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 Amend quotes section of Layout Guide. Grunny (talk) 23:18, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Wookieepedians. Another hopefully straightforward, painless CT for your consideration.

Currently, there exists a minor inconsistency between our use of quotes and the site's policy on quotes. Both FAN (Rule 13) and GAN (Rule 12) rules include the following provision for quote use in status articles: Although quotes may be placed in the body of the article, a maximum of one quote is allowed at the beginning of each section. As both reviewers and writers of status articles, the community has taken this to mean that quotes are not to be placed in the middle of paragraphs, but only at the beginning of section titles.

However, Wookieepedia's Layout Guide section on quotes includes the following stipulation regarding this: Quotes are usually placed immediately underneath a heading or subheading, though they can also be used between paragraphs.

I propose we amend this LG statement to mirror the FAN/GAN provision and standardize site-wide quote usage across all articles, not just status articles, according to what is already common practice. The amended LG statement would read: Although quotes may be placed in the body of the article, a maximum of one quote is allowed only at the beginning of each section.

The vote will be a simple support/oppose. Please reserve discussion for the appropriate section below. Thank you. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

VotingEdit

SupportEdit

1. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
2. Agreed. This makes sense. Master Fredcerique ^{Begun the Clone Wars has} † 18:33, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
3. Painless vote for consistency. (: --Tm_T ^(Talk) 18:38, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
4. works for me.<-Omicron 18:40, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
5. Poor LG. 1358 ^(Talk) 18:48, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
6. Xicer9^(Combadge) 19:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
7. For cleanliness' sake. ~ SavageBob 19:37, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
8. Quotes in the middle of sections are hideous. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 19:50, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
9. Sweet mother of pearl. Per Chack. Also, in response to JMAS: if a section was really so long that you wanted to put in another quote, why not just add a subsection? Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 19:55, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
10. Per Chack. Darth Karika^{will destroy your planet!} 19:56, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
11. Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 19:58, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
12. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 20:28, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
13. How hard is it to come up with section titles? They make the Table of Contents actually work for the reader. Graestan^(Talk) 21:29, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
14. --Eyrezer 22:24, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
15. Grunny (talk) 23:07, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
16. Cylka^-talk- 23:19, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
17. For Hochevar. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 01:09, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
18. Mid-section quotes always scream to me "pompous online essay trying to prove its bona-fides," which Wookieepedia articles shouldn't be. And if you're using them to break up text, you're using them for the wrong reason. jSarek 05:57, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
19. JangFett ^(Talk) 06:20, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
20. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 06:22, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
21. —Jedi Kasra (comlink) 06:32, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
22. Per Chack. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 07:11, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
23. DarthRage 01:25, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
24. Per Montana.—Tommy ⁹²⁸¹ 01:32, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
25. Extremely per Chack. CC7567 ^(talk) 03:28, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
26. As long as this does not apply to in-line quotations, then I'm fine with it. — Fiolli 04:01, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
27. Menkooroo 13:35, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
28. Because consistency in some form is better than none at all, but I stand by my comments below that it would be better to go the other way with this. Master Jonathan ^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 17:03, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
29. NAYAYEN 23:08, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
30. Per Master Jonathan. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 00:50, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
31. Please let this also apply to {{excerpt}}. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 15:41, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

See comments below. Also, I do not think having quotes between paragraphs (within reason) detracts from the appearance at all. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 18:49, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Per JMAS. See below. —Master Jonathan ^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 00:15, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Frankly, I think quotes should be allowed, within reason, more than just under section headings, including FAN and GANs. The within reason means use common sense. Putting a quote after every paragraph is ridiculous. But similar to images, in longer sections, more than one quote could very often work to augment the sections topic. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 18:49, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

• Response to Jujiggum: That is a possibility, however, not all long sections can or should be made into smaller subsections. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 19:58, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
• JMAS has a point here. Particularly on very long articles such as Wedge Antilles, where the TOC is already long enough without further subdividing sections that are already two screens long on my 1440x900 resolution, allowing additional quotes could help break up the huge blocks of text and make these huge sections easier to read. My opinion here is that this should be rarely done, only when the TOC is already long enough that additional subsections are not a good idea, but it shouldn't be outright prohibited. —Master Jonathan ^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 00:15, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly per MJ. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 00:27, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • The comment on breaking up massive walls of text is what caught my eye. When faced with huge sections with little in terms to break up the text, it becomes a strain and a monotony to read. Tossing in an appropriate quote here or there would help to prevent one from losing one's place within the body text, particularly if one is parsing through the text for a GAN/FAN review (or, in my case, to save an article from losing its FA/GA status). In the edit tab, where I will sometimes do most of the reading, all the text looks the same. There are no images to break it up, no changes in format, nothing. The only thing that helps to keep me from losing my place at times is seeing the quote template. Then, I can count down the number of paragraphs I was in from the template and continue working, if I happened to have left the computer for a minute or so. Granted, in the grand scheme of things, such enormous articles consisting of walls of text with little to define the contrast from one paragraph to another are a rare occurrence, and having that option nixed from the LG would make for more consistency, and perhaps help to elevate even the smallest articles to higher standards. To that end, I can't really decide, so I'm gonna stay neutral, as both sides make valid points. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 06:12, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Repeating what I commented on IRC: IMHO those rare exception cases when quote in the middle of section would make sense, should fall under common sense and be considered case by case instead of included to LG
    • Also, if the point is to break big chunk of text in its source mode, would simple <!-- break for long section --> comment suffice? --Tm_T ^(Talk) 06:46, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
      • Thus making my reasoning moot and thereby changing my vote. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 06:49, September 24, 2010 (UTC)