SmashWiki talk:Manual of Style/Archive 1
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
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 space 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 space 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