Forum:CT:Some Battle article MOSing

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Some Battle article MOSing

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, no changes made to policy. - Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, I'm sure that all of you have seen Forum:More layout guide stuff. If you haven't go do so. I think it's essential that we start laying down some tangible rules, or "guidelines" if you're squeamish, for some other types of articles as well. Namely, battle and war articles. So, I just want to nut these out first, then vote. That way, everyone's happy. Surely. Thefourdotelipsis 01:15, 16 December 2007 (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. Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 05:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Thefourdotelipsis 22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Imperialles 01:46, 9 March 2008 (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. Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 05:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Thefourdotelipsis 22:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Imperialles 01:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • They're both far too vague and general. Needs specific examples of when certain sections- such as participants, key figures-are needed. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 02:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree completely. What's the point in a policy that suggests several things but leaves it to author discretion? It's like a really strict lack of policy. Wildyoda 04:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to attack the idea per se, as I followed a similar format in my event featured article, and honestly I will likely strive to emulate this in future article-writing, but I will note that battles and wars, by their very nature, are rather dynamic, and I think that requiring users to adhere to it when writing FAs may be problematic as such. The "make it fit" air that might be adopted by users viewing the MOS might, in my opinion, lower the quality of the articles produced, while simply allowing users to write event and conflict FAs as they see fit and then helping them to iron out the wrinkles on the FAN page will avert such issues. I am, of course, operating under the assumption that the writers and reviewers will conduct themselves respectfully and with open minds on the FAN page. Graestan(This party's over)
      • That is true, but I also think that we should strive for a degree of consistency and uniformity amongst our articles. This wouldn't actually affect "event" articles, really, just the ones that are specifically battles and wars. I'm aware that these two proposals are flawed....that's why there's a comments section for people to suggest improvements. No good sitting around, clucking, and going "Nah, this won't fly." Thefourdotelipsis 22:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, you've pretty much cured me of any doubts by kindly using the word "guidelines" in each template. Our popularized layout of character articles has helped article design out by a long shot, in my opinion, and having something similar for other types of articles can be desirable. The fact that these are guidelines does, in fact, allow for FAN page discussion and improvements, and as such I am satisfied. Now, let's see if we can work out whatever other issues arise regarding this. Graestan(This party's over) 04:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • These are good, useful general guidelines, and definitely preferable to having nothing at all. To be honest, can we do much better? The idea seems to be to provide as simple, yet as comprehensive a guideline as possible, and IMHO these MOS blurbs do that nicely. Wars can be notoriously difficult to catalog properly as it is, as they can sometimes encompass literally hundreds of individual sources (Galactic Civil War, anyone?).--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 01:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.