Talk:Rules and guidelines: Difference between revisions

From MozillaZine Knowledge Base
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 13: Line 13:
--[[User:Asqueella|asqueella]], almost 21st Feb'05 GMT
--[[User:Asqueella|asqueella]], almost 21st Feb'05 GMT


:Just for the record, currently, the [[Rules]] page doesn't conflict with the ideas summarized above or presented below, which is good :-)  It provides links to more comprehensive articles on Naming conventions, Categories and Templates. --[[User:Mozcerize|Mozcerize]] 08:36, 18 September 2005 (PDT)


==Categories and templates==
==Categories and templates==

Revision as of 15:36, 18 September 2005

Please remember to add your signature after your comment(s) and add new comments at the bottom of the page, except when answering another comment. Thanks.

Archived previous comments

Previous discussion was from Mar'04, so I archived it here and made a short conspect (it may be a little biased :)

  • Categorizing information.
    • Nobody likes space-colon-space in articles' names. Either use just colon, e.g. Firefox:Safe mode or don't use categorization at all, e.g. just Safe mode or Safe Mode (Firefox) when absolutely necessary. Cf. In-House Style.
    • Subpages are evil too. (Some people have proposed using them in MZKB, but looks that majority likes Page title (Application) or just Page Title more).
    • Tips/FAQs/Issues subcategories are stupid. Nobody wants them.
  • Capitalization - we shouldn't capitalize words in articles' titles. Wikipedia naming conventions regarding capitalization.

Another page that has rules is In-House Style. It has these suggestions listed as if they were rules, but the actual rules tell you to do exactly opposite, even though everybody agrees the rules are wrong. Oh well.

--asqueella, almost 21st Feb'05 GMT


Just for the record, currently, the Rules page doesn't conflict with the ideas summarized above or presented below, which is good :-) It provides links to more comprehensive articles on Naming conventions, Categories and Templates. --Mozcerize 08:36, 18 September 2005 (PDT)

Categories and templates

This page's grown too large so I divided it into subpages:

--asqueella



==A plea: let's keep things simple== (Wintogreen 01:01, 29 Mar 2005 (PST)) Now that we've had a fair amount of discussion about the Rules and In-House Style, I would just like to make one proposal: in general, let's aim to keep the rules and style guidelines as simple as possible. New contributors should be able to read through the rules in, say, 5 minutes, and the style guidelines in another 10 minutes. They should be quick to read, easy to understand, and easy to follow. I don't mean that we shouldn't add to the Rules or not have an In-House Style, but that we should only include the specific rules/guidelines that are the most important, make them easy to implement, and then omit everything else from the "official" documents. Here's why I think so:

  • It will make the kb more inviting to new, potential contributors. And really, we do need more active contributors. People tend to be turned off, I think, by long lists of rules, guidelines, bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo.
  • Simpler rules/guidelines are easier to remember and easier to follow. The more complex we make things, the harder it will be for people to notice which rules/guidelines are really the most important.
  • Complex formatting requirements, sheerly for the sake of style, can be annoying. E.g., in the talk about keyboard shortcuts in Talk:Kb:In-House Style: it would be look great if we used the element with CSS, but it would be a pain to type this out all the time.
  • Unlike wikipedia, which is a huge sprawling project that would devolve into a gigantic mess without its bzillions of bureaucratic guidelines/rules/policies, the mozillazine kb is smaller in all aspects and can be managed differently. Let's not get carried away adding new rules/guidelines unless there's a real substantive benefit to having them.
While I mostly agree with you here -- we don't need most of wikipedia bureaucracy -- I'd like to say that current Rules/In-House Style don't take too long to read atm. And, in most of cases, we're not going to yell at someone for not following everything that's recommended in In-House Style.
We just need to make it clear on the Rules page what main points are, and that those are the main points. Maybe even move details to other pages (e.g. I think all "Naming a page" rules should be on a separate page). That way, a beginner only has to read the Rules page (short and simple) and only read other pages if he needs to. E.g. if he's going to create a new page, he'll read Creating a new page article and all the rules about naming the articles. Similarly, no-one has to read In-House Style, it's just a guide helping those who care to keep things uniform.
We also need to have those legalese pages to explain our edits. I.e. explaining why you replaced "Seamonkey" with "Mozilla Suite" (okay bad exmple) is easier when we have a page that explicitly states this is the term that must be used in KB.
Short summary ;) -- have a short Rules page and more info on separate pages; make it clear one doesn't have to read everything to start contributing.
asqueella 02:55, 29 Mar 2005 (PST)
I didn't mean to imply that the current Rules/In-House Style are too long. They're certainly not. And of course we do need the legalese stuff. I just wanted to make this "plea" now because I don't want to see the rules/guidelines have "everything but the kitchen sink" thrown into them. Also because I also don't want to see the adoption of things like Kb:Deletion policy. Good idea about making a "Creating a new page" article, by the way. Whatever happens in the end, all of these revisions are definitely for the better, and the fact that we're talking about style so much now is a sign that the kb has matured to a certain level. :) --wintogreen
I've gone ahead and implemented the Article naming conventions page. asqueella