17
edits
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Shrine (disambiguation)"
Talk:Shrine (disambiguation) (view source)
Revision as of 01:59, 29 April 2008
, 01:59, 29 April 2008no edit summary
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
::::::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) | ::::::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) | :::::::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) | ||
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) | |||
: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) | ||