- The Wiki Plaza is a space for discussions about any content related to Pleasant Goat Wiki, distinct from the discuss space, which focuses mainly on discussions about the franchise itself.
- You can add a new thread to discuss about any particular content on the wiki, ask questions about editing issues, or request the deletion of unnecessary files or deprecated userpages.
- Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes
--~~~~. - When replying, please use colons for indentation to indicate the reply level.
Request for clarification on the AI-prohibition term[]
I noticed it was recently added to MediaWiki:Editnotice-0 that, “Do not add AI-generated content due to potential hallucination issues.” However, I couldn’t find any related terms in the policies or guidelines. Thus, I request for clarification on whether this is considered an official policy, implying that AI-generated content is not allowed in the main namespace. --Yusharoad (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- This is just a friendly reminder, not an official policy. And there are currently no reliable AIGC detectors :weslie: However, since AI does have hallucinations, which could be seen as false information, usage of AI may indeed lead to violations of the policy and even result in a block. — Honoka55・talk・ 06:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Proposal on disallowing the typesetters’ quotation[]
The initial guideline allowed both the logical quotation (lq) and the typesetters’ quotation (tq) (what is this?) because, at the time of its creation, different quotation styles were already in use across the wiki. To minimize maintenance costs, both styles were permitted. However, as the wiki has grown, the inconsistency caused by this decision has become more apparent.
Since this proposal involves a substantive revision to the existing guideline, Pleasant Goat Wiki:Formatting Guidelines, I am bringing it up for discussion.
- Current guideline
*Regarding punctuation placement inside or outside quotation marks, both “logical quotation” (placing punctuation outside quotation marks unless part of the quoted material) and “typesetters’ quotation” (placing punctuation inside quotation marks regardless of syntax) are acceptable styles. Editors should not modify one style to the other arbitrarily.
- Proposed revision
*Regarding punctuation placement inside or outside quotation marks and formatting (italics or bold), only “logical” styles should be used. Punctuation should be placed outside unless it is part of the quoted or formatted material.
- Reasons for this proposal
- Allowing both styles leads to inconsistency across articles, and sometimes even within the same article or sentence. For instance, in special:diff/34064, the original sentence used tq, while the editor’s modification introduced lq, creating inconsistency within the same sentence.
- Some templates assume a specific quotation style, which can cause further inconsistencies. For example, the {{ch}} template automatically adds quotation marks to its optional third parameter, while the fourth parameter follows directly after it. If a sentence uses tq while the template output follows lq, it creates a mismatch. Regardless of which quotation style a template adopts, potential inconsistencies will arise if both tq and lq remain in use.
- Example:
{{ch|hongbao|红包|red packet|also known as lai see in Cantonese}} is for “luck.” - Output: hongbao (红包, “red packet”, also known as lai see in Cantonese) is for “luck.”
- Example:
- Why choose lq
- While tq is required by several American style guides, such as MLA, APA, and Chicago, it is not well-suited for encyclopedic writing. Notably, Language, the journal of the Linguistic Society of America, also follows lq. Furthermore, Wikipedia enforces lq for the same reason, and it has a detailed essay on why lq is preferable in encyclopedic contexts: wikipedia:Wikipedia:Logical quotation on Wikipedia. This essay also clarifies that the difference between tq and lq is not simply a British or American distinction; rather, tq is more appropriate in literary and journalistic contexts, while in encyclopedic writing, it introduces ambiguity. Since Pleasant Goat Wiki also has an encyclopedic nature, lq is a better choice.
- In fact, there is also a distinction between “logical italics” and “typesetters’ italics”, similar to the difference between lq and tq. While it may be difficult to distinguish between the two types of italics when used with commas or periods, I’ve noticed that in the existing content of this wiki, most editors agree on using logical italics, such as
''Dunk for Victories'', ''Dunk for Future'', and ''Crazy Hubs'', rather than typesetters’ italics like''Dunk for Victories,'' ''Dunk for Future,'' and ''Crazy Hubs''. This further reinforces the preference for lq to keep consistency across the wiki.
Given these reasons, I propose that we revise the guideline to adopt lq as the only acceptable style. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this proposal.
— Honoka55・talk・ 16:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- (＋) Support I agree. --Tibbie2017tibbie2018 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- (＋) Support agreed primarily because Wikipedia uses it and this too is a wiki, but also because we're dealing with a lot of translations here, which LQ is preferred for --RisenDown (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- (＋) Support —from yusharoad (✉DM/contrib) 10:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)