modwiki talk:Style guide
From modwiki
Contents |
Standards
Should we make some kind of Distinction between "Doom 3" the engine and "Doom 3" the game? I think it can be somewhat confusing if it's just called Doom 3 all throught this wiki.
Also what about abbreviations like D3, Q4. Is this okay?
- --Democritus 05:28, 30 October 2005 (W. Europe Standard Time)
Currently it just says "Doom 3" everywhere.
But those pages really should be edited to specify if it's the game or engine you are talking about, and try to avoid abbreviations unless you feel it is absolutely necessary. --iceheart 10:28, 30 October 2005 (W. Europe Standard Time)
Examples please
"Forward slashes everywhere please, it'll reduce confusion and the risk for errors (since Doom 3 sometimes has "names" with slashes, like materials etc. where reversing them in one place will cause everything to not work)."
I don't get that sentence :) Can someone provide an example of what's ment, please?
Also:
Could we avoid using () in page titles at all? This makes nasty urls in the address bar
--Legshot 15:00, 14 December 2005 (W. Europe Standard Time)
Another Idea
Right on the frontpage there are two mentions of the Doom 3 Engine, and both are different! "Doom 3-engine" and "Doom 3 engine"
Can we have templates for this like here: http://www.modwiki.net/wiki/Help:Game-specific_templates?
Like {{d3}} would always result in "Doom 3" and could even be italic or have a small d3 logo appended to it and maybe also link to an about page (I'm really missing CamelCase in this wiki :/)
Example: Doom 3
--Legshot 15:10, 14 December 2005 (W. Europe Standard Time)
GRAH!!!
I had written a huge answer post to all this but then I accidentially hit back... I'll write it again later... --iceheart 17:47, 14 December 2005 (W. Europe Standard Time)
Thow things
In my effort to give you more things you can try to answer and destroy your text with the back button (firefox saves the text usually so you can get it back when hitting the forward button) here are two more things :)
1) In my opintion the second leve heading doesn't stand out enough and can be overseen easily.
first
second
third
fourth
2) Should we define a default image file format? As mediawiki does not support re-uploading images with a different format (when I updated the editor screenshots I tried to overwrite a .JPG with a .PNG file and got an error).
If so I'm very much for PNG. I get smaller file sizes for screenshots with PNG-8 than with jpg on any quality settings and far better results. Even PNG-24 (which I think is losless) is smaller than jpg at high quality. Sometimes gif images produce better and smaller results than PNG-8 though...
Thoughts?
--Legshot 00:15, 15 December 2005 (W. Europe Standard Time)
Case by Case
I think it's best just to use whatever image format suits the need best rather than declare that all images be a specific format.
--Rich 00:42, 15 December 2005 (W. Europe Standard Time)
Proposal for new section headers
I have a proposal for new section headers:
Instead of this:
Section about Something Q4
{{{1}}}
- The information in this section is specific to Quake 4.
This is a text which holds absolutely no information. This is a text which holds absolutely no information. This is a text which holds absolutely no information. This is a text which holds absolutely no information. This is a text which holds absolutely no information.
I propose this:
==
Testing this Section headerThis is a text which holds absolutely no information. This is a text which holds absolutely no information. This is a text which holds absolutely no information. This is a text which holds absolutely no information. This is a text which holds absolutely no information.
What do you think?
--Legshot 13:05, 15 December 2005 (W. Europe Standard Time)
Sure
It's basically just rearranged, but it looks nicer. Go for it. (But keep the indent on the italic text) --iceheart 15:15, 15 December 2005 (W. Europe Standard Time)
Talk page guidelines
Ok, the style guid tells to add a subject/headline.
That's only good if you start a new topic, but as ppl reply to different topics and their replys maybe won't even be near the topic, it's very hard to keep it together.
Shouldn't we have a standart like wikipedia where you comment to a topic by shifting to the right with : ?
That'd make it a lot clearer.
If you reply with a sub-headline to the original the page-index will also be way too big. --Kissaki 03:29, 24 August 2007 (CEST)
- That's a good call. --Rich 09:49, 24 August 2007 (CEST)
