The following was a discussion regarding adopting the proposed Manual of Style rewrite. The result of the discussion was the rewritten Manual of Style would be adopted as proposed. This forum is an archive. Should you wish to add your opinion on the matter, please do so on the forum's talk page.
Happy New Year! As a new decade begins, so begins a new wave of policy updates, proposals, and all these other fun CTs that we've come to know and love. First up: the Manual of Style (note: the aforementioned link takes you to the current policy, not the proposal).
Many users, myself included, haven't exactly kept it a secret that our current MOS is...well...really, really bad. That's the kindest way I can put it. This is OK and perfectly understandable, though. The core of the Manual of Style in terms of policies has been around for probably around three years at this point. Obviously we've added and removed things since then, and our wiki has changed since then, but we're still essentially working off of an outdated standards guide.
What I'm putting up for proposal is something I've been working on, on and off, for far too long at this point, though that's not to say that putting it off has been a bad thing as it's given us more time to decide what type of wiki we really want to be. As a lot of active users agree, we can be a warm, fuzzy, and welcoming community based on fun and collaboration while also having a good set of standards that all articles are required to follow.
Because I actually want people who see this CT to read the proposal, I'm not going to be going through every section and providing information on it here in this introductory post. What I will do, though, is answer any questions anyone has about this MOS in the discussion section below.
As I said, please read it. What I will say, though, is that this proposal attempts to make a lot of things more uniform, therefore cutting down on a lot of what we typically refer to as "personal preference" items. If too many things are left up to a user's personal preference, then it makes having an MOS less and less important and relevant. This isn't to say that there's not personal preference, though. The "Layout guide" section leaves some wiggle room for that, as do a few other things.
So like I said, this has been in the works for a long time. I want to thank people like Atarumaster88 and Jedimasterfiolli for taking the time to go over the proposal beforehand, making a few modifications, and suggesting some additions. I appreciate the time you all took to help. Also a big thanks to Wookieepedia, as a number of things in this proposal are based off of the Wookieepedia MOS.
This CT will last for at least two weeks, until Tuesday, January 26th, unless more or less time is needed. All matters of the voting policy apply. Please be civil. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 05:28, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
This proposal may see minor alterations from time to time if people point out things they think should be added, removed, changed, etc. Because we can't restart the vote for every little change that's made, please be sure to check back in this discussion section to make sure that the proposal still warrants your support/opposition. As said above, I'll answer any questions anyone has here. Also, just to let you guys know, the next item on my agenda is the Layout Guide. A new Manual of Style needs to be approved first, though, so I can base the new Layout Guide proposal on the new MOS. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 05:28, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
Glad to see such a positive response to this! One thing I want to stress to you guys is the last paragraph of the spelling section of the proposal. It makes it very clear that we are the English Star Wars fanon wiki. We're not the German SWF, the Spanish SWF, the Polish SWF, or anything else. We are the EnglishStar Wars fanon wiki. If you see someone who's having trouble with English and you know (key word) that they are not a native speaker of English (don't assume just because they're grammar and spelling is bad that they're a non-native English speaker), don't be afraid to suggest that they find their language's SWF wiki or, if there isn't a SWF wiki in that language, that they create one for their language. Don't worry about offending someone in saying that. If they're offended by it, then they really need to chill out a bit. Anyway, just wanted to stress that point. Remember, I'll answer any questions you guys have. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 22:52, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
Don't you mean "their grammar" not "they're grammar"? I would vote, but this is pretty much approved so I don't need to really.-Chosen OneSo the Prophecy says... 22:57, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
That's an amusing coincidence. Also, your vote matters in things like this. Don't think just because there's already 11 votes you shouldn't vote too. I know we're the so-called "elitist" circle here on SWF (at least that's how some users who aren't active in the community would say it), but larger numbers are a good thing. Some people who think SWF is just a "do whatever you want" dumping ground without any enforced quality standards fight tooth and nail (or simply ignore) against having to follow the MOS. It helps when we can have a larger number of people approving it so we can say "20/30/whatever many people approved it." That was extremely beneficial for the mass deletion. The people who thought it was oh so evil and horrid were confronted with "well twenty-eight people voted for it." - Brandon Rhea(talk) 23:06, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
I just realized I never included a single word about NPOV in this MOS, so I've done so now. It's basically what we've been enforcing anyway, just laid out very clearly. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 21:36, January 13, 2010 (UTC)