06:05, 29 April 2008 (GMT)