-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Soften the advice for "check" #566
Comments
Thanks for opening this issue! I like the new sentence about references. This entry is a good place to add a reminder about "refer to". I suggest providing a greater range of alternatives, putting them in alphabetical order, and replacing "read" with "review". And let's also add the part of speech, for clarity. For example: My only other suggestion is to add a brief rationale about why we avoid "check". In fact, the reasoning isn't clear to me. Is it because the verb "check" has so many definitions? When guidance leaves room for flexibility, it's useful to include the rationale so that folks can make informed choices about whether to use it or not. Just noting that we'll also need to update the corresponding Vale rule/text, if we make this change. |
If you look at version 6.1 of the style guide you'll see all of that info. It was removed in 6.2. |
There's more in 6.1. Do a search for "check this site". That's what I meant got removed, not the entry for "check" in the usage section. |
Yes, I removed the entry for "check this site" per the decision communicated in #532. I do think we should still have an entry for "check", but rather than having a blanket ban ("Avoid"), to soften the guidance to explain when it might or might not be suitable to use. |
@daobrien Oh, I see -- thank you. @julian-cable Yes, I agree: keep an entry for "check" and soften the blanket ban (with some explanation). |
Adding an example from the wild where using "checks" would be appropriate - when discussing the RH342 (CH08s04 GE) HLD section objective: “Check a file system and repair file system corruption.”
|
Another example: "check" (and "checking") are currently used in the scaffolding template for CH00 content: content/introduction/perform/perform.adoc:
|
I opened a Vale issue so that our guidance across guides/tools can stay aligned: https://github.com/RedHatTraining/vale-styles/issues/364 |
You'll probably find that nobody has run Vale over the scaffolding template yet, although I have asked a couple of times. Being in the template doesn't mean it's valid (although it probably should). Each of those examples could easily be rephrased to avoid "check". |
I'm still not sure why we're avoiding "check". What's the reasoning? |
The original reasoning (from when I don't know) was that "check" has lots of different meanings. See #532 In a Word Nerds discussion we decided to just remove the guidance altogether, and this is why I started asking why it was being resurrected. I brought this up in https://redhat-internal.slack.com/archives/C06DRCC1NDS/p1710832958740089 There was never a blanket ban on "check". We rarely implement bans unless it's a Legal or Brand issue. |
Got it, thank you! |
Current entry:
check
Avoid. Use "verify", "ensure", or "read", depending on the context.
Maybe:
Avoid if an alternative verb such as "verify", "ensure", or "read" fits in the context.
Instead of "check this site", use "Refer to www.somewhere.com for more information."
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: