Difference between revisions of "Talk:Shrine (disambiguation)"

Line 9:

:::::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. --[[User:Krypton|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. [[User:Asara|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. --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 00:43, 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)

::That doesn't make it any less redundant. --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 17:42, 26 April 2008 (GMT)

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Shrine (disambiguation)"

Navigation menu

Search

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 :::::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. --[[User:Krypton|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. [[User:Asara|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. --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 00:43, 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)
 ::That doesn't make it any less redundant. --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 17:42, 26 April 2008 (GMT)