GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Quotes

Listing as official?
Any objections to leaving this as a style and formatting guideline on GuildWiki? The use of the "sic" tag is already standard practice on GuildWiki. The only new element within this guideline is the use of the template. The use of a template was discussed briefly at GuildWiki_talk:Community_Portal (which has been moved and inserted below). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:26, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

In-game typos
So for as long as I've been around here it's been common practice to completely duplicate any in-game typos in dialogue, descriptions, etc. and in most cases identify them with a [sic] label so others know this is intended. Over and over I see editors "correcting" the typos, and then others correcting the correction. My question to the community is: do we want to continue the practice of documenting the exact phrasing used in these cases? And if so: does it make sense for us to have a page that explains this better (e.g. a guideline or policy), or should this info simply be clarified in the S&F pages? --Zampani 12:06, 13 March 2007 (CDT)


 * We should try to document as is, so including tyupos. Maybe just make a "sic" page explaining what it means and why it's there? --NieA7 12:46, 13 March 2007 (CDT)


 * We have documented everything in game including typos, just marking those with a 'sic' marker. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I think we can create a template:sic which would automatically insert a "sic" marker that's also a link to a page such as Style and formatting/Quotes where the practice used here can be explained in more detail. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:05, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * We don't have one allready? I thought we had. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * We might; but if we do, I couldn't find it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:08, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I like that. Is it going too far to have it automatically add the article to a "In-game Typo" category? At least that would be useful if somebody was looking for a specific typo, for some reason! — Biscuits (talk [[Image:Biscuit.png]] contribs) 16:09, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Technically, it can be done ... but, I would prefer only to do it if there's real value. Can you think of an example of why someone would use a category to search for a specific typo rather than just using the "Search" box?  If just for maintenance purposes, then it would be better to going to template:sic and looking at "what links here"? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:40, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I just got pwned on an edit conflict of creating Template:Sic. &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 16:44, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * ;-) Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:57, 13 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I've created the following in support of this. :
 * template:sic &rarr;  template for displaying  [sic] within an article.
 * Style and formatting/Quotes &rarr;  guideline for use of the "sic" tag.
 * Please review and provide feedback. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:09, 13 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Since you removed the sup tag, what about either italicizing or bolding it to make it stand out a little? Note: just the "sic" not the brackets around it.  --Rainith 18:11, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The "sup" tags could be added back ... the only reason I removed them is that it shifted the row spacing (extra space in the row above, and cropped the bottom row of pixels below the row - so the letter "g" would lose some of the bottom most part of its sweep below the main row of text ... although, as I'm at work, that just may be a side-effect of having IE6 forced on me here.
 * For other formatting, the "sic" text is already italicised, but we could also convert it to caps - or just use the "small" tag on all of it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:15, 13 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Options:
 * This is testing formatting options [ sic ] &rarr; how the template was originally formatted (sup & italics).
 * This is testing formatting options [ sic ] &rarr; italics only.
 * This is testing formatting options [ sic ] &rarr; plain text of sic tag.
 * This is testing formatting options [ sic ] &rarr; small text of sic tag.
 * This is testing formatting options [ sic ] &rarr; bold of sic tag.
 * This is testing formatting options [ sic ] &rarr; bold and italics of sic tag.
 * Any preference on those? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:25, 13 March 2007 (CDT)


 * First preference: Bold + italics. Second preference: Italics. Third preference: Small. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I wasn't against the removing of the sup tag, I know it messes with the line spacing. :)  I kinda like the small version, but I'm ok with the bold or bold+italics versions too.  I just thought it needed something to make it stand out a little from the text.  --Rainith 18:36, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * For now, I've switched it over to use the "small" tag. If there's strong objection, we could try bold/italics later. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:54, 13 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Prefer the third option, ie plain "[sic]" --Wolfie [[Image:Wolfie_sig.jpg|19px]] (talk|contribs) 19:03, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

Is there a way to make it look consistant?
By this question I mean, the [sic] template may be included "in-line" with bolding, italics or both, which looks like this: Notice how it looks different under these different circumstances, is there a way to ensure it looks the same no matter what? For that matter, what is the consensis on this, ie SHOULD it look the same regardless for what formatting it is included under? My personal preference is yes, but opening for discussion. --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 19:03, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * This is a [sic] test (plain)
 * This is a [sic] test (italic)
 * This is a [sic] test (bold)
 * This is a [sic] test (bold + italic)