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 on droid article sectioning. Graestan^(Talk) 13:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Many of our droid character Featured articles vary in terms of article layout. Currently, we have no MOS standard for droid character articles like we do a sentient character article, for example. Most notably, the "Personality and traits" section seems to be the biggest variance. For the sake of article consistency, I would like for us to hammer out a standard by which droid character articles should follow, which would then be added to the Layout Guide.

For the time being, I'm going to propose that all other sections of a droid character article remain identical to a sentient character article. Someone else can tackle that if they so please. But, I'm going to throw out a few options for us to vote on, and we'll see which one, if any, we all like best. These are the most common appearing section titles in our current droid FAs. If you would like to propose a title not seen in the list, please feel free to do so.

Please note, this is for droid character articles, such as C-3PO, not an article dealing with a droid line, such as the 3PO-series protocol droid. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

VotingEdit

Please vote for one of the following, which you would like to see standardized as the new section title for droid character article "Personality" sections. I would like to point out that we currently have 4 droid character FAs that use the "Personality and traits" title, and 4 that use the "Characteristics" title. Another uses the third option. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Personality and traitsEdit

1. Unit 8311 18:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Droids are just as much characters as meatbags are, and ought to be treated the same way. jSarek 01:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Per jSarek.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 06:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
4. A character is a character, whether it's made of metal or not. Havac 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
5. I hate flip-flopping, but I should have given it more thought at the get-go. Thefourdotelipsis 09:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
6. A personality is a personality, and we frequently use characteristics for descriptions of appearance anyway. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 23:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
7. per JSarek. Soresumakashi 22:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Imperialles 12:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

CharacteristicsEdit

1. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2. As it is the most neutral of options.Madclaw^Shyriiwook! 13:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   What's in a name? :P Thefourdotelipsis 13:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

3. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 19:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

   Eh.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 19:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

4. Sure. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 19:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Per Fourdot. And there are plenty of less-than-dynamic droids. Graestan^(Talk) 04:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
6. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 10:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
7. It's got character. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 12:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
8. Weak support. I don't really feel we need standardization, but don't want the other choices to win. —Xwing328^(Talk) 16:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
9. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 21:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Personality and programmingEdit

I don't feel we need standardizationEdit

1. Meh. -- Ozzel 06:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
2. I'd go for the programming one only it's got personality in it, they are just programmed to behave like they have a personality, even if they where programmed really well, it's still a robot. Maybe we should have programmed personality :D - Kingpin13^{Cantina Battle Ground} 08:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Blah! Standardization schmandardization. KEJ 09:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)