nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 339:
Line 339: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Editing article and talk pages (view source)
Revision as of 01:49, October 16, 2008
, 01:49, October 16, 2008→Birth-Death: The point of posting here.
The Manual of Style itself is only altered by sysops. HelpJazz's suggestion to contact Philip would be your best bet as he seems to have the most active interest. As a general rule, if something isn't confusing or contradictory, then we usually aren't as concerned to see a procedure put in place as part of Andy's original idea was for people not to worry about a lot of formatting rules such as existed on WP. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:27, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
The Manual of Style itself is only altered by sysops. HelpJazz's suggestion to contact Philip would be your best bet as he seems to have the most active interest. As a general rule, if something isn't confusing or contradictory, then we usually aren't as concerned to see a procedure put in place as part of Andy's original idea was for people not to worry about a lot of formatting rules such as existed on WP. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:27, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
:I did ask Philip, and he told me to come here. I'm sorry if I suggested something wrong. I didn't want to complicate things or anything; I just thought it'd be more encyclopedic to have a set structure, rather than have the similar articles look disparate. I'm sorry. I'll just let them as it is. Hope I didn't cause any trouble. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 21:11, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
:I did ask Philip, and he told me to come here. I'm sorry if I suggested something wrong. I didn't want to complicate things or anything; I just thought it'd be more encyclopedic to have a set structure, rather than have the similar articles look disparate. I'm sorry. I'll just let them as it is. Hope I didn't cause any trouble. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 21:11, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
Gentlemen... As LiamG points out, I advised him to come here to put forward a suggestion. True, only sysops can change the Manual of Style, but I'd like to see MoS changes decided by consensus, and this page, not my talk page, is the place to discuss such things.
What I failed to tell LiamG is that very few people seem interested in this side of things, and that posting here is not likely to get much of a result. But it is still the appropriate approach to take, and I was hoping that ''someone'' would at least comment. I didn't comment here myself partly because I didn't have much of an opinion (but see further comments shortly), and partly because I had already commented on my talk page. On my talk page I did suggest the possibility of creating a template for biographies, partly because one thing I don't like is clutter in sentences, such as putting the birth and death dates (and whatever else) in the opening sentence.
I'm disappointed that two other editors have now commented on this page, but not offered any opinion at all about the suggestion. Of course you are not obliged to have opinions, so are not obliged to comment, but given that you did have something to say, perhaps a "I don't see anything wrong with that" comment would have been at least some help.
As for Andy not liking rules as on Wikipedia, my understanding of that is that he is talking about behavioural and dispute-solving rules, not style rules. ''Every'' encyclopaedia, and pretty well every other publication (books, magazines, newspapers, web-sites, etc.) have style rules, whether they produce their own or decide to follow a widely-accepted one such as the Chicago Style Manual (I think it's called). I know from personal experience that the dispute-solving rules on Wikipedia are extensive, contradictory, unclear, and a major nuisance, but the style rules are, for the most part, quite reasonable, accessible, and necessary. That's not to suggest that Andy is personally concerned with style rules; he certainly appears to not be, but that doesn't mean that he has any objection to others producing such rules.
Inconsistency itself can be confusing, so that is reason to be concerned about these rules.
And yes, LiamG, I have suggested to others before that they ask other editors they know to come here and offer their opinions.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:49, 15 October 2008 (EDT)