PostBecause it's a bit starting to annoy me when it comes to editing articles, those that are of the common content group. They're pretty inconsistent with formatting when comparing; Though for some reason, this isn't really a problem for those of Sim, Lot and (I believe) Worlds. Things like objects, simology mechanics and maybe even content pack articles (though there is more than I can list top from my head now). I may give examples later on, but what are your thoughts on this issue? Should sort of protocol/policy regulation for authors to follow a policy when creating new, and even modifying current articles, to at least keep them consistency by looking at examples of articles of the game? DrakonoSkerdikas (talk) 22:54, July 5, 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
I don't understand what you're even proposing here. 74.198.131.130 (talk) 23:12, July 5, 2019 (UTC)
- A discussion of whether article structure format should be implemented. Other wikis seem to follow this suit, but not really this one. I strongly think it should be, like a formal guideline page of sorts catering respectively for different content groups (object, mechanics, expansion packs). What these format will be is another talk-- that is If this proposal of including such possible is gone about doing. DrakonoSkerdikas (talk) 23:21, July 5, 2019 (UTC)
- We already have one. It's called the Manual of Style. We also have something that makes this unnecessary: it's called "common sense". There's no concern with "inconsistency" in articles on more niche topics that require more prose and less templates; just write the content in an organized fashion and use headings when appropriate and when judgement calls. We already have a rigorous layout standard for things like Sim articles. I'm guessing you're getting annoyed over how school isn't like the rest of the wiki. The thing is, articles already follow a standard as they start with an intro section (AKA "lede"), followed by sections divided up by game, followed by more sections as needed. That's a good enough structure, and we don't need to enforce stricter rules on that. Just let well-intentioned editors use their judgement and not have ridiculously long byzantine rules over it. You're honestly getting yourself worked up about issues that are honestly minute and insignificant; readers aren't bothered by "inconsistency" when it's not inconsistent and they get the information they need all the same. 74.198.131.130 (talk) 23:55, July 5, 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see a huge problem with (in)consistency on the wiki. As the comment above this one says, we already have an MOS that covers articles generally, as well as sub-manuals for Sim and game articles. These manuals are long and possibly outdated, but they definitely do exist. Additionally, our articles cover a very wide range of topics, and trying to develop a coherent format and style to apply to all these different kinds of articles would be next to impossible. Aside from that, most differences in organization and formatting between articles come down to differences between individual editors. Everybody writes in their own style; trying to regulate everyone's writing style just takes the fun out of writing and will only drive people off the project.
- Sorry, I just don't see any benefits to strict standards in this area. Maybe if you could give some specific examples, I could see where you're coming from. But as things stand now, it looks like you're complaining about something that is pretty inconsequential. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 00:39, July 6, 2019 (UTC)
- We already have one. It's called the Manual of Style. We also have something that makes this unnecessary: it's called "common sense". There's no concern with "inconsistency" in articles on more niche topics that require more prose and less templates; just write the content in an organized fashion and use headings when appropriate and when judgement calls. We already have a rigorous layout standard for things like Sim articles. I'm guessing you're getting annoyed over how school isn't like the rest of the wiki. The thing is, articles already follow a standard as they start with an intro section (AKA "lede"), followed by sections divided up by game, followed by more sections as needed. That's a good enough structure, and we don't need to enforce stricter rules on that. Just let well-intentioned editors use their judgement and not have ridiculously long byzantine rules over it. You're honestly getting yourself worked up about issues that are honestly minute and insignificant; readers aren't bothered by "inconsistency" when it's not inconsistent and they get the information they need all the same. 74.198.131.130 (talk) 23:55, July 5, 2019 (UTC)