Forum:Policy votes - Creature article layout, disambiguation

Policy voting time ;) -- Porter21 (talk) 19:30, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal
Adopt the following guideline for the article layout of creature/robot articles: Forum:Article layout - creatures/proposal.

For additional information, please see the original thread.

Votes

 * Yes -- Porter21 (talk)
 * Yes User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png
 * Yes - Shadowrunner(stuff)
 * Yes Kelebmel 16:35, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes TheBearPaw
 * Yes Everything except the "See also" section; it feels unnecessary and unprofessional to me. -- Ghouly89 (Talk)
 * Yes Great! --YakovFrolov 11:05, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Another extensive layout. Will we ever get around to using it all? But looks fine to me. Jspoelstra 20:54, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Comments/questions
If these layout guidelines are for game-specific creature articles, describing their action points, hitpoints, etc., then why even include the in-universe "biology" section? Shouldn't it be left solely for the creature overview article written with an in-universe perspective? --TheBearPaw 10:55, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * The layout guideline is not only for game-specific articles; it lists all sections which can possibly appear on all creature articles (like all the other layout guidelines). The whole overview page/game-specific article mechanic is really a separate thing (which we will have to lay down in policy at some point; currently the rules can only be found on The Vault:Item page overhaul project). That aside, there are creature articles which would not have a separate overview page, e.g. such which only appear in a single game (like cazadors).
 * Regarding in-universe sections, the current practice is to include a short excerpt in the game-specific articles with a link back to the main article (see e.g. the "background" section of Laser pistol (Fallout 3)), so the sections would appear in game-specific articles as well. -- Porter21 (talk) 11:27, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * My problems with the layout:
 * The game the creature appears in I would put in the appropriate "Appearances" section at the very end of the page. I think the whole first part of any article should always be written with the in-universe perspective, and, hence, naming the game in the very intro wouldn't be good. (Not to mention the fact that the lil' logos on top of the page would already tell the reader which games the creatures are featured in).
 * Naming the section that describes the creature's attack patterns as "Gameplay attributes" would also break the wall of in-universe style representation.
 * Then, I'd put all the out-universe things like "Related quests", "Bugs" and "Appearances" under the big umbrella section of smth like "Game specifics". "Behind the scenes", "Gallery", "Videos", "See also", "External links", and "References" would then follow as separate sections.
 * If a video portrays some in-universe process (e.g. creatures fighting or patrolling or smth) (I don't know if there are any like that so far, but in case they'd happen to appear), so if the video does that, I guess it could even be moved to the upper part of the article to illustrate the thing it's intended for there and not necessarily be located at the bottom.
 * "Notes" section should not exist at all because, I believe, virtually any info of worth should be able to find its place somewhere in the appropriate sections. And if some data indeed does not fit, a proposition for a new section should then be made. --TheBearPaw 17:39, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * The lead section should not be limited in any way except for the length of it (in other words, not overly long), the lead section is a introduction summary based on what the page describes and I quote wiki here "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects." So what games the page represents is a very important aspect indeed for the average reader, along with the lure. As for the appearances section, that was taken out for the very reason you have observed above with the game logos and additionally the infobox headers etc.
 * The pages are not just about the in-universe, they are also about the game content. And honestly what happens in the games is also in-universe content, not just the lure.
 * User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 21:06, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * And so there you go, since the logos at the top of the page already name the games, then why repeat them again in the intro, isn't that redundand? The thing with "Apperances" section is, and this applies to all articles, not only creatures, is that, in that fragment, you can mention the specifics of appearances, e.g.: whether some place/character/creature/YouNameItWhat was mentioned only, or you heard his recording or smth (as seen in this Wookiepedia example). Such simple list would also save you from any mundane sentences as "Yao Guai appears only in Fallout 3" if they do not appeal to you.


 * Sure, the articles are definitely not supposed to be in-universe only, I never said that. But when we're talking about, for example Yao Guai, a creature which appears in a single game and will have to include mixed universe and game info, I'd rather this stylistic approach of prioritizing the in-universe writing and maintaining it for the first part of the page be employed. As if playing the game of pretend or smth, once you said all you could 'bout the beast as some wasteland scholar, you drop the curtain and release all them game mechanics, action points, turn sequences, how many percent of a change it has to rip you eyeball out, you name it.


 * I understand this should actually be better suited for a new policy discussion page about the whole wiki writing perspective strategy and not in this layout guide discussion, let alone one in a voting phase, but still, ya know, these are things to be considered. --TheBearPaw 23:03, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you are taking things to literally, I am not debating that the intro section has to contain such sentences (that is a basic example). What I am debating is that it should not be restricted to Fallout lure only. As with much the rest of the content ordering or stylistic approach of a page, I see no logical reasoning to favour lure over game content or vice-versa except for personal preference. You have to remember that some people read the pages for lure and others read for game information, so I see no reason to subjugate one readers content for another's. Especially when they are essentially mixed together when presented to use the players as gaming media. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 23:39, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Just a few comments on TheBearPaw's points: Finally, this layout has been in discussion for 2 months by now, and it's really a bit late for large-scale changes at this point in my opinion (the intro/appearances change is minor enough that it could still be applied if there's sufficient support for it). I do realize you mean well, but at this point I'd say that people can vote for this layout or against it; if there are more people against it than in favour, they are more than welcome to come up with something better. -- Porter21 (talk) 22:43, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether the lead section is in-universe or not frankly doesn't matter to me either way. The only thing I care about is that it clearly defines what the article is about, and if there's no "appearances" section, the games of appearance need to be in there. While the game icons are good indicators, I would not like to rely solely on them. If people would rather have an in-universe intro and an "appearances" section, fine with me.
 * While I somewhat agree with the notion that articles should be divided into "in-universe" and "gameplay" blocks, I don't see how the proposed layout does not do that: All sections following "gameplay attributes" are (primarily) gameplay sections. Sure, the "border" is between sub-sections of "characteristics", but I don't really find that to be an issue.
 * Regarding your suggestion of grouping various sections under "game specifics", I don't think that'd be a good thing to do. Having sub-sections is really only a valid approach if at least 2 of them can be relied on to be present in any given article; otherwise you'll end up with a section which contains only one sub-section in most cases, which looks bad. The ones you listed are all optional, except for maybe "appearances".
 * In addition, creating large deviations in the placement of identically named section across layouts doesn't really work in practice in my experience; for example, having "bugs" in a different place than in all other articles will simply result in people ignoring the layout in that regard. It's one of the lessons I've learned from a year of trying to get people to adhere to various project layouts.
 * I dislike the "notes" sections myself and think they should only be used if the info really doesn't fit anywhere else, but having them is still better than having multiple sections for little tidbits from my point of view.
 * Videos are rather large; in order for people to be able to discern something, they need to be at least 300px wide, which is nearly half of the space available in the standard skin. As such, I'd rather have them grouped at the bottom than have them plastered all over the article. Might just be my personal preference, but I do believe there really won't be enough space for them to be floated right in most articles, especially considering the infobox which appears to the right of the leading sections and the full-width "variants" section.
 * Allright, I guess the reasonable compromise for this day would be to at least include the "Appearances" section as I think it's pretty important. --TheBearPaw 09:44, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the layout; the lead section is now in-universe and I've added an "appearances" section (although I still consider it largely redundant). I've extended the poll by one week to give the people who voted prior to these changes enough time to adjust their vote if they wish. -- Porter21 (talk) 23:31, March 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * As a comment on Ghouly's vote: I don't really get the gripe you have with the "see also" section, especially since it's not a section which is specific to this layout but one which is inherited from the general layout for all pages. Do you really think that telling people "you may create 'see also' sections on all pages but creatures ones" is going to work? If the sections are "unprofessional" and "unnecessary", why does Wikipedia have them? Sure, these sections should only be used if really necessary, but that doesn't mean they don't have legitimate uses, such as emphasising related overview pages on other overview pages. -- Porter21 (talk) 23:44, March 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't just bother me in articles under a particular category; I've always thought the section to be unnecessary on every article I've encountered containing it. I feel that if any few links are worthy of an entire "See also" subsection, then they should instead be incorporated into the main body article content. Generally, whenever I happen upon an article containing this section in my wiki lurking, I remove it and re-write the article with all of the necessary content, which usually entails adding in most of the "See also" links.


 * I might just dislike the section because of my compulsiveness ;) I don't like having a bunch of subheaders on pages; it looks too cluttered. -- Ghouly89 (Talk) 04:56, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I like the changes. --TheBearPaw 09:12, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Result
This layout guideline is now in effect and can be found at The Vault:Article layout guideline/Creature article. Thanks for participating. -- Porter21 (talk) 21:04, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *deep sigh* User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 21:08, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal
Add the following to the "disambiguation" section of the content organization guideline:

This is pretty much a de-facto policy (i.e. it's already being done this way for many articles), but I think it should be made official for easier reference.

Votes

 * Yes -- Porter21 (talk)
 * Yes User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 20:15, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Kelebmel 16:35, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes TheBearPaw
 * Yes -- Ghouly89 (Talk)

Comments/questions

 * Is this going to change a section, replace it all or be added to the policy? User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png  20:15, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * "Add the following to the "disambiguation" section of the content organization guideline" ;) -- Porter21 (talk) 21:17, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to self, drink more coffee before commenting. User avatar tag.gif Avatar talk.png 21:54, March 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Who can vote, who can't? I want to vote yes for both Kelebmel 08:15, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Any registered user can vote :) -- Porter21 (talk) 09:57, March 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you provide at least one specific example of this redirect in action to better see how it looks? --TheBearPaw 11:02, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * E.g. Big Book of Science. The game-specific page for both FO1 and FO2 is Big Book of Science (Fallout), and Big Book of Science (Fallout 2) redirects to it. -- Porter21 (talk) 11:27, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's kind of illogical, though, isn't it? Why have an article title which is essentialy false because the page actually includes info about more than one game. As in the example, why not have Big Book of Science (Fallout, Fallout 2) or (FO, FO2) or smth? --TheBearPaw 16:05, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Listing all games gets unwieldy rather fast: "Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout Tactics" or "Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel 2". In addition, it'd break the functionality of various templates. Using abbreviations is unintuitive for readers who are not familiar with them; editors will likely recognize them, but an average reader likely does not. Not to mention using abbreviations would be bad for search engine rankings.
 * I don't really see what's illogical about it; the article title is not "false" in any way, it denotes the item as it first appeared in the game in brackets. This has the added advantage that page moves are not required if the item appears again in a later game. -- Porter21 (talk) 18:00, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * A'ight, now that I've processed the whole idea a bit, I couldn't really think of a better alternative. Therefore, I swiftly jump into the vote ballotbox and in a decisive motion change my vote and throw it back again. --TheBearPaw 18:51, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Result
The passage has been added to VA:DISAMBIG. -- Porter21 (talk) 15:09, March 16, 2011 (UTC)