Ring of Brodgar talk:Article Standards

===Non-English content===
There's a whole Russian sub-domain for Russian-language content. Also seems like Russians are a large part of the player base. I think the bullet about non-English articles should be removed, or at least modified to make itself exclusive to the English wiki sub-domain and link to the Russian wiki as well. — Foetuses 19:16, 13 May 2012 (EDT)
*(org) Non-English content should remain off the wiki. This is an English wiki; everything else clutters up the articles.
* The default ringofbrodgar.com wiki domain is dedicated to English only. Other language should ... ?
Mmm. I'm actually not sure about, actively or passively, supporting other languages. Like ru.ringofbrodgar.com. It seems somewhat abandoned to me. Completely separate HnH wiki's in other languages can however be added as links to the main page. Or a special "Hnh wiki's in other languages' sub-page. --MvGulik 16:10, 22 May 2012 (EDT)
== Formulas ==
Some math formula styles based on some cases I picked up from some of the ROB-wiki pages.
#\operatorname{Q_{Loom}} = \frac{ 2*_{Avg}Q_{String} + _{Avg}Q_{Board}*3 + 4_{Avg}Q_{Block} + _{Avg}Q_{Branch}5 }{99}
#\operatorname{LoomQ} = \frac{ 2*_{Avg}StringQ + _{Avg}BoardQ*3 + 4_{Avg}BlockQ + _{Avg}BranchQ5 }{99}
#LoomQ = 2*AvgStringQuality + AvgBoardQuality*3 + 4AvgBlockQuality + AvgBranchQuality5 \over 99
#\operatorname{_{q}Loom} = \frac{2*_{q}StringAvg + _{q}BoardAvg*3 + 4_{q}BlockAvg + _{q}BranchAvg 5}{99}
Any comments? (yes/no)(reason)(And/or add some other variation.)
*operatorname use. (1&2) ... I like
*Avg, Small type use: I like.
*Qname verus NameQ: Not to sure. (leaning towards 1)
*Using a general "Formula" header/section to put all formula's in (in main object pages): ?
*(Other things) ...
Thinking about some general standards for formula's. --MvGulik 12:56, 1 June 2012 (EDT)
:Added in an alternative. Foetuses 02:01, 2 June 2012 (EDT)
== br Tag ==
After testing, I've discovered that this wiki turns all br tags into , regardless of formatting through the edit form. Still, though, I think that should be standardised, as it is the proper way of writing such. Foetuses 00:49, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
:Doh ... In that case I kinda disagree on the standard part for it. Standards should at least have some good practical reason for being there. Other than that there a standard at other sites. (Ps: How did you tested that?) --MvGulik 06:44, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
::Simple, created a new page with several uses of the br tag, including self-closing and no closing, with spaces, etc. and previewed it. The changes are still parsed by the wiki, then I checked the source of the page. Sure enough, it didn't come out self-closing, but as <br>. Technically br tags should be self-closing, given W3 standards. And a standard is in itself a practical reason to have one; it unifies formats across large domains. Page sources still show the original closed or non-self-closed tags, so naturally there should be a standard for editing, if at least to improve readability. FoetusesTalkContributions 11:04, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Aha, thanks.
:::W3 standards in my view are for cases where your dealing with final raw html/xml/etc code. As Wikimedia takes full control of the user typed break tag, this is not the case any more for user typed br-tag text. Effectively removing any practical need and/or reason to prefer above as internal wiki-site standard. As for readability by sticking to only one br-tag style ... I think its a really minor one. And for reason of ease of typing the would win, at this moment, in my case. ... I currently find it basically overkill to add as standard. (a side-note about which br-tag style is preferred on this wiki is in my view as far as I would go at this moment.) --MvGulik 13:19, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
:::PS: I have not processed you main page edit yet. Like to read up on some things first. --MvGulik 13:29, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
::Heh, it's my love of strong-typed programming languages and global standards that makes me so adamant about the self-closing tag. But a side-note would be fine. Also, please do note (even though I put it in bold on the top) that I only jotted down what was on my mind at the time. It's going to need a bit of revision before it can be finalised. Foetuses [talk][cont.] 17:29, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
Looked around again in relation to this BR stuff. And this The_br_tag little talk kinda clinches it for me. Or: only wikimarkup truly matters on MediaWiki. So going to scrap the rule. ... 
Just some other stuff I run into on using line breaks in general: line_breaks (I still have to truly read it.) --.MvGulik. 16:14, 13 December 2013 (EST)
== Math multiplication character. ==
subject was what default multiplication character to use in math formula. "*" or "\times".
:Personally i find it much more readable to use _{A}Whatever*_{B}ItIs than _{A}Whatever\times_{B}ItIs, both in display and in code --Rook (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2013 (EST)
::I kinda favor the latter, mainly because its using the general/default <math> multiplication sign. Personally I don't see that much difference in readability between the two. But like you sad, that kinda depends on what your used to. Not switching to using "\times" will save some work though :). ... Without a good additional reasons for using "\times" I'm going for setting "*" as default. (As I think "*" currently is the most used option, and using both "*" and "\times" is the worst option I can think of.) --.MvGulik. 14:32, 10 November 2013 (EST)
Implemented/processed. --.MvGulik. 08:21, 3 December 2013 (EST)