Iron Chariots Wiki talk:Editing guidelines
Can I suggest that we have some sort of guidelines for how we think the best way is to structure things? Examples of this: Target page naming (e.g. Creationist > Creationism), linking to external resources, categories, and so forth. The sooner we get this down, the sooner we can nip errant page organisation in the bud (which I'd probably be guilty of otherwise!) -- Blu Matt 05:26, 1 August 2006 (MST)
- Yes, I'm planning (now that I've mostly finished with Episode 7 of Way of the Master) to rework the front page, the IC introduction page and included editing guidelines on style, structure, formatting....and other stuff. Unfortunately, it may not happen until next week, as I'll be leaving on vacation soon. Some of this information already exists in the admin forums, I just haven't finished incorporating all of it into the wiki pages. Sans Deity 07:07, 1 August 2006 (MST)
- Splendid. Enjoy your holiday. :-) -- Blu Matt 07:18, 1 August 2006 (MST)
Major and minor edits
The rule of thumb I've been using is that a minor edit is one that doesn't change the information in the article. Thus, fixing a bunch of spelling or punctuation errors is a minor edit, but fixing an error of fact (even a small one) is a major edit. Should this be added to the guidelines?
Also, may I suggest adding "DO use the "Preview" and "Show changes" buttons before committing a change"?
--Arensb 06:10, 4 August 2006 (MST)
- I've added those tips.
- I think I should mention that I am often guilty of not checking the "minor edit" box when I should, because I forget details like that when I'm just doing a quick and dirty style fix.
- --Kazim 07:31, 4 August 2006 (MST)
As I've edited various pages I've taken the liberty of changing certain stylistic choices other editors have made, such as removing any space I find after the colon in [[Category:]] links and inserting newlines (blank lines) after ==section headers==. I haven't made a concerted effort to "codify" my opinions on these matters, though, since they don't actually affect the appearance of the article(s). But there is one matter of style that definitely is visible on the page and so really should be decided on and adopted as policy (in my opinion), and that is the choice of capitalization for section headers. We've chosen to use "sentence style" (a.k.a., "downstyle") for page titles; should that convention extend to section headers, as well? I say yes. It looks like a number of other editors would disagree. (Note that Wikipedia tends to use downstyle headers.) What say you? - dcljr 17:53, 26 February 2007 (CST)
- I pretty much trust your instincts on these matters. I think most of the section headers already are sentence style, so it's fine with me if we convert the rest.--Kazim 08:30, 27 February 2007 (CST)
- I think I've been capitalizing section titles, but I think you're right: sentence style keeps things consistent with page titles. --Arensb 10:22, 27 February 2007 (CST)
- Thanks for the quick response. I'll now feel free to change the section headers as I come across them. Not sure I'll make a concerted effort, but maybe.... Oh, and I'll make a note of this in the DOs and DON'Ts on this project page. - dcljr 14:42, 28 February 2007 (CST)
What are we doing here?
As I pointed out elsewhere, in response to recent problems with Ray Comfort related articles, there are four articles that have been "featured" on the Main Page for years now, and all of them are point-by-point refutations of individual works of apologetics (50 reasons to believe in God, The Beauty of a Broken Spirit—Atheism (Way of the Master), Evolution (Way of the Master), and Big Daddy? (Chick tract)). Now Russell (Kazim) apparently thinks we shouldn't be doing this kind of thing anymore. Am I mistaken? What does Matt (Sans Deity) have to say about this? - dcljr 17:59, 21 November 2011 (CST)
- I don’t think the editing guidelines have changed, I think an unwise decision was taken in anger without Kazim or me looking carefully at the articles before deletion. We need to take care that Jdog doesn’t manipulate us into getting angry like that again. Proxima Centauri 01:35, 22 November 2011 (CST)
- I only criticize contributors' work when I find an irrational, incorrect, and/or useless argument has been made. If I find articles that I don't think belong here, I attempt to explain why I believe that's the case. That's it. You argue with me every single time I do so, (understandably) more vehemently if it's your own work, and I respond as necessary to demonstrate my point. I'm sorry if that angers you, but there's no intent to do so and I don't see how your emotional reaction has any bearing on whether I'm correct or not. If you can sufficiently demonstrate that I'm incorrect, I'll happily change my view.
- I understand that you're hurt and angry over having to move the WotM articles to yet another wiki, but trolling me in almost every non-article edit and calling for the WotM articles to be retained here during "a cooling off period" or having wanted your attacks on RC to be restored prior to the RC page being locked for a few days because "a page in transition could be confusing" (it wasn't, Kazim was quite careful to maintain or improve the integrity of the article during the edits) just continues to demonstrate that you're the only one being irrational about this.
- Some articles placed on the wiki may not actually belong here and need removal.
- Some articles placed on the wiki may be poorly written or have poor arguments and need correction.
- The focus of the wiki may change slightly as its purpose is refined, possibly because contributions to it have revealed the need to do so.
- The articles or arguments subject to modification or deletion could belong to any contributor, including yourself.
- Do you dispute any of those four statements? If not, then where is the problem? Jdog 11:41, 22 November 2011 (CST)
- Proxima: Perhaps I read too much into Russell's remarks about moving the WotM articles. I'd appreciate clarification by him on whether he thinks we should be encouraging or discouraging (or neither) point-by-point refutations of individual apologetical works in the future. As a general rule, I would say such articles are clearly "on topic" here, and can be very useful to readers as long as they're "fact-based" and only include enough of a "response" as is necessary to address the unique context(s) in which the arguments are being raised; the rest of the explanation/background can be covered in the articles about the arguments themselves. Surely we can all agree on this recommendation? - dcljr 01:13, 23 November 2011 (CST)