ErfWiki talk:Style Guide

From ErfWiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
Line 15: Line 15:
:Something like: {{Canon}}{{Proposed Canon}}{{Speculation}} Howzat? <tt>:)</tt> By the way, I used [http://colorschemedesigner.com/#2B42boTRRw0w0 this] for the colour scheme, in case anyone was curious. —[[User:Revenant|Revenant]]<sup>[[User talk:Revenant|Talk]]</sup> 11:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
:Something like: {{Canon}}{{Proposed Canon}}{{Speculation}} Howzat? <tt>:)</tt> By the way, I used [http://colorschemedesigner.com/#2B42boTRRw0w0 this] for the colour scheme, in case anyone was curious. —[[User:Revenant|Revenant]]<sup>[[User talk:Revenant|Talk]]</sup> 11:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
::Speculation is a bit dark and canon is a bit ugly.  however, I'm a bit colorblind so take that as you will.--[[User:Ichthus|Ichthus]] 14:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
::Speculation is a bit dark and canon is a bit ugly.  however, I'm a bit colorblind so take that as you will.--[[User:Ichthus|Ichthus]] 14:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 +
::When using color in a webpage, something too vivid or dark can be hard on the eyes, or just hard to read -- so it's really really important to be careful.  I think these could use a little color-shifting -- if they were in the pastel color range, it could work well.  As is, though..  they seem too distracting and attention-grabbing.  [[User:R3u|R3u]] 02:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
==Capitalization==
==Capitalization==

Revision as of 02:22, 3 May 2009

Contents

Links to Other Articles

One thing to think about is whether we link a word in an article every time it is used or only the first time it is used. -- Muzzafar 07:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Linking only once (or once per section, if it's a big article) tends to be better at avoiding "link salad", where every other word is linked to something. —RevenantTalk 12:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree. I know that what I was initially doing was too mcuh, but one link per page is far too little. There is nothing as frustrating as reading a 20 page Wikipedia article, finding an intriguing name, and then not being able to click on it. That name is somewhere in 20 pages... and I need to hunt through it because some people don't like a little blue with their black? How is one link per paragraph? --Kreistor 01:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


I agree that references should be made to the three sources named, but we shouldn't completely rule out other sources. For example the "Stanley song" on FuMP: http://www.thefump.com/lyrics.php?id=107 or the Hamstard comic: http://www.hamstard.com/ or interviews or the knol stuff: http://knol.google.com/k/robert-balder/erfworld/23skug9txczm1/2 . --Welf von Ehrwald 12:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

(So [[Erfworld mechanics]] does not link to Erfworld Mechanics.)

This is why it's generally a good idea to name pages in sentence case (capitalise first word and proper nouns only). Makes it a lot easier to make links in natural language without [[Awkward Capitalisation]], [[Redundant Link Titles|redundant link titles]], or (almost) pointless redirects. —RevenantTalk 12:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Canon, Proposed Canon, and Speculation sections

Canon, Proposed Canon, and Speculation sections are currently mostly using =First-level headings=, which are equivalent to <h1> tags. As already noted on the page, this isn't ideal – in fact, good practice for HTML would have exactly one of these per page, as the page title (which the wiki software already does). Rather than massive headings, I'm actually thinking that we should put together some little templates (a la the Wikipedia Spoiler templates of old) to mark sections of the page as being of whatever canon status and automagically include 'em in the proper categories for review. In fact, I might whip up something basic to illustrate. :)RevenantTalk 10:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Something like:
This section is considered canon. Canon information can be generally relied on to reflect "the way things are in Erfworld, according to the creators."
Please do not mark sections as canon yourself – leave that to Rob, Jamie, or someone they appoint to do so.
This section contains proposed canon. These are the parts you are pretty sure are close to the way it really works in Erfworld.
Rob, Jamie, or someone they appoint will take a look at the proposed canon and possibly elevate it to canon.
This section contains speculation. These are mostly unsupported guesses and theories about how stuff works.
You might want to put parts you are pretty sure about in Proposed Canon.
Howzat? :) By the way, I used this for the colour scheme, in case anyone was curious. —RevenantTalk 11:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Speculation is a bit dark and canon is a bit ugly. however, I'm a bit colorblind so take that as you will.--Ichthus 14:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
When using color in a webpage, something too vivid or dark can be hard on the eyes, or just hard to read -- so it's really really important to be careful. I think these could use a little color-shifting -- if they were in the pastel color range, it could work well. As is, though.. they seem too distracting and attention-grabbing. R3u 02:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

We need to standardize on the use of capitals. I'm putting them in, others taking them out, and it's would be better if things were consistent. There is a good reason to capitalize terms that have rules behind them. Take, for instance the term Turn. For the purpose of game rules, Turn has a particular meaning, but it has other meanings as well. I can turn the knob on a dial. In order to distinguish Turn vs. turn, most game systems capitalize Turn. I suggest that wherever a game term is being used, it should be capitalized for clarity.

The other alternative is to Link every use of a defined term, in every single instance. But instead of a single letter change ('This' instead of 'this'), that requires '((This|that))', which is more work.

The following are a short list of game terms that should be capitalized: Turn, Side, Capital, Unit, Stack, Combat, Defense, Warlord, Caster, Barbarian. --Kreistor 12:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree – capitalise where we're referring to a game mechanic. —RevenantTalk 13:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

References

I found out why <ref> doesn't work. It requires an extension that has not been installed. See this Page on MediaWiki. If Rob ever adds this extension, we should get rid of the sup /sup methd and switch to proper referencing. Unless someone out there knows how to do it without that extension. --Kreistor 12:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I think our best bet if we want "proper" references is to use the older Ref/Note system. Alternatively, we could stick with plain links – it's not like this is an encyclopedia, we don't need a bibliography/references section. Inline links would be fine, IMO. —RevenantTalk 13:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I've got a working basic copy of the old Ref/Note system working on this wiki. Feel free to try it out. —RevenantTalk 13:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to avoid multiple redundant references on the same thing, to avoid clutter, for example the breath weapon column in the Dwagon article. --Doran 18:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Reusable formatting

If there is a little bit of block formatting or tables that is used over and over such as the stat blocks or the school of magic breakdown, please be sure to request a template. This will allow everything to appear consistent. I imagine we will end up making templates for factions, capitals, in the near future. We just have to decide on what they'll look like and what information we want in them.--Ichthus 14:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Canon Future Spoilers

Came across this when doing 2198313, are we okay with putting them in white text. There may be a template for doing so. --Doran 18:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Go To:
Personal tools