This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. Graestan(Talk) 16:31, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
안녕하세요,
The idea of a Layout Guide for Out-of-universe articles has been discussed a bit recently, and I say we go for it. I've FAN'd a couple of OOU'ers lately, and I know that others are working on more. Before it comes to a CT, though, I say we get input from as many interested parties as possible.
I used Greyman's Tales of the Jedi article and Sikon's Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (comic series) articles as the major precedents when I recently wrote up Agents of Chaos Duology and Into the Great Unknown, and also when I revamped the Star Wars: Legacy article way back when. I think it's a pretty good system, but still one that a few details need to be hammered out on. And since this will be a layout "guide", hopefully it can be just that instead of a rigid requirement.
So here's my rough proposal. Feel free to agree, disagree, tweak, improve, whatever. More detail probably has to be added.
1. Conception discusses events and decisions that brought about the development of the subject. As these events happened in the past, they should be discussed in the past tense. This can be further sub-sectioned if necessary.
2. Production discusses decisions, ideas, and jettisoned concepts of the author(s)/developer(s) while writing/creating the product. This should also be written in the past tense. This can be further sub-sectioned if necessary.
If there is not enough information to justify two sections, Conception and Production can be merged into a Development section.
3. Main characters is a sub-sectioned section that spotlights major characters who appeared in the work. If pictures of the characters exist, they should be included on the left side of the page. If possible, pictures of the characters from the actual work (book cover, comic pages, etc) are preferable.
Character biographies should be written in-universe in the present tense, but an opening out-of-universe paragraph is optional.
4. Plot summary summarizes the plot of the work, written in-universe and in the present tense. If the article covers multiple works (eg, it is about a trilogy or a comic book arc), the summaries should be more condensed than if the article is about a single work (eg, one book or comic).
5. Media is an optional section. If the article is about a single book, comic, video game, etc, a picture gallery of the various covers is in order. If it is about a comic series, a pretty table is in order. If the article is about multiple works, the media section is unnecessary.
6. Continuity discusses past continuity used/referred to by the work, continuity errors, and significant continuity created by the work that has been later used/referenced/retconned.
7. Reception discusses, in general, the reception to the work. Professional reviews, significant fan response, awards won, sales, and media spotlight are all fair game.
8. Legacy is an optional section that discusses the impact on the work on future Star Wars media. It is up to the writer's discretion as to what to include here rather than in Continuity.
9. Appearances is only necessary for an article on an individual work, and should use the {{App}} template.
10. Collections is a bulleted list of any collections the work has appeared in.
_________
Anyway, that's an incredibly rough outline. My purposes were more hammering out the sections an OOU article should and shouldn't have, rather than getting exact wording down. Please discuss! Menkooroo 04:53, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Discussion
Also, Notes and references, External links, etc. Menkooroo 04:58, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
- For non-narrative works, it should be noted that "Main characters" will often not be applicable, and neither will plot summary. I would suggest "Overview" in place of that for non-narrative works. I would also venture that in some instances, a "Main characters" section might possibly be totally redundant after the Production and summary sections, so there should be some lee-way there. I also don't really see the point in a media section—galleries are patently bad medicine for OOU articles, and the only foreign covers we should be bothering to feature are the Japanese ones, which could easily be utilized to illustrate the prose at some point. I think the ones for comic series' are very good though, and they could even be reflected for a large book series like the NJO. Thefourdotelipsis 05:10, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Since TOTJ and KOTOR were the two main precedents for this, I like the model set by them. I recently discussed with Jeff the issue of character names; while I don't think it's super-important, we agreed a defined format would be nice, so here by his request are my thoughts on it. I think characters should be identified as they are most commonly in the work itself; so Han Solo would be "Han", Finis Valorum would be "Valorum", Tenel Ka Djo would be "Tenel Ka", and so forth. This is not how we do it in IU works, because we treat those as if they were encyclopedia entries of real people, and thus use the most formal naming; however, an OOU article is not the same, since it treats those characters entirely as fictional entities. Encyclopedias in fact do this for works of fiction; an article on Les Miserables, for example, would identify Eponine Thenardier as "Eponine", because that's what she's principally called in the book/play. - Lord Hydronium 05:16, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent points, the both of you. And yeah, it should be established that this is for "Released, narrative works". Like, The Epic Continues is neither of those but is still a fantastic OOU FA. Menkooroo 05:31, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
- When this is approved, Menkooroo, perhaps you should be the one who writes a tutorial on how to write OOU FA's?--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 18:20, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Those are for Inqs only. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:51, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Ideally. No one's actually written one since October 2008. :P Thefourdotelipsis 00:44, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- And Menkooroo's been doing some good things with this subject, so why not?--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 00:53, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I think you should listen to Chack, as he is an Inq. All those FA tutorials were done by current or former Inqs. JangFett (Talk) 01:21, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Eh, I guess. Just don't understand why it's a requirement, is all. No worries.--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 01:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- The inspiration behind it being Inqs only was that it would be a sort of goodwill and outreach program enacted by the Inquisitorius, to basically diversify their role and how they are perceived as a whole. This was supposed to be done through a series of tutorials covering the different ways in which one could approach FA writing, and other basic elements of the FA process. It didn't really happen, though, for whatever reason. Thefourdotelipsis 03:51, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Oh hey, just popping in to say that tutorial writing being an Inq-exclusive privilege is the dumbest thing I've heard all week. Tutorials are about helping users get into the FA process, and have frankly been ignored by most Inqs for quite some time. Considering Menkooroo's expertise on the subject of writing OOU articles, I see absolutely no problem with him writing a tutorial, if he so desires. Declaring sections of the site such as this as "Inq-exclusive" for arcane reasons is extremely unhelpful for everyone involved. As for the OOU LG proposal, I like it a lot. It is a big improvement over the current system. --Imperialles 06:04, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- The inspiration behind it being Inqs only was that it would be a sort of goodwill and outreach program enacted by the Inquisitorius, to basically diversify their role and how they are perceived as a whole. This was supposed to be done through a series of tutorials covering the different ways in which one could approach FA writing, and other basic elements of the FA process. It didn't really happen, though, for whatever reason. Thefourdotelipsis 03:51, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Eh, I guess. Just don't understand why it's a requirement, is all. No worries.--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 01:58, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I think you should listen to Chack, as he is an Inq. All those FA tutorials were done by current or former Inqs. JangFett (Talk) 01:21, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- And Menkooroo's been doing some good things with this subject, so why not?--Jedi Kasra (comlink) 00:53, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Ideally. No one's actually written one since October 2008. :P Thefourdotelipsis 00:44, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Those are for Inqs only. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:51, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Oh boo-hoo, cry me a river, Imp. Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Try and keep your childish tomfoolery to a minimum. You're an admin, this is no way to behave. If you have some sort of complaint with anyone in particular, feel free to voice your concern on the respective user talk pages. I trust you will heed my advice and let this thread play out without further derailing it. Thanks. --Imperialles 19:47, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- If he should ever come around, I'd like to hear Fiolli's take on all of this, given that he once upon a time came up with some interesting ideas of his own for an OOU layout that closely mirrors this one, which some of our TFN friends unfortunately decided to shoot down. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:17, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Hydro's suggestion
- What do you guys think? I like it but I also don't, in a way. A good deal of an OOU article is written IU (plot summary, characters), and even if it's written in the present tense, I still think using last names when possible is a good idea, for uniformity's sake. And extending that to the entire article, whether IU or OOU, is good for consistency's sake. Hydro, perhaps you can expound your reasons for differentiating between past and present tense? Menkooroo 05:54, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct that using last names is the standard in formal article writing, which is what we do here, contrary to Lord Hydronium's unique and often amusing perspective of how things work. I wouldn't recommend trying to make a policy that suggests doing otherwise. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:08, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Although I'm not completely sold on it, I do think that Hydro has some good points, and I'd like to see them discussed by the community without being automatically shot down. Menkooroo 06:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I do wonder, though, Hydro --- your idea seems kind of analogous to using first names in a bts section of an IU article. Like... "Han Solo was created by George Lucas, blah blah blah... Harrison Ford went on to play Han in three films and the Holiday Special. Han was in a buncha books. etc." Whadda think? Menkooroo 06:28, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with that too. We're not discussing real people, who formal writing would insist we address by last name; instead, we're addressing them as fictional entities in a work, and therefore I think it's fairly logical that we would treat them as the work does. You can see that the New York Times Book Review, for example—the quickest formal article writing on fiction I could find on the drop of a hat—does just this. - Lord Hydronium 06:41, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- If it's going to encompass all OOU material (OOU articles and IU bts), maybe a separate CT is warranted? Menkooroo 06:45, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I'd prefer referring to people by last names, just like we do for every other article. Any suggestion that we call them by first names is just TFNers trying to make it easier for themselves and stick it to those of us who actually try to follow the rules of grammar. Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Conspiracy theorizing really doesn't help anyone. It's not easier or harder to use first names, it's simply correct. I've provided a link above; you can also check actual encyclopedias like such to see that first names are used when the work identifies characters by such. If there's a "rule of grammar" that states last names must be used in writing about fiction, I welcome someone to link it. The evidence is against such a thing. - Lord Hydronium 19:53, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Hydro here. OOU articles, as well as the OOU BTS of IU articles, should refer to characters as they are most commonly called in the source. This is one thing that has always bugged me about how we do things here, but I've never actually been able to put my finger on it until Hydro brought it up. —Master Jonathan
(Jedi Council Chambers) 20:04, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- It makes me sick on a basic human level that people actually listen to what Hydro says. I can't believe I'm dignifying his idiocy myself by even responding to him, but I have a moral obligation to defend the basic tenets of journalism by helping us understand that just because you link to one mainsteam media example doesn't mean it's the say-all, end-all "correct" version of how to do something. You linked to a book review. Let me say that again. A book review. Are we critiquing books here? No. We're writing encyclopedic summaries of published works. When someone chooses to refer to characters by first name in a book review, they do so because it helps the average idiot reader comprehend the material better, because they're not going to remember characters by last name in a random romantic thriller serial novel they picked off the shelf waiting in line at Walmart. Our material, both the subject and the substance of what we're creating, is completely and totally unrelated to the linked book review example. There's no reason why someone can't choose to write using last names if they want to. For whomever thinks they're going to start a CT forcing us to use first names in an OOU article, I can pretty much guarantee it will receive plenty of opposition. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:16, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- Petulance isn't an argument, Top. If you have any style guides that say fictional characters should always be identified by last name, you're welcome to show them. I've provided one of the more respected journalistic book reviews and an encyclopedia, which last I checked we were. Neither agree with you. - Lord Hydronium 20:22, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- These comments are not acceptable on the Wookieepedia. If you have legitimate comments to make, do so without making personal attacks, Toprawa. --Eyrezer 02:40, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
- It makes me sick on a basic human level that people actually listen to what Hydro says. I can't believe I'm dignifying his idiocy myself by even responding to him, but I have a moral obligation to defend the basic tenets of journalism by helping us understand that just because you link to one mainsteam media example doesn't mean it's the say-all, end-all "correct" version of how to do something. You linked to a book review. Let me say that again. A book review. Are we critiquing books here? No. We're writing encyclopedic summaries of published works. When someone chooses to refer to characters by first name in a book review, they do so because it helps the average idiot reader comprehend the material better, because they're not going to remember characters by last name in a random romantic thriller serial novel they picked off the shelf waiting in line at Walmart. Our material, both the subject and the substance of what we're creating, is completely and totally unrelated to the linked book review example. There's no reason why someone can't choose to write using last names if they want to. For whomever thinks they're going to start a CT forcing us to use first names in an OOU article, I can pretty much guarantee it will receive plenty of opposition. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:16, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Hydro here. OOU articles, as well as the OOU BTS of IU articles, should refer to characters as they are most commonly called in the source. This is one thing that has always bugged me about how we do things here, but I've never actually been able to put my finger on it until Hydro brought it up. —Master Jonathan
- Conspiracy theorizing really doesn't help anyone. It's not easier or harder to use first names, it's simply correct. I've provided a link above; you can also check actual encyclopedias like such to see that first names are used when the work identifies characters by such. If there's a "rule of grammar" that states last names must be used in writing about fiction, I welcome someone to link it. The evidence is against such a thing. - Lord Hydronium 19:53, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I'd prefer referring to people by last names, just like we do for every other article. Any suggestion that we call them by first names is just TFNers trying to make it easier for themselves and stick it to those of us who actually try to follow the rules of grammar. Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- If it's going to encompass all OOU material (OOU articles and IU bts), maybe a separate CT is warranted? Menkooroo 06:45, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with that too. We're not discussing real people, who formal writing would insist we address by last name; instead, we're addressing them as fictional entities in a work, and therefore I think it's fairly logical that we would treat them as the work does. You can see that the New York Times Book Review, for example—the quickest formal article writing on fiction I could find on the drop of a hat—does just this. - Lord Hydronium 06:41, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- You're absolutely correct that using last names is the standard in formal article writing, which is what we do here, contrary to Lord Hydronium's unique and often amusing perspective of how things work. I wouldn't recommend trying to make a policy that suggests doing otherwise. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:08, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I was hesitant about this for a moment but, OOU or IU, this is an encyclopedia and, as such, we refer to characters by their last names for professionalism and consistency. Pretty much per Tope, but without the needless declaration of Hydro to be an idiot and so forth. NAYAYEN:TALK 20:20, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- 100% per Nayayen. I agree that we should continue using last names as we always have for the reasons above, but for the sake of the wiki, stop this silly drama. It helps no one but hurts everyone. Thank you. Xicer9
(Combadge) 20:31, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- All personal problems and other such issues aside, let's just stick with the last names. It's not that difficult to do, it's more encyclopedic and professional-looking, it's more consistent with the rest of our articles, and hell, it just makes more sense. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- I'd probably weigh down on the side of sticking with last names, just because I think it makes sense to have it consistent throughout the whole site; that won't confuse readers and new users when they're writing. It's also not something I really think the average user will even notice, but I could be wrong. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:10, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- All personal problems and other such issues aside, let's just stick with the last names. It's not that difficult to do, it's more encyclopedic and professional-looking, it's more consistent with the rest of our articles, and hell, it just makes more sense. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 20:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
- 100% per Nayayen. I agree that we should continue using last names as we always have for the reasons above, but for the sake of the wiki, stop this silly drama. It helps no one but hurts everyone. Thank you. Xicer9
- If anyone honestly believes that a real encyclopedia would refer to Jason Voorhees as "Voorhees" or Jane Eyre as "Eyre" or "Frodo Baggins" as "Baggins" when writing about them from a real-world perspective, they might find themselves very sadly mistaken. That being said, there's absolutely no way we can even approach any kind of professionalism on that level when it comes to our OOU articles, simply because we are operating in a predominantly IU fashion, and blind standardization is the way to go. It's not even an issue worth discussing, clearly. Thefourdotelipsis 01:59, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Hydro's right, FWIW; do you really think you'd ever find an academic discussion of Alice's Adentures in Wonderland that referred to her as "Little", or one of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz that referred to "Gale"? But I can see us going with last names for consistency's sake. I'd prefer first names, though, for plot summaries but not for IU content. ~ SavageBob 03:59, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
- I err on the side of consistency and prefer last names if possible. Just a small bit of two cents here, but what happens when the individual only has one name, which just might happen to be their first name anyway? The galaxy is filled with first-name only beings. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:17, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Is there any motion on this? I was going to work on bringing some KOTOR issues to FA, using these standards and using the current FAN'd Star Wars: Legacy 23: Loyalties, Part 1. So is this going to be made policy, or what? Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 12:31, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Vote now!!! Vote now!!! Vote now!!! Vote now!!! Master Fredcerique Begun the Clone Wars has † 12:49, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
- I've been lazy. I'll do my best to write up a formal CT this weekend. But don't feel like you have to wait for me or anyone else to do it before you write up and FAN any OOU articles, though --- in my experience, no one's objected on the "This layout guide doesn't exist yet!" grounds. :^P Also, I love love love that you're going to FAN KOTOR issues. You rock! Menkooroo 14:20, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
