Now then, as we have been becoming a bit more standard throughout the Wiki, the topic of Transcription Standards has come up again. As you can all see, this page is rather outdated. We decided a long time ago that links throughout a transcript degrades the readability. Now, Gemini is pretty much the man when it comes to Transcripts, so his format is widely accepted. I really don't have a problem with that. The only thing I have an issue with is really small. It is the listing of the characters name before they speak. I, personally, don't like it in all caps. I think it being in bold is enough. This is of course, just my opinion. I want to hear what you all have to say. (Also, I decided to keep this discussion here on the Wiki instead of the forum because this page exists and needs to be maintained.) -- Tom

I think that having the character names like so: Strong Bad:, makes it look really sloppy, as if the person doesn't care. Having it in all caps looks more professional; after all, that's how most real scripts do it. Go with caps. -- Gemini

Yes, I agree that using caps does indeed look more professional. However, caps are used in most official transcripts (court hearings and the like) in lieu of them having anything else to work with. They don't have bold and italics as options, and must rely on the shift key for adding any emphasis. You can see what I mean [here] and [here]. Any way, that's just my two cents. -- Tom

It still doesn't change the fact that using the character names in lowercase makes it look sloppy. If caps looks more professional, why don't you want to use them? -- Gemini

Fact that non-all-caps looks sloppy? (I call it non-all-caps since every letter is not lowercase.) Since when is that a fact? I do not want to use all-caps because we have the option to use bold. Those "professional" transcripts do not. -- Tom

I'm going to have to agree with Gemini on this one, for this reason; only capitalizing who is speaking creates a definite distinction between speech and actions. For example;

COACH Z: Get yer head in the game, the Chort! The Cheat is wide open!

{The Cheat starts bashing all the electronics.}

STRONG BAD: Yeah!

is easier for me to read than;

Coach Z: Get yer head in the game, the Chort! The Cheat is wide open!

{The Cheat starts bashing all the electronics.}

Strong Bad : Yeah!

I don't think something this miniscule is really an issue of what looks sloppier than what, just what is easiest to read. Which, I guess, makes it a matter of personal preference.
Furthermore, and I'm sure most people will disagree with me on this one, but I prefer transcripts that have character names linked. Not because I can click the links, but because it just further distinguishes names from everything else. Once again, personal preference.
--Hobophobic

Okay granted, using all-caps does give a "definite distinction," like you said. However, using bold non-all-caps achieves the same goal, without looking like "shout-text". Strong Mad isn't writing these transcripts. We have the option to bold them, whereas people who use all-caps do not. Just like the in the transcripts in the links I put above. Also, we don't really use bold text anywhere else in transcripts, so I find it hard to believe using all-caps is the "only" way to add distinction.-- Tom

I don't feel shouted at. I find it easier to read when the character's name is bold AND caps-locked. Just bold makes it look... meh. Let's put it to a vote, because as far as I've seen, you're the only one who's speaking for the non-all-caps side. I'll make a poll on the forum: http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?t=126 -- Gemini