csseditors
1,633
edits
Stalburg Wiki:Manual of Style: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Writing style== | ==Writing style== | ||
* Content of articles should be written in an neutral, technical, descriptive and precise language, similar to style of writing found in historical documentation, scientific documentation, reports, educational books, technical documentations and manuals. | * Content of articles should be written in an neutral, technical, descriptive and precise language, similar to style of writing found in historical documentation, scientific documentation, reports, educational books, technical documentations and manuals. | ||
** Informal language, especially a one where the editor loosely collects thoughts, should be avoided. It is not a fanfic, 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 of 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 not contain any speculations of 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. | ||