CWCki talk:Operation Grammatification

I am all for this; I've been trying to fix up some of the articles on here, but eventually I realize what a gargantuan task it is and crash into slumber. A collective effort should go a long way. That said, I have two concerns:

1. Why are we using special characters for ellipses and hyphens? 2. Can we please do something about the overuse of strikeouts? Occasional uses to make a funny point are one thing, but people ahve been using them every time new facts come to light, or to make jokes that aren't really funny. See LBP and the end of the first section of Allison Amber to see what I mean. --sonichuis44 19:37, 11 December 2009 (CET)

• Using special characters for ellipses and em dashes is more of a formatting thing. It saves two characters to type … instead of ..., and it prevents people from using way.... more.......... periods than necessary. It's three, not four or twelve. Also, regarding the strikeouts, maybe we shouldn't use those at all, come to think of it. Bonus question: American or British English? We really need to be consistent and favor favour use one or the other. Apostrophe 19:41, 11 December 2009 (CET)

• American English, please see CWCki:AMERICUNT. This was like, the first debate on CWCki ever.

On a tangent, one good thing to do is to go through and compare CWCki transcriptions, especially of Chris documents, to the source. Some e-mails were transcribed from screenshots of e-mails so it's important to spot when Chris actually made a spelling error versus the error of the transcriptionist. --Champthom 19:50, 11 December 2009 (CET)

Might I recommend that we not uses the ellipsis character? I'm all for the em dash, but the ellipsis character doesn't look right. You can mix ellipsis with other punctuation, which happens often, because it's only meant to show a pause in speech. It particularly looks like shit when there's an ellipsis at the end of a sentence, because it would be "….", which is three small dots and a big one, at least with my font. What thinks you of these here dilemma, ey? --Tristran 21:15, 11 December 2009 (CET)

• Ellipsis at the end of speech should be just an ellipsis, not ellipsis and period. Apostrophe 21:24, 11 December 2009 (CET)

• I'm quite sure you are incorrect, sir. An ellipsis is not a piece of sentence-ending punctuation. As I said, it is only a sign of pause. It can be immediately followed by other punctuation, and, in the case of an a sentence ending with an ellipsis, it has no ending punctuation until a fourth dot is added. Just as there is a "...?", there is also a "...." and the ever-ironic "...!". View any of the results given here if you must further convince yourself of this. --Tristran 21:46, 11 December 2009 (CET)

• I stand corrected. As long as we can keep the ellipses to three dots except when ending a sentence, that's fine. Apostrophe 22:02, 11 December 2009 (CET)

Also, all images don't need to be right aligned. Most of them should be right aligned but if the space warrants it, then having an image or two be left aligned is all right. --Champthom 07:08, 12 December 2009 (CET)

Do you have a source on Lego being the plural of Lego? As someone who's been playing with Legos since he was a child, i find the idea appalling. I mean, it really Grinds My Gears. --sonichuis44 20:13, 13 December 2009 (CET)

Okay, my bad. The blocks themselves are properly LEGO Bricks, LEGO blocks, or anything else that uses LEGO as the adjective. Apostrophe 21:26, 14 December 2009 (CET)

I love this thing. What should I do about sonichu and rosechu as a species? I *think* they aren't supposed to be capitalized, but I've seen it both ways, and my shoddy little search yielded no information. BanjoSplice 04:16, 18 December 2009 (CET)

• Yes, Apostrophe and I discussed this matter. We (more so he) decided that they should be lowercase. I'm still pretty undecided about it, because they are Pokémon, and Pokémon's species names get capitalized, but... whatever. It's too stupid, complicated, and arbitrary. Bigboss says lowercase, so it's lowercase for me (as it should be for you, as well). That is all. --Tristran 04:36, 18 December 2009 (CET)

Here's one small style consideration that I'd like to mention: In scientific writing, citation placement is an important issue. If you have a statement like "Blah blah blah(cite).", it means the immediately preceding bit of information was taken from the source. If you have a statement like "Blah blah. Blah blah blah.(cite)", that is, after the following punctuation, it means that the stuff mentioned in the previous sentences, or possibly even the entire paragraph, refer to the source. (Or at least that's how I think APA did it last I checked.) I've seen some corrections that always place the citation after the punctuation, but this could be potentially confusing. --wwwwolf (wake me when you need me) 09:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Godjesus this is getting complex. Something I'll bring up, just to convalute this thread a bit further is use of the hyphen (-). When I was training as a journalist, we were taught to use the hyphen once- a bit like this. Sometimes on CWCki we find a different usage -- people actually use hyphens like this -- which is something that probably needs to be addressed. Is this an americunt usage -- something I know nothing about -- or is the NCTJ way the correct way? --YawningSquirtleRedux 10:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)