Forum:CT:Ship article layout

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Ship article layout

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 add the proposed segment on starships and vehicles classes to the layout guide. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 18:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

After a bit of research into the wiki's featured and good articles concerning vehicles and vessels, I've noticed that a certain layout trend has been set for both types. A pattern has been found among a lot of the higher-quality articles in terms of the organization of such articles, and I'd like to give this precedent some recognition by adding templates for the articles to our Layout Guide.

Aside from my own recent featured articles, TIE/D Defender, TIE Phantom, TIE/sh shuttle, X-83 TwinTail starfighter all conform to the proposed ship class layout. Additionally, there is a growing precedent for the layout proposed for individual ships and vehicles (Ebon Hawk, Fairwind, Independence, and Stinger are FAs).

Now, remember, this is just a proposal for guidelines for the different article types. No established FA or GA will be attacked over not conforming to the layout. It's basically what the other layout guidelines are: a reference for those who wish to GA or FA articles about ships or vehicles to look at. Graestan(Talk) 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed guideline templates

Starship and Vehicle Class Articles

There are some guidelines for the organization of ship and vehicle class articles within Wookieepedia. Ideally, they are organized into three main sections, with subsections and extra sections where appropriate:

  1. Characteristics includes any descriptive information about the class, as well as any statistical information provided.
  2. Role encompasses the duties the vessel or vehicle type was designed and/or used for. Strengths and weaknesses in application are laid out here, as well.
  3. History covers the known operational history of the class, arranged in chronological order. Ideally, all appearances of the type in canon are described here.

Each of these three sections may be further subdivided as appropriate. Note: if anything in particular is of overwhelming significance concerning the class, or a preponderance of information is available, a section of its own can be created.

Individual Starship and Vehicle Articles

There are some guidelines for the organization of individual ship and vehicle articles within Wookieepedia. Ideally, they are organized into three main sections, with subsections and extra sections where appropriate:

  1. Description contains all the details of the design of the ship or vehicle.
  2. History chronicles the known history of the craft in chronological order. Ideally, all appearances of the type in canon are described here.
  3. Commanders and crew (or a similar title such as Owners and operators) provides brief summaries of any individuals of particular import that owned, commanded, or crewed the vessel or vehicle.

Each of these three sections may be further subdivided as appropriate. Note: if anything in particular is of overwhelming significance concerning the ship or vehicle, or a preponderance of information is available, a section of its own can be created.

Voting

In favor of adoption

  1. Graestan(Talk) 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. This does a nice job of reinforcing what we already do for the most part without guidelines. I know I'm doing Executor like that by default as well. I think when users begin to adopt and perpetuate a certain layout for an article, it's time to accept it formally. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  4. Per Toprawa. Green Tentacle (Talk) 21:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  5. Chack Jadson (Talk) 21:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  6. Preapproved. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 21:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  7. This CT is relevant to my interests. Oh yeah, and I like the guidelines too. DolukTalk 21:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  8. Cylka-talk- 22:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  9. Although it means Record Time will have to be re-jiggered. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  10. DC 22:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  11. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  12. Looks good. Nothing here that isn't basically standard operating procedure already. jSarek 01:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  13. Grunny (Talk) 04:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  14. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 05:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  15. Per Toprawa. Master JonathanJedi Council Chambers 06:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  16. Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 14:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  17. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 11:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  18. Meh. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 13:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  19. Feh. --Mecenarylord 00:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  20. If they're guidelines, we can amend or ignore them if there are problems. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  21. Seems kinda pointless to vote now. —Xwing328(Talk) 03:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Opposed

Comments

  • Before anyone jumps to oppose on a minor point, please feel free to make suggestions or ask questions. Graestan(Talk) 21:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I further propose that the section which provides summaries of important individuals be required to be alliterative. "Commanders and crew," "Owners and operators," "Masters and men," "Captains and corps," "Skippers and scalawags" . . . okay, maybe not. :-p jSarek 01:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • lol, I'm with you there. —Xwing328(Talk) 03:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Skippers and scalawags! Argh! Mecenarylord 12:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)