Difference between revisions of "Talk:BattleCorps Ship Profiles"
Sarna News
m (→Spelling) |
(Think you swayed me) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:I stick a little bit my nose in this discussion, the best way is, we use a correct spelling without spelling errors and so on. When i take a look in the latest CGL sourcebooks, i don't understand the developers in many way's, a book or sourcebook was new developed but they need a errata forum, why, why, i found this problem in all later publications, i don't understand this way, when i produce a product i have fact checkers etc. etc., and the chekers must see some errors or indescrepancy and so on, but to many errors found there way in the pdf's and hard copies, but this is my point of view.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 14:38, 4 October 2012 (PDT) | :I stick a little bit my nose in this discussion, the best way is, we use a correct spelling without spelling errors and so on. When i take a look in the latest CGL sourcebooks, i don't understand the developers in many way's, a book or sourcebook was new developed but they need a errata forum, why, why, i found this problem in all later publications, i don't understand this way, when i produce a product i have fact checkers etc. etc., and the chekers must see some errors or indescrepancy and so on, but to many errors found there way in the pdf's and hard copies, but this is my point of view.--[[User:Doneve|Doneve]] ([[User talk:Doneve|talk]]) 14:38, 4 October 2012 (PDT) | ||
::I think we should use the proper spelling of ship names and state prefixes (which is why I changed them). In every other source I've seen from CGL, the state abbreviations are always capitalized. To me that means that the PDF's were released with an error that would be corrected in an Errata document. So by using the correct capitalization and spelling, we're actually doing the right thing.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 05:19, 5 October 2012 (PDT) | ::I think we should use the proper spelling of ship names and state prefixes (which is why I changed them). In every other source I've seen from CGL, the state abbreviations are always capitalized. To me that means that the PDF's were released with an error that would be corrected in an Errata document. So by using the correct capitalization and spelling, we're actually doing the right thing.--[[User:Mbear|Mbear]]<sup>([[User_talk:Mbear|talk]])</sup> 05:19, 5 October 2012 (PDT) | ||
| + | :::Agree that "correct" spelling is better in many respects. But it certainly is deviating from the source material (though not from the ''intention'' of the source material), especially in exposed positions such as the title of a publication. I think maybe you guys are right and we should tidy things up. In that case, however, we have to clearly indicate in the article what changes we made and that the subject in question is officially in another, albeit wrong, way. | ||
| + | :::To explain, when I set up these summary articles the idea was that a search of the wiki database should find them; and I assumed a given user would likely search for the exact title used on BattleCorps to ascertain exact results and perhaps also simply because of a copy&paste procuedre. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 06:39, 5 October 2012 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 09:39, 5 October 2012
Spelling
I've added individual ship profiles with the exact same spelling as BC used - which may include spelling errors or, more frequently, odd capitalisations. Now I'm torn - should the article use the "correct" spelling/format, or should we stick to the exact same format as BC including obvious errors? Frabby (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2012 (PDT)
- I stick a little bit my nose in this discussion, the best way is, we use a correct spelling without spelling errors and so on. When i take a look in the latest CGL sourcebooks, i don't understand the developers in many way's, a book or sourcebook was new developed but they need a errata forum, why, why, i found this problem in all later publications, i don't understand this way, when i produce a product i have fact checkers etc. etc., and the chekers must see some errors or indescrepancy and so on, but to many errors found there way in the pdf's and hard copies, but this is my point of view.--Doneve (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2012 (PDT)
- I think we should use the proper spelling of ship names and state prefixes (which is why I changed them). In every other source I've seen from CGL, the state abbreviations are always capitalized. To me that means that the PDF's were released with an error that would be corrected in an Errata document. So by using the correct capitalization and spelling, we're actually doing the right thing.--Mbear(talk) 05:19, 5 October 2012 (PDT)
- Agree that "correct" spelling is better in many respects. But it certainly is deviating from the source material (though not from the intention of the source material), especially in exposed positions such as the title of a publication. I think maybe you guys are right and we should tidy things up. In that case, however, we have to clearly indicate in the article what changes we made and that the subject in question is officially in another, albeit wrong, way.
- To explain, when I set up these summary articles the idea was that a search of the wiki database should find them; and I assumed a given user would likely search for the exact title used on BattleCorps to ascertain exact results and perhaps also simply because of a copy&paste procuedre. Frabby (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2012 (PDT)
- I think we should use the proper spelling of ship names and state prefixes (which is why I changed them). In every other source I've seen from CGL, the state abbreviations are always capitalized. To me that means that the PDF's were released with an error that would be corrected in an Errata document. So by using the correct capitalization and spelling, we're actually doing the right thing.--Mbear(talk) 05:19, 5 October 2012 (PDT)