Ultronomicon talk:Editing Essentials - Revision history

Fyzixfighter: Reverted edit of 74.208.11.169, changed back to last version by Fyzixfighter

2007-11-10T05:15:40Z

Reverted edit of 74.208.11.169, changed back to last version by Fyzixfighter

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:15, 10 November 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~mondronn~~
	Now that it's been made clear that we're using general wikipedia neutral voice and all, I still have one question about tenses and timing. From what point in time should we be writing articles? Do we refer to all events in UQM as having already taken place? Example: "The Captain found Earth surrounded by a slave shield." Or from some other temporal point of view? Example: "The Captain will find Earth surrounded by a slave shield." Setting our persepctive to have the entirety of the game in the past makes the most sense to me.		Now that it's been made clear that we're using general wikipedia neutral voice and all, I still have one question about tenses and timing. From what point in time should we be writing articles? Do we refer to all events in UQM as having already taken place? Example: "The Captain found Earth surrounded by a slave shield." Or from some other temporal point of view? Example: "The Captain will find Earth surrounded by a slave shield." Setting our persepctive to have the entirety of the game in the past makes the most sense to me.

74.208.11.169 at 22:42, 9 November 2007

2007-11-09T22:42:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 9 November 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
			mondronn
	Now that it's been made clear that we're using general wikipedia neutral voice and all, I still have one question about tenses and timing. From what point in time should we be writing articles? Do we refer to all events in UQM as having already taken place? Example: "The Captain found Earth surrounded by a slave shield." Or from some other temporal point of view? Example: "The Captain will find Earth surrounded by a slave shield." Setting our persepctive to have the entirety of the game in the past makes the most sense to me.		Now that it's been made clear that we're using general wikipedia neutral voice and all, I still have one question about tenses and timing. From what point in time should we be writing articles? Do we refer to all events in UQM as having already taken place? Example: "The Captain found Earth surrounded by a slave shield." Or from some other temporal point of view? Example: "The Captain will find Earth surrounded by a slave shield." Setting our persepctive to have the entirety of the game in the past makes the most sense to me.

Fyzixfighter: Reverted edit of 69.41.185.180, changed back to last version by Fyzixfighter

2007-10-31T12:56:59Z

Reverted edit of 69.41.185.180, changed back to last version by Fyzixfighter

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:56, 31 October 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~booueltvarel~~
	Now that it's been made clear that we're using general wikipedia neutral voice and all, I still have one question about tenses and timing. From what point in time should we be writing articles? Do we refer to all events in UQM as having already taken place? Example: "The Captain found Earth surrounded by a slave shield." Or from some other temporal point of view? Example: "The Captain will find Earth surrounded by a slave shield." Setting our persepctive to have the entirety of the game in the past makes the most sense to me.		Now that it's been made clear that we're using general wikipedia neutral voice and all, I still have one question about tenses and timing. From what point in time should we be writing articles? Do we refer to all events in UQM as having already taken place? Example: "The Captain found Earth surrounded by a slave shield." Or from some other temporal point of view? Example: "The Captain will find Earth surrounded by a slave shield." Setting our persepctive to have the entirety of the game in the past makes the most sense to me.

Line 24:		Line 23:
	That being the case, I think it's important to have some separation of the two, particularly so that someone can enjoy reading about the SC universe without spoiling the game. Ideally there might be a separate "Topic (spoiler)" page (e.g. "Spathi (spoiler)") where information such as home world coordinates, the story as revealed during SC2, etc. can be put. The main article would have a line such as "For spoiler information, see <nowiki>[[XYZ (spoiler)]]</nowiki>". At the very least, <nowiki>{{spoiler}}</nowiki> text should be placed in all articles which contain spoilers, either at the top or just before the spoilers appear.		That being the case, I think it's important to have some separation of the two, particularly so that someone can enjoy reading about the SC universe without spoiling the game. Ideally there might be a separate "Topic (spoiler)" page (e.g. "Spathi (spoiler)") where information such as home world coordinates, the story as revealed during SC2, etc. can be put. The main article would have a line such as "For spoiler information, see <nowiki>[[XYZ (spoiler)]]</nowiki>". At the very least, <nowiki>{{spoiler}}</nowiki> text should be placed in all articles which contain spoilers, either at the top or just before the spoilers appear.

	On another note, some consensus should probably be reached about whether or not information from SC3 (aka the Th		On another note, some consensus should probably be reached about whether or not information from SC3 (aka the Third One) is valid or not, particularly when giving information about the SC2 races which does not appear until SC3 (the nature of the Precursors comes to mind as a potentially controversial issue...).
	~~1000~~
	~~ird~~ One) is valid or not, particularly when giving information about the SC2 races which does not appear until SC3 (the nature of the Precursors comes to mind as a potentially controversial issue...).
	-- [[User:Jacius\|Jacius]] 09:10, 10 Oct 2004 (CEST)		-- [[User:Jacius\|Jacius]] 09:10, 10 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Line 55:		Line 52:

	I don't agree with a 'spoiler' and a 'spoiler-free' section. As I said before, having a regular section with a spoiler-free annex would probably work the best. The point of the regular section isn't to expressly contain spoilers- it's just that information there might 'spoil' parts of the game for someone.		I don't agree with a 'spoiler' and a 'spoiler-free' section. As I said before, having a regular section with a spoiler-free annex would probably work the best. The point of the regular section isn't to expressly contain spoilers- it's just that information there might 'spoil' parts of the game for someone.
	I also disagree with the use of {{spoiler}}. I think that we should have a ~~noti~~		I also disagree with the use of {{spoiler}}. I think that we should have a notice telling readers to assume that articles may contain spoilers unless they are browsing in the spoiler-free section. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 06:26, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)
	~~1000~~
	ce telling readers to assume that articles may contain spoilers unless they are browsing in the spoiler-free section. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 06:26, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)

	----		----
Line 90:		Line 85:
	[[User:Mmrnmhrm\|Mmrnmhrm]] 22:18, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)		[[User:Mmrnmhrm\|Mmrnmhrm]] 22:18, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)

	That's an excellent point. Marking safe links is definitely the way to go.		That's an excellent point. Marking safe links is definitely the way to go. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]]
	~~1000~~
	-[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]]

	Why mark every safe page when it is enough to just let the reader know when he/she is leaving the safe zone?		Why mark every safe page when it is enough to just let the reader know when he/she is leaving the safe zone?

69.41.185.180 at 08:29, 31 October 2007

2007-10-31T08:29:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:29, 31 October 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
			booueltvarel
	Now that it's been made clear that we're using general wikipedia neutral voice and all, I still have one question about tenses and timing. From what point in time should we be writing articles? Do we refer to all events in UQM as having already taken place? Example: "The Captain found Earth surrounded by a slave shield." Or from some other temporal point of view? Example: "The Captain will find Earth surrounded by a slave shield." Setting our persepctive to have the entirety of the game in the past makes the most sense to me.		Now that it's been made clear that we're using general wikipedia neutral voice and all, I still have one question about tenses and timing. From what point in time should we be writing articles? Do we refer to all events in UQM as having already taken place? Example: "The Captain found Earth surrounded by a slave shield." Or from some other temporal point of view? Example: "The Captain will find Earth surrounded by a slave shield." Setting our persepctive to have the entirety of the game in the past makes the most sense to me.

Line 23:		Line 24:
	That being the case, I think it's important to have some separation of the two, particularly so that someone can enjoy reading about the SC universe without spoiling the game. Ideally there might be a separate "Topic (spoiler)" page (e.g. "Spathi (spoiler)") where information such as home world coordinates, the story as revealed during SC2, etc. can be put. The main article would have a line such as "For spoiler information, see <nowiki>[[XYZ (spoiler)]]</nowiki>". At the very least, <nowiki>{{spoiler}}</nowiki> text should be placed in all articles which contain spoilers, either at the top or just before the spoilers appear.		That being the case, I think it's important to have some separation of the two, particularly so that someone can enjoy reading about the SC universe without spoiling the game. Ideally there might be a separate "Topic (spoiler)" page (e.g. "Spathi (spoiler)") where information such as home world coordinates, the story as revealed during SC2, etc. can be put. The main article would have a line such as "For spoiler information, see <nowiki>[[XYZ (spoiler)]]</nowiki>". At the very least, <nowiki>{{spoiler}}</nowiki> text should be placed in all articles which contain spoilers, either at the top or just before the spoilers appear.

	On another note, some consensus should probably be reached about whether or not information from SC3 (aka the ~~Third~~ One) is valid or not, particularly when giving information about the SC2 races which does not appear until SC3 (the nature of the Precursors comes to mind as a potentially controversial issue...).		On another note, some consensus should probably be reached about whether or not information from SC3 (aka the Th
			1000
			ird One) is valid or not, particularly when giving information about the SC2 races which does not appear until SC3 (the nature of the Precursors comes to mind as a potentially controversial issue...).
	-- [[User:Jacius\|Jacius]] 09:10, 10 Oct 2004 (CEST)		-- [[User:Jacius\|Jacius]] 09:10, 10 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Line 52:		Line 55:

	I don't agree with a 'spoiler' and a 'spoiler-free' section. As I said before, having a regular section with a spoiler-free annex would probably work the best. The point of the regular section isn't to expressly contain spoilers- it's just that information there might 'spoil' parts of the game for someone.		I don't agree with a 'spoiler' and a 'spoiler-free' section. As I said before, having a regular section with a spoiler-free annex would probably work the best. The point of the regular section isn't to expressly contain spoilers- it's just that information there might 'spoil' parts of the game for someone.
	I also disagree with the use of {{spoiler}}. I think that we should have a ~~notice~~ telling readers to assume that articles may contain spoilers unless they are browsing in the spoiler-free section. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 06:26, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)		I also disagree with the use of {{spoiler}}. I think that we should have a noti
			1000
			ce telling readers to assume that articles may contain spoilers unless they are browsing in the spoiler-free section. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 06:26, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)

	----		----
Line 85:		Line 90:
	[[User:Mmrnmhrm\|Mmrnmhrm]] 22:18, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)		[[User:Mmrnmhrm\|Mmrnmhrm]] 22:18, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)

	That's an excellent point. Marking safe links is definitely the way to go. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]]		That's an excellent point. Marking safe links is definitely the way to go.
			1000
			-[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]]

	Why mark every safe page when it is enough to just let the reader know when he/she is leaving the safe zone?		Why mark every safe page when it is enough to just let the reader know when he/she is leaving the safe zone?

Fyzixfighter: Reverted edit of 195.189.72.54, changed back to last version by Fyzixfighter

2007-06-18T14:38:00Z

Reverted edit of 195.189.72.54, changed back to last version by Fyzixfighter

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:38, 18 June 2007
Line 23:		Line 23:
	That being the case, I think it's important to have some separation of the two, particularly so that someone can enjoy reading about the SC universe without spoiling the game. Ideally there might be a separate "Topic (spoiler)" page (e.g. "Spathi (spoiler)") where information such as home world coordinates, the story as revealed during SC2, etc. can be put. The main article would have a line such as "For spoiler information, see <nowiki>[[XYZ (spoiler)]]</nowiki>". At the very least, <nowiki>{{spoiler}}</nowiki> text should be placed in all articles which contain spoilers, either at the top or just before the spoilers appear.		That being the case, I think it's important to have some separation of the two, particularly so that someone can enjoy reading about the SC universe without spoiling the game. Ideally there might be a separate "Topic (spoiler)" page (e.g. "Spathi (spoiler)") where information such as home world coordinates, the story as revealed during SC2, etc. can be put. The main article would have a line such as "For spoiler information, see <nowiki>[[XYZ (spoiler)]]</nowiki>". At the very least, <nowiki>{{spoiler}}</nowiki> text should be placed in all articles which contain spoilers, either at the top or just before the spoilers appear.

	On another note, some consensus should probably be reached about whether or not information from SC3 (aka the Th		On another note, some consensus should probably be reached about whether or not information from SC3 (aka the Third One) is valid or not, particularly when giving information about the SC2 races which does not appear until SC3 (the nature of the Precursors comes to mind as a potentially controversial issue...).
	~~1000~~
	~~ird~~ One) is valid or not, particularly when giving information about the SC2 races which does not appear until SC3 (the nature of the Precursors comes to mind as a potentially controversial issue...).
	-- [[User:Jacius\|Jacius]] 09:10, 10 Oct 2004 (CEST)		-- [[User:Jacius\|Jacius]] 09:10, 10 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Line 54:		Line 52:

	I don't agree with a 'spoiler' and a 'spoiler-free' section. As I said before, having a regular section with a spoiler-free annex would probably work the best. The point of the regular section isn't to expressly contain spoilers- it's just that information there might 'spoil' parts of the game for someone.		I don't agree with a 'spoiler' and a 'spoiler-free' section. As I said before, having a regular section with a spoiler-free annex would probably work the best. The point of the regular section isn't to expressly contain spoilers- it's just that information there might 'spoil' parts of the game for someone.
	I also disagree with the use of {{spoiler}}. I think that we should have a ~~noti~~		I also disagree with the use of {{spoiler}}. I think that we should have a notice telling readers to assume that articles may contain spoilers unless they are browsing in the spoiler-free section. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 06:26, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)
	~~1000~~
	ce telling readers to assume that articles may contain spoilers unless they are browsing in the spoiler-free section. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 06:26, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)

	----		----
Line 89:		Line 85:
	[[User:Mmrnmhrm\|Mmrnmhrm]] 22:18, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)		[[User:Mmrnmhrm\|Mmrnmhrm]] 22:18, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)

	That's an excellent point. Marking safe links is definitely the way to go.		That's an excellent point. Marking safe links is definitely the way to go. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]]
	~~1000~~
	-[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]]

	Why mark every safe page when it is enough to just let the reader know when he/she is leaving the safe zone?		Why mark every safe page when it is enough to just let the reader know when he/she is leaving the safe zone?

195.189.72.54 at 10:28, 18 June 2007

2007-06-18T10:28:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:28, 18 June 2007
Line 23:		Line 23:
	That being the case, I think it's important to have some separation of the two, particularly so that someone can enjoy reading about the SC universe without spoiling the game. Ideally there might be a separate "Topic (spoiler)" page (e.g. "Spathi (spoiler)") where information such as home world coordinates, the story as revealed during SC2, etc. can be put. The main article would have a line such as "For spoiler information, see <nowiki>[[XYZ (spoiler)]]</nowiki>". At the very least, <nowiki>{{spoiler}}</nowiki> text should be placed in all articles which contain spoilers, either at the top or just before the spoilers appear.		That being the case, I think it's important to have some separation of the two, particularly so that someone can enjoy reading about the SC universe without spoiling the game. Ideally there might be a separate "Topic (spoiler)" page (e.g. "Spathi (spoiler)") where information such as home world coordinates, the story as revealed during SC2, etc. can be put. The main article would have a line such as "For spoiler information, see <nowiki>[[XYZ (spoiler)]]</nowiki>". At the very least, <nowiki>{{spoiler}}</nowiki> text should be placed in all articles which contain spoilers, either at the top or just before the spoilers appear.

	On another note, some consensus should probably be reached about whether or not information from SC3 (aka the ~~Third~~ One) is valid or not, particularly when giving information about the SC2 races which does not appear until SC3 (the nature of the Precursors comes to mind as a potentially controversial issue...).		On another note, some consensus should probably be reached about whether or not information from SC3 (aka the Th
			1000
			ird One) is valid or not, particularly when giving information about the SC2 races which does not appear until SC3 (the nature of the Precursors comes to mind as a potentially controversial issue...).
	-- [[User:Jacius\|Jacius]] 09:10, 10 Oct 2004 (CEST)		-- [[User:Jacius\|Jacius]] 09:10, 10 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Line 52:		Line 54:

	I don't agree with a 'spoiler' and a 'spoiler-free' section. As I said before, having a regular section with a spoiler-free annex would probably work the best. The point of the regular section isn't to expressly contain spoilers- it's just that information there might 'spoil' parts of the game for someone.		I don't agree with a 'spoiler' and a 'spoiler-free' section. As I said before, having a regular section with a spoiler-free annex would probably work the best. The point of the regular section isn't to expressly contain spoilers- it's just that information there might 'spoil' parts of the game for someone.
	I also disagree with the use of {{spoiler}}. I think that we should have a ~~notice~~ telling readers to assume that articles may contain spoilers unless they are browsing in the spoiler-free section. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 06:26, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)		I also disagree with the use of {{spoiler}}. I think that we should have a noti
			1000
			ce telling readers to assume that articles may contain spoilers unless they are browsing in the spoiler-free section. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]] 06:26, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)

	----		----
Line 85:		Line 89:
	[[User:Mmrnmhrm\|Mmrnmhrm]] 22:18, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)		[[User:Mmrnmhrm\|Mmrnmhrm]] 22:18, 15 Oct 2004 (CEST)

	That's an excellent point. Marking safe links is definitely the way to go. -[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]]		That's an excellent point. Marking safe links is definitely the way to go.
			1000
			-[[User:Fadookie\|Fadookie]]

	Why mark every safe page when it is enough to just let the reader know when he/she is leaving the safe zone?		Why mark every safe page when it is enough to just let the reader know when he/she is leaving the safe zone?

Fyzixfighter: Reverted edit of 218.28.14.73, changed back to last version by Jacius

2006-06-28T22:09:11Z

Reverted edit of 218.28.14.73, changed back to last version by Jacius

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:09, 28 June 2006
Line 65:		Line 65:

	----		----
	~~91323588634868451799590~~

	== Another two cents ==		== Another two cents ==

218.28.14.73: /* suggestion for annexation */

2006-06-28T18:16:02Z

suggestion for annexation

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:16, 28 June 2006
Line 65:		Line 65:

	----		----
			91323588634868451799590

	== Another two cents ==		== Another two cents ==

Jacius: Capitalization convention

2004-10-16T00:57:13Z

Capitalization convention

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:57, 16 October 2004
Line 92:		Line 92:

	[[User:Jacius\|Jacius]] says: It's only necessary to mark links going from a safe page to a non-safe page. Links to other safe pages are still safe, and no one cares if a page is safe or not if they are coming from a non-safe page. Because of the presumably small number of safe pages, it will be easy to quickly check that all unsafe links on safe pages are marked. Regarding a <nowiki>{{safe}}</nowiki> template: good idea! It makes a lot of sense to put a template on the type of pages that are rare, rather than the type that are common! I'd tell you how to make a template, but I wouldn't want to... spoil it for you ;) (just don't forget to make the template add the page to a category, perhaps "Nonspoilers" or "Safe Pages") If there are no objections, I think this should be mentioned in the "Editing Policy of Now and Forever" so that no one will forget what happened this day! :D is bopped on the head		[[User:Jacius\|Jacius]] says: It's only necessary to mark links going from a safe page to a non-safe page. Links to other safe pages are still safe, and no one cares if a page is safe or not if they are coming from a non-safe page. Because of the presumably small number of safe pages, it will be easy to quickly check that all unsafe links on safe pages are marked. Regarding a <nowiki>{{safe}}</nowiki> template: good idea! It makes a lot of sense to put a template on the type of pages that are rare, rather than the type that are common! I'd tell you how to make a template, but I wouldn't want to... spoil it for you ;) (just don't forget to make the template add the page to a category, perhaps "Nonspoilers" or "Safe Pages") If there are no objections, I think this should be mentioned in the "Editing Policy of Now and Forever" so that no one will forget what happened this day! :D is bopped on the head

			== Capitalization convention ==

			I've noticed that many articles have capitalized words in (not just at the beginning of) their titles. I believe Wikipedia policy is to always capitalize the first word (this is pretty much automatic by the software), but only capitalize later words if they are proper nouns (or part of a proper noun). For example, [[Super Integrated Starship]] and [[Alliance of Free Stars]] are good, but [[List of Mineral Types]] is not good. The main reason for this is that if you want to put a link in mid-sentence, it looks weird to have some words capitalized, and you have to type twice as much per link to get it in lower case via labelling. Just a heads up to try to keep them lower case where appropriate. --[[User:Jacius\|Jacius]] 02:57, 16 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Jacius: Only safe-to-nonsafe links need to be marked; safe template is a good idea; I am silly

2004-10-15T22:30:14Z

Only safe-to-nonsafe links need to be marked; safe template is a good idea; I am silly

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:30, 15 October 2004
Line 79:		Line 79:
	== More agreeing and a different suggestion ==		== More agreeing and a different suggestion ==

	With the small number of pages that will be spoiler free I think the logical choice would be to have a {{safe}} template marking all the safe pages, and to make it clear (on the main page) that anything else carries no guarantee what-so-ever about keeping the mystery. Encylopedia aren't really about mysteries. Marking all spoiler links is significantly harder than marking the safe links because the former are so much more rare.		With the small number of pages that will be spoiler free I think the logical choice would be to have a <nowiki>{{safe}}</nowiki> template marking all the safe pages, and to make it clear (on the main page) that anything else carries no guarantee what-so-ever about keeping the mystery. Encylopedia aren't really about mysteries. Marking all spoiler links is significantly harder than marking the safe links because the former are so much more rare.

	And now I'm off to learn templates so I can enforce my doctrine ;)		And now I'm off to learn templates so I can enforce my doctrine ;)
Line 90:		Line 90:

	Also, it may be possible to give safe and unsafe pages a different background color. It would mean that all pages would have to be marked though.		Also, it may be possible to give safe and unsafe pages a different background color. It would mean that all pages would have to be marked though.

			[[User:Jacius\|Jacius]] says: It's only necessary to mark links going from a safe page to a non-safe page. Links to other safe pages are still safe, and no one cares if a page is safe or not if they are coming from a non-safe page. Because of the presumably small number of safe pages, it will be easy to quickly check that all unsafe links on safe pages are marked. Regarding a <nowiki>{{safe}}</nowiki> template: good idea! It makes a lot of sense to put a template on the type of pages that are rare, rather than the type that are common! I'd tell you how to make a template, but I wouldn't want to... spoil it for you ;) (just don't forget to make the template add the page to a category, perhaps "Nonspoilers" or "Safe Pages") If there are no objections, I think this should be mentioned in the "Editing Policy of Now and Forever" so that no one will forget what happened this day! :D is bopped on the head