Sarkarverse:Central discussion forum/Articles: Difference between revisions

Sarkarverse:Central discussion forum/Articles (view source)

Revision as of 03:15, 19 June 2014

9 bytes removed , 19 June 2014

m

Indentation

Abhidevananda

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, oversight, Administrators

85,294

edits

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 <span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">[[User:Tito Dutta|Tito]]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">[[User talk:Tito Dutta|Dutta]]</span> 01:47, 18 June 2014 (MDT)
 * It may form  a guideline here. --<span style="background:orange;border:orange ridge">[[User:Tito Dutta|Tito]]</span><span style="color:blue;background:white;otit;border-bottom-style:ridge;">☸</span><span style="background:#57C738;border:green ridge">[[User talk:Tito Dutta|Dutta]]</span> 01:48, 18 June 2014 (MDT)
-** For the second, a title, I always use the uppercase when referring to a specific individual (Acarya Soandsoanananda Avadhuta) and a small letter when referring to the order or status ("He is an acarya" or "She is an avadhutika").
+For the second, a title, I always use the uppercase when referring to a specific individual (Acarya Soandsoanananda Avadhuta) and a small letter when referring to the order or status ("He is an acarya" or "She is an avadhutika").
-** For the first, my personal habit is to use the lowercase, although many use the uppercase. There are reasonable arguments for both. If we think of being a margii in the same sense as being a Christian or a Hindu, then the uppercase makes sense. However, if we think of being a margii as the equivalent of being a spiritual aspirant or a spiritual seeker, then the lowercase makes sense. As I said, my preference is for lowercase. But I would not take the trouble to change the case of anyone's work. So here I think the main concern is consistency. In an article, the 'm' in 'margii" should should always be uppercase or always lowercase.
+For the first, my personal habit is to use the lowercase, although many use the uppercase. There are reasonable arguments for both. If we think of being a margii in the same sense as being a Christian or a Hindu, then the uppercase makes sense. However, if we think of being a margii as the equivalent of being a spiritual aspirant or a spiritual seeker, then the lowercase makes sense. As I said, my preference is for lowercase. But I would not take the trouble to change the case of anyone's work. So here I think the main concern is consistency. In an article, the 'm' in 'margii" should should always be uppercase or always lowercase.
-** There is another issue, and that is the spelling of "margii". Technically, the word should have two 'i's at the end, similar to "yogii". However, in many newspapers and perhaps even dictionaries, we find a single 'i'. My preference is to use two 'i's, regardless of the current popular convention. On Sarkarverse, we don't blindly parrot whatever is written elsewhere. Our priority is to present both accurate and verifiable information. We do not want to present information that is merely verifiable but easily shown to be inaccurate. For example, "So-and-so wrote this about such-and-such" might be a 100% accurate statement; but if what So-and-so wrote is also demonstrably (verifiably) wrong, we won't publish it without also presenting the correct information. That type of information - someone's incorrect comment - is valuable in a critiques or commentaries section at the end of an article; but, typically, it should not be presented in the main body (earlier sections) of the article. (Of course, if the article is about the person who made the incorrect observations, then that incorrect information might appear in the main body, though there would also be a caution that the information is wrong.) --[[User:Abhidevananda|Abhidevananda]] ([[User talk:Abhidevananda|talk]]) 21:13, 18 June 2014 (MDT)
+There is another issue, and that is the spelling of "margii". Technically, the word should have two 'i's at the end, similar to "yogii". However, in many newspapers and perhaps even dictionaries, we find a single 'i'. My preference is to use two 'i's, regardless of the current popular convention. On Sarkarverse, we don't blindly parrot whatever is written elsewhere. Our priority is to present both accurate and verifiable information. We do not want to present information that is merely verifiable but easily shown to be inaccurate. For example, "So-and-so wrote this about such-and-such" might be a 100% accurate statement; but if what So-and-so wrote is also demonstrably (verifiably) wrong, we won't publish it without also presenting the correct information. That type of information - someone's incorrect comment - is valuable in a critiques or commentaries section at the end of an article; but, typically, it should not be presented in the main body (earlier sections) of the article. (Of course, if the article is about the person who made the incorrect observations, then that incorrect information might appear in the main body, though there would also be a caution that the information is wrong.) --[[User:Abhidevananda|Abhidevananda]] ([[User talk:Abhidevananda|talk]]) 21:13, 18 June 2014 (MDT)