Difference between revisions of "BattleMaster Wiki talk:Style Guide"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Article Length== | ==Article Length== | ||
We should really come to a decision on this topic. Namely, should we have long articles seperated into differant sections, or should we have short articles, with links to related articles? To use a more concrete example, I recently created the [[Meta:Page Name Guidelines]], and then linked to them from the Style Guide. Should the style guide be long, explictly spelling out exactly how to do everything, or should it be short and a good overview, with links to more specific information on each topic. I'm leaning towards the latter (hence the seperate page), but what do you think? -- [[User:Nicholas|Nicholas]] July 19, 2005 19:46 (CEST) | We should really come to a decision on this topic. Namely, should we have long articles seperated into differant sections, or should we have short articles, with links to related articles? To use a more concrete example, I recently created the [[Meta:Page Name Guidelines]], and then linked to them from the Style Guide. Should the style guide be long, explictly spelling out exactly how to do everything, or should it be short and a good overview, with links to more specific information on each topic. I'm leaning towards the latter (hence the seperate page), but what do you think? -- [[User:Nicholas|Nicholas]] July 19, 2005 19:46 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I tend to prefer larger articles, broken up into sections which can be referred to separately. I think it's more attractive and easier to maintain than a bunch of short articles, and easier on the reader who may not always know exactly what he's looking for. For example: There's going to be a [[region]] article, but there's something to say about region commanders, gold and food production, and the various stats. It'd be better, in my opinion, for all those things to be sections under the region page. It includes all the necessary information without a lot of clicking around, and makes it less likely that someone misses an important topic by not noticing a link. --[[User:Dolohov|Dolohov]] 19 July 2005 19:59 (CEST) | ||
==Multi Word Links== | ==Multi Word Links== | ||
Revision as of 19:59, 19 July 2005
Article Length
We should really come to a decision on this topic. Namely, should we have long articles seperated into differant sections, or should we have short articles, with links to related articles? To use a more concrete example, I recently created the Meta:Page Name Guidelines, and then linked to them from the Style Guide. Should the style guide be long, explictly spelling out exactly how to do everything, or should it be short and a good overview, with links to more specific information on each topic. I'm leaning towards the latter (hence the seperate page), but what do you think? -- Nicholas July 19, 2005 19:46 (CEST)
- I tend to prefer larger articles, broken up into sections which can be referred to separately. I think it's more attractive and easier to maintain than a bunch of short articles, and easier on the reader who may not always know exactly what he's looking for. For example: There's going to be a region article, but there's something to say about region commanders, gold and food production, and the various stats. It'd be better, in my opinion, for all those things to be sections under the region page. It includes all the necessary information without a lot of clicking around, and makes it less likely that someone misses an important topic by not noticing a link. --Dolohov 19 July 2005 19:59 (CEST)
Multi Word Links
Which is the better way to name multi-word pages: TwoWords or Two_Words? It would be nice to have a consistent naming scheme for these things. -- Dolohov
I strongly think it should be [[Link_Style]]. It makes it easier to read, as the two words have some space between them. -- Nicholas July 18, 2005 22:49 (CEST)
Mediawiki doesn't do CamelCase. Use proper names. The correct page name is [[Link Style]]. Mediawiki will do the proper replacements itself. --Tom 19 July 2005 17:42 (CEST)
Mood
I think that the wiki should try to avoid using technical vocabulary as it spoils the feel of battlemaster. For example (This is all stolen from Dolohov's article on taxes. It's a great article, it just happens to be the only one available to critisize.) instead of "region's gold rating" use "region's wealth". -- Nicholas July 18, 2005 23:06 (CEST)
Oh, I agree about the technical vocabulary -- I just had no idea what to call that particular stat. I wanted to call it "production at capacity" but I didn't want to confuse it with "production". It might be useful to have a guide of RP terms for certain aspects of the game. -- Dolohov 18 July 2005 23:10 (CEST)
We might even agree to use a more "welcome my lord, I am a servant of your late father's, let me explain a few things" style... --Tom 19 July 2005 17:42 (CEST)
