csseditors
1,633
edits
Stalburg Wiki:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
** Informal language, especially a one where the editor loosely collects thoughts, should be avoided. It is not a fanfic, a poetry or a stream of loose thoughts, nor should it use first personal perspective, to use terms like "We don't know a lot about (...)", "We collect/visit/are told (...)", "Maybe it is (...)", etc. | ** Informal language, especially a one where the editor loosely collects thoughts, should be avoided. It is not a fanfic, a poetry or a stream of loose thoughts, nor should it use first personal perspective, to use terms like "We don't know a lot about (...)", "We collect/visit/are told (...)", "Maybe it is (...)", etc. | ||
** Despite a technical manner, the articles should not be only limited to simple sentences, and if properly utilised and not overused, complex sentences are permitted and in many cases might be more desireable over simple sentences, where otherwise two separate simple sentences that have an continuity established between them might be easier to read and understand. | ** Despite a technical manner, the articles should not be only limited to simple sentences, and if properly utilised and not overused, complex sentences are permitted and in many cases might be more desireable over simple sentences, where otherwise two separate simple sentences that have an continuity established between them might be easier to read and understand. | ||
* Articles should not contain any speculations | * Articles should not contain any speculations or theories, if a part of described content requires an interpretation to be performed to write an article about it (for example when a story line is pieced together from several disconnected documents), it should be clearly stated this is in fact an possible interpretation of connected facts and logic, using such terms as "It is possible, that (...)", "It is implied, that (...)", "It was established, that (...)", "It is unknown, if (...)", etc. Addition of a caption of sorts of "Unconfirmed" next to the content in quest, does not justify existence of speculation in the article in the first place. | ||
* Articles should be kept consistent with the usage of proper names, and if one item is known under several names, one primary name should be choosen for the article page to refer to that item, with an possibility of shortened name used interchangeably. For instance a location is known under several names of the "Pine Fell Pumping Station", "Pine Fell Water Plant" and "Hammer Valley Pumping Station", in the reoccuring mentions of the name within the article, it should be settled on the primary name, like "(the) Pine Fell Pumping Station" and the shortened name of "(the) pumping station", that are referred in the whole page; the wiki article '''''should not''''' interchangeably use all three main names throughout when referencing the item. | * Articles should be kept consistent with the usage of proper names, and if one item is known under several names, one primary name should be choosen for the article page to refer to that item, with an possibility of shortened name used interchangeably. For instance a location is known under several names of the "Pine Fell Pumping Station", "Pine Fell Water Plant" and "Hammer Valley Pumping Station", in the reoccuring mentions of the name within the article, it should be settled on the primary name, like "(the) Pine Fell Pumping Station" and the shortened name of "(the) pumping station", that are referred in the whole page; the wiki article '''''should not''''' interchangeably use all three main names throughout when referencing the item. | ||
* Refrain from using shortened forms of modal verbs, for example: use "do not" instead of "don't, "cannot" instead of "can't", "it is" instead of "it's", etc. | * Refrain from using shortened forms of modal verbs, for example: use "do not" instead of "don't, "cannot" instead of "can't", "it is" instead of "it's", etc. | ||