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 Do not amend WP:LG. Grunny (talk) 03:31, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Wookieepedia:Layout Guide currently contains the following format for Planet Articles:

• Description
• History
• Inhabitants
• Locations

This, to me, seems a tad bit backwards; I feel that "inhabitants" and "locations" are part of the planet's "description," and should more appropriately follow that section, or at the very most, fall under "description" as subheadings/sections so as to improve the flow of the article. I therefore propose an amendment to this section of the Layout Guide so that "inhabitants" comes after "description," while "Locations" is made a subdivision of "Description." The layout would look as follows:

• Description
  • Locations (or Settlements/Points of interest/what ever applies)
• Inhabitants
• History

Please do not add additional voting options to this CT.—Tommy ⁹²⁸¹ 20:07, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

VotingEdit

Support amendmentEdit

1. As nominator.—Tommy ⁹²⁸¹ 20:07, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

   Works for me. Thefourdotelipsis 08:41, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

   Imperialles 08:45, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

   The LG is a guideline after all. -- 1358 ^(Talk) 12:41, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose amendmentEdit

1. As I noted in the discussion below, I cannot get onboard with making "Locations" a subsection of planet articles. It's far too important of a topic to be squeezed into another section. It deserves instead to maintain its own dedicated section. If we want to discuss rearranging the layout, that's another story. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:51, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
2. Per Tope. —Master Jonathan ^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 17:57, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
3. Description sections are already large enough, especially for some of the longer planet articles. It's just not feasible to stick something as large as a Locations section into the Description. I also just think it flows better the way we have it now. I almost see our current layout as arranged in an order of importance. The Description gives general information about the planet necessary for the rest of the article. The History section is arguably the most important part of the article. It details the planet's role in galactic history and serves as the main portion of the body, providing context for the rest of the article. The Inhabitants and Locations sections are used more to delve deep into the planet's society and culture, which can really only be adequately described once the planet's history is detailed. General information about the inhabitants and locations about a planet should, of course, be mentioned in the Description and History too, but the Inhabitants and Locations sections are meant to be used to expand on what has already been mentioned briefly in the article. Placing Locations into the Description section, or even just moving the subsection above the History, would mean that some context would need to be established in the Locations section rather than the History. The more that is explained above the History, the more redundant the History becomes. The History section should always be as far toward the beginning of the article as possible to establish context. So I think the Planet Hoppers layout works quite well, and I support keeping it. And wow, sorry for the tl;dr. Xicer9^(Combadge) 18:56, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
4. Xicer changed my mind. --Imperialles 18:57, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
5. After reading that huge paragraph above, I have to change my vote. -- 1358 ^(Talk) 18:58, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
6. Per Xicer. CC7567 ^(talk) 19:50, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
7. ...but Xicer speaks truth. Thefourdotelipsis 00:05, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
8. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 00:07, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
9. One can't argue with that. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 00:13, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
10. Them things what was said. - Lord Hydronium 00:15, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

The current layout is adopted from the Planet Hoppers series of articles on WotC's website. Locations is used as a listing of various notable locations both there and in our articles. I think Locations can probably safely be merged with Description, seeing as they cover a lot of the same area. This would also encourage writers to work descriptions of said locations into the general prose of the article, rather than simply clumping the information together in a list at the bottom of the article. Subsections of Description such as "Settlements" or "Points of interest" could work quite well. For clarification's sake: I would be for re-arranging Locations, as long as the format of the section was changed away from simply being a list. --Imperialles 20:20, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

• I like your idea, Imp. Since you and I are the only editors thus far, care to amend the proposal to reflect your idea?—Tommy ⁹²⁸¹ 20:25, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. I changed some wording, but I think I was able to integrate my proposal into yours without overriding the original intent of the CT. --Imperialles 20:30, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not sure turning "Locations" into a subsection is such a great idea. It may seem appropriate for some of our smaller, less detailed planet articles. But for some, if I may use Tatooine as the most extreme-case example, planetary locations are a major part of the article and of the planet, and I think they definitely deserve to have their own unique section. If we don't like the order of the layout, perhaps just moving "Locations" up in between "Description" and "History" would be another option. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:41, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • That was my original intention behind this CT, though me, with little planet/moon FA experience outside of reviews, has no problem with deferring to those more experienced/knowledgeable in this area. Either way, I think that "history" should be the last of the sections.—Tommy ⁹²⁸¹ 20:44, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • My concern with doing that, Toprawa, is, for the majority of our articles, the Locations section would end up looking much the same as today. This would essentially break up the flow of the article by sticking a list smack in the middle of it. If we were to change the format of Locations to be a little more like the other sections I would have no problem with it. For the record, feel free to revert my alterations to the original proposal if need be, Tommy. --Imperialles 20:46, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • If I understand what you're saying, I don't think there should necessarily be any true lists at all, once an article reaches FA/GA standards. I think we all typically do a nice job of "prosifying" any parts of an article that get too list-y. So once an article is done "right," I don't think there would be any problem. It would just be a matter of rearranging a few paragraphs. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:58, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
      • I think the Locations section should be for specific locations, and in the current format. General info on settlements and whatnot is for Description. I see them as meeting two separate and distinct purposes. - Lord Hydronium 21:09, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
• This is a bizarre area. Locations and Inhabitants can change dramatically with the history. Several planets will have redundant information regardless of the layout. SinisterSamurai 04:09, May 25, 2010 (UTC)