CAGwiki talk:Manual of Style

From CAGwiki

Contents 1 Handing links to the CAG forums 2 Format for shortcuts 3 List of links 4 Categories and subcategories 5 NPOV?

Handing links to the CAG forums

Should we handle links to CAG forum threads included at the end of a page by putting them in a See also section (generally used for links to other pages within the wiki) or in the External links section? Or we could put them in a special section CAG threads as evilmax did on the Yard sale guide page. wubb (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2006 (EDT)

CAG Threads seems to work well. Perhaps external links should be reserved for links external to anything CAG-related. Radjago 22:54, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

I like the idea of not having them lumped into External links. Maybe we should use "CAG forum links" as not everything we link to on the main CAG site would necessarily be a forum thread. wubb (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

Format for shortcuts

On Wikipedia there are shortcuts to most major pages in the Wikipedia: space. (Such as Wikipedia:Request articles or Wikipedia:Manual of Style.) They are in the format WP:RA, WP:MOS, etc. What do we want to use for CAGwiki shortcuts in place of WP? CW or ? Input appreciated here as I'd like to begin creating some shortcuts. wubb (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

I like CW. CAGW would work too, I suppose, but it's a bit longer. Wet Ninja 21:59, 6 June 2006 (EDT)

I've gone with CW as the prefix for CAGwiki namespace pages. wubb (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

List of links

When we're listing links at the end of an article, how should we list them? Should we separate them by two line breaks, or by using the asterick symbol to create a list:

List 1
List Item 1

List Item 2

List 2

• List Item 1
• List Item 2

Compare the See also sections of List of Player's Choice games (Game Boy Advance) and List of Player's Choice games (GameCube).

Which style should we use? Wet Ninja 21:53, 8 June 2006 (EDT)

We should list using the asterisk. I'm pretty confident on this one. wubb (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2006 (EDT)

Yeah, I vote for that style too. Wet Ninja (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2006 (EDT)

Categories and subcategories

If an article or category belongs to a subcategory of a higher category, can it also belong to the higher category? Or, should we let the relationship be indirect? For example, the Xbox category is a subcategory of the Microsoft category. The Microsoft category is a subcategory of the Gaming category. Should the Xbox category also be a subcategory of the Gaming category? It's already indirectly a subcategory through the Microsoft category. Wet Ninja (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

I think it makes more sense to categorize every article/category to the fullest extent. It'll make items easier to find, and can provide a better sense of organization (though it could also be considered a complete mess too, depending on how you look at it). One of the goals of the wiki it for it to be useful, and that means making it as convenient/easy as possible for anyone to find an article no matter what link they click on, or form they search through. --hack 03:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

NPOV?

Wikipedia has a fairly strong NPOV policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). Do we want to pursue that line of thinking? I mean most of us have been around the 'dealing spree for a while and have learned things that we might not be able to cite. Any official policy on this?