Talk: Manual of Style

UK or US English

I'd love to hear your opinions about this. I would personally prefer UK, because Team17 is from the UK. Though, I understand that US English is more widely used.

Koenachtig (talk) 16:36, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

It would be better indeed if it were in UK English spelling, but unfortunately everyone here uses US English spelling and may not be used to UK English, and although I know a lot about UK English (or the basics at least), it'd still be a bit of a hassle for me to constantly use UK English since I'm so used to US English, I might even forget and just use US English once again. We'll see what the community says about this.

Boggy B (talk) 21:01, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the UK spelling, as it matches AU spelling in almost every, and that is the spelling I use normally.

PartHunter (talk) 07:06, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Everyone else here uses American English, though...

This may require a lot of debating.

Boggy B (talk) 14:25, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

If the US spelling is chosen, I will use the US spelling, but I am stating that I would prefer the UK spelling. While I will vote that way if it comes to a vote, I will not leave this wiki or reduce the quality of my edits because of a decision either way. This wiki should operate close to a democracy, meaning that everyone votes and everyone gets their opinon, and where the majority votes agains my personal wishes and/or prefrencs, I will accept the decision and move on, unless the decision is one like banning several completly innocent users (which is unlikley anyway). A large quantity of debating is not nessesary, as I do not seek to change anyone's mind and will accept any decision made on this issue. Reguardless of the decision made, the rule about which splling is preferred should be stated as a prefrence and only carry even a warning if the prefrence/rule is broken consistently, severely (spelling changed the other way for parts of an article not having their grammar, spelling [true errors] or content changed [including edits where this is the only purpose of the edit]) or to cause other users to have to change it (clearly/provably, or admited to without duress). The rule/prefrence should not be actively applied to pages in the talk or user pages, reguardless of which way the decision goes.

PartHunter (talk) 06:35, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

I concur. Once again, well said.

Then I suppose we could use American English in the articles if you don't mind. I honestly wouldn't mind we'd have to use British English, it would be better this way since Team17 and their games are British, albeit this may take some time getting used to, which is why I changed my mind and wanted to use US English spelling in the first place. Either way, you are correct that this does not require further disputing if not necessary. We'll see what Koenachtig decides to do.

And yes, these spelling laws most assuredly do not apply to talk pages, Message Walls, user profiles, or anywhere else on the wiki, omitting articles/category pages of course. Users are free to type however they wish as long as it doesn't look "LIEK DIS :D".

Boggy B (talk) 10:28, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

I have changed the rule to "Users are free to use either UK or US English. In case of an editing dispute, UK English will be the preferred kind of English, since the Worms games are developed in the UK. User pages, talk pages and blog posts are excluded from this preference. The writer can choose any kind of English on those pages." I have seen some other wiki's with this rule, and I think it can work out fine.

Wat do you all think?

Koenachtig (talk) 12:00, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me.

Boggy B (talk) 12:09, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me.

PartHunter (talk) 07:04, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Sure, why not?

- Danuhau (talk) 07:06, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Job well done Koen. The rule expresses ways of dealing with disputes while still maintaining freedom. I have no objections. --Orangitu | Talk 13:48, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Rules for specific pages

I think that the rules for specific pages should specify rules about the usage of certain templates, like weapon infobox and the navigational templates for weapons on weapons pages, along with the usage of pictures, audio, videos and the layout of the pages. Rules need to be made for the contents of the category pages, categorisation of pages, pages for games, pages for developers, pages for the rules of the games (like the Turn Time page) and the contents and location of the documentation of how to use templates.

PartHunter (talk) 07:06, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

Not a bad idea.

Boggy B (talk) 14:25, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a nice idea. On the subject of templates, rules certainly need to be made, mostly I think on infoboxes. The weapon infobox for example, I've seen the "Damage" entry in various formats, such as "XX" or "XX HP" or "XX (Direct Damage)", which is a bit messy. --Orangitu | Talk 13:59, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Damage also needs rules about how the damage of multi-shot weapons (like the ballista from worms forts: under siege) should be written in the infobox, along with the format for including damage from clusters (like the cluster bomb) and for many-shot/beam weapons like the minigun and giant laser. Also, the wormpedia section should either have variability to include or be only fortopedia, or have a fortopedia section counterpart.

PartHunter (talk) 10:47, February 10, 2015 (UTC)

How's this? What do you think?

Cheers, Koenachtig (talk) 10:28, February 11, 2015 (UTC)

Capital letters

I would say to write commons nouns such as 'worm', 'sheep' and 'crate' lower case, and game titles upper case, to make it easier to tell the difference between Worms and worms. Again, I'd love to hear your opinions.

Koenachtig (talk) 16:38, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

I do believe they should be capitalized, along with every weapon/utility name. Team17 are indeed inconsistent about this, but since this was done in most (or at least half) of their games, and since it looks better this way (in my opinion), I believe they should be capitalized. Also, I'm certain that the italicization makes the Worm characters and the Worms games distinctive enough.

Boggy B (talk) 21:01, January 20, 2015 (UTC)

The only case where I dissagree with Boggy B is for worm, as the name of the series does not qualify for italics, and is not important enough for bold, so using worm in lowercase for the creatures and uppercase for the series and the games of that name would make each one distinct. Also, the use of worms in relation to the creatures is closest to using the word soldier, as that is what they all are. By the way, the words lowercase and uppercase exist, so using them is better gramatically.

PartHunter (talk) 07:06, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with that too, since "Worm" is intentionally capitalized in a lot of games in the series, half or most of them, and of course the name of the series qualifies for italics too. Why not the name of the series (Worms) and just the games in the series (for example, Worms 4: Mayhem)? I do agree that in this case "soldier" would be like a synonym for "Worm", but "Worm" was capitalized in-game while "soldier" isn't, and "soldier" is not used often, as "Worm" is more commonly used to refer to the Worms in-game. The italicization makes it distinct enough, as I said.

This could be debated, but I won't my change my mind - this is my final answer. I strongly believe we should do it this way, and it's too late to change it since most of the articles on the wiki already have "Worm" capitalized. We'll see what everyone else says, though. Thanks for replying.

Boggy B (talk) 14:25, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

The flaw with italicising the name of the series is that it will then become indistinguisable from the actual name of games that are simply named "Worms", making the determination of which one is meant in some cases based purely on the context (like when it occurs in a direct quote with no hyperlink). Also, the only times when the word worm is used where it does not match very closely with the word soldier is when referring to biological features, and worm is not capitalised in all games, so not capitalising it is not truly incorrect. This debate should end after Boggy B's next reply, unless someone else has a point that has not been mentioned by then that they want to mention, and be used by all to help determine oppinons.

PartHunter (talk) 06:46, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, it is still entire possible to easily distinguish the series from the games simply titled Worms, for instance, Worms (1995) is generally referred to as "original Worms game", while the series is referred to as "the Worms series", which makes it sufficiently distinctive, and obvious to tell what we're referring to by "Worms". Worms (2007) could also be referred to as "remake of the original Worms". Since there are only two games in the series simply titled Worms, this shouldn't be much of a hassle.

Secondly, I believe classes for Worms in the 4th generation games should be capitalized as well, for example, "Scout Worm" instead of "scout Worm" or "scout worm", which don't look good at all. "Soldier Worm" must be capitalized as well. There's also a difference between "Soldier Worm" and "Worm Soldier". Worms of all classes are Worm Soldiers (although there is no need to use "Worm Soldier" in articles). Just wanted to point that out.

Thirdly, not capitalizing "Worm" may not be truly incorrect indeed, but it would be more correct if it were capitalized. I don't see why we shouldn't follow the correct way.

Lastly, this debate should not be closed just yet, I'd like to hear what everyone else has to say. We are obligated to settle this capitalization dispute in order to publish the results on the Manual of Style.

Boggy B (talk) 10:20, January 22, 2015 (UTC)

I would just leave it at using caps; it is so much simpler to state specific things with caps!   P.S. how do you use signature on visual editor??????CoOkIe1164 (talk) 02:32, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

There are two ways to add a signature in the visual editor: type four unbroken tildes (one tilde is ~), and the other is to click the signature button, which is next to the strikethrough button at the top of the editor, just above the area the page itself is edited in. In some cases (like this page), it is advisable to place the signature on a new line, in order to make it slightly easier to find the signature and look neater. P.S. My call for the debate to end was a call for me and Boggy B not to contiue debating it unless there was somthing new to add to the debate, in order to prevent a circular discussion that is not moving anywhere exept where it has already been.

PartHunter (talk) 06:11, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Weapons/utilities section

As you might have seen, I've added this section to the Manual. I have completely removed the usage section, since I find this to be very plaform-specific and not especially usefull. I'd love to hear your opinions about this section of the Manual.

Koenachtig (talk) 09:15, February 2, 2015 (UTC)

As the person who came up with the idea a few years ago, I have no objections. I hadn't really thought of platform and game differences back then, and thinking about it, it's not really any use at all anyway. --Orangitu Talk 12:26, February 2, 2015 (UTC)

Game titles section

I finished the draft of this section. I found it very difficult to come up with something which would suit every game, especially since every article about games is completely different as of now. I left out the part about 'terrain types', which most article do have. I was not sure whether this section is actually good or informative. Is it something reader would want to know? I'd love to hear opinions on this and on the section overall. I'm sure you can come up with things I left out!

Cheers, Koenachtig (talk) 10:07, February 13, 2015 (UTC)

New Sections

There is currently a section about writing game-articles and about writing weapon/utility-articles. Should any more section be added? For missions, possibly? What do you think? Let me know below.

Cheers, Koenachtig (talk) 10:08, February 13, 2015 (UTC)

Trivia location, talk page ettiquete and stub template usage and location

The trivia section needs to have its location within each article type specified within the information of the article, perhaps as a noteat the end of the section above's description, on a seperate line. Also, talk pages should have specific rules about not editing other user's writing in any way, signature placement, indentation and the no swear words, rude, insulting, cruel or otherwise unaccepable content rules generally enforced specifically stated, so that there is absolutely no avoiding appropreate punishment for such behavio by claiming that they had no idea that was unnacceptable. Finally, the general rules part should specify the basic rules on the usage and loccation of the stub template, perhaps with much more details and all minor cases outlined on a seperate page.

PartHunter (talk) 05:57, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, will be done! Do you have any other suggestions before we declare the MoS as finished?

Cheers, Koenachtig (talk) 19:37, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

Two: make sure that it is all in present tense, and make exeptions in the use only third person rule that only appliy for walkthroughs located on walkthrough pages and the various talk page types, userpages and other non-content pages (like the blog posts and forum pages).

PartHunter (talk) 05:35, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll notify everyone before declaring it as complete. 

Cheers, Koenachtig (talk) 21:06, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Completion

There's a few things left if I recall correctly... The templates-guidelines, for example. Though they may need to go on a different page.

If everyone agrees on the completion of the MoS, then we can 'activate' it, and we can start working on implementation!

So let's hear it everyone, do you consider the MoS as done?

Cheers, Koenachtig (talk) 16:47, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

If template guidelines were to be seperated into a seperate article, they should be placed in the documentation page (template:example would have it at template:example/doc) of the templates they are for. The only thing about it that I think is incomplete is including a place for the trivia section of a mission page. Placing that in would make me vote that it is complete, but I vote that it is incomplete until then.

PartHunter (talk) 07:25, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

How does this look?

Koenachtig (talk) 18:03, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

I vote that it is complete, but suggest that the two "====" (found at the start of the mission tivia section's text and just after the stub template at the bottom of the page) get removed from the page.

PartHunter (talk) 04:52, March 20, 2015 (UTC)

Since no other responses have come in, I will hereby declare the MoS as completed. This does not mean that no changes can/will be made in the future. The talk page can always be used to discuss the content and suggest changes. The MoS will remain unprotected unless urgent reasons occur which will make us want to protect it (which will be unlikely).

Cheers, --Koenachtig (talk) 09:53, March 25, 2015 (UTC)