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 new battle layout into the layout guide. Grunny ^(Talk) 03:31, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

I've now spent much of my time on Wookieepedia writing battle and event articles, and I feel that an addition to the Layout Guide for said articles would be appropriate. I've seen this proposed layout a lot throughout our battle articles, and I myself have adopted it when I write history-related articles. I have perhaps seen only one or two Featured or Good articles that do not follow this layout, and that goes for all battles, skirmishes, lightsaber duels, missions, etc. The only layout I have seen, possibly as often as the one depicted here, is the one with the three sections under a "History" header. However, I don't feel that one main section is enough to devote to the event, especially when I look at how many main sections our character, planet, moon, starship, and species articles have.

This is an already-established precedent, and I'm actually surprised that it hasn't already been approved by the community. If it's already in use, it makes sense to simply add it to the Layout Guide. Please note that this is still a guideline, and is not set in concrete, however much it is being used. This should not be reason enough to probe our current Featured and Good articles, although ideally we should try to structure all of our articles the same way.

If you would like to suggest changes in wording, please do so in the discussion section. CC7567 ^(talk) 01:51, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

Proposed guideline templateEdit

VotingEdit

In favor of adoptionEdit

1. CC7567 ^(talk) 01:51, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
2. A fine addition to the LG. JangFett ^Talk 01:52, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
3. —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 02:08, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
4. I trust CC on this. Mauser^Comlink 02:19, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
5. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 02:21, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
6. This is just reinforcing what has pretty much become the norm for the most part anyway. When users begin to format articles a certain way by default, as has been the case with battle articles for some time now, I think that's the best indicator that the community is ready to adopt the method as its own. And that CC is one of our foremost battle article experts, I'm fully with him. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:25, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
7. IFYLOFD ^{(You will pay the price for your lack of vision!)} 02:33, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
8. No reason not to make standardize what we already do by default. Grunny ^(Talk) 03:16, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
9. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 05:40, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
10. Per Tope and Grunny. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 15:11, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
11. Per Grunny and Tope. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 01:33, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
12. We've needed to standardize our battle articles for some time. And there's no real reason to have "Participant" sections, as their names are already in the infobox and their actions are in the body of the article itself.Darth Trayus ^{(Trayus Academy)} 05:53, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
    • Just a comment; this layout doesn't forbid in anyway a participants section as that would fall under "Note: if anything in particular of overwhelming significance concerning the event is available, a section of its own can be created." They have been useful in articles such as Battle of Brentaal IV (Galactic Civil War), where it adds to the quality of the article. This layout allows these sections when they add to the article's quality and just provides a guideline to standardize the articles. Grunny ^(Talk) 06:03, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
      • I understand this, Grunny, and I never said it would forbid them. But this will discourage their inclusion when it is not of "overwhelming significance". It just so happens that such sections are almost always not of such significance. Darth Trayus ^{(Trayus Academy)} 04:17, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
        • That is, of course, only in my humble opinion. Darth Trayus ^{(Trayus Academy)} 04:21, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
13. So long as people understand these are guidelines. --Eyrezer 04:31, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
14. It's only a guideline. If a specific article shouldn't be modeled like this, then it also can be different. However, it's good for people who have no experience with battle articles to see a way how it can be done, similarly to the other guidelines we have. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 21:02, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
15. As long as combatants/participants sections are not prohibited within articles that would benefit from them. - Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 08:00, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

OpposedEdit

1. I am opposed based on precedent of sections such as "participants" or "combatants" which have been useful at times. Also, I find "prelude" and "aftermath" to be extremely tiresome. This is starting to look like the template-type crap they expect college students to crank out and I for one know fully that it doesn't make reading enjoyable. Furthermore, I see no problem in lumping the different narrative sections together in a supersection titled "history" or something similar. While all of this purports to be guidelines, the amount of enforcement I've seen on other types of articles leads me to believe it will happen with event articles also, and I feel that events and battles are simply too dynamic and unique to be expected to conform to rigid layouts. Graestan^(Talk) 03:19, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
2. I'm voting here only very reluctantly, as I would normally prefer to have guidelines, however, what Grae says makes sense. I think that battles can often be just too anomalous for such a strict layout. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(Jedi Beacon)} 06:34, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Graestan and Jon. Nayayentalk 15:48, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
4. I have given this a lot of thought. As much as I too like consistency and stylization guidelines, I agree with Graestan completely on this. Some slight modifications could easily bring my support around. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 21:25, September 10, 2009 (UTC)
   • Per Fiolli. ;) Graestan^(Talk) 22:17, September 10, 2009 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

• Please note that this is not intended to be a guideline for anything other than battles, missions, duels, skirmishes, or basically anything other than fights. I feel that a guideline for wars would be better established separately from this, as there are too many differences in the span of wars and battles. I could not find any trends for funerals, marriages, or treaties, and I feel a guideline for them is best set on their own when a separate precedent is actually set. CC7567 ^(talk) 01:51, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
• The reason for the inclusion of the note that extra sections can be added is mostly for the "Combatants" section that I've sometimes seen. However, I do not believe that it's right to almost require it out of every event article, as some skirmishes are so minor that there's only a sentence or two that can be said of the participants in relation to the battle. CC7567 ^(talk) 01:51, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
• Can we put a note in there that "Prelude" and "Aftermath" would only be required if such information exists? I'm sure there will be an instance eventually when said information simply does not exist, if such an instance hasn't already occurred. —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 01:56, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
  • It has occurred with a few TCW comic battle articles. JangFett ^Talk 01:59, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
    • Modified. CC7567 ^(talk) 02:03, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
• Before I vote either way, I need to ask about something Grae addressed in his remarks. Will the adoption of this layout mean the removal of the "participants/combatants" section that is present in some articles? Or can something be written into the layout guide that gives dispensation for these sections to be added if needed? Taking from my own example of the Battle of Brentaal IV, I have a large section devoted to participants. Due to the relative important of the battle and the persons involved, it felt necessary to include brief bios on the major players to better contextify them. I do believe that the article would suffer somewhat if it was removed. - Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 07:24, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd say that falls under: "Note: if anything in particular of overwhelming significance concerning the event is available, a section of its own can be created." Grunny ^(Talk) 07:29, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
    • I believe Grunny is correct. These guidelines don't restrict such a "Participants" section, though I leave it up to CC to hash out the official wording. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:23, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
• I want to make sure of this: This proposal is about battle articles only and not events as well? Events such as the Funeral of Marka Ragnos or Galactic Republic Chancery election, 28 BBY should not fall under such a layout. I just want to make sure this is clear since the title of the CT includes events. Also, I do suggest the wording about adding additional sections be slightly modified so it does not sound like more sections is prohibited. Saying that it requires "overwhelming significance" provides too much of an out for people to be lazy and not include information that should be listed. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 14:01, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
  • CC has said that this is "not intended to be a guideline for anything other than battles, missions, duels, skirmishes, or basically anything other than fights" in his comment at the start of this section, as well as stating that a guideline for funerals, marriages, or treaties is best set on their own when a separate precedent is actually set. So yes, this is just about battles, missions, duels, and skirmishes, not other events. Any suggestions for the wording of adding additional sections? :) Grunny ^(Talk) 14:48, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
    • I've reworded the "overwhelming significance." If you feel that clarification on what the guideline specifically applies to would be helpful, I can reword that as well. CC7567 ^(talk) 21:34, September 14, 2009 (UTC)