SmashWiki talk:Manual of Style/Archive 1

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)

It looks better to me that way...? Also so there's a standard. Miles (talk) 21:21, 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)

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? – Smiddle_T 10:43, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

We do have SmashWiki is not offical, which covers that. I'll put it in here for completeness. Toomai Glittershine Le Grand Fromage 15:03, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

Oh, forgot about that. Thanks. – Smiddle_T 16:13, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

Addendum to the American vs. British (and all sundry) English guidelines.

I would propose that while we have no preference for the whole wiki, individual articles should maintain constancy. Thus, if an article contains both the words "colour" and "saber," one should be changed to match regional spelling of the other. To be frank, I can't think of a publication where both are used even in different articles, but I know that no copy editor would let the two coexist in the same article. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 20:11, 23 June 2012 (EDT)

And on top of that, articles with an American spelling in the title (List of rumors, L-canceling) should use American spellings throughout. Toast ltimatum 20:16, 23 June 2012 (EDT)

I can't really comment on the usefulness of this because I'm equally used to both spellings and can't really tell when an article is using both. I do feel that it would cause a significant tip towards American spellings simply for currently being more commonly-used. Toomai Glittershine The Xanthic 20:50, 23 June 2012 (EDT)

What's your point? There is nothing wrong with a site requiring constant regional spellings on content pages, whatever spelling that is. I'm not opposed (at least not enough to really poke the bear) to us using both, but it just looks unprofessional to have both on the same page. We're not saying one is better than the other (even if we only allowed one), but trying for consistency. We always talk about how this is a "community encyclopedia" and how important the community part is. Well, the encyclopedia part is important as well, and I don't just mean in terms of content. We should at least strive to follow some basic copy editing and typographic standards. As an anecdotal afterthought, on the wikis where these standards are followed, there tends to be better control of content anyway. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 08:53, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

I don't have a point. I posted because my opinion would be expected, and it happens that my opinion is invalid because I can't easily tell the difference between your addendum and the status quo. (Well, I guess then I should oppose it, but that would only be on the basis that people would keep having to fix my edits because I'll never remember the guideline is there, which is of course a dumb reason.) Toomai Glittershine The Steppin' 09:25, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

Number of spaces between a period and the next word

I've seen articles with one space between the period to end one sentence and the capitalized word to start the next, and I have also seen articles with two spaces. I'm taught in English that two spaces is professionally correct, but still, is there a preference here? If so, I would suggest that something about it be added to this page in order to maintain consistency. Naked Snake 10:39, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Actually, one space in correct in typesetting; two in correct in basic typing. However, as our pages are not left and right justified, two spaces is usually better. It's also just more natural for most people, as everyone types, while few ever get involved in typesetting. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 14:12, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

See, I prefer just one space. Many would naturally just put one space, which we would have to correct, and if I'm to re-use a word, typing two spaces does feel comparatively unnatural. I don't see a great benefit for all the effort, I can't judge how much better it would look having not seen a full article with this spacing, but I don't think that's something I need to get into. Toast ltimatum 14:23, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Extra spaces between words are not displayed on pages. As a result, having a preference seems pointless as it gets coerced into single-spaced regardless. Toomai Glittershine The Dispenser 17:48, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Ah, I see. I guess that maintains consistency by itself since regardless of user preference it displays the same way. Thanks for the prompt response. Naked Snake 21:18, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Legal initialisms

While I agree that certain initialisms are okay to use all the time, I don't really like having a hard list of such exceptions without rationale. It would be better if we could figure out a blanket definition to cover them. Toomai Glittershine The Keymaster 10:25, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

I was thinking of that, maybe something to the effect of "Exception: Competitive terms that are commonly used and known by their initials, such as DI instead of directional influence, can have their initials used in articles instead of the full name". Omega Tyrant 10:31, 23 June 2013 (EDT)

Shorthands

As I tried to get standardized two years ago (see top of page), could we standardize the shorthand forms of the game names to:

• In article titles: SSB, SSBM, SSBB, SSB4
• In article text: SSB, Melee, Brawl, SSB4

I find this necessary to bring up again because I'm strongly opposed to the usage of "Smash 64" and "Smash 4" as shorthands, though I'm aware there's some dispute on the subject. Miles (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

SSB is a terrible shorthand because it overlaps with the series name. Use Smash 64. Smash 64, Melee, and Brawl should be used both in articles and in titles except in pages like Marth (SSBB) which rely on the use of templates. For consistency again, the shorthand should be Smash 4 rather than SSB4. DoctorPain99 19:27, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

I should point out that anyone who thinks we're using things like "SSBM" in titles just for template reasons is misguided. The templates would work just fine regardless of the abbreviations involved, we'd just have to move a thousand pages and alter a dozen templates if we wanted to change it.

More importantly, I am of the opinion that "Smash 64" and "Smash 4" are fucking asinine because they are non-consecutive cuts. Using "SSB" for SSB64 is perfectly fine because we never use the "SSB" abbreviation in reference to the series; we always use "the Smash Bros. series" or similar. Toomai Glittershine The Keymaster 20:31, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

The abbreviations are rather unencyclopedic. And like OT said somewhere else, the Templates are for convenience, the "SSB" forms are more convenient.

Users have already been confused as to what "SSB" refers to, the game or the series. Just because we "always use" something doesn't mean we don't have to clarify. And why does a "non-consecutive cut" matter? Many people refer to Super Mario Bros. 3 as simply "Mario 3". DoctorPain99 20:38, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

How is a partial name and an arbitrary suffix more encyclopedic than a complete and no-frills abbreviation? Toomai Glittershine The Hammer 20:44, 10 August 2013 (EDT)