FANDOM


I'm sure I'm missing a lot, but it's a start. ― Thailog 12:55, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

About time. I'll give it a look. --Tupka217 13:04, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Sentence case Edit

I'm obviously picky about capitalisation, but should "Style" be lower or upper case? -- Anythingspossibleforapossible 13:08, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Aha. Actually that occurred to me too and I checked it before hitting save, and Wikipedia spells it that way, and they also employ sentence case, so I left it like so. ― Thailog 13:10, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Singular Edit

Currently, it states article names should be singular. Having just created Happy Harbor Hornets and Bumblebees, I think there's should be some exceptions if they're team names. --Tupka217 13:31, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. ― Thailog 13:33, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
Per this should we rename the genomorphs pages? ― Thailog 22:18, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Spelling Edit

I think the spelling section should include a note about the apostrophe, seeing as how many people (myself included up until a few days ago) do it wrong.

  • Singular = 's (Wally's)
  • Singular ending in S = s's (Artemis's)
  • Plural = 's (the Team's)
  • Plural ending in S = s' (cheerleaders' group)

Though I doubt one basic grammar rule will save us from the abysmal English of some people here. --Tupka217 13:31, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Actually both "Artemis's" and "Artemis'" are correct. ― Thailog 13:33, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
Most style guides prefer the former. The latter is not incorrect, but outdated. --Tupka217 13:38, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me. ― Thailog 13:41, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

EditsEdit

Made various edits. Discuss. -- Supermorff 14:15, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

I think the American spelling bit should go back in. --Tupka217 14:24, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
I don't. -- Supermorff 16:56, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
I do. Not including it allows for English variations (elevator, lift, color, colour), which should not exist if we want coherent content. ― Thailog 17:10, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
And I think the points made in the original piece - that YJ is an American production with an American cast, playing mostly in the US - are sufficient reason to have uniformity. --Tupka217 17:52, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Tupka because I could use English spelling, but chose not to (& even 'correct' others) to keep consistency & it's a tad more universal. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible 18:03, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
To clarify why I removed it: I categorically will not follow that rule. If I am chided about it, I will ignore it. If it becomes a recurring issue, I will leave. Please don't think this is me throwing a tantrum to get my way; I merely say this as fact to illustrate how discouraging this rule is. If you want to edit pages afterwards to fit US style, that's your prerogative, but if you try to make me use US spelling then it won't work. -- Supermorff 18:14, October 23, 2011 (UTC)
I don't get where this is coming from, Supermorff. Choosing one spelling variation is just a matter of consistency, and AM is the most logical for the reasons previously presented. Have you ever read a book with mixed variations of English spelling (unless it serves a plot point)? Should slang also be allowed? To be honest I didn't even notice you didn't use AM English. ― Thailog 18:34, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

I put it back in. If someone wants to use a different variation, that's fine, but we need a written policy to sustain subsequent corrections. ― Thailog 12:23, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

No you don't, that's daft. And your reference to slang is irrelevant and facetious. Besides, there's a difference between saying that one spelling variation is preferred and saying, as you have in the policy, that American spelling is mandated on all pages. One is professional, the other is exclusionist. -- Supermorff 09:39, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
I often find myself just using Australian English spelling, but I do think we should have one specific form of English used across the wikis. Whatever that is is regardless, but I think that American English is the obvious choice. Rassilon of Old (Wall - Contribs) 09:47, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
My reference to slang was to prove a point: if we are to build a professionally written wiki, then AM English is just as logical as not using slang. If the problematic key word here is "mandated" then change it, but removing the section altogether is overkill. ― Thailog 10:25, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
Since most Australian Spelling is changing to americanise anyway, it isnt really a problem there (we used to use Gaol for "Jail, for instance, as with Britain) as long as people wouldnt start an edit war if an american/ whatever changes it to the US version and the variant spellers wouldnt be santioned or banned or something, this shouldnt be an issue to anyone,, particularly to seasoned editors suck as suprmoff who should be accustomed to being impartial to uphold encyclopedic standards Regulus22 08:45, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
Regulus, I don't know who you are so I'm not sure how I'm supposed to respond to that subtle dig there (or the typos, which make it seem less subtle). Suffice to say that I couldn't care less what style of English is used on any of the pages on the wiki, and it made perfect sense to me for people to make pages conform to a US style for the reasons suggested. People could have done (and did do) that before any policy existed, and could have continued to do so. What I object to is being told how I should write. If I want to write in US style I will, and if I don't then no policy is going to make me. Anyway, I've had my say. The policy has been changed, and while I'm not completely happy I can accept it as a compromise as long as I don't hear any more about it. -- Supermorff 09:11, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
If I don't harass users to make them spell correctly or use decent syntax, then I sure as hell would never nag you to remove your "u"s from "colour." ― Thailog 11:57, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Indirect speech Edit

We should also add something about indirect speech. I've fixed lots of "s/he said" and even direct quotes. ― Thailog 23:00, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Are you in favour of or opposed to indirect speech? -- Supermorff 09:13, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I guess I didn't make my standing clear. I'm against excessive indirect speech. 'She said that blah blah blah, and then he said "blah blah blah"' It's just unreadable. ― Thailog 11:50, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
I think indirect speech is fine if it is integrated into the passage, i.e., Robin had little trouble hacking the Justice League computer, as it had the "same system as the Batcave." Does that make any sense? Rassilon of Old (Wall - Contribs) 12:12, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
That's perfectly acceptable, IMO. ― Thailog 12:13, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think quotation marks are necessary in this case. --Tupka217 13:36, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

I do, it's just a matter of reffering to the source material. Rassilon of Old (Wall - Contribs) 07:42, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting confused. Are we talking about indirect speech (as in, not using quotes) or direct speech (which is using them). I'm okay with both in moderation. Direct speech is preferable when there's something important in the specific wording used and the quotation is reasonably brief, but it should not be used to convey an entire conversation. -- Supermorff 07:52, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Official art Edit

Can we add something about the location of official character art and character models in articles? Since they're not strictly 'canon', they shouldn't be within the body of the article, rather, the appearances section or any other heading below that. Does anyone else have an opinion on the matter? Rassilon of Old (Wall - Contribs) 07:53, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of official art, and I don't think its place is in the appearances section. ― Thailog 11:46, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
I was using that as a compromise, I'd rather not have it in the article at all. Rassilon of Old (Wall - Contribs) 11:51, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
Me too. ― Thailog 11:53, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Bolding semicolons in lists Edit

In sections on articles such as members of teams and powers & abilities, we bold the object/character/power, etc. I was wondering why is the semicolon also bolded? This does not make sense to me, as the reason for bolding is to highlight the subject of the bullet point, which would, for example, be "Artemis", not "Artemis:", as the semicolon is not a part of the subject. What is the reasoning behind this? Rassilon of Old (Wall - Contribs) 08:58, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

You mean the colon, right? I think it looks prettier bolded. --Tupka217 09:01, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
I'd tend to bold the colon, because I also think it looks better. Don't much mind if the other way is preferred. -- Supermorff 19:42, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
It's just an aesthetic issue, Rassilon. It's not part of the subject, you're right, and that is why the colon is not linked when the subject is, but bold colon looks better. ― Thailog 13:02, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

BC vs BCE Edit

Normally, I'm "go with whatever the source has", but Legacy has both. Aquagirl uses BC to describe Atabey's Shrine (in a comm message), and BCE to describe Tiamat and Marduk (in a cut scene). Which one should we use?

I'd go with BCE. The cut scene is more prominent. ― Psypher 17:44, November 30, 2013 (UTC)
BC, which meant "Before Christ", is inaccurate (Jesus' birth was traced to something like 3-4 years before his birth!).  Use Before Common Era instead. 'ᴥ' Zergrinch 15:43, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.