Forum:CT:Out-of-Universe Layout Guide addition

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Out-of-Universe Layout Guide addition

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. Insufficient voter participation. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:58, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

---

It has been proposed several times now, and I feel it's time we make this official. We are in serious need of an Out-of-Universe addition to the Layout Guide. I propose that we divide the page into two main sections titled "In-Universe" and "Out-of-Universe." Many of the sections currently on the page will be made subsections of the IU section, while a whole new list of subsections will be placed under the OOU section detailing how to write numerous different OOU articles. The sections "Title tag" through the "Stub" subsection of "Article body" could remain independent, as these sections apply to both IU and OOU articles. After the "Stub" subsection could be the IU header containing sections 10-19 as subsections. Then an OOU header could be placed after section 19 (currently "Succession box"), and OOU LGs could be passed and added as with the IU ones. Sections 20-24 could remain as they are as they too apply to both IU and OOU articles. The proposed page can be found here. MasterFred^(Whatever) 04:24, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

• Also, the wording at the top of the page would be rephrased to include both IU and OOU articles, as shown in the example. MasterFred^(Whatever) 04:26, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
• I think it's only fair to everyone that we spell out exactly what the changes in this proposal would entail, since this forum isn't being as explicitly clear as it could possibly be. It should be clearly noted that this CT is proposing that BTS, Appearances, Sources, and Succession box sections within an article be restricted exclusively to in-universe articles, and therefore not included at all within out-of-universe, or real-world, articles. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:47, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry if that wasn't clear to anyone. I figured it was. Tope is right. The above sections should be restricted to IU articles only. MasterFred^(Whatever) 04:57, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

• Here's the complete diff of changes as it stands right now: [1] This does not reflect any changes after my timestamp, which can been seen here if and when further changes are made. Master Jonathan — ^{Jedi Council Chambers} _{Monday, December 19, 2011, 18:07 UTC}
• And just so everyone knows, the changes will include the changes to the Sources section currently being discussed in another CT. MasterFred^(Whatever) 14:02, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Voting

Approve

1. As proposer. MasterFred^(Whatever) 04:24, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
2. Master Jonathan — ^{Jedi Council Chambers} _{Monday, December 19, 2011, 18:07 UTC}

   Unstriking now that the bibliography section has been left for individual LGs. Master Jonathan — ^{Jedi Council Chambers} _{Wednesday, December 21, 2011, 18:03 UTC}

3. Maybe not perfect, and certainly not complete, but a definite much- (and long-)needed improvement over what we have now. Asithol 02:14, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
4. Fully, 100% approve. This is a simple yet very effective way to separate IU from OOU in the Layout Guide, which is a necessary thing to do in light of the OOU additions that will soon be proposed. Menkooroo 01:20, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
5. I wholeheartedly approve. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 03:01, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
6. Clone Commander Lee ^Talk 21:44, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

One simple change I'd like to incorporate while we're overhauling the LG so we don't have to do a separate CT later: The ability to flag articles in other languages as GAs has been added to {{Interlang}}. Therefore, I like to see bullet point two under "Interwiki links" changed to, "Interwiki links should be listed in the {{Interlang}} template placed before an article's categories. The "xxFA=" operator will indicate that an article has reached "featured" or equivalent status on its host wiki; likewise, "xxGA= is used to indicate an article of "good" or equivalent status on the other wiki." Also, change the example to use "esGA=" instead of "esFA=" to match the example given at Template:Interlang. Make sense? Master Jonathan — ^{Jedi Council Chambers} _{Monday, December 19, 2011, 04:38 UTC}

• Changed. Better? MasterFred^(Whatever) 04:56, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Master Jonathan — ^{Jedi Council Chambers} _{Monday, December 19, 2011, 18:07 UTC}

I have a bit of a problem with completely eliminating BTS and appearances sections from OOU articles. What about other OOU articles such as novel articles (example:Star Wars: The Old Republic: Deceived), show articles (example:"Clone Wars Chapter 1"), etc? While it may not always be needed, it seems to sometimes (if not many times) be desirable to have BTS section. Specifying that we are referring to the ==Appearances== aspect, instead of the {{Appearances/preload}} aspect of OOU articles such as novels and other media of the like, is very important I believe. Back on the BTS aspect, if we do indeed make it a rule not to have a BTS section at all for OOU articles, are we going to have something to take its place? There are many other OOU articles other than music articles that I believe benefit from a BTS section. Would we only limit this proposal to certain OOU articles, such as music? And then make an exception for other OOU articles, such as novels and shows? Or would we make a whole new section to place information that would normally be in the BTS section? I have to be frank, I'm skeptical about many aspects of this addition to the Layout Guide. I hope we can work them out before this happens.--Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 21:40, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

• The BTS section isn't needed in any OOU article simply because the whole article is itself a BTS section by definition. All info that could go into a BTS section should be separated into appropriate sections. For instance, music articles currently use a "Conception and development" section for that info. Of course, that section doesn't work for every OOU article. That's the point in having separate LG's for different types of OOU articles, as we have for IU ones. As for an "Appearances," we are referring to the IU "Appearances" section. If a section with that title (such as is the case with novels and movies and games), then it should be included in the individual LG's, as it doesn't apply to all OOU articles. MasterFred^(Whatever) 22:36, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
  • I feel this is still a huge change in policy, so I just want to clear up a few things for myself before I support. As I understand it, the beginning of the Layout Guide, Title tag through Stub, will remain unchanged and will be used for both IU and OOU articles. The sections under the IU heading—appearances, sources, BTS, succession box, etc.—will only be used for IU. After the OOU individual guides, it will continue with what will be used by both IU and OOU articles, correct? If I'm understanding it properly, the OOU section will have no particular "section" all to itself, per se, unlike the IU section that has BTS, appearances, etc. Is all that correct?--Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 14:30, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is correct. MasterFred^(Whatever) 21:34, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Appearances/Sources...something else?

• Just wanted to voice something that I've always pondered regarding OOU articles, specifically articles regarding actors. While I understand the desire to want to remove Appearances and Sources sections from these articles, as these are traditionally used just for in-universe material, is there not still some value in retaining some sort of list of official material that includes information about a given actor? For example, if I'm interested in reading up on Denis Lawson, who played Wedge Antilles, I might personally find it helpful to see a comprehensive list in the Denis Lawson article of official LFL reference material, much like a Sources list, that mentions the actor so I know where to go to read up on information concerning him. Otherwise, readers are limited to only what material the author of a given article has chosen to reference in the article's citation list. As comprehensive as the data in the article may doubtless be, that citation list itself may not be comprehensive, and it may actually be selling the reader short on all the available reference material that's out there. I stress that such a list should only include official LFL-licensed material, like Insider articles, Databank pages, other SW.com articles, and anything else that might qualify, as this could obviously get a bit out of hand with real-world, third-party material. And obviously this would be something of a radical departure from our current status quo of actor articles, and it would no doubt require much more work on the part of any author wishing to write such an article to FA or GA status, but I welcome some feedback on this idea. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:49, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
  • I personally like that idea. It was sort of what I was fishing for but couldn't quite put my finger on it. :) --Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 21:53, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
    • Makes sense. MasterFred^(Whatever) 23:07, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
    • I suppose adding a "Sources" subsection to the OOU section would be what you are looking for? MasterFred^(Whatever) 23:10, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
      • I think it would be helpful to have something that would essentially be the same thing as a Sources list. The name isn't so important to me, should that be a hang up for some. To differentiate between IU and OOU articles, maybe "Bibliography" might be a better choice? Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:19, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
        • "Bibliography" even sounds more OOU. MasterFred^(Whatever) 23:25, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
          • I like the idea, but seeing as how this proposed section would be limited to only certain types of OOU articles, it more properly belongs in the yellowish box specific to that type of article if/when it's created. In the absence of such an addition, there's nothing preventing you from adding that section to an actor article if you want to. To put it in separately from the yellowish boxes would be saying that it must be included on every OOU article, when it's only appropriate on certain types. Master Jonathan — ^{Jedi Council Chambers} _{Tuesday, December 20, 2011, 23:47 UTC}
          • To clarify: I won't support if it's added as an "every article" requirement. Since I see that it has, I've struck my vote pending resolution of this. Master Jonathan — ^{Jedi Council Chambers} _{Tuesday, December 20, 2011, 23:50 UTC}
            • I'm sorry. I was just testing it out. It hasn't been officially added to the proposal. However, I do fail to see what OOU article couldn't use this section. MasterFred^(Whatever) 00:05, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
              • Technically, your subpage is the proposal, so any changes made to it instantly become part of the proposal. As for which OOU articles wouldn't need this, what about stuff like novels, short stories, and comic books? I fail to see how those articles could benefit from this section. Master Jonathan — ^{Jedi Council Chambers} _{Wednesday, December 21, 2011, 00:15 UTC}
                • I understand Master Jonathan's concern that this section may not be relevant to every sort of OOU article. I myself am admittedly not exactly sure which articles, other than actor articles, this may be most appropriate for. This category may be a good place to start looking at which articles may benefit and which may not. Things like Star Tours and Blue Harvest, I believe, would be some of the most beneficial. To address the mention of publications (books, comics, etc.), the first thing that jumps to mind is the Blaster article department of Insider magazine, which provides regular updates and previews of upcoming publications, and which would perfectly qualify as OOU reference material. That, I think, may be beneficial for inclusion in a Bibliography list. Other types of articles, like fan activity topics as one example, may be more of a toss up. Perhaps the best idea is to simply go ahead with this only for character articles at this time, and leave a "case-by-case" basis stipulation for all other article types for future determination as our OOU articles evolve? Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:32, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
                  • So, just leave that section for the individual articles? Sounds fine for me. MasterFred^(Whatever) 04:29, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
                    • OK, the section has been removed and will now be left for the individual LGs, or possibly for another CT. MasterFred^(Whatever) 14:02, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
                    • (Edit conflict)For the sake of not making this whole CT even more confusing, I'd be willing to go along with Tope's suggestion to just have it in the character articles for now. Although, I do believe that a more detailed examination of this section and the possibility of placing it in all OOU articles, or perhaps even deciding what articles we do place it in, is needed. For now, however, I like the idea of adding a "Bibliography" section to OOU articles. As a side note, if we decide to truly enact this "Bibliography" section to the LG, the MOS may eventually also be effected, depending on how we decide to set up this "Bibliography." If and when that happens, it will require another CT for a change to the MOS. This is turning into quite the huge scaled event.--Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 14:06, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
                      • Yes it is. lol But yeah, as of right now, the proposal stands with no general Bibliography, leaving it either to a future CT or to the individual LGs for different OOU articles. MasterFred^(Whatever) 14:14, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
                        • How about for books n' comics n' stuff? To use Agents of Chaos Duology as an example, The New Jedi Order in 100 Easy Lessons and a couple of the interviews that Luceno's done with Insider would fit into a Bibliography. That's a Layout Guide addition I want to re-propose soon, so let me know what you all think. Menkooroo 15:30, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
                          • To respond to Menkooroo, I agree that there is incentive to include a Biblography section for publications as well, as we have both noted examples of in this discussion. Even if it's only for Insider articles, that would be worthwhile enough to keep a list of (though I'm sure there is other reference material as well I'm not thinking of). Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:56, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Symbolism

I really want to support this CT, but I'm not crazy about an unsourced "Symbolism" section. Seems a bit like Original Research. Menkooroo 23:17, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

The proposed LG clearly states that a "Symbolism" section "must only be used if sources are available." So if it can't be sourced, then it won't be in there in the first place. Master Jon ^Holocomm Friday, December 30, 2011, 23:44 UTC

The music LG is simply there as an example of an individual OOU LG. This CT is not meant to pass a RWM them LG. But yeah, the section wouldn't be allowed if unsourced anyway. There are instances though, such as in interviews and liner notes, where certain parts of the themes are said to represent certain attributes, etc., so the section is still relevant. MasterFred^(Whatever) 17:56, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK, my mistake. :S But if this CT isn't intended to pass the RWM LG, then isn't it innacurate to include it in the "propsed page"? Menkooroo 21:46, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it to clear up the confusion. MasterFred^(Whatever) 22:20, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

You've removed the OOU section entirely!! Menkooroo 00:40, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Tehe. My bad. Added. :P MasterFred^(Whatever) 01:16, January 2, 2012 (UTC)