Talk:Shrine (disambiguation)
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)
- To say nothing of the denizens issue. You have yet to, after several months, reach any agreement about what "content" even is (or what kind of "content" is appropriate) in that regards, so how can you expect valuable contributions? --Krypton 06:09, 29 April 2008 (GMT)
- In regards to your first point, to say it nicely, the reason it is not impossible for said something to be done at the expense of what is dreadfully minimal is because it (grammar preoccupation and they way it is implemented) is the very reason for the minimalism. I do not think it appropriate to clarify this on a public forum, so would be happy to discuss it with you otherwise out of courtesy to you.
- Given the minimalists' pace has been predominant for more months than I've been here, that's an invalid point. You have only the ill-preparation of others to accommodate the following two policies - 1) "Articles entered into the Achaean Lore archives need to have a certain structure and format in order to ensure readability and consistency throughout." 2) "You should be prepared to have your work be heavily edited." - to blame. --Krypton 01:12, 1 May 2008 (GMT)
- In regards to your first point, to say it nicely, the reason it is not impossible for said something to be done at the expense of what is dreadfully minimal is because it (grammar preoccupation and they way it is implemented) is the very reason for the minimalism. I do not think it appropriate to clarify this on a public forum, so would be happy to discuss it with you otherwise out of courtesy to you.
- To say nothing of the denizens issue. You have yet to, after several months, reach any agreement about what "content" even is (or what kind of "content" is appropriate) in that regards, so how can you expect valuable contributions? --Krypton 06:09, 29 April 2008 (GMT)
If you wish to continue this here, very well. I hope that those two policies continue to be followed strictly within reasonable means. However, there is a certain attitude and courtesy that comes with executing them. You should not be so quick to assume invalidity, especially when you have not taken the time to accept or research the problem with others who are withholding contributions because of you, and especially after having been talked to by Mithraea. Asara 02:15, 1 May 2008 (GMT)
- In regards to your second post, I like to think that after what has been decided on the forums, this should not be too difficult to figure out. As a chronicler, you should already be armed with this kind of judgment about what makes an article substantial and what makes it superficial. If you are unsure about something, feel free to discuss it with someone else. If I or another Head Chronicler doesn't like it, we'll take it out. If we do like it, we'll leave it. Pretty simple! Asara 22:31, 29 April 2008 (GMT)
- Yes, that does sound simple. However, I've never seen anything but the latter (aside from a few instances where the former was performed under the influence of false information and pretences); do you understand how easily that cany be perceived as indifference? --Krypton 01:12, 1 May 2008 (GMT)
- In regards to your second post, I like to think that after what has been decided on the forums, this should not be too difficult to figure out. As a chronicler, you should already be armed with this kind of judgment about what makes an article substantial and what makes it superficial. If you are unsure about something, feel free to discuss it with someone else. If I or another Head Chronicler doesn't like it, we'll take it out. If we do like it, we'll leave it. Pretty simple! Asara 22:31, 29 April 2008 (GMT)
I'm not sure what to make of this argument. What I've said won't change. Asara 02:15, 1 May 2008 (GMT)