See something you'd like to change or add, but you've never edited an open encyclopædia before? This overview was written to help absolute beginners get started.

aSK talk:Style manual

From A Storehouse of Knowledge
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

'See also' sections

I can't seem to find what the policy is for including "See Also" sections in articles, linking to relevant pages? Tealish 05:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You can (a) propose a policy, and/or (b) do what you think best until a policy is established. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 05:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too experienced with wikis and what's best for them, so I'll leave the proposals up to the vets. I'll only say that there is potential for the "See Also" sections to run too long. Perhaps an established limit on the number of items in this section is needed? Not sure. (Oh what do you know, that's a proposal!) For the appearance, I've just done it per WP's layout. Tealish 08:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, there you go—you had it in you and didn't realise! Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 09:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Scriptural versions

There are a lot of scriptural quotations. Is there a preferred translation? I prefer NRSV myself, but I realize that NIV is often the preferred translation among evangelicals, if not the KJV. CorryTalk 20:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I use (and like) the NIV, and when RefTagger is (eventually) installed, I plan on setting it to use the NIV by default. I don't like the AV (KJV) despite being brought up on it simply because of the archaic language, with many terms it uses no longer being properly understood today. However, I'm not going to dictate what individual editors use in individual cases. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. The KJV is good for dramatic punch sometimes, but from a textual criticism standpoint it has serious problems. CorryTalk 04:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I love the KJV as literature, but we should use an up-to-date translation for an encyclopedia. JustSimon 18:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I would probably lean towards the TNIV these days. The ESV is another good one.—Supt. of Printing 10:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Stub template

  • I'd like to propose standardizing placement of the {{stub}} template. So far, I've only seen it at the bottoms of pages, so I'd suggest going with that. -Noether 15:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote templates

So far we have two different quote templates:

{{cquote}}
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean enim. Donec in lectus. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Duis ligula sem, rutrum quis, tempus sed, eleifend sit amet, massa. Suspendisse eu diam. Pellentesque malesuada auctor elit. Aenean gravida aliquam turpis. Cras consequat convallis turpis. Donec hendrerit pellentesque diam. Aenean porta orci eu urna. Morbi turpis ipsum, lobortis a, pharetra vitae, condimentum a, ante. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Nullam placerat ligula in risus. Ut elementum ornare turpis.
{{quote}}

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean enim. Donec in lectus. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Duis ligula sem, rutrum quis, tempus sed, eleifend sit amet, massa. Suspendisse eu diam. Pellentesque malesuada auctor elit. Aenean gravida aliquam turpis. Cras consequat convallis turpis. Donec hendrerit pellentesque diam. Aenean porta orci eu urna. Morbi turpis ipsum, lobortis a, pharetra vitae, condimentum a, ante. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Nullam placerat ligula in risus. Ut elementum ornare turpis.

{{cquote}} was originally designed as a "call-out" quote, as magazines use to quote something from the body of the text.

I propose that the style manual specify that this is its use, and that for "normal" quotes, {{quote}} be used instead. I've separately proposed that the style of {{quote}} be altered to be like this:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean enim. Donec in lectus. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Duis ligula sem, rutrum quis, tempus sed, eleifend sit amet, massa. Suspendisse eu diam. Pellentesque malesuada auctor elit. Aenean gravida aliquam turpis. Cras consequat convallis turpis. Donec hendrerit pellentesque diam. Aenean porta orci eu urna. Morbi turpis ipsum, lobortis a, pharetra vitae, condimentum a, ante. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Nullam placerat ligula in risus. Ut elementum ornare turpis.

Any objections?

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 07:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Dashes

The section Introductory Sentences gives an example of an appropriate introductory sentence which includes a range of years, (1923—1994), using an em dash. This is an inappropriate use of an em dash, which is generally used for parenthetical interuption or an abrupt change in thought, and other similar uses. These are usually closed—with no spaces surrounding it—like this, as opposed to open — surrounded by spaces — like this. A range of dates, numbers, places, etc. should use an en dash, either open or closed. I would tend toward open en dashes for showing a range. I propose to change the example referred to above to show it like this: (1923 – 1994).—Supt. of Printing 11:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools

Variants
Actions
visitor navigation
contributor navigation
monitoring
Toolbox