Forum:CT:Battle and War MoS-ing, redux

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Battle and War MoS-ing, redux

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus… again. Graestan(Talk) 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A while back, Thefourdotelipsis proposed these guidelines for the Wookieepedia:Manual of Style in reference to War and Battle articles. It has been quite a while since his CT was closed, with No Consensus. For what it's worth at least two major War articles follow the proposed format at present.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 07:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle articles

Battle Articles

There are some guidelines for the organization of battle articles within Wookieepedia. Though there is some flexibility, the following sections are typical:
  1. History provides an account of the notable events in the battle. The level of detail in this section is up to the individual author. However, a middle ground between succinct and lengthy is generally preferable. It is generally expected that this section will be divided into subsections on lengthy articles, though the appropriate sectioning of this is left to the author. This section will also include the suggested "Prelude" and "Aftermath" sections, or any equivalent with an alternate name.
  2. Participants describes the major participants and their involvement in the battle. This should only be used when applicable, and not "forced" when the sources do not provide amply.
Each of these sections may be further subdivided as appropriate.

In favor

  1. In favor then, still in favor now.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 07:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. I seem to be in the minority here, but I like this suggested layout. DolukTalk 20:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Well, naturally. The History section is so we put all "narrative secitons" under one header. Just like how we don't make a large "Legacy" section for some characters. This is just for consistency with every other article type. And the "Participants" section, as per the actual MOS suggestion itself is optional. Thefourdotelipsis 22:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 22:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. First of all, this would be an amendment to the Layout Guide, not the MOS, hopefully. Secondly, I oppose sticking any sort of "Background" and "Aftermath" sections into the primary "History" section of the battle itself, since they would deal with material that is quite separate from the battle. We typically seem to go with a layout of "Prelude," "The battle," "Aftermath," with subsectioning done from there. If this were the presented proposal, I would have supported. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Per Tope, and not a big fan of the participants section either. I think that sort of thing doesn't work as well for event articles. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Battles and wars are not easily enough defined to have such a set of rules, even if they're just guidelines. The fact that I actually disagree with my colleagues, and would indeed like to see all chronological information lumped into one over-section titled "History" or something similar, goes further to show that legislating the layout of such articles is probably a bad idea. Graestan(Talk) 17:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Got to agree with T&R. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 17:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. I don't agree with this with regards mainly to the "participants" section. Firstly you'd get massive repetition in say, the Great Sith War, with participants sections in consecutive battles being near identical. Secondly, certain battles might be three on one in terms of commanders or something, and lastly I believe its deeply subjective, and such information can be incorporated into the prelude section or the battle section. Harrar 19:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Per Toprawa. Chack Jadson (Talk) 21:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. Per Toprawa. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 21:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 05:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

War articles

War Articles

There are some guidelines for the organization of war articles within Wookieepedia. Though there is some flexibility, the following sections are typical:
  1. History provides an account of the notable events in the war. The level of detail in this section is up to the individual author. However, a middle ground between succinct and lengthy is generally preferable. It is generally expected that this section will be divided into subsections on lengthy articles, though the appropriate sectioning of this is left to the author. This section will also include the suggested "Prelude" and "Aftermath" sections, or any equivalent with an alternate name.
  2. Combatants describes the major combatants and their involvement in the battle. This section should only describe factions, not individuals, and should almost always be applied to an article. The faction should be described in brief, with particular emphasis on their involvement in said war.
  3. Key figures describes the major individuals who were involved in the war. This should only be applied when the source allows for it, and should never be "forced" into an article. NOTE: "Key figures" does not mean every single known ranking officer that fought in the war. It should be reserved for the most influential characters, and should describe them, and their participation in the war, in brief.
Each of these sections may be further subdivided as appropriate.

In favor

  1. As for Battle articles.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 07:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. As above. DolukTalk 20:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. (Addendum: And look at how well it worked for Jedi Civil War and Great Sith War. Very) Thefourdotelipsis 22:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Per fourdot. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 22:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Per my reasons on the first section. I oppose one huge mega-history section when Prelude and Aftermath sections deal with pre- and post-battle events. Devote separate sections for them. This is what we do anyway, and have been doing for a while, and I don't think we should be deviating from this now. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Per Tope. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. Per my reasons above. Graestan(Talk) 17:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. Got to agree with T&R. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 17:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Chack Jadson (Talk) 21:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Per Toprawa. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 21:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. Jedi Civil War and the Great Sith War articles will need to be slightly tweaked if this passes in opposition. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 05:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    • No they won't. You're voting to not have this passed, not to outlaw it. Thefourdotelipsis 21:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • Sadly, this CT garnered a total of three votes per section the last time 'round. Let's see if we can do better. :-) Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 07:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)