HRWiki talk:Manual of Style

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Overlap with Standards

Well, I've gotten the ball rolling. Some of the information from HRWiki:Standards should be copied or moved to this page. — It's dot com 23:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] West Is Ellipsis

Actually, according to the Chicago Manual of Style (see halfway down the page), ellipses should have spaces before as well as after. Ellipsis does concede that "some write ellipses without spaces," though. I was just wondering, is there a particular standard we base the wiki's on? I know journalists play by a slightly different set of rules on a lot of issues; is that what we're using, since a wiki is somewhat a journalistic entity? —: AbdiViklas 03:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this, and as far... as I know... we write ellipses... without spaces before them... in most cases... --Jay (Talk) 03:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
When I did stuff with journalism way back in the day ... ellipses ... were like ... this. As opposed . . . to a more English-papery . . . way of doing them, or...this. Just..............my two cents.Spell4yr 05:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Ellipses... with spaces? I've never... heard of such a thing. And try reading... this conversation with... the implied pauses. It's... hilarious. --Dorian... Gray
If you were publishing a book . . . this . . . with spaces everywhere . . . is how you would make . . . an ellipsis. But that isn't necessary here, and it could cause bad line breaks. If we're using the ellipsis to actually indicate omitted words, then ... this ... with the space before and after but not internally ... would be fine. If we're indicating a pause... or trailing off... then it looks better... without the space before. No spaces at all...just looks...silly. It's... Dot com 16:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Dot Dot Dot Elcool (talk)(contribs) 17:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
On a side note, following up the journalistic idea, the bad line break reason is why most journalistic stylebooks wage against the usage of . . . (in favor of ... and it was fun proving my English teacher/newspaper advisor wrong on that; he thought it was . . . for newspapers too). It's how I've become accustomed to using my ellipses, no matter the reason for it. But I can see the argument for... but not...at all.Spell4yr 17:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Newspapers get so many things wrong when it comes to style that I can hardly stand to read them. They try to squeeze as much as they can into as small space as they can, and they will therefore sacrifice accuracy for brevity. So don't get me started on that. I happen to be in the publishing business, and A Dictionary of Modern American Usage and The Chicago Manual of Style are two of my best working companions as I edit the magazine that we print each month. To solve the problem of bad line breaks caused by the internal spaces, I use nonbreaking spaces. I suppose we could do that, too (like this: ". . ."), but that seems overly pedantic. — It's dot com 17:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I see. Understood. (The indentation on my previous reply was correct, by the way -- I'm not reverting the formatting back, but it was more of a reply to you than to Under Construction, though that is quite possibly the best. Usage of ellipses. EVER. Spell4yr 17:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
So it sounds like we're agreed on.... However, do we also maintain that full sentences should end with four, as I just did (period plus ellipsis)? —AbdiViklas 19:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The thing is... we almost never use literal ellipsis points. By that I mean, relatively speaking, we rarely have the need to quote something and leave out part of it. In those cases, I still think that the space before is appropriate: "Do you take your wrestling mask ... off before you go to bed?" The period-plus-ellipsis-points variety (typographically identical to four periods and used when the previous sentence is complete) would be even rarer. We just don't quote that much stuff. Most often we use them as a suspension... to indicate a pause. I personally think the subtlety of the four version versus the three version would be lost on most people and not worth the effort to fix them. By the way, this discussion has taken on a life of its own, and seems to be a bona fide standards conversation. Should it be moved to HRWiki talk:Standards? — It's dot com 19:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps those who feel most passionate about these style issues would like to collaborate on an official HRWiki Style Guide defining what to do in these types of arbitrary grammar/spelling situations. I'd love to see something like that come into existence alongside our Standards. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 22:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation marks

As long as we're hashing out these things, I've noticed some disparity or just plain uncertainty about when to put punctuation inside "quotation marks," and when to put it "outside". I've gotten pretty confused on this myself. I used think I had a handle on the situation, and it was just (Brian Regan impression) "punctuation inside the quotation marks... always." But obviously there are situations that would make that impossible or nonsensical; if I'm writing an exclamatory sentence and quote a line that doesn't end with an exclamation mark, you'd better believe it would be "Do you use them for good or for awesome?"! I don't have any manuals of style, except for MLA in a box in a closet, which I find unhelpful for these sorts of things anyway. Perhaps you could fill us in, It's dot com?

It seems to me the tendency here seems to heavy on putting punctuation outside; I wonder whether sometimes it actually goes too far. —AbdiViklas 01:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

While I don't actually know the answer, I can't help responding to this. I think the rule is punctuation inside the quotation marks on weekends and holidays, and all throughout May, and you'll always be wrong no matter what you say! I gather from what's on the page now that it only goes outside of the quotes if you're quoting a single word or phrase that you would put finger quotes around if you were speaking, but what do I know? small_logo.pngUsername-talk 01:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm in the publishing business. As part of that, I am a copyeditor of a magazine. Our policy where I work is (AbdiViklas impression) "punctuation inside the quotation marks... always." Here on the wiki... I don't know whether it's the default font, or what, but it just looks wrong sometimes. We certainly don't have a standard, and in my opinion we don't need one. That's why I left it open on the project page (which is, in turn, based on some comments I wrote on the FAQ a while ago). — It's dot com 02:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'm pretty sure I know the "official rules": In British English, you put the punctuation inside quotes if the punctuation belongs with the thing inside the quotes. E.g.: "What are you doing?" But you put it outside if the punctuation goes with something that's not entirely in the quotes. E.g.: Did you just say, "doyng"? But in academic American English, you put the punctuation inside no matter what, including when it makes no sense. For example: Did you just say "doyng?" Here, the question mark applies to the sentence, not the "doyng" in quotes, but you still put it inside. But this really makes no sense, and Americans outside academic circles are abandoning this practice and punctuating like the Brits. From what I've seen in the past, I think the Wiki has thus far also preferred to go like the Brits on this one. (Read the Chicago Manual of Style for more info.) Hope that I helped! Heimstern Läufer 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure which academics you've been cavorting with, but American style places the question mark outside quotations to which it does not belong (Chicago Manual of Style § 5.28, at 164 (14th ed.)). So here, just like in the old country, it's: Did you just say "doyng"? Where the two styles differ applies to periods and commas and whether to start with double quotes or single quotes. — It's dot com 02:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
In reply to SHSRTU: Ah, another Brian Regan fan! That guy cracks me up! Cracks! Me! Up!
In continuation of discussion: I have a vague recollection of seeing some quasi-official source validate the above concept, of putting the punctuation outside quotes when it's part of a sentiment that doesn't belong to the quote. [After edit conflict: okay, maybe the Chicago Manual] E.g. on the current More Fan Costumes: I said "S and more different S"! However, down in Fun Facts, the sentences ending in "collection" and "wing" put it inside. On the other hand, we have Strong Bad refers to his head as "husky", despite. ... That's the sort that I might have put inside. (And by the way, back to ellipses; what I just did—". ..."—is what this page currently recommends, but would "... ." make more sense in this case?) One more thing: doesn't pretty much every system put semicolons outside quotation marks? If so we should note that. —AbdiViklas 02:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
On the period-plus-ellipsis-versus-ellipsis-plus-period question, I would omit the internal space in that case. Even the style books don't insist on splitting hairs, though (Chicago Manual of Style § 10.55, at 373 (14th ed.); but see also A Dictionary of Modern American Usage "quote", at 552 (1st ed.), where it insists that the hairs should rightly be split). As for semicolons, you're right. They go outside the quotation marks in both styles if they don't belong to the quote. We could note that, but I thought that this page would illustrate our house style; it should only mention English rules when it differs from established styles. — It's dot com 02:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I updated the project page, but I'll bet this situation doesn't come up all that often. — It's dot com
In reply to HSRusername: That "finger quotes" bit is perfect. Not that it should be on the page that way, but it completely captures what I was thinking. — It's dot com 02:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, you're right. I forgot to think. The question mark does always go outside. So just go read what I said and make them all statements with periods at the end! (Trying too hard to come up with a funny quote.) Heimstern Läufer 06:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC) P.S.: Chicago Manual of Style p. 242-243.

I filled in my citations above. — It's dot com

[edit] Email in filmography

Some filmographies use email tags, like this:

While others don't.

We should aim for consistency. So which one should we use? I prefer using the email tag, myself. - Joshua

Quite a few of them already use the email label in front of them. It's only natural that we keep it. The job may be quite tedious, but since GrapeNuts is on hiatus, we'll need to crack down on it ourselves. — Lapper (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I would think it could help for disambig purposes, e.g. marzipan. —AbdiViklas 02:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm in favor of the label. I don't know quite how this manual of style is going to shape up, but we could have sections on how to do this or that—how to do a filmography, for example. And like I said at the top of this page, some things from the standards page are probably going to need to be moved (or at least copied) here. — It's dot com 02:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
So this is now the proper way to do fimlographies:


(Taken from The Moon) In chronological order, of course. - Joshua 03:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More maintenance

I was wondering if it would be wise to make links between this page, HRWiki:Standards, HRWiki:List of common misspellings etc. Also, I wondered if there might be some good in making a list of commonly confused words, since this doesn't seem to be covered in the list of common misspellings. I'm talking about things like its-it's, effect-affect, descent-dissent etc. If other people think it's a good idea, I'll start work on it. Heimstern Läufer 19:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This project is currently a stub. A lot of work needs to be done on it. It does need links to/from other maintenance articles, and (like I have said above) some content should even be moved here from there. By all means, update this page as you see fit, based on your observations of what our current style is. That is, if you notice that we always do something a particular way, then it should go on the project page. This talk page is (among other things) to discuss changes to our style or to clarify it. — It's dot com 19:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I guess the reason I asked about it is that I don't feel like I've really got a grasp on what our style is for this sort of thing. I guess I'll just take as good a stab at it as I can and some of you can see if it looks right. Heimstern Läufer 19:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] stub?

To me, this does not seem like a stub. — talk Bubsty edits 21:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It is, though. Perhaps you should read the previous thread. — It's dot com 21:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Italicized titles?

My New Century Handbook (a darn good little manual of style used as the text for one of my college writing courses) states the following in section 52e (p. 819):

Titles of books, magazines, digital magazines ("e-zines"), newspapers, and other creative products that are independently packaged and distributed to a public audience should be written with italics or underlining (see chapter 13).

Chapter 13 documents how one should cite one's sources, and, among other things, again mentions that titles of books, movies, or other creative works should be italicized. This has been bothering me for a while, and I feel it's time we started italicizing titles of the various toons and emails around here (I've been doing it on my userpage for some time now). Is anybody with me? — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 03:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be a huge hassle. Usually the link serves the purpose. And wouldn't a smaller work be in quotation marks anyway? — It's dot com 03:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
A huge hassle for one or two people, sure, but let's not forget this is a Wiki. As for quotation marks, you may be right. Either way I think we should mark them out somehow as titles. We need to pick something and run with it, IMO. If I understand correctly, quotation marks are for chapters of a work or articles within a magazine or newspaper. Technically, the Strong Bad emails could be considered chapters. How are episodes of a TV series supposed to be written out? That would answer the question, I think. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 03:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I know this seems like a quick fix, but perhaps monobook.css could be edited so that all links to the offical site are italicized? This would blanket cover all toons and emails linked to. — Lapper (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Um, you can do that for your personal CSS, but leave mine alone, please. — It's dot com 03:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Edit conflict: That would be a quick fix, but I'm not sure it would be an accurate one. We link to other things on hr.com that aren't toons and shouldn't be italicized, like the main pages or the toons menu. In addition, I'm talking not just about links to the official site, but links to Wiki content like do over and A Folky Tale. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 03:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea what the bots are capable of, but could GrapeNuts or Valerie do anything? —FireBird|Talk 04:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I know it isn't official, but simply linking things counts for something. I mean, the intent of both italicizing and quote-marking titles is to set them apart visually; if I read "Strongbadia has been somewhat neglected ever since colonization" it means something quite different from "Strongbadia has been somewhat neglected ever since colonization." —AbdiViklas 02:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we even have a problem. Italicizing is an option. The other one is underlining, which links already are. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 14:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but because of our "no double linking" rule many of the titles are not linked, and hence, not underlined. An example is in the dullard page i was just looking at:
From: Fast Forward
Where in the second fun fact, the titles Dullard and Biz Cas Fri 1 are not emphasized. Here are two alternatives I can think of:
Everything above that is a title is italicized. Below we have:
Where everything is underlined. Since the links are automatically underlined, only everything else needs to be explicitly underlined. I'm not sure which one I like more, but the underlined one doesn't look bad at all! It can also serve as a guard, in case there are titles that were once linked above but no longer are for some reason, and so we can easily visually check for such unlinked titles. --Stux 16:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I kinda like the underlining. But the italics seem a bit out of place. — talk Bubsty edits 16:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I prefer the italics, but that's just me. Part of that is from the links not being underlined by default for me, and since I generally prefer italics anyway. Spell4yr 16:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Your links are not underlined by default for you? Well that's simply too bad! Just kidding. I'm curious, did you turn that off yourself? Do they still appear blue? The more I look at it, the more i'm liking the underlined, but you bring a good point that the links may not always be underlined. *sigh* Though they usually are! The italic ones seem a little bare. But I'm still wavering between the two. --Stux 17:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know, it was set up like that by default when I signed up. It usually shows up that way for me no matter if I'm signed in or not, though I think a couple times when I've been logged in as an IP it underlined them. But usually they're not, and I prefer it that way. But, again, that's just me. Spell4yr 20:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, why can't we link every time? I will say again (well, for the first time on this page), "Once and Only Once" does not apply to links. The only reason we don't link character names (I think) is because it's unsightly, and because there is a specified place for them in toons (the character list). — It's dot com 22:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Link every time!? Link every time? Link every time. Hmmmm Link every time! If its links just for titles of toons (which is what I assume you meant to say), then it might be viable. But what of situations above where the title is repeated practically right after it is first presented? --Stux 02:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Harking back to your suggestions offered, Stux: first of all, I'm quite unfond of the first one; part of the reason I think electronic media shouldn't necessarily be held to all paper-media rules, especially regarding appearance, is that italics don't look so hot on a screen. For the second one, I like the concept, except I kind of have a problem with extending it to Dullard. Yeah, I know it's the official name of the strip, but the usage in the sentence is not as a proper noun. If the sentence were "Dullard is a comic strip that first appeared in dullard. Levert Burtmore, who draws Dullard, is..." ...then it would be another matter.
Now then, as to linking every time: Wow! I really didn't expect to hear that. I didn't know the policy applied only to characters. Give me a moment; this has rocked my universe slightly. It seems to me that "Once and only once" and "Every time, within reason" would be the only possibilities that would really work, for consistency. And I'm not entirely sure I'm ready for that much blue. —AbdiViklas 03:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, maybe every time is a little crazy. I have long wanted, however, to bring up our linking policy (and I can't remember if I have before or if I've just thought about it). I'm pretty much fine with how we link in toons (once for characters and places in a standardized location at the top) because with a little experience, anyone can know where to find them. In articles, however (especially longer articles), it makes more sense to link after every subheading, because you don't know what path the reader took to get there. Links are there for the convenience of the reader. Someone should never have to search for a link. Likewise, in tables, I think it's appropriate to link every instance. I realize this post is completely off-topic for this thread and so I will probably have to repost it somewhere else later, but, well, there it is. — It's dot com 16:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Joey, I don't think that things around here need italic titles simply because I don't think they fit the Chapter 13 guidelines. None of the things you mentioned--toons, e-mails, etc.--are, in my opinion, "independently packaged and distributed to a public audience." To my mind they're equivalent to short stories published in a collection, where the title of the collection (in this case the Homestar Runner web site) would be italicized and the titles of the individual stories (i.e. the shorts, toons, etc.) would go in quotation marks. — InterruptorJones 06:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Many replies... many replies! Ok I have to work here on a backlog of stuff to reply to (and i mean in the site in general). But here too... Abdi, to answer your question, I simply underlined Dullard cuz i thought it was a title. I just wanted to express the visual effect, but the technical aspect of wether it should be underlined or not ... i dunno? Dullard seems proper to me even in that context. But moving on... Dot Com, I think your comment is very relevant to your discussion. Should be end up modifying our link-once-and-only-once lest ye suffer a cruel and unusual fate, then there I think there would be less need to be concerned about toon title formats since they'd all be automatically "formatted". This leads to interrutor Jones comment. I do think that you have a better point: as these are short stories of sorts (the whole collection being the H*R site?), they could be mentioned in quotes. However I dunno how aesthetically pleasing that would be to have all of these links with quotes all over. Hmmm. More to ponder? --Stux 22:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I stand by my earlier statement that the closest thing we can compare it to are episodes of a TV series. I looked around for how those should be denoted and discovered to my surprise that they are to be set off in quotes. So, I'm changing my initial suggestion from italics to quotes in agreement with several people above me. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 23:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

How about some examples:

Current Italics
Quotes Mixed


Current Italics
Quotes Mixed
  • On the second making-fun-of-Anonymous piece-of-paper, Anonymous has his hands glued to his butt, which also happened to Strong Sad in the email "1 step ahead".
  • Strong Sad also gave an "anonymous tip" in "Strong Bad is in Jail Cartoon".
  • Strong Bad also swirls his wine in "montage".
  • The background behind him in this scene is from "dangeresque 3".
  • The action figures of Strong Sad and Strong Bad are from the Strong Bad Email "action figure".
  • The "Goodtime Palace" is modeled after similar scenes from "animal" and even features Baby Styles.
  • Club Technochocolate is originally from "extra plug".
  • The stage the entire cast is grouped on at the end is seen in "A Decemberween Pageant", among other holiday toons.
  • On the second making-fun-of-Anonymous piece-of-paper, Anonymous has his hands glued to his butt, which also happened to Strong Sad in the email "1 step ahead".
  • Strong Sad also gave an "anonymous tip" in Strong Bad is in Jail Cartoon.
  • Strong Bad also swirls his wine in "montage".
  • The background behind him in this scene is from "dangeresque 3".
  • The action figures of Strong Sad and Strong Bad are from the Strong Bad Email "action figure".
  • The "Goodtime Palace" is modeled after similar scenes from "animal" and even features Baby Styles.
  • Club Technochocolate is originally from "extra plug".
  • The stage the entire cast is grouped on at the end is seen in A Decemberween Pageant, among other holiday toons.

  • I don't think we should use a mixed style. If we choose to make a change, it should be one or the other.
  • Besides the fact that I don't think the look of italics is too keen, the problem with them is that ''this'' produces <em>this</em>, which technically is different from <i>this</i>. (Edit: I examined the source code and was surprised to see <i>.)
  • Quotes pose other problems: they add to the length of the finished line and look silly in large numbers or back-to-back. And you have to consider what to do when the name of a toon is within another quotation:
  • All this to say I still favor linking only, perhaps even at every reference:
  • Or perhaps quotes on second reference (but I'm not crazy about this one):
    • Let's watch i she be. I think that "i she be" is a cool email.

Okay, there are my examples. — It's dot com 02:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

These quotes would look so much better if MediaWiki auto-generated “curly quotes” instead of "double primes". I've been surprised for a very long time that no one has thought to use correct typography in an encyclopedia. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 15:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Aw, they don't look so bad (although I would never use straight quotes professionally in actual printed matter, online they look okay). I've noticed that when people are talking about an email, like for instance "rock opera", in conversations where linking isn't practical, they use quotes. So that gets my vote. I think if we're gonna make a change, however, we should do full-blown tests of a very large page and a very large list. — It's dot com 16:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
So then we are going ahead with the double quotes for all toon titles? I just thought of something we need to inform the editors if we do: lately much discussion has happened regarding proper punctuation and the like. I just realized that we should really adopt and document a standard for punctuation regarding quotes (at least document it). As it stands "use your better judgement" is the policy, but not everyone has thoroughly developed that "judgement". I myself still have questions. A great example of a page that reflects what could happen is this page, where video games is under quotes, followed by a comma. The comma is inside the quotes, though to me that looks unconfortable, and it seems that the comma should go outside. Similarly I would like to explicitly ask: quotes will always go outside the link right? (i.e. they themselves are not part of the link). I looks like it but i want to be sure this is the agreement (why am I being so pendantic? I don't know, but I am trying to become a software engineer). So, yeah. --Stux 02:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, such an important discussion needs to be open for a while, and we need a few more yea votes, before we can say that the policy has become official. To address your specific points: The quotes should definitely go outside the link (one important reason for that is otherwise we'd have to use piped links all the time), and there should be no other punctuation between the link and the quotation marks, like so: The most recent toon I transcribed was "[[portrait]]". I personally would support calling this use of quotes a special case and that the best-judgment policy could continue in other cases. — It's dot com 17:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It is equally ok to use underlining for a title. Since its a link and its is already underlined, problem solved. I don't support putting every toon title in quotes or italics. Isn't standing out in blue enough? I R F 17:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Remember, though, that not all users see the links automatically underlined. — It's dot com 17:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Who doesn't see underlined links? Mozilla Firefox people? Netscape people? If that's the case y'all need to stop being to rebelleuos and get on the microsoft train...resistance is futile. I R F 17:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I'm sure that make somebody mad **cough cough JoeyDay cough cough** (I've seen his website) the comment was meant in jest. I R F 17:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, anybody (even an IE user) could be one of those people... just log out and see. Anonymous preferences don't automatically underline links. You could even set your own preferences to be the same (under "Misc"), as a lot of logged-in users have. — It's dot com 17:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL—replying to everybody at once here. You probably made the better part of the whole wiki somewhat mad, IRF; check the bottom right-hand corner of the page. :) And thanks for keeping the discussion open, Dot com, because I'm at least one of those "no" votes. Let me make my earlier statements stronger: I would prefer to keep it as is, arguing that the blue color alone is enough to make the title stand out, and that it doesn't have to be considered improper for electronic media to use different typographical conventions than print media. My second choice would be quotes (not for consistency or appearance so much as the fact that I still think italics should be reserved for longer works—like longer even than "big" 'toons. The DVDs could justifiably be italicized, but even a 6-minute cartoon is still on a magazine-article level as opposed to a novel.) —AbdiViklas 18:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes around captions

So, I'm not entirely sure this is the right place to address this issue, but as it concerns punctuation, I'll go ahead and try it here. (Someone can move this if it should be discussed elsewhere.) I've observed an inconsistency on the Wiki concerning using quotation marks in captions: when the caption is itself a quote, we sometimes have quotation marks and we sometimes don't. I've always assumed they were unnecessary, but I'd be interested in reading what others think. Heimstern Läufer 01:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This is probably the best place for that. I myself have wondered this. I kinda lean toward quotation marks around the caption if it's a direct quote from a toon, otherwise no. But that's just me. — It's dot com 01:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Dot com, I think that's a good idea, and I propose that we adopt that standard. For example: a picture of Reynold would have quotes around the caption if it said "Diaper biscuits" because this is a direct quote from the toon. But if it said "He's never had pizza" or "Proudly wearing a tie", it wouldn't have quotes. (I think that's what you were suggesting, Dot com; let me know if that's wrong.) Anybody agree or disagree? Heimstern Läufer 07:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
No objections? Then I guess I'll start standardizing it that way throughout the Wiki. Is it worth adding an entry about this issue to the manual of style for future reference? Heimstern Läufer 21:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Go for it (on both counts). — It's dot com 21:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emdash

The emdash is an interesting punctuation. According to Chicagl manual of Style, when it occurs mid-sentence—is the laundry done yet?—no spaces surround it. But other style manuals allow spaces in this usage. And of course, usage of the emdash in other contexts is not subject to this rule at all. How do we want to handle it? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 18:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally prefer putting the spaces in — don't you? — as it seems more readable to me that way. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 21:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Certainly more readable, but I've never heard of it being acceptable styleat least in the middle of a sentence. As opposed to... AbdiViklas 01:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Abdi. — It's dot com 01:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The inclusion of spaces around em dashes is slightly controversial among grammarians, but the generally-accepted rule in North American usage is that you do not include spaces unless you write for a newspaper and your editor tells you to. (For example, I spotted spaces around a dash on the front page of the New York Times just yesterday.) For what it's worth, I don't find either style more readable than the other. --TheNicestGuy 17:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to agree that non-spaced em dashes are probably a more established standard. I think TheNicestGuy is right — it's a matter of style that is established on an institution by institution basis. That said, I just checked in the Chicago Manual of Style, and though it doesn't explicitly say you shouldn't space your em dashes, all their em dash usage examples are sans the spaces. I'm willing to settle on that standard, even though I personally don't prefer it. — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 18:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's another style guide which is explicit with regard to the spaces. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 18:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ellipses vs. Dashes

It's very common in transcripts for a sentence to be split apart by stage direction, like so:

STRONG BAD: ... Now we gotta be sure and represent as many of the different states—
{A candy-based periodic table covers the screen.}
STRONG BAD: —of candy matter as possible. ...

As you can see, em dashes were used in this case to show the interruption and continuation of the dialog. Which looks just fine. But from a quick glance at other transcripts, it seems that ellipses are used more commonly. Which also looks just fine. I imagine that with the loose standards in screenwriting (as compared to academic writing, for example) there is no firm rule indicating one over the other. Anyone know better? Do we have a preference? There should be consistency, right? --TheNicestGuy 19:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting you should bring this up. A few months back when I was transcribing bits and pieces from Everything Else, Volume 1 DVD I thought to ask this question. I, personally, prefer em dashes for split dialogue and use ellipses when the speaker trails off and is not interrupted. But like you say, there really is no standard and we should strive to be more consistent across the wiki. However, it does not seem like a pressing issue at this point. We're still trying to standardize more visible issues like "Fixed Goofs" and the like. —THE PAPER PREEEOW 19:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
According to the established style on this page, trailing-off ellipses and break in dialogue ellipses are different. I think continuation ellipses are correct in the above situation. Emdashes tend to signal a shift in thought, and should be used as infrequently as possible out of that usage so they retain that function, IMO. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 19:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Em dashes also signal interruption and resumption. I think the general rule The Paper put forth (interruption vs. trailing off) is a good yardstick. — It's dot com 19:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Then this:
  • Whenever you are using suspension points to indicate a continuation of thought, do not put a space after.
VOICEOVER: ...to have as many hot '60s-looking girls in your filmstrips as possible.
is incorrect usage, or at least inconsistent with what we're going to do? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 20:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Qermag, are you talking about the spacing, or the use of an ellipsis at all? It sounds like we're going for the ellipsis/suspension points being correct in this case, since it's a smooth continuation of what came before the stage direction. As for the spacing, it looks right to me. --TheNicestGuy 20:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was that it seems you're saying the use of emdashes is preferable when breaking dialogue up with a stage direction or similar. That would mean that ellipsis would not match that, as this line would eventually be conformed to an emdash. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 20:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. At the time that particular sentence was chosen as an example, the issue we're currently discussing wasn't even on the horizon. If we change the punctuation in that sentence, we would need to find a new example to illustrate the proper use of suspension points at the beginning of a line. As for the issue at hand, it seems like a dash would be appropriate when there is no break in the dialogue, whereas suspension points would indicate more of a pause or a regathering of one's thoughts. These are all subtle points, however, and I'm not sure it's worth getting bogged down over. Whichever one makes the most sense on a case-by-case basis should be used. — It's dot com 20:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three periods (...) vs. Ellipsis character (…)

I noticed that three periods are usually typed in as an ellipsis instead of the ellipsis character. Is there a reason that this is done this way? Jecowa 03:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Simplicity, mainly. The ellipsis is not a 7-bit ASCII character, which means it would have to be encoded to follow our standards. — It's dot com 03:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be a royal pain in the twees for editors to type &hellip; instead of ..., considering how frequently it appears. Which would not stop my being in favor of it, picky as I am, except that it also would not display properly on some platforms. The Blazer browser on my Treo, for example, just ignores any character that's not in its native encoding scheme. Doesn't even replace it with a box; just omits it entirely, which can get very confusing. So I'll maintain that, speaking very generally, the only non-ASCII character worth the hassle of using regularly is the em dash. It just looks much better than hyphens. Oh, but thanks for reminding me about the ellipsis, which I had forgotten was another character MS Word sometimes likes to AutoCorrect. --TheNicestGuy 13:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some odds and ends

Three things:

  • Homestar Runner Wiki should be abbreviated as HRWiki only in extremely rare and justified cases. It should be written out in full everywhere else.
  • The King of Town should be abbreviated as KoT only in extremely rare and justified cases. It should be written out in full everywhere else.
  • Strong Badia is two words.

Should these go in the miscellaneous section toward the bottom, or is there a more logical place for them? — wikisig.gif Joey (talk·edits) 20:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps as a subentry under "Spelling"... or perhaps not. —AbdiViklas 20:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

From HRWiki:Standards:

Never abbreviate the names of characters, toons, or things on the site (e.g. The KoT or SBEmails). Wherever possible, use the full name of a character the first time they are mentioned. After the first mention, you may refer to "The King of Town" as "the king" or "Homestar Runner" as "Homestar" and so forth.

Does this belong on just one of the two pages, or both? And if both, I think it could probably follow the same wording in both cases, perhaps rolling "HRWiki" into the point as another example. Thunderbird 20:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tense Stuff

Hi-low everpeoples. Okay, after completely chewing Shwoo's ear off about the literary present — something I've been troubled about for some time — I thought I'd bring it up here. I guess I come off as a nit-picky nerd, (a lot of my edits consist of punctuation problems), but I'm a big fan of grammar and consistency, (and H*R, duh). I also realize that we aren't dealing with literature here, but I thought that the literary present would be a good standard to adopt for this wiki. (Sorry if this suggestion seems pointless and gratuitous). kai lyn 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that literary precedent should at least be considered, if not adopted. What specifically are you proposing? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 01:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'd like a section on "tense" on this page, if that's okay. kai lyn 01:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It's likely ok. Write it up, post it, and if objections exist you'll find out straight away. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 01:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh... Okay! I guess I'm still an idiot new to this whole wiki thing or something, because it didn't even occur to me that I could edit this page. I was under the impression that only systops could for some reason. kai lyn 01:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't right now though — chores a'callin'. {sigh} kai lyn 01:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Even us old folks understand that. Make edits as you can; the community will respond appropriately. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 01:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that general articles tend to be written in literary present, but toon articles are written from the perspective of "now" as it is (or was) when a toon is released. — It's dot com 05:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, for the most part, most of the general articles are already written in the lit. present. But there are still tense issues, (example, Strong Bad and Strong Sad's Relationship page). Mostly, I just want everyone aware of tense, since it's something rarely thought about (by most). But before I go on, do we want to write about H*R as "artwork", or report it as "history", because if it's the latter, then this conversation should actually go in the opposite direction. kai lyn 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that toons should continue to be from the perspective of the date of release—at least for inside references and fast forwards. In other words, inside references are usually phrased as "such-and-such previously happened in the earlier toon" and fast forwards "such-and-such happens again in the later toon". — It's dot com 21:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree on all points. So, (just to make sure I've got it), you're talking about: 1. relating toon B to toon A (A was released before B) for inside references, where the past tense would be used, and 2. relating toon B to toon C, (C coming after B) where the present continuous/ future tense would be used. And you're saying do all this with the mindset of the date of release, even when adding a fact, like, a year later. Definitely.
For goofs, trivia, explanation, etc. concerning the toon itself though, the literary present should be used. The lit. present should also be used on, say, a running gags page, where appearances are listed, unless there's a relationship shown between two different toons in one bulleted idea. Uhhmm... I can't really think of anything more to say about it right now, but I know there was something else... Oh well. How about this so far, Dot Com? kai lyn 17:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. — It's dot com 16:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possessive forms of singular nouns ending in s

After careful consideration, I've come to the belief that this is the standard we should adopt for the possessive forms of singular nouns ending in s.

Possessive forms of singular nouns ending in s should always be written with a second s after an apostrophe, unless the accepted convention is to do otherwise (see Wikipedia:Apostrophe#Singulars). Examples of this would include Dr. Christmas's, Nibbles's, and even Reinforcements's. A notable exception to this rule is to write Bubs' without the extra s, since it has appeared that way several times on Bubs' Concession Stand.

Is there agreement on this? If so, I'll add this to HRWiki:Manual of Style#Apostrophe Trey56 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. On a side note, listening closely, Strong Bad occasionally pronounces it Bubs's (perhaps someone could help me out with an example). Do we transcribe it as such in those cases? — It's dot com 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
A good example is Homestar's use of "Bubs's" in pom pom. And while I hesitate to add an "exception to the exception" to the rule above, I think that's absolutely the right thing to do — if a character pronounces it that way, we transcribe it that way. Trey56 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
So, uh, how's about this:
Possessive forms of singular nouns ending in s should always be written with a second s after an apostrophe, unless the accepted convention is to do otherwise (see Wikipedia:Apostrophe#Singulars). Examples of this would include Dr. Christmas's, Nibbles's, and even Reinforcements's. A notable exception to this rule is to always write Bubs' without the extra s, since it has appeared that way several times on Bubs' Concession Stand. Nevertheless, if a character explicitly pronounces a second s, the transcript should indicate this. (for example, Homestar Runner's line, "I think he's over at Bubs's, filming his documentary." from pom pom)
Trey56 00:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Oooo, I love grammar! And I totally agree with this convention (and for the record, always have... silly teachers who don't read their MLA handbooks anymore...) Nice eye, Trey! Got my vote, (not that we're voting or anything). kai lyn 01:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. -- Tom 01:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I'll add it to the page and look for violations. Trey56 02:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Guh. After I started to replace Bubs's with Bubs', I came across an Easter egg in cheatday (see right) that suggests that the only time the extra s should be omitted is in the title of his Concession Stand. Trey56 03:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hm. It looks like we should discuss this before I make any more changes. Trey56 03:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seemed to me that your new use of "Bubs's" is just basically a part of the "Bubs's" exception thingie, where a character mentions the extra "s" in the transript. Methinks we need to reword it to mention both speech and text. Bluebry 03:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe it is just an exception; I'm not sure. I just found Bubs' Ha-Ha-Halloween Comedy Club, which supports the spelling without the second s. At any rate, I'm going to sleep on it and do a little more research before I make any more changes — if anyone else has any input, please share. Trey56 04:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
This may be reading too much into it, but maybe the reason that it's "Bubs' Concession Stand" is because he ran out of S's... y'know, like he spells "concession" with a 5 (five)...-LordQuackingstick 13:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
That’s a pretty good idea LordQuackingstick; only thing wrong with that interpretation is that it’s very speculative. Still, very impressive!...
Hmm, this is a tough one... Well, I’ll be on the look-out for the oh-so-elusive proper possessive "Bubs" spelling as well.... But maybe we should stick with just the one "s" for now. That’s all I can say at the moment. kai lyn 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, after mulling this over for a while, I agree that the best course of action is to use "Bubs'" without the second s — this also seems to be the favored opinion here, and it's what the manual of style currently says. Let's stick with this decision — I don't think that a compelling reason to change will ever arise. I've made the usage consistent throughout our articles. Trey56 04:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
After seeing the changes, I don't think they should have been changed. In nearly every case, I would pronounce the second s if I were just speaking aloud. I'm going to change them back. We should only spell it Bubs' when referring to the concession stand or when a character pronounces it that way. Otherwise, we should use the standard possessive spelling of Bubs's or reword the sentence to avoid it altogether. — It's dot com 16:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I still lean toward the usage without the second s, but it's not clear one way or the other, so the most important thing is that we're consistent. There are a lot of pages to go through to make sure that Bubs' is replaced by Bubs's (excepting references to Bubs' Concession Stand and Comedy Club), so are we sure this is the standard we're happy with? Just want to make sure before I go through all those. Trey56 18:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
For me, it was clinched when I started reading the sentences out loud, and I realized that I would never say "Bubs' arms" /bubz armz/—I would definitely say "Bubs's arms" /bubzez armz/. As I kept reading the sentences, I had the same feeling each time. "Bubs' Concession Stand" has been ingrained in us for so long that it doesn't seem wrong anymore, so I'm not too concerned with it, but in other cases, there is an English standard, and we should follow it. — It's dot com 18:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree, very much so. —BazookaJoe 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm...they both sound awkward to me =3. However, there is some precedent for what you say (Homestar's line from pom pom and the above demo tape). I think what would clinch it for me is if TBC really do pronounce it Bubs's in the DVD commentary for theme park — if TBC pronounce it that way in everyday speech, then I'm on board. Does anybody have that DVD (strongbad_email.exe Disk Four) that can confirm this? Trey56 18:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It's very faint, but they pronounce it as "Bubs's" (not "Bubs'"). I'd say that's good enough for me... --DorianGray 20:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm convinced. Any disagreeers, speak now or forever hold your peace. Trey56 20:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please look at what is commonly referred to as "the third bullet" on this list from Wikipedia: Apostrophe page. It states that either spelling can be used. My take: We use what the characters say, and normal spellings can vary. For example, both "Homestar picked up Bubs' hat" and "Homestar picked up Bubs's hat" are correct. So, I bring this up, because it looks like you all want to replace Bubs' with Bubs's everywhere, because (and correct me if I'm wrong) you believe it's the correct grammar. Well, Wikipedia may be wrong, but I was also always taught both ways were correct. In conclusion, we really don't need to change EVERYTHING, it's already correct. Bluebry 18:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written by professionals. The Chicago Manual of Style and Garner's Modern American Usage both are. They each state that between Bubs' and Bubs's, the former is incorrect and the latter is correct. — It's dot com 18:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've made all the articles consistent so that the only appearances of Bubs' are places where there's an indication from the toon that it should be spelled that way. Trey56 07:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sic

According to the article, when we want to note a misspelled word we "put "[sic]" following the word in question. Use brackets and italics as illustrated here."

This is routinely ignored, and [sic]s are generally made invisible. Do we wish to change this point of style to invisicommenting them, or should we refrain from eliminating visible [sic]s? Or is there an argument for both depending upon circumstance?

I think it's as important to the reader as the editor to see [sic] in the text. It indicates that, no, we aren't bad-spelling numbskulls, but we are citing the spelling in the source. I'd like to see a return to visible [sic]s. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 17:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Intentional misspellings have become such a part of H*R that we don't blink at them anymore. Visible [sic]s are kind of unsightly. I think we should consider amending the project page. — It's dot com 23:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dot com. Visible sics are kinda icky to look at, and they're so common now. Also, before I knew what "sic" meant, I often thought it was part of the text and was confused by it. It's conceivable that others who don't know might think the same thing. 'Tis why I like it hidden: It doesn't look like a part of the text that way. --DorianGray 00:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I would counter that ignorance of the meaning of [sic] isn't a good reason to eschew its usage. One easy solution is to make sics clickable to an explanation, though that might be distracting. It remains that it's an abbreviation used often enough that even if a person does not know now what it means, they would do well to learn. As far as it being unsightly, I wonder what that means. Perhaps formatting it more like the stage directions (perhaps [sic] ?) would be less interruptive? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Changing the formatting of casual text can also be distractive. I'd go for invisible [sic] myself. Anyone bothered enough with a misspelling will see it while editing and know not to change it. And I don't think it should go in every text with a misspelling (see how the word "every" is more bold, even when Italicized?), just those that get reverted back and forth, as there are plenty misspellings out there that people already know not to revert. Elcool (talk)(contribs) 08:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, just saying, in the glossary, we list a sic as being hidden in a comment tag. --DorianGray 09:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Qermaq on this one, (and I’m glad this issue has been brought up). How are they unsightly? Bad speling is unsitely if yu ax me. I like to see [sic]s. They have an encyclopedic feel to them, plus, they help make us look better. And yes, if someone doesn’t understand what [sic] means, no time to start learning like the present (or whenever they first see one out and about). And as for the invisible [sic]s, (and here, I’m speaking for any computer novices, including myself), they aren’t as fool-proof as a visible [sic]; I personally miss them all the time, (man, do I come off as smart here! Sheesh!) Keep ‘em visible says I! Not really adding anything new to this conversation, kai lyn 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Dorian's last comment, this is clearly a conflict and should be resolved. And [sic] was never intended for editors, but more on that later. To other commenters as well: what is it about a visible [sic] that is so off-putting? Yes, it interrupts text, and for a good reason. Just as an ellipsis interrupts text to signal a semantic meaning, the [sic] interrupts the text to signal something else. It's not just for editors; it's also for casual readers. I think power-users of the wiki forget that most users do not look at the source and do not edit. Invisible [sic]s are useless to them; visible [sic]s communicate something to the casual user that I feel must be communicated. We need to break from the "[sic]s are for editors" mentality and embrace the "[sic]s are for everyone" mode, in my opinion. Other opinions are surely welcome. But please take these comments under consideration. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 01:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Body of work

Discussion continued from Talk:Homestar Runner (body of work)#Consistency of usage of "universe" and "body of work".
Should links to Homestar Runner (body of work) in running text be styled (1) "the Homestar Runner body of work" or (2) "the Homestar Runner body of work"?

I strongly lean toward choice 1. The name of the article is "Homestar Runner". The words "(body of work)" are just the disambiguation from the character (whereas the name of the Homestar Runner universe article includes all three words). It's also a little easier to type using the MediaWiki shortcut. It's true that choice 2 is a little clearer on where the link is going, but choice 1 is cleaner looking. (See also remarks several sections below.) — It's dot com 08:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with choice 1 — the parenthetical bit is just a disambiguation. Trey56 08:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
As much as I wanna dissent for the sake of dissenting, I really can't ;) and here's why: while (2) would still be accurate (since the article still talks about the body of work encompassing H*R), "body of work" is implied whenever talking about H*R, so I also agree with choice 1. And no, it wasn't enough for me to just agree. :) --Stux 09:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "Homestar Runner body of work" makes more sense.--.Johnny Jupiter! talk cont 06:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be, in my opinion, excellent link text, but the page should reflect the fact that it's H*R, and the "body of work" is how we clarify the content, not part of the title. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 11:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] body vs. universe

On a different note: have we been consistently using Homestar Runner (body of work) and Homestar Runner universe appropriately throughout the website? Now that we have this distinction, it's possible that pages which referred to the universe might've linked to the body of work page for lack of a better option at the time. --Stux 10:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

They should be pretty consistent now — I went through The Cheatbot's edits and checked every change and tried to correct any usage that was inconsistent. Trey56 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The tricky part is deciding whether things like running gags recur inside the universe or within the body of work itself. — It's dot com 21:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree — that is tricky. My tendency is to say that object running gags appear within the universe ([1]), and word/reference running gags occur as part of the body of work ([2], [3]). Do you agree? Trey56 21:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree mostly: for object running gags, yes, universe is good, but for word/reference it depends: if it's an inside ref probably universe, rw/external ref quite likely body of work. Maybe. --Stux 06:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] body vs. website

I found several links of the form homestarrunner.com (with some case variations), H*R.com, Homestar Runner website, Homestar Runner site, H*R site, etc. while I was working on making references to the body of work and the universe consistent. I didn't have the energy to work on changing the links to point to homestarrunner.com, but this needs to be done (perhaps after that page has been expanded a little). Trey56 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The many faces of Homestar

"Homestar Runner"; "the character Homestar Runner"

Everybody's favorite undabite man. Use the first form in most cases. Use the second if you need more clarity.

"Homestar Runner"; "the Homestar Runner body of work"; "the body of work"

The collected works of The Brothers Chaps. Use the first form if it's natural and unambiguous in the context. Use the second form if you need more clarity.
Includes derivatives such as Timeline of Homestar Runner and phrases such as Homestar Runner DVDs.

"Homestar Runner universe"; "the universe"

The plane of existence where all this stuff is real. I bet you'd like to visit there. Note, universe is not capitalized.
Includes derivatives such as Inconsistencies within the Homestar Runner universe.

"homestarrunner.com"; "the Homestar Runner website"; "the website"; "the site"

The place on the Internet where the magic happens.

I propose these guidelines to help us keep all this straight. — It's dot com 21:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What, other than now having a separate page for every one? I don't think we need anything more than that. — Lapper (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm? I don't understand what you mean. These are guidelines to help us standardize how we link to those articles and refer to those concepts in running text. — It's dot com 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Good idea! "the Homestar Runner body of work" and "Homestar Runner universe" are inconsistent, though. I favour the form "the Homestar Runner body of work" for less confusion while reading. Loafing 21:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with that. The name of the article is "Homestar Runner". The clarification is to be able to tell the difference between the corpus and the character. (You wouldn't say "the character Homestar Runner".) On the other hand, Homestar Runner universe is its own concept, which cannot be shortened, and the page title reflects that. — It's dot com 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
From a reader's perspective, I always get confused and annoyed when two links (Homestar Runner and Homestar Runner, for example) seem to be identical but aren't. I'm arguing from a usability/readability point of view, rather than from a conceptual one. Readers should always know what to expect from a link without having to mouse over it or understand the finer nuances of the context it's used in. Addendum: And character Homestar Runner is a moot point, I never suggested using that. Loafing 21:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I must agree with that. It seems that we do need it with the "body of work" in the link. I mean, yeah, we wouldn't link character into the link, but you're comparing an apple and an orange here. In my opinion, no matter what the link is, it seems alien to put more into a character's or person's link. But, linking to a certain body of work, flexibility is needed, and we can't just say Homestar Runner. But more to the point, I'm all for adding this. It's informative and sets a standard for the wiki to follow. Bluebry 21:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
But the name of the article isn't—and shouldn't be—"Homestar Runner body of work". The following sentence is perfectly easy to read: "Homestar Runner is nominally the central character of the Homestar Runner body of work." We just have to make sure the context tells the right story. — It's dot com 22:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with keeping "body of work" outside the link — using the phrase Homestar Runner to refer to the body of work is pretty widely accepted, I think. Trey56 22:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
True, the article is in fact called Homestar Runner (body of work), but I'm sure we both would find that ugly in running text. And I also agree that the context of "the Homestar Runner body of work" lets you know which link it is. But as I said earlier, the link actually looks like Homestar Runner, and one has to think and maybe mouse over it before noticing that it's not. At least I do. I've been on the wiki for a while now, and it still gets me. Again, this is purely for readability. Loafing 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I must agree that Loafing brings up a very valid point, but need I remind everyone that's commented on "the Homestar Runner body of work" vs. "the Homestar Runner body of work" discussion (wow too many HR links!) the we already have an ongoing discussion about this that's been forgotten and I guess had been assumed to be "closed".

As for adding this somewhere to the Manual of Style, I'm all for having a section (once we iron out all the details) so that people can also hopefully iron out this somewhat confusing and hillarious hegemony of HR links. How about that? --Stux 06:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"Homestar Runner" by itself should refer to the character. Any links to other articles should have as linking text more specific language. Aside from the occasional reference to the body of work as "Homestar Runner", which should be rare, more explicit link text is certainly preferable. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 07:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding: Dot com wrote "The following sentence is perfectly easy to read: 'Homestar Runner is nominally the central character of the Homestar Runner body of work.'" Yes, it's perfectly easy to read for someone who knows English. The concern is two identical-looking links which lead in different directions. It's appropriate to make linking text descriptive of the destination. I'd reword the above "The following sentence is perfectly easy to read: "Homestar Runner is nominally the central character of the Homestar Runner body of work" (or even "of the Homestar Runner body of work") in order to avoid all ambiguity.

It really is rare that the character and the corpus are linked so closely that there would a chance of its being confusing. On top of that, people are aware that Homestar Runner refers to more than one thing. The link should point to the name of the article (which is "Homestar Runner" in both cases, the disambig serving only to differntiate them in the system), with the context of the sentence worded to fill in any ambiguity. If our usage is consistent, then it's easy to get used to (in fact, most pages are already set up that way). This kind of thing is hardly uncommon here:
Thus, linking extra words isn't necessary. — It's dot com 14:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagreeing partially. It's long been appropriate style with hyperlinks to make the actual text of the hyperlink descriptive of the target, in or out of context. There are cases like some you cite above where an email is named with a de-capitalized spelling of a character's name. That of course cannot be helped. And when not including two links in one sentence or paragraph, using "Dangeresque" to link to either the character or the film is precise enough. The link clearly goes to info related to Dangeresque. What I'm saying is that in examples where there are two links and the link text is identical, it's good style to put content in the linking text other than than exactly the same word you linked with earlier.
Of the 7 examples you cite above, the first, sixth, and seventh examples' last word could be easily swallowed into the second link with no loss and certainly with benefit. I am not suggestion we only link to Thy Dungeonman using the "game" at the end. I am suggesting that for clarity we should consider the wording of the link text toward the goal of not having two links in close proximity using identical link text. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 15:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
How about: "If two otherwise identical links (like Homestar Runner and Homestar Runner) are in very close proximity to each other, consider including the disambiguating text as part of one of the links. Otherwise, put the any necessary disambiguation outside the link and let the sentence context speak for itself." — It's dot com 15:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Better, but I'd drop the "the" - "...consider including disambiguating text...." It need not be the disambig text used for the page, it simply needs to disambiguate the two similar links. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 15:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Right right. That's what I meant. — It's dot com 16:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
While sitting here in the sidelines, it all looks good (last of Dot com's version after Qermaq's fix.) You got the Stux stamp of serious (and sometimes somewhat superfluous) approval. --Stux 16:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree — I think this is a good compromise. I'm about to go through and change all the links to point to homestarrunner.com that need to be changed, and I'll keep an eye out for any Homestar Runners that appear in close proximity and implement this change too. (Right now, that status quo is that "body of work" is always outside the link.). Trey56 05:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Coming back to this discussion after a short absence, I strongly disagree. To begin with, the proximity of two identical looking links was never an issue for me. A link that looks like it's going to Homestar Runner but goes elsewhere is confusing for no matter where it appears. We should not introduce that last guideline. It makes matters unnecessarily complicated for editors and creates more confusion through inconsistent linking. If you all agree that we should keep the "non-swallowing" way of linking, then let us please do this consistently. Loafing 05:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Nah, after thinking it over, the compromise version makes sense when there are two links that are very close to each other. It's a gray area, but we deal with gray areas all the time (fun facts, etc.), and this specific issue really doesn't happen that often in comparison. — It's dot com 05:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here are the pages I found that had Homestar Runner (body of work) and Homestar Runner mentioned in close proximity. For these cases, I went ahead and changed it to Homestar Runner body of work, but they can easily be reversed if we decide to later on. Trey56 04:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I like em! I looked at them and I think all 4 instances that you mentioned are appropriately linked. --Stux 05:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Trey56 05:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Ya, Stux is right. Those pages look great, Trey! I'm still a tad confused as to what the various problems/consenses are here, (I've only just skimmed this page. I need to come back and read a little more closely,) but ya. Once again, I like how those pages turned out. kai lyn 16:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Great! A good summary is Dot com's first post in this section. The only thing that's been decided since then is to link to Homestar Runner (body of work) by keeping "body of work" outside the link — "the Homestar Runner body of work" — unless the proximity of the link to a mention of Homestar Runner the character necessitates moving it inside the link for clarity — "the main character in the Homestar Runner body of work is Homestar Runner". Trey56 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accents

Ok, I think it's really pointless to have stuff that Coach Z says written as he says it, it makes for very unprofessional writing, words that Coach Z says is NOT in the dictionary, and we shouldn't pretend that they are either, I think everything that Coach Z says should be written in regular, uniform language, or else we should begin writing "Homestar Wunner" when Homestar says his name, since having a strange accent is really not a license for this.--~ SlipStream 12:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of what he says is impossible to write that way, for either it is unknown what he actually says, or it ruins the joke, examples: "Glorten camp" and "secret sorcret", respectively. I say keep it the way it is. — Defender1031*Talk 12:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Um...gluton camp, I don't know about secret sorcret, maybe it should only be for words that are actually understandable, and not nonsense, because we all know Coach Z is "trying to make some sense", when it's part of the joke, like "Get yer head in the game, The Chort! The Cheat is wide open!" then I get that translating it is a very bad idea, but for normal words, I think it's good.--~ SlipStream 12:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
No, he pronounces both "gluten" and "glutton" as "glorten". "The Chort" and "The Cheat" is another good example, thanks for proving my point. Asnyway, we can't have a double standard. Either we write what he says or what he means, not some hodgepodge of both. — Defender1031*Talk 12:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, the thing about that is, he can actually pronounce The Cheat, so he actually is saying The Chort, and meaning it too, even though it really doesn't make sense, unless somehow there was a duplicated The Cheat, and even then, I don't get it. It doesn't really count as a Coach Z-ism because it doesn't seem to be a side effect of his accent, it's as if he was making fun of himself. That is notable, very, notable. But normal, non-joke Coach Z speaking shouldn't count. No joke, no notablity.--~ SlipStream 12:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It's always a joke. — Defender1031*Talk 12:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category Titles

Toons, naturally, are going to have a variety of capitalizations. But what is the feeling about titles for categories and other pages for HRWiki maintence? For example, we have new category, Category:Video game references. My feeling is it would look more professional and consistent if all the words were capitalized ("Video Game References"). Naturally, pages like this one ("Manual of Style") would be fine, since it is not uncommon for minor words to be left uncapitalized. wbwolf (t | ed) 04:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference one way or the other, but I think it would be best if we were consistent. Right now, it looks like we're split fairly evenly between title case and Wikipedia-style case. Trey56 04:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
In a lot of cases, I think a down (mostly lowercase) style looks better. — It's dot com 04:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Bad's Capitalization

Teen Girl Squad is a special case. Correct Strong Bad's capitalization to be more in line with standard capitalization.

I never really understood why we do that. I mean, isn't it more practical to show how Strong Bad wrote it? --Trogga 05:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Our current practice, even in things like emails, is to make the transcripts as readable as possible, and standardizing the capitalization of TGS furthers that aim. Transcripts have evolved (rightly so, in my opinion) to capture what the characters are speaking more than anything else, and we just use the on-screen text as a guide. If someone wants to see the original written form, then they should watch the toon on H*R.com. — It's dot com 05:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Then why did we write Larry's dialogue in death metal the way it was written in the email? --Trogga 21:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we shouldn't. Perhaps we should spell out in words what he says and note the differences (I'm especially not fond of "b" all by itself). We have to ask ourselves, what makes this the easiest to read? Either way, though, emails are not covered in the TGS exception above. — It's dot com 03:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When a sentence starts with the title of a sbemail

Wiki practice has nearly always been that we leave sbemail titles uncapitalized, DVD versions and New Stuff excepted. One difficulty arises when a sentence begins with the title of a sbemail. Do we capitalize or not? Or should we completely avoid starting sentences with sbemail titles?

This edit shows different ways to handle it: in my version, I deliberately started the sentence with "in" so that the title would not need to be capitalized. BazookaJoe removed the "in" and capitalized the title. I don't like this change much at all, as I feel it's contrary to long-standing practice of leaving email titles uncapped. Part of the problem is that we haven't really established a guideline for what should be done in this case. For the record, my opinion is that we should always avoid starting sentences with sbemail titles so as to avoid needing to capitalize them. Heimstern Läufer 03:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we have $wgCapitalLinks set to false for the very reason that our Strong Bad Email article titles are almost all lowercase. I'd think (like you say, when unavoidable to have them as the first word) leaving them lowercase even if they're the first word in a sentence would be fine. -- Tom 04:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There is no point in capitalizing the title of a sbemail just to start a sentence. Sentences should be phrased whenever possible to avoid this problem, but when a sbemail title must start a sentence, it should not be unnecessarily capitalized. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 08:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling Variations

[edit] Gummi vs. Gummy

Originally brought up here, gummy or gummi? As of this edit, Google returns 5.66 million results with gummy and 15.2 million results with gummi. OptimisticFool 01:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Gummy" would be simply an adjective. However, I get the feeling that "gummi bears" (or "gummi worms") is a genericized trademark (e.g. kleenex vs. tissues, coke vs. soda (in some regions)). "Gummy" is used as a means of getting around that dilemma, but not commonly. wbwolf (t | ed) 17:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a comment. In Pokemon Mystery Dungeon, the jellybean-like treats are called Gummis. But this may not be the correct spelling of the word gummy/gummi. (btw: MS Word's spellchecker says gummy is correct, gummi is a misspelling.) DrPepper42 22:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Seems the word is derived from the German name for the candy, Gummibär. It would seem gummi therefore is from the German "rubber", and gummy was used as an English-spelled replacement. But I'd say gummi is more correct. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 22:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd pass along a notion of using "gummi" when specifically referring to the confection, and "gummy" for anything else. --DorianGray 03:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 09:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Donut vs. Doughnut

Donut or doughnut? As of this edit, Google returns 5.76 million results with doughnut and 13.5 million results with donut. OptimisticFool 01:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet Google is not the arbiter of correctness or standardization. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 09:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
At m-w.com, donut is defined as a variant of doughnut. That source implies doughnut would be more correct. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 22:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit, Krispy Kreme spells it doughnut .. and they're the best I've ever tasted. But I've always preferred the spelling "donut". I find it easier to read, and it's a perfectly acceptable spelling. And it seems to be used more commonly (see Google results already mentioned). Since both are technically correct, I'm afraid it might come down to a "vote".. Right now it's 1 to 1.  ;) OptimisticFool 22:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I perfer "donut". That's 2 to 1. Or 1 to 2. Does it matter what order they're in? DrPepper42 01:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter at all, it's not a vote, it's a discussion to gain consensus. — Defender1031*Talk 01:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I hate to allow a company that misspells both of the words in their brand inform my spelling — but I've always preferred "doughnut" anyway. It has an historical precedence over "donut" of about 100 years. According to WP, "doughnut" is more common wordwide, while "donut" is common only in American English. Also, "donut" is just a silly looking word.  Green Helmet 02:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Garner remarks: "[Doughnut], which is more common, is preferred because it retains the name of the main ingredient. ... Donut—or, worse, do-nut—should be reserved for eatery names and advertising." — It's dot com 03:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Okay vs. OK

In the war between Okay and OK, I'm for spelling it out. Except when TBC use it the other way (e.g. This is real). OptimisticFool 16:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I find they more often use "okay", while "OK" is used in your example because they are (Homestar is?) mimicking the messages one receives in Windows.
Now granted, since I always write it "OK", and habits tend to be hard to break, I make no assurances you'll see me transcribe it as "okay", even though it's more consistent with TBC's practices. But I guess that's why come there's lots of us here. Heimstern Läufer 16:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I support "Okay", which I never abbreviate in regular writing. --Jay (Talk) 17:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that "okay" is the full spelling whereas "OK" is shorthand. We wouldn't transcribe that line from car as "HOMESTAR RUNNER: Now wat r U doyng?" would we? (And eww, i just gave myself the jibblies from typing like that) — Defender1031*Talk 18:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I always type/write ok. (Ew, I just found a tooth I lost about a month ago. And DeFender's writing was just wrong. Who types "ru @ teh grosri stor rite nw?" instead of "Are you at the grocery store right now?"?
I see typing like DeFender's example not used ironically all the time. Heck, earlier today, I DELETED a page on this very Wiki that was typed like that. YOUR example is significantly worse, and I'm leaning more toward most people typing like that being jokes, but the point still stands. --Jay (Talk) 23:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, while typing like DeFenders's is common on IM/Chat channels, my worse example is something I've never seen on those. Ya gotta draw the line somewhere, I guess. DrPepper42 00:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
For this correction to be made, it's going to take a lot of fact-checking. There are lots of instances of OK in our articles, and certainly some of those instances are accurate to TBC's usage. Dare we trust something like this to a bot? OptimisticFool 23:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Look, we'll have to do it by hand. Open multiple tabs, with articles to change it. I think "okay" is more formal, so it should be used. But, when OK is typed by SB or used in writing by TBC, it should be used. DrPepper42 01:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I prefer okay in prose and transcriptions of speech, unless there's a specific reason to use the short form OK. — It's dot com 03:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] View, Watch, view, watch

I notice on a lot of different pages that the words "view" and "watch" are not consistently lowercase or capitalized (here I'm referring to "External Links" of toons and sbemails). {{newsbemail}} suggests that they ought to be lowercase, but I wonder if there is some "rule" I'm not aware of. OptimisticFool 00:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless they lead a sentence, I see no purpose in capping them. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 18:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I get the idea that this is the kind of thing most people won't care enough about to respond to. I'll give it another couple days before I start changing them. OptimisticFool 20:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, how many are we talking about here? I'm not sure this would be worth the edits it would take to make them consistent. — It's dot com 20:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not for you or me. But the cheatbot could do it! — Defender1031*Talk 21:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, yes, but it would still have to be set up and run. — It's dot com 21:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Man, the cheatbot's so smart, he could set up and run himself! (Yeah, i figured you'd say that) — Defender1031*Talk 22:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll just take it about five a day when nothing else is going on. No sweat. OptimisticFool 08:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
We should also work on capitalizing al the L's where it says "External links" to match up with most of the other times when the L is capitalized. Homestar-Winner (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
(Six months later...) Why not apply Template:extlinks. Then if we change our minds on the formatting later, we can just update one template, rather than a zillion articles. LobStoR 05:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Double Punctuation

[Moved from Jay's talk page —  Green Helmet 00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)]

Jay, I do not mean to be pushy or anything, but earlier when you said you "weren't buying the double punctuation", well I didn't buy it first either, but there are quite a few times I've seen this. Which is right? Theycallmefree 23:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd say NOT having both an exclamation point and a period would be the way to go. But maybe that's just me. Perhaps we should bring it up on the Manual of Style page!. --Jay (Talk) 23:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This MAY be the first worthwhile thing I've done in my life! Maybe... Theycallmefree 23:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I've always been taught that a sentence should have one and only one ending punctuation — out of exclamation point, question mark, or period — even if that happens to be contained in a quotation or proper noun that's at the end of the sentence. In other words, no double punctuation. (One misleading case is an ellipses, which since that is not an ending punctuation mark itself, should be followed by a period). On a somewhat related note, I have been troubled for years now as to how exactly one is supposed to properly end a parenthetical with a smiley.  Green Helmet 00:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
You can, in informal contexts, break that for emphasis (the most common use of which is "?!"), but yeah, none of this "!." nonsense. I don't even like a period after an ellipsis, though I suppose that's not wrong, per se. --Jay (Talk) 01:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Double punctuation shouldn't be used in cases where you're quoting a sentence: "Wow, that's cool!" he said. But double punctuation is proper and necessary when dealing with titles, especially because we link all titles. The easiest way to illustrate it would be to imagine how confusing the following sentence would be without double punctuation: My favorite items in the H*R body of work are TROGDOR!, Secret Collect., and First Time Here?. — It's dot com 03:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
So, you're saying double punctuation is the way to go. Right? Theycallmefree 11:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
In at least the specific cases of a linked title ending a sentence or being listed as above, yes. — It's dot com 15:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rename as HRWiki:Styles

Because the Homestar Runner Wiki should use HRWiki styles. "HRWiki:Styles upon styles" would also be funny but probably too much. — It's dot com 16:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've always hated the name "Manual of Style". I tend to prefer "Style Guide" on my own wikis, but wouldn't be opposed to calling it "Styles Upon Styles" as long as the appropriate redirects are in place. I don't care much for just "Styles" as it lacks description. — Defender1031*Talk 16:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I prefer "Style Guide" as well, though more for the implications. "Manual Of Style" implies that the rules contained within are hard and fast, and we all know that that's not true in all cases, depending on the needs. "Style Guide" implies a little more flexibility. Then it can be totally style! wbwolf (t | ed) 22:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I really don't like any of the suggestions so far as much as I like the current name. If we must rename it, maybe we could use HRWiki:Sample of Style, but I think Manual of Style sounds most professional and best. -132.183.151.122 22:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I definitely like Sample of Style as a choice. — It's dot com 22:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The only reason i don't like it is because it implies a model page, with dummy layouts and such (based on the definition of "sample"). I'd be okay with something a little more transformative of a reference like "How to handle our style". — Defender1031*Talk 01:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
HRWiki:You Can't Handle Our Style? — It's dot com 01:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather not have it too long. I fine the current name just fine because of the reference to style. Soiled Bargains (talk|ctrb) 20:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I intended the last one as a joke. I'm still in favor of my original suggestion, HRWiki:Styles, which is not long at all. — It's dot com 21:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
The name should be something short and simple. HRWiki:Styles would work just fine. – The Chort 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm reviving this eight-year-old discussion to say I approve. "Styles" or "Style Guide" would work fine. FLCTNUy.png g9fdygesagrxsgzogfdrc 02:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

[edit] Double Spacing

What is our policy on double spacing? Some people put two spaces between sentences when they type, but most people don't. Which is the correct style and can this be added to the project page? – The Chort 17:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter. Unless you      use      nonbreaking      spaces (or "white-space:pre"), multiple spaces are always rendered as just one space. (See wikitext.) — It's dot com 03:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Homestar Runner Body of Work

Since The Cheatbot is hard at work right now moving ]]'s from [[Homestar Runner (body of work)|Homestar Runner body of work]] to [[Homestar Runner (body of work)|Homestar Runner]] body of work; I thought I'd ask the question: I was under the impression that [[Homestar Runner body of work]] was a more acceptable way to link to the page. What was the final decision on redirects vs. piped links? The Knights Who Say Ni 03:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The name of the article is "Homestar Runner", and that's how the link should read. The disambiguating text "(body of work)" is not part of the title proper; it's there only to distinguish the article about the body of work from the character. Disambiguating text should only be a part of the link if two similar links are in close proximity. — It's dot com 03:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Pipe or redirect?

There should be something here to clarify whether redirects should be linked to ([[Homestar]]) or piped ([[Homestar Runner|Homestar]]). Personally, I believe these links should be piped. Linking to redirects is unprofessional, not to mention the distracting text at the top. On the other hand, I see no problem with piping links. But that's just my opinion. What do you think? FLCTNUy.png g9fdygesagrxsgzogfdrc 02:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

"Linking to redirects is unprofessional"[citation needed]. Seriously, there's nothing unprofessional about it. If the text being linked says something different than the name of the page being linked to, it's actually USEFUL for users to see why they'r getting a different page than the one they clicked on. But this question indicates a deeper issue. For some reason, there's been an attitude on the wiki that linking to redirects is evil, and using pipes where they can be avoided is also evil. Neither of these things is true. These linking methods are both tools, and like all tools, they have both appropriate and inappropriate uses. — Defender1031*Talk 05:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
See also HRWiki talk:Standards/Archive 3#(Don't Fear) The Redirect and HRWiki talk:Standards#Tradition is not necessarily policy -209.6.213.28 12:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools