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 Force power addition to Layout Guide. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:09, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
Hello friends, let's get right to the point. Several Wookieepedians have undertaken the improvement of severalForcepowerarticles, all using a general format that clearly and concisely presents the facts in such a manner that most of them have achieved recognition through successful runs on both the GAN and FAN pages. I am therefore proposing that said layout be added to our Layout Guide, so that future nominators can refer to a standard set of guidelines when preparing their Force power article for the nomination process. The proposed layout is as follows:
Force power Articles
There are some guidelines for the organization of Force power articles within Wookieepedia. Though there is some flexibility, the following sections are typical:
Description gives a detailed description on what the power is and does.
Applications describes how and why the power is used.
Users details the specific instances of the power's use, and by whom.
Each of these sections may be further subdivided as appropriate. Note: if something else of significance concerning the Force power is relevant, a section of its own can be created.
Of course, appearances, sources, notes and references are required where applicable, and subsections are permitted at the article writer's discretion. What say you?—Tommy9281 00:22, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
For clarification, Intro, Behind the scenes, Appearances/Sources, and Notes and references are all implied sections already required in general by the MOS and LG. The addition to the LG would encompass the Description, Applications, and Users sections. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:32, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Well said, my friend. Thank you.—Tommy9281 00:35, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
As nominator.—Tommy9281 00:22, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Happy to support a very logical addition to the Layout Guide. As has been the case with many of our previous LG additions, you know it's time to standardize something like this when a format begins being used as the standard by the userbase in general, which is becoming the case with many of our Force power FAs and GAs, as noted. Hooray for standardization. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:39, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Looks great! I just have a couple of questions. Would it would become Item #15 of the Layout guide, falling after "Battle articles" and having the yellow background? If so, since items 10 through 14 of the Layout guide include a brief description of what to include in each section, would you be able to write up little descriptions for Description, Applications, and Users? Menkooroo 04:52, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to echo this query; I think that a brief description of every section would really help users to become familiar with the formatting. It might be good just to write up and format this proposed section of the LG so everyone can better see what will be added to the page if they vote for it, like how CTs have done it inthepast. CC7567(talk) 08:27, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
How's what I added above.—Tommy9281 10:30, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to keep pushing it, but to echo CC, can you format it in the style of Items 10 through 14 of the LG? Even if it seems obvious, it would be consistent with what's already there to give a leading paragraph with something like "There are some guidelines for the organization of...," a closing paragraph with something like "Each of these sections may be further subdivided as appropriate. Note: if something else...," and, instead of bulleted points for the description, prose such as "Description details what the power is and does." Again, I'm sorry to keep beating the point for what seem like nitpicky organization details, but it just seems like it would make sense to keep it in the same format as what's already there. Menkooroo 13:08, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
How's that?—Tommy9281 13:36, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Wonderful! Menkooroo 15:08, December 3, 2010 (UTC)