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 inconclusive.–Sentry^Talk 11:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is admittedly a very small—and probably egocentric—issue in the grand scheme of things, but a couple users have come forward since I finished the Booster Terrik article saying that they have a problem with the text as being too florid and/or grammatically loose by what could be considered encyclopedic standards. I have a very intentional writing style, and if I can't produce things that read like Booster reads, I'm not going to be of much use, so I wanted to get a handle on just how many people take issue with it.

If you don't feel like going through the entire Booster article, I'd say the preceding paragraph is a pretty good indicator of the style I'm talking about. CooperTFN 03:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Writing is fine as isEdit

1. I saw the debate while it was happening on the FA page, and really have no problem with your style. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
2. And neither do I. RMF 03:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
3. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 04:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
4. I prefer this style. From the very nature of numerous people editing, articles can tend to be made up of short sentences without much flow. I prefer more creative sentences. --Eyrezer 10:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Because this is a site that's essentially about films, books, and related media I see no problem with artistic language. - Breathesgelatin 04:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Though 'imposing gundark of a human' is flowery, it does make good use of a link to gundark which we lack. It's better than most of existing articles that are cold and plain. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
7. I like it. -- Ozzel 22:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
8. I like it. Anyone who doesn't is an "unimposing gundark of a human". :-P KEJ 13:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
9. Honestly, I prefer a more engaging writing style than a simple fact recitation. Use of long sentences and adjectives shouldn't make an article un-encyclopedic. (Plus, I write in the same style) -- Havac 01:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Overly poeticEdit

1. Great writing style for a novel (or the Databank), not so much for an encyclopedia. —MarcK [talk] 09:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
2. I really don't want to be so rigid (and even some parts of the article are ok for me) but the opening... that's just too much for me. I still don't get the whole "an imposing gundark of a Human" thing. --UVnet 11:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Look at Clone Wars. Have you seen such a thumbnail-based introduction on Wikipedia? Sikon [Talk] 12:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
   • That one really pisses me off... I mean, millions of lives lost, an entire galaxy in war, and everything solely revolves around the Jedi... --UVnet 07:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Sorry, it's not encyclopedic. There's room for interesting writing, to be sure, but calling someone "an imposing gundark of a human" and the like is not appropriate language for an encyclopedia article. — SavageBob 13:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
5. I think that clarity is the most important priority when writing for an encyclopedia. As such, the writing style should be professional and neutral; similar to that used for an essay. Excessive use of adjectives, for instance, often gives the article a bias. That does not mean the prose have to be dull and lifeless, but they should not read like a narrative either. I don't think phrases such as "an imposing gundark of a human" should be used without at least mentioning who said the phrase. A simple introduction such as, "<person's name> called Booster Terrik 'an imposing gundark of a human'" would suffice.--Sentry 22:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sentences too longEdit

1. I mentioned on the Booster Terrik page that it was a bit overloaded in the run-on department and uses an em-dash statement far too regularly. I don't mind flowery language, but I appreciate concise, tight writing. --SparqMan 06:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Poetic language or not, we should strive for clarity. —Silly Dan _(talk) 00:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Other problems/commentsEdit

• The Booster article looks fine to me, but when prose starts getting as florid and overworked as it is in the Palpatine article, I start having problems with it. Kuralyov 04:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'm not going to take a stand on the Booster page, but you need to remember that this is a Wiki, and people *will* change what you write . . . hopefully for the better, though it may not always seem that way. You're still being of use even if people change the style of what you've written down the line. If you find that something particularly egregious has been done to your work, then revert it or ask specifically about it on the article's talk page. Trust me, I've been where you are - I'm the Semicolon King, and I've seen far too many of my loyal subjects cut down by people who don't like them. jSarek 04:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been trying very hard not to be the one-man Booster Terrik SWAT Team; I'm just worried that if a lot of people are opposed to that style, I've got a great deal of debates ahead of me. CooperTFN 04:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Seriously, not everyone on this site has an English degree and writes exactly the same. As a wiki that anyone can edit, the nature of the beast ensures that the reader will be provided with some widely differing writing styles. While the writing styles may vary, it shouldn't matter as long as it's readable and it's up to the Manual of Style. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 04:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Since the gundark line keeps coming up, I should mention once again, as I did during the FA nomination, that it's in there as a subtle reference to how he's described in one of the books, to add a bit of OOU depth to the text. Even I probably wouldn't have used a phrase like that just as a matter of course. CooperTFN 06:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• I have no problem with the gundark line and unique, creative sentences as long as it follows a formal style of writing and at least a bit along the lines of what's considered encyclopedic writing — however, I do have two complaints/comments: 1) the 'you' in the introduction — it's too casual of a writing even for a wikia 2) This isn't a too big of a problem, but...let the facts speak for themselves (e.g. instead of repeating that Booster is adventurous, just describe his actions/reactions to the adventurous situations — the facts will tell the reader that Booster is indeed adventurous). Just as a warning, not an accusation of any sort: not letting the facts speak for themselves can turn the article a bit full of POV and original interpretation, as opposed to an encylopedic writing of the plain ol' facts — even for a wikia. Otherwise, I think the article is fine. (BTW CopperTFN, perhaps a solution to the gundark line is if it was indeed used in the books, you should make a specific note/reference to it — such as an excerpt from the book and/or page number). —Mirlen 00:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• A note in the article, you mean? that would be a little sloppy...in anything, Sentry's suggestion would probably be the best way to fix it. The problem is that it's not an actual quote; it's taken from internal monologue. I'm not sure what the precedent for that is. CooperTFN 00:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • A note wouldn't be sloppy if you used <ref>, like is done on the Jedi Exile page. RMF 01:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't know we could do that here...yeah, that wouldn't be bad. CooperTFN 16:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.