TheVault:Writing Guidelines

THE VAULT DOCUMENT

Writing Guidelines

DOCUMENT TYPE Editorial Guideline

STATUS Active

VERSION 1.0

The Vault Writing Guidelines define the standards used when creating, editing and maintaining articles within The Vault.

The purpose of these guidelines is to ensure that articles are:

• Clear.
• Consistent.
• Well researched.
• Properly sourced.
• Neutral in tone.
• Easy for readers to understand.

The Vault covers subjects that often involve disputed claims, incomplete evidence and competing explanations. Articles should document these subjects accurately without promoting or dismissing claims without justification.

Writing principles

Be accurate

Articles should prioritise accuracy over entertainment.

Information should be based on:

• Reliable sources.
• Documented evidence.
• Historical records.
• Published research.
• Clearly attributed reports.

If information is uncertain, the article should state that uncertainty.

Be neutral

The Vault does not exist to prove or disprove paranormal claims.

Articles should present:

• What happened.
• What witnesses reported.
• What investigations found.
• What evidence exists.
• What explanations have been suggested.

Avoid language that assumes a conclusion.

Preferred:

"Several witnesses reported seeing an unexplained object."

Avoid:

"Several witnesses saw an alien spacecraft."

Unless the evidence supports that conclusion.

Separate fact from claim

A fundamental principle of The Vault is distinguishing between:

Documented facts

Information supported by reliable records.

Example:

"The hotel opened in 1888."

Reported claims

Statements made by witnesses, investigators or sources.

Example:

"Guests have reported seeing an apparition."

Interpretations

Explanations proposed for an event.

Example:

"Some investigators believe the sightings represent paranormal activity."

These should not be presented as the same thing.

Article structure

Articles should follow a consistent structure where appropriate.

A typical article may include:

Introduction

A brief overview explaining:

• What the subject is.
• Why it is notable.
• Where and when it occurred.

History

Background information including:

• Origins.
• Historical context.
• Development over time.

Reported events

Details of the claims, sightings or incidents.

This section should explain:

• Who reported the event.
• When it occurred.
• Where it occurred.
• What was reported.

Investigation

Details of investigations, research or analysis.

Include:

• Investigators involved.
• Methods used.
• Findings.
• Limitations.

Evidence

A balanced review of available evidence.

Include:

• Supporting information.
• Contradictory information.
• Missing information.

Explanations

Discuss possible interpretations.

These may include:

• Conventional explanations.
• Scientific explanations.
• Alternative theories.
• Paranormal interpretations.

Cultural impact

Where relevant, include:

• Books.
• Films.
• Television appearances.
• Public interest.
• Influence on folklore.

Assessment

Where appropriate, include:

EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT

View evidence methodology

or:

VAULT LOCATION ASSESSMENT

Language guidelines

Use careful wording when describing unverified claims.

Recommended terms:

• Reported.
• Alleged.
• Claimed.
• According to witnesses.
• Investigators suggested.
• Remains unexplained.
• Has been associated with.

Avoid:

• Proven.
• Confirmed.
• Definitely.
• Undeniable.
• Scientific fact.

Unless supported by appropriate evidence.

Avoiding sensationalism

The Vault should not exaggerate cases for dramatic effect.

Avoid:

"Terrifying evidence proves the existence of ghosts."

Prefer:

"The location has developed a reputation for reported paranormal activity."

The importance of a case should come from its documentation, history and evidence, not exaggerated language.

Titles and naming conventions

Article titles should use the most recognised name for the subject.

Where multiple names exist:

Use the commonly accepted name.

Document alternatives within the article.

Example:

Main title:

Bermuda Triangle

Also known as:

Devil's Triangle

Internal linking

Articles should link to relevant subjects within The Vault.

Links should be used for:

• People.
• Locations.
• Organisations.
• Related cases.
• Research topics.
• Phenomena.

Avoid excessive linking of common words.

Example:

Good:

"The investigation was conducted by The Society for Psychical Research."

Less useful:

"The investigation was conducted by a society for psychical research."

Categories

Articles should be placed into relevant categories.

Categories should describe:

• Subject type.
• Location.
• Phenomenon.
• Historical period.
• Research area.

Categories should not represent conclusions.

Example:

Correct:

Category:Haunted Locations

Incorrect:

Images

Images should:

• Be relevant.
• Have appropriate licensing.
• Include captions where useful.
• Be correctly attributed.

Images should not imply evidence where none exists.

Example:

A photograph of a historic castle illustrates the location.

It does not prove a haunting occurred there.

Citations

Significant claims should be supported by citations.

Cite:

• Dates.
• Names.
• Locations.
• Investigations.
• Statistics.
• Scientific findings.
• Controversial claims.

The Vault uses MediaWiki citation templates.

Example:

<ref>{{cite web
|title=Example Source
|url=https://example.com
|website=Example Website
}}</ref>

See:

• TheVault:Source Guidelines

Evidence assessment

Evidence ratings should reflect the quality of available evidence, not popularity.

A famous case may have weak evidence.

A lesser-known case may have stronger documentation.

See:

• TheVault:Evidence Rating System

Updating articles

Articles should be updated when:

• New information becomes available.
• Sources are discovered.
• Historical errors are corrected.
• Investigations provide new information.

Updates should improve accuracy and clarity.

Contributor checklist

Before publishing an article, check:

☐ Is the information sourced?

☐ Are claims separated from facts?

☐ Is the language neutral?

☐ Are alternative explanations included?

☐ Are categories correct?

☐ Are relevant internal links included?

☐ Has the evidence been assessed appropriately?

Related documents

• TheVault:Research Methodology
• TheVault:Source Guidelines
• TheVault:Scientific Method
• TheVault:Case Assessment Process
• TheVault:Evidence Rating System
• TheVault:Classification System