Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
Forum:Layout: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
::Mini-mitch's description of the "See also" section looks good, but again I don't think it should be mandated, I don't want us to get into a situation where people are including the "See also" and it making the page a stub because there's nothing else to put in the "See also". | ::Mini-mitch's description of the "See also" section looks good, but again I don't think it should be mandated, I don't want us to get into a situation where people are including the "See also" and it making the page a stub because there's nothing else to put in the "See also". | ||
::I prefer to excise the "See also" requirement from the main MoS page and then on the [[Tardis:Layout guide]] page I'll give it a re-edit, as well as the Guide to in-universe writing and the individuals articles guide to explain/include what the "See also" is, and that it's ''not'' always needed. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 14:31, January 6, 2011 (UTC) | ::I prefer to excise the "See also" requirement from the main MoS page and then on the [[Tardis:Layout guide]] page I'll give it a re-edit, as well as the Guide to in-universe writing and the individuals articles guide to explain/include what the "See also" is, and that it's ''not'' always needed. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 14:31, January 6, 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::I broadly agree with TD on this one. No format should be mandated for any in-universe article. I'd go further than him, though, and suggest that the Layout guide section of the MOS should merely redirect people to the individual guides. Giving even ''some'' guidance as to format within the MOS is dangerous. As the text stands, I'd believe that every in-universe article should contain all those elements, and that's just not true. The layout guide should basically just read, | |||
::::"A series of guides suggesting best practices for structuring articles has been prepared to assist you. They serve as an adjunct to this manual of style, and all editors are encouraged to read them carefully. They are: <insert list>." '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 15:32, January 6, 2011 (UTC) | |||
==Thoughts on Layout== | ==Thoughts on Layout== | ||
Opinions?--[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 20:58, January 5, 2011 (UTC) | Opinions?--[[User:Skittles the hog|Skittles the hog]]--<small>[[User talk:Skittles the hog|Talk]]</small> 20:58, January 5, 2011 (UTC) | ||
| Line 24: | Line 25: | ||
#--[[User:Mini-mitch|Mini-mitch]] 21:24, January 5, 2011 (UTC). See [[User:Mini-mitch/sandbox 1|here]] on how I think it should be laid out. | #--[[User:Mini-mitch|Mini-mitch]] 21:24, January 5, 2011 (UTC). See [[User:Mini-mitch/sandbox 1|here]] on how I think it should be laid out. | ||
===Layout stay the same=== | ===Layout stay the same=== | ||
#--'''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 15:32, January 6, 2011 (UTC) Not really a vote for "stay the same", but a vote against the proposed change. To be sure, if an article contains a BTS and a "see also" section, BTS should precede SA. I do not believe, however, that either section should be mandatory. In fact, I believe that most "see also" sections are extremely lazy and redundant. If you link to the article in the text, you don't need to do a separate link in a "see also" section. And if you ''don't'' link to an article in the text, then the chances are extremely high that the connection between the page you're editing and the page you're "see also-ing" isn't a strong one. There are simply ''very'' few times where you ''need'' a "see also" section, provided you've written the article well. | |||
