Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Style guide

EastEnders Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject EastEnders, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the popular BBC soap opera EastEnders on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EastEndersWikipedia:WikiProject EastEndersTemplate:WikiProject EastEndersEastEnders articles

Project

This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Tasks for WikiProject EastEnders:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Expand : All articles listed in Category:Stub-Class EastEnders articles and Category:EastEnders articles in need of real-world perspective
Other :
- Improve to FA standard: EastEnders: E20
- Improve to GA standard: EastEnders
- Maintain: List of EastEnders characters (2023), List of EastEnders characters, List of former EastEnders characters, List of awards and nominations received by EastEnders
- Get involved in the Wikipedia EastEnders Project.

Bringing this page up to MoS application standard[edit]

The opening:

Our style guideline includes the following guidelines aimed to standardise EastEnders articles:

Adherence to the Wikipedia Manual of Style;
Adherence to the Television WikiProject MoS;
Adherence to the MoS with regard to fiction;
Categorisation;
Verification and citations;
Organisation;
Image usage.

MoS breach in the use of the first person.
"aimed to" is not grammatical in this sense.
Is adherence to something a guideline? (Ditto the other points.)
Organisation of what? Categorisation of what?
Does this guideline function only to standardise? Tony (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I copied that part from Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Manual of style, and that seems to have been included without any problems. Regardless, how about something like:

This is a style guide for EastEnders articles. It includes the following guidelines and policies from the following pages:

? I've removed "Organisation" because I don't know of any guideline or policy relating to that, but I was going to change it to "Standardisation", because we want consistency between articles, for example, use of language, layout of pages, etc. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added four words to your example.

All of those pages that self-elevated to MoS status need to be gone through with a tooth-comb. Tony (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, exactly? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the Doctor Who MOS needs to be checked as well? Fair enough, but it's been up for a long time, how will anyone know it needs to be checked? Anyway, I've put the above changes in to this page now. Is this better? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I see this has been tagged MoS again. That is premature. The Dr Who page is better, although could do with a spruce up. Tony (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's still just tagged for copyediting. I didn't replace the MoS tag. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has announced it again: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_Register_has_been_UNmarked_as_part_of_the_Manual_of_Style. PS To get editors reading this, you just review/comment on a few articles and link them to this. Tony (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot announced it's been UNmarked as part of the MoS. It was when you removed the MoS banner. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link you just gave is about Wikipedia:Manual of Style Register being unmarked as part of the MoS, not this page. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]