Wikipedia talk:WikiProject EastEnders/Style guide

Bringing this page up to MoS application standard

The opening:

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

1. Adherence to the Wikipedia Manual of Style;
2. Adherence to the Television WikiProject MoS;
3. Adherence to the MoS with regard to fiction;
4. Categorisation;
5. Verification and citations;
6. Organisation;
7. 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)

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:

1. Wikipedia Manual of Style;
2. Television WikiProject MoS;
3. MoS with regard to fiction;
4. Categorisation;
5. Verifiability and citations;
6. Image usage.

? 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)