Nesdev wiki talk:Manual of Style/RFC 2119: Difference between revisions
Rainwarrior (talk | contribs) (→This should be deprecated or deleted: the wrong uses weren't my primary objection) |
Rainwarrior (talk | contribs) m (→This should be deprecated or deleted: incorrect italics formatting) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
: See [http://www.w3.org/wiki/RfcKeywords RfcKeywords on W3C Wiki]. If MUST was being misused, it should be fixed. But just because something ''can'' be misused doesn't mean it's useless. For example, look at all the other RFCs that cite this RFC in the same way the {{tlx|RFC 2119}} template does; is it useless there? And if it's useless, why is the delusion that it's useful [https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Astackexchange.com+rfc+2119 so widespread]? Should I reword all uses of all-caps MUST along the lines "Failure to do so causes [[wikipedia:undefined behavior|undefined behavior]]"? --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples|talk]]) 16:55, 26 May 2015 (MDT) | : See [http://www.w3.org/wiki/RfcKeywords RfcKeywords on W3C Wiki]. If MUST was being misused, it should be fixed. But just because something ''can'' be misused doesn't mean it's useless. For example, look at all the other RFCs that cite this RFC in the same way the {{tlx|RFC 2119}} template does; is it useless there? And if it's useless, why is the delusion that it's useful [https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Astackexchange.com+rfc+2119 so widespread]? Should I reword all uses of all-caps MUST along the lines "Failure to do so causes [[wikipedia:undefined behavior|undefined behavior]]"? --[[User:Tepples|Tepples]] ([[User talk:Tepples|talk]]) 16:55, 26 May 2015 (MDT) | ||
::No, absolutely DO NOT redefine what "MUST" is supposed to mean and try to impose this new personal definition of the word on others. That's my primary issue with this | ::No, absolutely DO NOT redefine what "MUST" is supposed to mean and try to impose this new personal definition of the word on others. That's my primary issue with this! You're creating nonstandard meanings for words and then expecting others to read some documentation to keep up with you. The word "must" is ''perfectly fine'' already; just use English words as they already exist. I don't care if some people have a use for RFC 2119 elsewhere, it's not helping here. - [[User:Rainwarrior|Rainwarrior]] ([[User talk:Rainwarrior|talk]]) 17:30, 26 May 2015 (MDT) | ||
Revision as of 23:32, 26 May 2015
This should be deprecated or deleted
After Bregalad left a comment about the use of MUST, I ended up taking a look at the use of this template across the wiki.
This should not be part of our manual of style for this wiki (do we even have one? this seems to be the only page in this namespace). All of these words have perfectly normal English meanings, and those are the meanings that new users come in expecting. Putting them in ALLCAPS and insisting that they have some specific meaning (which is only obscurely different from their normal English meaning) creates confusion and slows comprehension of the article. An infobox wasting 100 words to try to explain that "MUST" means "must, but pedantically" is counter-productive. The capitalization style of RFC 2119 is jargon used only by a few particular groups of people; the vast majority of users are not familiar with it, and it wastes our time.
I looked through the wiki and found no use of this template that I thought contributed to better understanding of the meaning of the words in question, and I found several cases where MUST was being used incorrectly. I'd recommend deleting this page, though this wiki doesn't seem to have a deletion request process. - Rainwarrior (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2015 (MDT)
- Why in hell does typing RFC 2119 automatically create an external link??? - Rainwarrior (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2015 (MDT)
- Mediawiki feature(?): http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:RFC —Lidnariq (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2015 (MDT)
- See RfcKeywords on W3C Wiki. If MUST was being misused, it should be fixed. But just because something can be misused doesn't mean it's useless. For example, look at all the other RFCs that cite this RFC in the same way the {{RFC 2119}} template does; is it useless there? And if it's useless, why is the delusion that it's useful so widespread? Should I reword all uses of all-caps MUST along the lines "Failure to do so causes undefined behavior"? --Tepples (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2015 (MDT)
- No, absolutely DO NOT redefine what "MUST" is supposed to mean and try to impose this new personal definition of the word on others. That's my primary issue with this! You're creating nonstandard meanings for words and then expecting others to read some documentation to keep up with you. The word "must" is perfectly fine already; just use English words as they already exist. I don't care if some people have a use for RFC 2119 elsewhere, it's not helping here. - Rainwarrior (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2015 (MDT)
