Spanking Art talk:Conventions

From Spanking Art
Jump to navigationJump to search

Inital reaction[edit]

I like this. I have a few suggestions:

  • "As any page in this wiki, these conventions can be edited and changed by anyone, and can be discussed on the discussion page." I would revise this to: "As any page in this wiki, these conventions can be edited and changed by anyone, but significant changes should first be discussed on the discussion page."
I feel at this initial stage of the conventions it's too early for such a phrase, and in general, I prefer "the wiki way" -- maybe after some time or after someone gave us a reason for it we can ask for such a "discussion before change". Spankart 20:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "We have no convention so far on the question of American English or British English spelling." Wikipedia allows either, but a) prefers consistancy within a particualr article, generally following the format first used in an article; b) articels on spcifically British topics are expected to use British forms, and thsoe on specifically American topics to use American forms; c) Edits made just to change British to American spelling, or vice versa, are strongly discouraged unless they are to achive consistancy within an article following either a) or b) above. Perhaps we should adopt a simialr convention?
Okay :-) Spankart 20:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Articles should explain the lemma and begin with a definition of the lemma." Although "lemma" is accurate here, this use of the term may be new to many. I suggest "Title term" or "subject term" either instead of, pr perhaps in additon to "lemma", for example "Articles should explain the lemma (the term that is the article's title) and begin with a definition of the lemma."
Sounds good. Spankart 20:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest a convention that when there are multiple mentions of a term within the smae article, and particulalrly within the same paragraph, only the first should be linked.
Yes, definitely. Spankart 20:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Sections should begin with a capital initial, but not every word of the section name". If a section title is a proper name, this should obviously be an exception. I further suggest that the same convention, with the same exception, apply to article titles.
Agreed. Spankart 20:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions seem good. -Mercy (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and make these changes! --Spankart 20:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions from a newbe[edit]

Late - but hopefully not too late - I had a quick look at our conventions. This -and reading a lot articles on this Wiki before - brings me to three questions:

1. Content as set of information and/or experiences in a specific context with a specific audience: As I first read about the existence on "Spanking Art" (on wiki) I assumed that these articles delivers specific information on spanking (art) and NOT about general. Let me come up with simple examples: If I am interested in wooden spoons, cooking spatulas or brushes, I assumed to find at "Spanking Art" specific information about these household items as a spanking implement and not what it is typically used for. IMO it would improve this wiki a lot if our (encyclopedic) articles stick to what is relevant to the wiki's subject spanking art. What's your opinion?

2. "Links" section: On wiki, the headline for external information is "External Links" (preferable), here "Links". Linked Articles from external wikis are found under this rubrum (ans not under "see also"). What's the rational for this?

3. "See also" sections: Should only links that are not used in the specific article already placed here?

Bottom Spanker 01:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me answer these three as good as I can:
1. Our convention is that every article begins with a brief definition of what that term (the lemma) is. So the beginning of the wooden spoon article begins with "A wooden spoon is a spoon made of wood, typically used in cooking." This may be trivial (everyone knows or can guess that a wooden spoon is probably a spoon made of wood :-), but there is a method and system to the "definition first" principle. Then, after the general definition of the term, comes as much text as you want on how this thing relates to spanking, or spanking art, or art in general, or BDSM, or sexuality, or whatever you want to say about it. There are very few exceptions where a definition of the lemma is not possible or really makes no sense. But in 99% of articles, we can and do follow this convention. I see your point that some people may feel annoyed when reading a trivial, general definition in the first few sentences that does not even relate to spanking. Many Wikia wikis, in fact, don't have such a convention, although I often wish they had. I think every reader will appreciate this convention as soon as he or she comes across a term that they hadn't heard before.
2. This convention was made by me because I find the section name "Links" nicer and shorter than "External Links". We could actually change this rule anytime if people say they prefer "External Links". For me, the word "External" is unnecessary because whether a link is internal or external can be seen by the link color, the arrow symbol, and the tooltip and status bar display while hovering over the link. In some cases (though we try to reduce these) there are external links in the body of the article, and in these cases there is no "extra" warning that this is an external and not an internal link.
3. Yes, in 99% of cases. The "See also" section is for links that the author thinks are helpful further reading, but which, for some reason, haven't yet made it into the body of the article. If they are already further up in the article, they don't need to be listed a second time in the "See also" section. Spankart 18:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Should we not mention flagging adult site links as {{18+}} ? --Roguebfl (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2008 (BST)

Yes, done. Spankart (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2008 (BST)

Should we not mention here that we use Links header unlike Wikipedia's External links? --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   12:49, 3 September 2010 (BST)

Yes, done. --Spankart (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2010 (BST)

Lists[edit]

So you approve of Template for lists then? --Roguebfl (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Actually I have no personal opinion about the template yet. I just linked it because it was there and was an orphan page. Could you perhaps demonstrate how the template looks when used? --Spankart (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2009 (BST)
The demonstration was set up on List of passive verbs --Roguebfl (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2009 (BST)
Well, that looks good to me. I wouldn't say the template "should" be used but certainly it "can". --Spankart (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Images[edit]

We should make a convention against when you want a lot of images going down right hand side of the page putting them all at the top of the page, becuase when the images flow past multiple headers this is what break the [edit] links from showing up in the right place --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   12:49, 3 September 2010 (BST)

Yes, true point. The article corner time is currently such an example. But the images in such cases often don't correspond to the sections, and anchoring all images from the top can result in a nicer page layout. I would put it as an 'advice', not a rule, if that is okay, since I don't consider it a big issue. Hopefully it is (or will be) fixed in a newer MediaWiki version. --Spankart (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2010 (BST)
Fair enough, but given we still using 1.11 when 1.16 is out and 1.14 was a major are we ever going to bother to update? Remember any such update is going to involve Stoner, and would be a major project which he not really in the postion to take on at the momment. --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   14:54, 4 September 2010 (BST)
Yes. I added it to the conventions. --Spankart (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2010 (BST)

Template:Femdomwiki[edit]

{{Femdomwiki}} could also be mentioned here, though we have been using it in Links not See also --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   12:49, 3 September 2010 (BST)

Yes, done. Thanks for that! And we might perhaps also make a template for Biblio Curiosa links in the same fashion. --Spankart (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2010 (BST)
{{Biblio}} has been made i had almost finished applying it to all the pages when I came across Pierre Guénolé whit was the first on that used {{18+}} in the link, now that it's template it simple enough to added it to all the other pages as well, but my question is it meant to be there? --  Roguebfl   talk    contribs    email   20:24, 4 September 2010 (BST)
Thanks! No, I believe we need no 18+ warning for Biblio Curiosa. --Spankart (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2010 (BST)