Ultima Codex talk:Style guide/Archive

Non-breaking space

I think it should be used. I vaguely remember some hating on this HTML entity, but I think that was more about something that the rich text editor was insinuating into edits, and not something that the human editors could easily be blamed for. In any case, I think that the HTML people were wise to create it. Sometimes I find it weird when a line begins with "VI" and when the previous word is "Ultima", sometimes it does! This often happens in info boxes, which is why I bridge to two with " ". I'm not sure if this is the proper way to do typesetting (or even if "typesetting" is the correct term), but I'd like to put it in the style guide, if I can persuade you to see it that way. Oh, and Fenyx, have I got a bot request for you! AngusM 01:53, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it may be useful in some cases. But it tends to make source editing harder, so if used, it should be used sparsely and in some contexts only, I think.--Sega381 14:11, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

I guess 3 months is enough time. I think I'll mix it in with the stuff about game names, since there doesn't seem to be much other use for it. Oh, and as far as editing goes, I said somewhere else that we should probably take on 100 shares of inconvenience to save the reader one. I think that should be an official guideline also. AngusM 23:58, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Use of italics and quotes for proper names

I'd like to suggest the following use of italics and qutoes, which we are somewhat already using, based on Wikipedia:

• Italics:
  • Games
  • Books
  • Ships
  • Movies, Series, Music albums (for real life references)
• Double quotes:
  • Songs
  • Book chapters
  • Series episodes (for real life references)

Establishments like Folley Tavern should only be capitalized, no italics or quotes.

What do you think?--Sega381 14:11, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

If you can find ample instances of these being used in articles, I say feel free to add it. If you do, though, you should probably use clearer terms than some of those you have here. AngusM 21:06, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Now that it's policy, it seems that the decision to italicize game names wasn't just a recent trend that someone pioneered, as I originally thought, but just proper form and style. Someone should probably remove that text I made specifically about how to handle game names, and then maybe add to that section that Sega(?) recently created. I'd do it myself, but I think others understand this better than I do. AngusM 04:06, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, merged. I left the Serpent Isle bit, though, as that is a different topic.--Sega381 04:23, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

References

The process for carving out our policy on references was done in the forums. Anyone who wishes to reopen the issue should do so here. AngusM 18:00, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed two possible problems with the current format:

• When a book like The History of Britannia has an in-game author and a real author, which one do we use?
• When adding a reference to a real book, it looks like this: "Guy. The History of Britannia. Ultima IV.". Just like in the LoreQuotes, I'm not sure if it looks "nice" to have both italicized names (book name and game name) one next to the other. Maybe this can be improved somehow, using parentheses or something like that? But that may break the consistency with the format when naming the game in other kinds of references.

--Sega381 23:36, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Any ideas on these points? I'd like to start adding references, but I would like to have these settled before.--Sega381 18:47, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, as no ideas have been given, I'll just make my suggestions, and add them to the Style Guide.

• We should use the real author and, optionally, in parentheses, the in game author, like so: Garriot, Richard (in-game: Hawkwind).
• We should put the game inside parentheses, which can be followed by "in-game" if so, like this: The History of Britannia (Ultima IV), or Mempto Rays: A Qualitative Study In Metaparaphilosophical Radiation (Ultima VII - in-game).

If no one comments, I'll start trying to fix references to this new format, where needed.--Sega381 21:14, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Actually I saw this the other day and was intent on coming back today and giving it a hard look :)

As for that italic issue, I dunno—always boggles the mind. But the author/fictional author problem: I'd say it's unnecessary and confusing to give both authors. It should be sufficient to specify one author. Assuming that the purpose is to make the dereferencing process as smooth as possible, I'd give the most prevalent author. I believe that the fictional author is more prevalent. I'm more likely to remember "Kyle the Younger" than "Bob Jones" or whomever.

Ah, but what if the fictional author is not available, you say? Well, put it this way, I'd use no more than one author, and give preference to the fictional one. AngusM 17:49, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. I'm going to agree with you and use that rationale, then. On the italic thingy, I'm going to go with the parentheses, as 1) it is consistent with the LoreQuotes, and 2) only some books come with the games... it makes sense to have that additional info, the game the book came with, in an optional format, which fits the parentheses style.

On another note, I'm going to create some sort of template for this. I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier, but as we might change our minds on how to best format references, a template would make our lifes much easier. However, we are already using references a lot, so I should make this quickly.--Sega381 02:30, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

You can create templates? I had the idea that was an admin thing. Or are you a closet admin? AngusM 03:26, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Creating templates, moving pages, creating pages, I think creating namespaces even... The only powers I have that you don't that I can think of are deleting pages, protecting pages, banning people (which thankfully I've never had to do) and editing crazy global javascript and global stylesheet pages. Honestly the primary reason I became an admin was to clean up the delete category! :)

And templates for the references sounds like a great idea! -- Fenyx4 03:46, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've created three templates: Template:RefBook, Template:RefTranscript, abd Template:RefWeb, one for each of the cases described in the style guide. Any comments? I'd like to update the style guide soon to add this templates, and start updating current references to use these templates. Note that it is more important to decide if the right information is there, than the format itself; we can improve the format later, provided the templates collect the correct info and in the correct form.--Sega381 13:37, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! This would have made editing Aidon a lot less painful—pussy footing around all those formatting codes and punctuation. Like you said, I don't see what one could add, since as you say, it can be changed later. AngusM 04:44, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

I think the most important things that could be changed are pieces of info that might be missing, such as, I don't know, the city where the book was published. That is something that, of course, can be added later, but unlike the formatting, it would have to be added to every single reference in every single article, as that information just wouldn't be there to begin with. But since we had already agreed on most of the information that would be contained in references, there may not be anything critical missing. --Sega381 12:48, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I started testing this out on the Ultima Legacy article, if you want to see a real example.--Sega381 13:01, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it's done, I've updated the style guide. We should start using the templates as of now.--Sega381 04:20, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Gypsy vs. Romani

Hey. This is an odd little detail to bring up, but could we discuss potentially substituting some of the uses of "gypsy" with the term Romani, which is the prefered descriptor of the ethnic group commonly known as gypsies? I know that they are never referred to as such in the games, but I feel that it behooves us to try to avoid using outdated stereotyping language when describing a group of people who really exist.

I already anticipate the argument that the "gypsies" of Ultima are fictional, and hence bear no relation to their real-life counterparts. I ask people, for comparison, to consider how they might feel about a situation in which black people were consistently referred to in an in game setting as "negros" or "colored folk" and if in such a case those people should continue to be referred to by such terms in an encyclopedic setting.

While Ultima is a lovely series, I am regretful that it - like *many* high fantasy games and books - uses the tired and racist tropes regarding the Romani. I in no way wish to to attempt to revise Ultima gypsies into bland inoffensiveness, and Ifeel that it should be clear that "gypsy" is a term used in game. However, I would like where possible to indicate that these NPCs (even if many of them are flawed racial caricatures) are technically representations of a real and living people - and that those people should be referred to as the Romani.

Thoughts? (Blu3vib3 21:05, October 6, 2010 (UTC))

I'm afraid I have to disagree, for all the reasons you wanted to intercept, except that about Ultima gypsies being different from the real ones. Clearly the Ultima gypsies are designed around the so-called racist stereotypes. However, where some would see "racist stereotypes" I see "theme". For instance, it's a matter of theme that miners in Britannia use candles and manual tools, even though they are outdated. It would be absurd to have the Britannian Mining Company start to use electric lamps (or fluorescents) and power tools. So, I believe, would it be an elephant in the room to be using terms for characters that do not exist in the Ultima universe.

There is some precedent for this. There's been discussion already about the "deistic" (as I like to call it) approach to dealing w/contradictions between the games. The prevailing view appears to be that Ultima is always right, and that nothing should be changed, corrected, rationalized, or "revised" in this case. Canon is as canon does.

Also, I'd even be reluctant to point out this out-game issue even in the trivia section, since it doesn't seem to be very relevant to the game; to me at least. However, one could make a case that it would be irresponsible to be using a term, thereby possibility encouraging its use among those ignorant of the ramifications. That case would seek to have a footnote, educating the reader on the issues surrounding use of the term.

So I think we should remove "gypsy" as surely as The Merchant of Venice gets its lines changed. Sorry to be 180 on you about this, but it wasn't intentional. It's just the way it's turned out. AngusM 21:44, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Angus on this. This particular group of people in Britannia is called gypsies and refer to themselves as such; it's not up to us to editorialize more than we have to. Not that I don't see where you're coming from - we used Roma/Romani a fair amount on Ultima Legacy for many of the same reasons, after all. --Warder Dragon 21:53, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're thinking, but I have to disagree. I'm uncertain of your nationality, but I understand in Europe there is still significant prejudices towards the Romani. Heck, my grandmother left Germany 60 years ago, and she STILL blames everything on the Romani, even though she now lives in northern Canada where she's probably 1000 kilometers from the nearest one, but I digress... Ultima is a North American series, and in North America the term "gypsy" does not have the same negative stereotypes associated with it that exists in Europe. No insults were meant towards the gypsies in the Ultima series, in fact they were usually held in high regard. I feel there is no need to fix a slight that wasn't there in the first place.

As for asking me my opinion on stereotypes directed towards myself, well, I am Caucasian, but I lived in Japan for over 2 years. I was a visible minority, and I was on the receiving end of what could be perceived as racism on many occasions. The truth is, a lot of the times what I perceived as racism was simply misunderstandings, and no slight was intended. Since no slight was intended, even though I may have been insulted, I would be wrong to demand an apology or demand those who hurt me to change. I was in their home, and I had to accept things their way. I think the same case applies here regarding Gypsies and Ultima. No insult or harm was meant to the gypsies in their portrayal in the Ultima series, so I think we would be wrong to rewrite anything. (Dungy 21:57, October 6, 2010 (UTC))

To clarify, I entirely agree that all references in game to gypsies should remain as they are, as to alter them is disingenuous to the material.

What I question is using the term "gypsy" as an objective descriptor when writing encyclopedic entries. Even if Jim from Huckleberry Finn is described throughout the book as a "n*****," I think most people would agree that it would be inappropriate in a Mark Twain wiki to open Jim's article with the words "Jim is n***** who adventures with Huck on the Mississippi." (Blu3vib3 21:59, October 6, 2010 (UTC))

Yes, but nigger is universally accepted as an unacceptable term to describe black people (Unless of course you ARE black), so any use of it is universally agreed to be racist. I think it is unfair to say that gypsy has that same connotation, judging by the fact you feel the need *star* out the word nigger, but do not feel the same need to do it with gypsy. Gypsy can and is used in a positive connotation. "African American" and "black" are two terms that are both acceptable and both have a positive or at least neutral connotation. Both would be acceptable. In North America, "gypsy" and "Roma" is the same scenario. Dungy 22:14, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

But they aren't Roma, they're gypsies. They're based on the Roma, yes, but there's no such thing in Britannia. I'm not convinced your n-word analogy is apt; like Dungy mentioned, the word gypsy does not carry the same negative connotations everywhere. The Ultimas portray them as a proud, kind people who have to suffer a lot of intolerance, and who get to take the blame for everything bad ever done by one of their people. I don't see any racism at all (though it could be argued that the stereotypical speech is a little over the top). In fact, their in-game portrayal closely resembles the Roma situation in real life, with a rare few Romani families with deeply ingrained criminal behavior that make the vast majority of the Roma targets of equally deeply ingrained intolerance. --Warder Dragon 22:08, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Honestly. I'm totally not really too upset if the word stays "gypsy," although I still very much disagree with the rationale. But seriously, what the crap?

"A rare few Romani families with deeply ingrained criminal behavior make the vast majority of the Roma targets of equally deeply ingrained intolerance."

This reads to me, as an attempt to blame an ongoing and at times genocidal hatred of a people that is still ongoing on "bad apples" within the ethnic group, rather than on the people perpetuating the racism. I really don't think that's cool. I don't want to start a massive internet fight about racial politics, and I don't have any reason to believe you are personally a racist, but that really threw me for a loop, and I'd feel remiss if I didn't express some shock. (Blu3vib3 22:21, October 6, 2010 (UTC))

That is not what I said and it threw me for a loop that you chose to interpret it that way! Obviously there's far more to it than the gross oversimplification in my previous comment, but it was merely a reflection on similarities between what we can observe of the gypsy situation in Ultima and what is going on in many countries today. Ultima doesn't give us the history of the Romani persecution, but it does provide what Dungy commented on, and what is arguably the most common thing we see in real life today; the gypsies get blamed for everything. If the crops are bad, the gypsies did it. If a gypsy is caught stealing, all gypsies are thieves. I happen to know a little about the history of gypsy persecution, but most people do not, at least not where I live. They've just heard that gypsies are thieves and conmen, and that's that.

And that is what I commented on. I'll use a real life example; where I live, in Sweden, there isn't that much animosity towards Romani as there used to be, but the old "gypsies are thieves" nonsense is hard to wash out. Unfortunately, out of the many Romani families who do live here there are two that are very often involved in cons, burglaries and the like; the proverbial "bad apples". You jumped to the conclusion that I called them the cause of the persecution, but you were mistaken - what I meant, though I could've elaborated on it - was that these bad apples are used as scapegoats by racists to continue the persecution, which also happens to be the case in Ultima. It's a huge problem, because it solidly undermines the effort to rid the community of a lot of misconceptions about the Romani.

Now, have I convinced you I'm not a racist or should I try harder? ;) --Warder Dragon 22:55, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Seriously. I meant no animosity, and now that the comment has been explained, I'm a lot more comfortable. Your statement was phrased in a way that made me very uneasy without explanation. Yes. I did misinterpret it. My apologies.

I've encountered a lot of instances where people who are a part of majority culture take the behaviors of small portions of marginalized groups and use it to justify their mistreatment. I feel that such statements should elicit some brief, but polite, interjection of complaint, which I tried to do, although perhaps not as tactfully as could be managed. Thank you very much for the clarification. (Blu3vib3 23:07, October 6, 2010 (UTC))

No problem. Looking back, I can see how I wasn't clear; I had meant the deeply ingrained intolerance bit to refer to the already existing persecution, but I should've explained better. We still on for s'mores? --Warder Dragon 23:16, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

I'll come clean, man. I'm procrastinating on a paper. S'mores sound like a pretty delicious diversion. (Blu3vib3 00:55, October 7, 2010 (UTC))

Compromise?

I wasn't really anticipating such a rapid backlash to the proposal. While I still feel very uncomfortable with the use of gypsy as an objective descriptor, I understand that Ultima is ultimately a computer RPG and not a launchpad for confronting racism, and that it would become rapidly unwieldy to annotate every potentially racially insensitive point in the series (Don't get me started on Savage Empire).

I had an IRL discussion with a friend, who helpfully pointed out that the term is often used to refer to other "traveler" peoples, even if they aren't of Romani descent, such as the Tinkers of England, and that couching the gypsies of Ultima in such a context might be better for my sense of comfort.

How would people feel about creating a page along the lines of "Gypsies in the Ultima Series" which would primarily focus on the history of the Gypsy people in the game, but would also provide some small space to note the difference between gypsies as portrayed in the game world and the reality of the Romani people?

I get the impression that a lot of people feel uncomfortable about addressing things like race in the context of a fantasy game, but I very much feel that a game like Ultima, which spends so much time attempting to tackle philosophical problems (racism included), deserves to have issues like such as this one explored where they exist. One of the reasons I have such an attachment to the series is because, unlike so many similar works, I felt that the games would often examine things other fantasy settings glossed over - addressing such issues as sexism, socio-economic class differences, unfair labor conditions and drug use.

For the time being I've redacted any minor Romani-related changes I've made in editing the gypsy pages, in the interest of not jumping the gun. (Blu3vib3 22:48, October 6, 2010 (UTC))

It sounds like a good idea to me. Just make sure the page stays on topic! While mentioning the similarities and differences between Ultima gypsies and real life ethic groups makes for good material, the Codex is primarily about the game, so that should be the main focus. Also, this talk page is really choking my browser when editing it. Sheesh! --Warder Dragon 23:16, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

I arrived a little late to the conversation, but I was going to agree about maintaining the word "gypsy", for all the reasons stated above. However, I do like the idea of a "Gypsies" article (I think "in the Ultima Series" may be redundant, as EVERYTHING in this wiki is supposed to be about the Ultima series) per se. Even before this discussion, I was thinking to create such a page, just as there are pages for other groups in the Ultima universe. And that would be the perfect place to add a note about the differences with the real-world gypsies. According to our current standards (though I'm not sure this is specifically written in the style guide), that would belong in the "Trivia" section of the article.

Oh, and we're going to have to start archiving the closed discussions from this page...--Sega381 01:28, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

I'm a latecomer as well. For whatever my opinion is worth this far into the discussion, here in Australia I grew up playing CRPGs in complete ignorance about the Romani people. To me, "gypsy" was always just a harmless name for a traveling mystic/fortune teller. In fact, that's still the predominant association I have when I hear it. It was only after interacting with Europeans later in my life that I even learned the word had ethnic connotations. Bearing that in mind, I can understand the objection to its use, but I think I'm inclined to agree that its place in Ultima is a different context and can be maintained here. --Terilem 02:40, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

So, as the Gypsies article has already been created, I guess this discussion can be archived. Anyone opposses?--Sega381 13:51, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Since this thread doesn't seem to be headed towards any change to the guide, if everyone's done w/it, I'm going to archive it, maybe in a week. AngusM 16:43, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

Unicode (policy)

I started this issue on Talk:Computer Ports of Ultima V.

Unicode is a wonderful character set, but with its dozen or so "planes" each one of which has 1000s of characters, there are a ton of valid characters that won't show up in people's browsers properly. I realized how serious this might be when I looked at Computer Ports of Ultima V and saw a bunch of "Apple �"-looking text where I expected to see "Apple ][". The "II" on that page is not the much older and therefore more reliable ASCII, but Unicode, which shows up fine for 2 other editors, but not for me. Since this could happen to others, I propose we adopt the following:

1. Never use Unicode when there's a perfectly usable ASCII/HTML alternative. This means we use ASCII characters, and HTML entities and tags. I've noticed Unicode superscript characters in tables for footnotes. These could be replaced with the likes of ¹ or even better <sup style="font-size: x-small;">1</sup>. I know, that's a mouthful, but the way I see it, editors should take on 100 shares of inconvenience to save readers one share.
2. It could be more permissable when the symbols you are using aren't that crucial to the text. I noticed that there are these tables adorned with Unicode ankhs. I can't see those ankhs, which was a bit annoying, but I got over it, and was able to understand everything on the page anyway.
3. If 1. and 2. don't apply, and you must use Unicode, then try to use a character that's widely supported. I have no idea how to do that. Perhaps there's a web site that lists that stuff. Googling "unicode +supported" didn't give me much joy.

I don't suppose we could force pages to use ISO-8849-1. I'm not crazy about forcing such a regional character set, but since this is an English language site, anyone whose system doesn't support ISO-8849-1 won't benefit from the Codex much. On the other hand, any character in ISO-8849-1 probably has widely supported Unicode counterparts. AngusM 05:36, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of not using Unicode if it is not really necessary. But I'm curious on why you're not seeing it. By now, all browsers should support Unicode, and the only reason I can think of for it not working is if there is some special configuration in that browser disabling Unicode (or maybe in mobile browsers too). Out of curiosity, what browser brand, version and language are you using (and on which OS)?--Sega381 18:59, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm using the latest FF using Canadian English on WinXPHESP3, but the latest IE also had problems with what's on Computer Ports of Ultima V. I don't think that this is a browser issue, but the font I'm using. And it's not a matter of Unicode being completely unsupported, but just certain code points, such as the one that makes the ankh and "II". I can see a lot of other Unicode.

I don't think there's much helping anyone whose system doesn't support any Unicode at all. However, I think it could be rather a long time before most systems are able to support all code points. So I think we should try to avoid Unicode if we can, and especially avoid code points we think aren't well supported. AngusM 19:20, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... it may be the fonts then that don't support all Unicode code points. If you want to know more about it, you could try googling for the font and what it supports. But anyway, I do agree that there is no need to use strange symbols in most of the cases.--Sega381 02:17, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I've discovered a little bit more about what it takes to support a code point; more specifically, the "II". It also has a link that shows you which fonts support those points. So which ones do you guys have?

I'm a bit confused by all this. Which font is the Computer Ports article trying to display? Does it have to be one of those on that supported fonts page? What if the font in the article doesn't have that code point? Do most browsers fall back on a font that does support it? AngusM 20:47, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, the article itself does not define any font to show. The style used in this Wiki probably defines a font to use, and if so, there are three cases: the browser displays the article in that font; the browser does not have that font, and defaults to another one (browsers do that); the browser for some reason is forcing a webpage to always use a defined font, with no regard to what the webpage says (there may be a user configuration for that). In the last two cases, if the default or pre-defined font does not support the coid point, you would not see the character. If the website style is not defining a font, only the last two cases may apply. I'll see if I can check which font, at least for me, is being used, and what font is being defined by the Wiki style.--Sega381 23:45, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, comparing typography visually, the font the Editable Codex is using to display the info in my browser is Arial. In the Firefox 3 configuration section, there is a checkbox to "allow webpage to select a font", and also 4 default fonts (depending on something) for each character set. As one of that default fonts, the Serif one (for all charsets, including Unicode), is Arial, I am not sure if Firefox is using that default font to show me the Editable Codex info, or if Wikia has some stylesheet somewhere defining that the codex should use Arial. But since you're not seeing it correctly, it may mean you're not seeing the content in Arial font, which should mean you have another default Serif font for the Unicode charset, one that doesn't support that code point.--Sega381 01:04, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right, in that it is not editors that decide the font for that article (we could, but usually don't) so it is probably decided by Wikia. And Wikia does somehow force a font of their choosing. I, too, went into my Options for FF, and change my default fonts to Ultima Runes. It didn't change the way any Codex pages looked. My "allow webpage to select a font" checkbox is also checked. Considering what we've found so far, and the fact that my IE has the same problem, it's looking like it's a matter of the fonts that I've got on my system. AngusM 03:14, October 1, 2010 (UTC)

I think this is ready to be policy, but being rather unimportant, I don't think it should be published in the style guide.

The only thing I'd add to those numbered points I made at the beginning is that code points that have Western European diacritics are likely to be safe, so things like acute accents, grave accents, umlauts and ligatures of Latin characters are easily permissible, and also necessary on pages where the encoding scheme is UTF-8 (that's all pages here). The Ultra-Mind 15:10, 21 December 2010 (PST)

Links on repetitive words

I used to think that the way things worked around here is that if you have a word in an article that is pertinent to another article, that you were supposed to link that word to that article on that word's first occurrence, and never again after within the same article. Now after seeing a few articles, I'm wondering if the scope of that rule is just within a section, meaning, you will again link words if they repeat after another level 2 heading. Which is it? Or "should it be" I should say, since it's not in the guide yet. AngusM 03:33, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've wondered the same thing from time to time. I've been under the impression that it's only supposed to be the first occurrence in the entire article. --Terilem 03:37, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

That's probably not the wisest way to do it, though. Articles are sometimes big. Sections less so. Often readers' attentions are focused only on one section, so if that section omits links, they are apt to miss relevant articles. I vote we make it one link to a section.

And are all talk pages without automatically generated tables of contents? They can get pretty big, too, in which case, contents are valuable. AngusM 03:57, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I used to follow the "once in an article" rule, but I've found out, working on several wikis, that it's better to have it once in a section, unless maybe the section is tooo small. I vote to make it one link per section, too.

About the talk pages, they do generate TOCs. You just have to look at this page :). Automatic TOCs appear only after the article/talk page has more than three or four sections.--Sega381 00:39, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Soooo, should we add this to the style guide?--Sega381 02:26, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. I usually like leave it for longer. 'Never know when someone might happen along and see these things for the first time. AngusM 03:16, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

I think this have been here looong enough. I'm going to add this to the style guide, saying that, in general links should appear once per section, unless the previous section is too small and the link has just appeared in the previous section.--Sega381 15:39, 11 December 2010 (PST)

How about making that a "level 1 section" (aka. level 2 heading)? The Ultra-Mind 15:43, 11 December 2010 (PST)

Sure. Added.--Sega381 11:11, 19 December 2010 (PST)

Capitals in image captions

Since we're on about capitals, what about capital initials in image captions? I don't see captions as being like section headers or article titles, so I think the same capitalization rules should apply to this as to paragraphs. AngusM 03:22, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that would be the best way of doing it. Dungy 11:07, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed too. Captions are just sentences, not titles.--Sega381 18:52, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think we should designate various types of texts, and make policies for them. I can think of 4, and they'd be paragraphs, titles, captions and list items, the last of which would include table cells. Did I miss anything? AngusM 01:06, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I think that's all of them. However, I think that the poilicies are going to be pretty similar, except for the titles...--Sega381 02:22, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

True. I would give their capitalization policies the same way, but these classifications might be useful later, for things like punctuation and such. AngusM 03:23, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so if noone else comments, I'll be adding this to the style guide, too.--Sega381 15:51, 11 December 2010 (PST)