YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!

Wikitravel talk:Manual of style

From Wikitravel
Revision as of 21:23, 30 October 2003 by Hanzo (talk | contribs) (I agree)
Jump to: navigation, search

Moved from Wikitravel talk:FAQ by Evan

You can prefer US spelling but that doesn't mean you're going to get it, especially as long as I'm writing for you... I am Australian and I use a mixture, but generally British spelling with occasional American phraseology (especially since my fiance is a Yank and he's corrupting me!) Anyway, if you want my articles to be US-oriented someone's going to have to go along and change them... at which point they'll get messed up again next time I edit them. I really think it doesn't matter one way or the other anyway. There's no way to enforce it other than to have the Americans go along and reedit everyone else's contributions for US-satisfaction. KJ 22:05, 8 Aug 2003 (PDT)

Actually, thinking about it, it would probably be better to ask people to use CONVENTIONAL English of either kind. Which means, run their contributions through a spellchecker if they can't spell, not to use 'internet speak' etc. Color vs colour is a minor quibble, but do we really want some well-meaning but ignorant teenager coming along and writing 'BlAh BlAh iz kool. Go ThEeR nOw.' etc. Ugh! KJ 22:47, 8 Aug 2003 (PDT)

I entirely agree with KJ. I do not generally use American spelling and I am not going to use it on WikiTravel. If this potentially very interesting site is going to be built in collaboration by Wikitravellers from around the globe as you state on the main page, then you'll have to accept that other spellings are going to be used. Otherwise you'll risk chasing away valuable contributors. I have absolutely nothing against American spelling (I am not going to change American spelling into British spelling when I see it), but I believe that people should be left free to make their own choices. I propose to change this request into One of the traditionally accepted English spellings should be used. (I include the word traditionally to exclude the BlAh BlAh iz kool example given above.) D.D. 08:57, 9 Aug 2003 (PDT)
So, the idea with this is to avoid having trivial edit wars where two people switch the words "harbor" and "harbour" back and forth until the cows come home. It was an arbitrary choice, mostly made because me and Maj are Americans. I know it probably sounds fine to say "It doesn't matter," but that doesn't wash with me. I like having consistency in the work. In the case of conflict, we can settle an argument by having a good rule.
Wikipedia solves this issue by saying that articles dealing with Commonwealth issues will have Commonwealth spelling, and others will be in American spelling. I think that that's kind of forced for Wikitravel -- is Thailand in Australia's sphere of influence, or America's? What about Antarctica or Disabled travellers? I figure just choosing one spelling style is the best. If anyone has a particular spelling style they write in, that's fine. But if we have a rule, we'll know why stuff gets edited. I'm willing to change it to Commonwealth spelling if we have enough support for it. -- Evan 15:50, 9 Aug 2003 (PDT)

Is there a standard format for telephone numbers? (203) 555-1212? 203-555-1212? 203.555.1212? Hanzo 11:08, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)

I think the international format is +1 203 555-1212. The '+' stands for the international access code ( which will be 00 for most countries, but not all). The 1 stands for the country code, the 203 for the area. (In countries where the area code starts with a 0 it is not normally dialed from a location outside that country. It can be indicated like '(0)203'). A European (Belgian) example would be: +32 (0)15/12.34.56 (BTW, this is not my number :-) D.D. 12:15, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)
HOLY CARP, that's long and complicated. Americans are going to hate that. But, I guess, it's pretty fair. -- Evan 12:23, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)
Do we agree that this international format should be used for all telephone listings on the site? If so, then maybe it should be added to the manual of style. Or maybe it's not that important to standardize this? Hanzo 12:20, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)
I prefer standardizing everything -- I think it stops silly arguments real fast. That international format seems funky to me, but maybe we should use it. In most of the listings it says to leave off the area code if it's not different from the "main" area code for the city, so I think this might be a change. I dunno. DD? -- Evan 12:23, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)
If I'm trying to call a place in NYC, I have no idea what the main area code is or how to find out. I definitely prefer to have all of the information there in my printed-out copy of my Wikitravel page. Hanzo 12:29, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)
I agree with Hanzo. If I have to make a phone call in a foreign country , I'd like to have all the information I need at hand. And it's not even that complicated once you get used to it. How do you think we manage in all those little countries in Europe with all those different country/area/city codes ;-) D.D. 12:50, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)
Coming to think of it, a compromise could be to include the international access code and country code in the country article. D.D. 12:54, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)
But then again the problem is that this is not a traditional travel guide. People can choose not to take a printout of the country article with them on their travels... D.D. 12:58, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)
Well, does everyone already know that US phone numbers are +1? If so, we could institute a UScentric double-standard of 203 555-1212 for US numbers, and +32 (0)15/12.34.56 for everywhere else. Or, we could just get used to the international standard. Hanzo 13:06, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)
Personally, I hate US- or "whatever other country-centricity". I say let's go for international-centric. D.D. 13:10, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)
I agree. Let's standardize. Evan? Hanzo 13:19, 30 Oct 2003 (PST)