Talk:Wheloon

Commas
Regarding the presentation of four-digit numbers, I doubt we have a policy for it. Some official style guides will insert a comma (e.g., 1,764), others say not to bother (e.g., 1764). Both are generally common and acceptable. I prefer the latter for habit and personal taste, but it's no biggie. Five-digit numbers and higher generally have commas included.

If in doubt, we could follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Which says both styles are fine for four-digit numbers, unless they're years in which case they don't get commas, and commas are included in all larger numbers. — BadCatMan (talk) 03:14, June 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * There are so many dates and population statistics in close proximity in this article that I think the comma eliminates any confusion between them. But I made it a separate edit so you could easily undo it if you feel strongly about it.&mdash;Moviesign (talk) 03:26, June 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it's fine, and that's a good reason. — BadCatMan (talk) 03:56, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

History
Regarding the placement of the History section, for my cities pages I followed the format usually used by Wikipedia, which is to place the history section first or near the beginning, followed by sections on demographics, government, economics, and cultural stuff. I don't know if there's a specific reason for that. — BadCatMan (talk) 08:36, August 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * BadCat, I am just following the format High admin FW stated in Forum:Standardizing article sections, but I could move all the History sections in my list... and since you and Hash are the only High admins, I will take your idea. So where you would like the History section to go :) - Darkwynters (talk) 22:24, August 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * The standardised sections were only created as guidelines, not as a hard-and-fast rule, IIRC. I think we left it open for alternative section titles and varying orders of sections. I think, for some articles, having the history first gives useful context to the rest of the article. In Wheloon, the post-Spellplague history says how Wheloon became a prison city, and the later sections give detail to that. In Hlintar], the history explains why dwarves shun the place. In Ylraphon, the history explains how much of the city came to be ruins and swamp-ridden. With history placed last, a lot more context has to be given to references in other sections to say how such-and-such a situation came about, while this occurs naturally in a history section. (On the other hand, I placed history last for the Vast, as the rest of article was general in scope and didn't really depend on the history.) I design my articles with the overall structure and arrangement in mind. I think in the case of Wheloon, the previous history placement works best. — BadCatMan (talk) 00:26, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

Notable locations
Just a quick question... comparing Wheloon's "dot" setup versus the "bullet" setup of the Marsember notable locations... which design do you like best? Personally, I am torn, but I do like BadCat's "dots" because it conserves space... thoughts? - Darkwynters (talk) 22:36, August 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * I like my way, obviously. :) The horizontal list reduces the length of the article, reduces white space, and presents more information to the eye without having to scan down. — BadCatMan (talk) 00:26, August 21, 2013 (UTC)