SmashWiki talk:Manual of Style/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
(→Links) |
(→Article naming for articles with multiple possible names: new section) |
||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Suffix links make things easier to read and harder to spell wrong for the editor, have no effect on the reader, and are (most likely) no more expensive to process than piped links; Wikipedia [[wikipedia:WP:LINK#Piped Links|sums it up]] with "This is easier to type and clearer to read in the source text." While I can agree that you probably shouldn't devote a single edit to changing piped links to suffix links, they appear have no downsides whatsoever. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Chilled 12:15, 25 May 2011 (EDT) | Suffix links make things easier to read and harder to spell wrong for the editor, have no effect on the reader, and are (most likely) no more expensive to process than piped links; Wikipedia [[wikipedia:WP:LINK#Piped Links|sums it up]] with "This is easier to type and clearer to read in the source text." While I can agree that you probably shouldn't devote a single edit to changing piped links to suffix links, they appear have no downsides whatsoever. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Chilled 12:15, 25 May 2011 (EDT) | ||
== Article naming for articles with multiple possible names == | |||
There's nothing in the manual that explains why the [[tech]] page isn't named "ukemi", or why [[tilt attack]] isn't named "strong attack". I interpret it as the pages are supposed to have the name that's the most common. Is that correct? – [[User:Smiddle|Smiddle]]<sub>[[user talk:Smiddle|T]]</sub> 10:43, 7 July 2011 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 09:43, July 7, 2011
Do we have a specific preference between US-style standards of spelling (i.e. color, maneuver) and UK-style standards (i.e. colour, maneouvre)? Miles (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2010 (EDT)
- I think we just do whatever, and you're not supposed to make an edit that only includes changing those things. Toomai Glittershine
19:05, 21 October 2010 (EDT)
I still strongly prefer ending all captions with periods. It looks frustratingly incomplete to me otherwise. Miles (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2010 (EST)
Additionally, can we standardize that the shortened forms of the games' names are:
- In article titles: SSB, SSBM, SSBB
- In article text: SSB, Melee, Brawl
This seems to the best way to do it, imo. Miles (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2010 (EST)
- bump Miles (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2011 (EST)
- Is there any particular reason you feel the distinction is important? Toomai Glittershine The Incomprehensible 21:09, 16 January 2011 (EST)
Links
Why is it that links such as [[grab|grabbing]] are considered "less efficient" than [[grab]]bing? Edits to change this are completely pointless and unnecessary. Omega Tyrant 
10:45, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
- ...I did a edit like that. So are you saying I'm doing pointless stuff?--Wolf rulez!
The best! 10:59, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
- Basically a lot of users will view it as pointless due to both of the links will link to the same page and will both look the same when not editing, the only postive it has is to save a couple of bits. At the moment though it is not considered pointless due to that being the correct way to link in the Manual of Style.--Shaun's Wiji Dodo talk
11:09, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
- That does not answer my question on why one form of linking is considered "more efficient" than the other, as both ways of linking appear exactly the same on the page people view. Just because it is currently in the manual of style does not mean it is automatically correct. And yes Wolf Rulez, I'm saying all edits that only change one form of linking to the other is unnecessary and adds nothing to the page, therefore such edits are pointless. Omega Tyrant
11:32, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
- I was actually answering Wolf Rulez's question, hence why it doesn't answer yours and why it is spaced under Wolf's comment.--Shaun's Wiji Dodo talk 11:37, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
- I was actually answering Wolf Rulez's question, hence why it doesn't answer yours and why it is spaced under Wolf's comment.--Shaun's Wiji Dodo talk
- That does not answer my question on why one form of linking is considered "more efficient" than the other, as both ways of linking appear exactly the same on the page people view. Just because it is currently in the manual of style does not mean it is automatically correct. And yes Wolf Rulez, I'm saying all edits that only change one form of linking to the other is unnecessary and adds nothing to the page, therefore such edits are pointless. Omega Tyrant
- Basically a lot of users will view it as pointless due to both of the links will link to the same page and will both look the same when not editing, the only postive it has is to save a couple of bits. At the moment though it is not considered pointless due to that being the correct way to link in the Manual of Style.--Shaun's Wiji Dodo talk
Suffix links make things easier to read and harder to spell wrong for the editor, have no effect on the reader, and are (most likely) no more expensive to process than piped links; Wikipedia sums it up with "This is easier to type and clearer to read in the source text." While I can agree that you probably shouldn't devote a single edit to changing piped links to suffix links, they appear have no downsides whatsoever. Toomai Glittershine The Chilled 12:15, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
Article naming for articles with multiple possible names
There's nothing in the manual that explains why the tech page isn't named "ukemi", or why tilt attack isn't named "strong attack". I interpret it as the pages are supposed to have the name that's the most common. Is that correct? – SmiddleT 10:43, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
