Forum:CT:OOU Layout Guide: Published narrative works

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 adopt the proposed LG. —MJ— ^{Jedi Council Chambers} 02:47, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Hey everyone,

Now that we have the Out of universe layout guide, I guess it's finally time for me to re-propose this. In 2010, I first proposed a layout guide addition for published narrative works --- that is, works that would be listed in an in-universe article's "Appearances" section and which have not been canceled (films, novels, comics, video games, television episodes, RPG adventures, etc). It was based on the work I did on such articles as Agents of Chaos Duology and Into the Great Unknown.

I proposed leading with the "Development" section, but the community consensus was that "Plot summary" and "Main characters" should instead go first. I ended up agreeing with that consensus, and started an SH thread asking for ideas on how to refine the layout guide proposal. Then I procrastinated for two years, and now here we are.

Now that we have an OOU Layout Guide, I want us to finally hammer home how we should go about writing articles on books, comics, video games, etc. Thanks to Dogma for the push in finally getting this done. This is a cumulative effort that began with Greyman's Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi and Sikon's Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (comics), and then got refined by the community through an SH thread, a CT, and another SH thread.

Articles on published narrative works

If you have any questions, or any suggestions on how to improve it, let me know in the discussion section. Menkooroo (talk) 15:24, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Menkooroo (talk) 15:24, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
2. 501st dogma^(talk) 01:02, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
3. Commander Code-8 ^{G'day, mate} 05:18, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
4. —Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 17:23, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
5. Rokkur Shen (talk) 02:35, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
6. Sweet. Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 01:27, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
7. Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 16:31, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
8. NaruHina ^Talk 19:20, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
9. ~Savage 15:25, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
10. Glad to see the new changes made. I appreciate it. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:29, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
11. I think the tweaking is done and I can now safely support without having my talk page spammed with a dozen "this CT has been changed" notifications. :P —MJ— ^{Training Room} 01:42, March 22, 2013 (UTC)
12. A long time coming. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 14:56, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

    Looks good to me DK Wolf 27 ^{Holonet Channel} 00:46, April 4, 2013 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Fails productivity requirement -- —MJ— _{Council Chambers} 20:51, April 4, 2013 (UTC))

13. - Princess GLG 13:15, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
14. Cade Calrayn 23:50, April 7, 2013 (UTC)
15. I've finally brought myself to support this. MasterFred^(Whatever) 00:51, April 8, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. JangFett ^(Talk) 19:24, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

   I am opposing based on the following passage in this proposed policy: If pictures of the characters exist, they should be included, either alternating between the left and right sides of the page or consistently on one side. Images should ideally be sized so as to prevent significant overlap with other character profiles. This passage is inspired by this wiki's previous FAs on OOU published narrative works which, up to this point, have been used as models for everything since. What we have gotten, as a result, is a handful of articles with a horrendous amount of whitespace to accommodate oversized and poorly aligned images. See: Tales of the Jedi, Agents of Chaos, and Into the Great Unknown as the three foremost examples of these whitespace offenders. This looks absolutely terrible, and it makes me wonder if we've lost all sense of visual presentation here. We should never be bloating the size of our section space so we can show larger and/or more images within a section; rather, we should always be making an effort to size our images so that they fit presentably within the confined space of text available. Doing so is not impossible, and it looks infinitely better than the whitespace alternative. See example articles of how this is done very professionally and presentably: Battle of Brentaal IV, Battle of Khorm, Executor, and Separatist Parliament. Alternating images in sections like these doesn't seem to work either, because then you end up with examples like 501st Legion where aligning an image to the left just for the sake of alternating forces a jarring shift of the section title and likewise detracts from presentation quality. We have a large enough sample size here going back over several years now to convince me that the only practical way to format images in a "Main characters"-type section like this is to alignment them right (not allowing the option to align them left or alternating) and sized accordingly so that they fit within each respective subsection so as to eliminate unsightly whitespace and section title shifting. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 16:37, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

   While I agree with most of your comment, the fact of the matter is that the height of the section varies wildly with the screen resolution. Take for instance, this screenshot I just took of Battle of Brentaal IV (Galactic Civil War) on my 1920 × 1080 laptop display. Notice how, even with 80px images, the last few are pushed down almost two full sections below where they should be due to {{Clear}} not being used. Given that 1080p displays like mine are becoming more and more common, and given the possibility that even higher resolutions may follow, we need to take those into account, and when we do, in some cases it's just not going to be possible to fit images of sufficient size to see what's depicted within the section without {{Clear}} and whitespace. We may not like whitespace (and it's certainly not needed to the extent seen it your first examples), but in many cases it is likely to be necessary to some extent. —MJ— _{Council Chambers} 03:11, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

   Wording changed. Menkooroo (talk) 03:58, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

2. Indeed. Per Tope.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 16:18, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
3. Films, novels, comics, video games, television episodes, and RPG adventures are all different enough in both production and presentation that a blanket layout guide that covers them all with the same approach would be a harsh Procrustean bed. Each should have its own guide, similar only where appropriate. jSarek (talk) 12:23, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• I once brought up a CT for whether or not our video game articles should include sections on game mechanics, but the consensus at the time was that since there was no policy preventing it at the moment there was no reason to do approve/reject the inclusion of one section. So while we're doing the whole thing at once, would anyone be opposed to something like that? NaruHina ^Talk 17:40, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • That's not a bad idea. Menkooroo (talk) 02:33, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
    • More on this below: See my bolded point. Menkooroo (talk) 03:17, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
• I think "Cast" is too limiting. We should have articles on everyone involved in the project, like I endeavored to do (and will one day get back to, dammit!) on Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. I think it should be a "Credits" section and that it should be subdivided as "Cast" followed by "Crew." This should be for more than just movies, television episodes, and radio dramas, as well. Lots of people work on all Star Wars products, and if we know they did, they should be in the section of the article dedicated to those who did. NaruHina ^Talk 17:51, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
• And one more thing! Are you sure this CT is for "Musical Theme Articles?" :3 NaruHina ^Talk 17:51, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • Got this one. What does everyone think about an entire comprehensive "credits" section? I know that we are not Wikipedia, but I think it's worth noting that Wikipedia doesn't list everyone. Menkooroo (talk) 01:16, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
    • Also I guess I didn't make it clear, but my intention was that for comics, for example, writer, penciler, inker, cover artist, etc, would all be listed as part of publication information. Menkooroo (talk) 02:33, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure video games should be lumped into published narrative works. What about a Gameplay and features section, and a Metaseries section? TOR is far too big for me to create a plot summary, so I'm giving overviews of each class, planet, operation, flashpoint, etc. Also, TOR, KOTOR, The Force Unleashed, and other games have spawned significant metaseries of other material and works, and I think we'd be remiss if we didn't cover them. Cade Calrayn 21:17, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
  • An article on a metaseries wouldn't be covered under this, as it goes beyond the scope of a "published narrative work." An article on the TOR metaseries would be written a different way, and an article on TOR could mention the metaseries in the "Legacy" section. Since there's freedom for every section to be subdivided, "Legacy" could even include a "Metaseries" subsection that gave a brief overview of the metaseries and included links to the various relevant articles. As for your former point: overviews of each class, planet, etc, could be subsections of Plot summary. I hope that the ability to subdivide will allow freedom in cases like this. Menkooroo (talk) 02:59, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  • More on this below: See my bolded point. Menkooroo (talk) 03:17, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
• As an aside, and I know I already voted, but why should the plot be written in present tense? Isn't the plot the in-universe part of the book, and as such it should be treated as a past tense thing? 501st dogma^(talk) 22:54, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
  • Took a cue from Wikipedia on this one, and also from precedent here on the Wook. Present tense has worked well for existing OOU articles. We write in-universe articles in past tense because we're describing something that happened "A Long Time Ago," but in an out-of-universe article, we're breaking the fourth wall and discussing the events of a real-life book that exists in the present. Menkooroo (talk) 02:59, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
• Naru and Cade: How about adding a Gameplay section specifically for video game articles, which could be further subdivided and include stuff on game mechanics as well? Menkooroo (talk) 03:17, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd go for that, but I'm still wary of dividing TOR's "Gameplay and features" section into a "Plot Summary" and "Gameplay" section. I'm covering both the gameplay aspects and the basic outline of the story in the current section, and I don't see the benefits of splitting it in this situation. And the fact that I have a "Game update and release history" section makes me think that TOR really shouldn't be included in this. Cade Calrayn 17:04, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
    • The fact that you've done something different in your first draft of the article isn't a reason to not include TOR in this, though. It's a video game and should be written the same as other video games. If you think video games in general shouldn't be included in this, that's one thing, but the fact that TOR is a project of yours doesn't grant it special exclusion. "Game update and release history" would fall under the scope of the "Production" section and could easily be a subsection of it. Menkooroo (talk) 17:30, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
    • Addendum: Looking at what you've done with Star Wars: The Old Republic, I do think it could use a plot summary section, separate from and preceding the current "Gameplay and features" section. As something that goes in an IU article's "Appearances" section, TOR has a story, and summarizing that story in a "Plot summary" section would be hugely beneficial to the reader. If we allow significant freedom in the "Gameplay" section, you could still do whatever you think is best with it, but I still see a plot summary as beneficial, even essential. A lot of SW fans, myself included, are interested in the story but not the gameplay, and will likely come to Wookieepedia to read a summary of the story. "Plot summary" could first summarize the story, and that would in turn allow "Gameplay" to reference already-explained story points without having to summarize them in detail. It could also discuss how game mechanics and player choices affect said story. Make sense? Menkooroo (talk) 17:36, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
      • And that story is impossible to describe in an article. It's eight different stories wrapped around each other with hundred of other quests intermixed. How specific would it have to be? An overview of the general storyline for the entire game? Cade Calrayn 17:42, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
        • I'd leave how to write it up to you, since I'm not too familiar with the game, but I do think it's essential. The ability to subsection will hopefully give you significant freedom to write it however you think best. Throwing one idea out there: Split it into eight subsections. Yes, it would be a huge section in total, but TOR is a huge game --- if you want to write its article, you need to give it the comprehension it deserves without taking any shortcuts. The point of this CT is to standardize, and I do think that all video games should be standardized. Like all SW games, TOR has a story --- a story that its article should summarize. Menkooroo (talk) 17:49, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

Gameplay is a section reserved for video games. It discusses the playable features of the game and how the game is played by the player. If applicable, it can also discuss how player choices and game mechanics affect the storyline.

• Thoughts? I'm not a gamer, so feel free to come up with a better wording. I really like what you're done with the TOR article's "Gameplay" section; the article would certainly be incomplete without it. Menkooroo (talk) 18:03, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  • That'd be good... I'm going to actually split the summary into Prologue, Act I-III, and post-Act content, and leave the class storylines with the Main Characters section. Cade Calrayn 18:18, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for being flexible. I do think standardization is best. The "Gameplay" section has been added; I'll inform the users who've already voted. Menkooroo (talk) 18:42, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
      • Can I suggest another part to the gameplay bit? Some games have several different modes of gameplay, example, (guess which example I'm using :) in GB you can do the campaigns, skirmish mode, and scenario editor, in which there are different things the player can do in each of these. This will definitely be applicable to other games as well, so I think the gameplay description should have something like "If applicable this section can also include different modes of gameplay included, such as story modes, free play modes, vs modes and level editors." Commander Code-8 ^{G'day, mate} 05:57, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
        • I think that would be covered under the vague wording of "playable features of the game." That was my intention, anyway. I think it's better to leave the wording more general rather than get into specific examples from various kinds of games; that way it can be applied differently to different games. Make sense? Menkooroo (talk) 06:02, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
          • Yeah, that makes sense to me. Commander Code-8 ^{G'day, mate} 08:12, March 1, 2013 (UTC)
            • Wait, whoa. In previous articles, the Main Characters section has been solely for a brief summary of who the characters are and the jist of what they did in the work, not a full write-up. I acknowledge that doing that for TOR may work out as a nice exception because the characters originate within it, they have their adventures in it, and it's an already subdivided part, but for other works (say, novels or games without differet PCs) full write-ups would practically require writing out the plot summary several times from different perspectives. Is Cade's plan meant to be a exception or a model for other articles to follow? NaruHina ^Talk 19:19, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
              • Exception. I think an MMO is complex enough to be allowed some freedom, but the norm should be the "brief, individual descriptions of major characters" as described. Menkooroo (talk) 03:52, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
                • Arrite, good deal. NaruHina ^Talk 16:27, March 15, 2013 (UTC)
• I'm still not comfortable having all of the post-release stuff, namely the Game Updates, World Events, Digital Expansions, etc. included in a "Development" or a "Production" section. The game has already been developed, produced, and released; it'd be better suited under its own section - maybe something like "Promotion and post-release" ? Cade Calrayn 19:50, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this would be best handled by appending something to the final line of the template allowing for the creation of one or more additional sections in exceptional circumstances when relevant information doesn't fit into the defined sections, because that's really what this is: an exceptional circumstance. Other than Star Wars Galaxies and maybe standard video games with DLC, I can't really think of a single article that would warrant a section for post-release dev/prod, so it's best to leave it off the hard list that applies to all articles and let it be added under the exceptional circumstances clause when needed. —MJ— _Comlink 01:25, March 28, 2013 (UTC)

Credits section?

A question Naru brought up above was whether articles on films, video games, etc, should have comprehensive "credits" sections. What does everyone think? I personally think we should take a cue from Wikipedia on this one and leave it as a "Cast" section so as not to bloat the article. Major positions like writers, directors, etc, can be covered by the "Development" section. Menkooroo (talk) 18:42, February 27, 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see why such would be necessary. Just doing what you suggested should be fine.—Jedi Kasra ("Indeed.") 20:16, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
  • I actually disagree. I would like to see a "Credits" section where everybody listed as contributing would be listed. MasterFred^(Whatever) 21:31, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with MasterFred on this.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 15:34, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
      • If we do include a Credits section, how about making it a section unique from "Cast" and coming just after "Cast"? And also using a collapsible template like "Appearances" that auto-hides. Menkooroo (talk) 05:36, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
      • And also, if it does happen, are we good on restricting it to films, tv shows, video games, and audio dramas? Like... an article on a comic is OK naming the authors, artists, inkers, etc, in the "Development" section instead?
      • And one more: If it does happen, can we keep it restricted to articles on single works? Eg, an article on a single film or TV episode. Then we can avoid our article on Original trilogy listing the credits for all three movies, and our article on Star Wars: The Clone Wars (TV series) listing the credits of every single episode. Menkooroo (talk) 05:36, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
        • I'd prefer to combine Cast with Credits since the former is merely a subset of the latter, and toss the whole thing in a default-collapsed template.
        • Absolutely.
        • Ditto. —MJ— ^{Jedi Council Chambers} 20:34, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
          • I'll see about making that template within the next couple of days. Menkooroo (talk) 04:01, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
          • OK, "Cast" has been changed to "Credits", and the template has been created. I'll notify everyone who asked for it. Menkooroo (talk) 04:26, March 10, 2013 (UTC)