User:Forgottenlord/Standards Proposals

Below are the various ideas I've had for standards. Some are ready to go to the SCoH as soon as it's ready, some still need work, but the general idea is down since it's been bouncing around in my head for a bit.

Really, bouncing - I have one hell of a headache

Quoting Standard
Individual quotes used at the start of a section or article can make it look much nicer and more interesting, but quote sections detract from the quality of an article. At the same time, they are things that people enjoy looking at. To balance these concerns between good quality and interesting, we have the Quoting standards:


 * 1) Quote sections should not be on an article's page. Instead, quote sections should be moved to a separate page (/Quotes) and leave a link on the main page using the Quotes Available template
 * 2) Singular quotes used to give context to a section in an article or the article itself should be made using the Quote template.

Main Article Standard
While there is a problem when an article is too short, there is an equally large problem when an article is too long. In such cases, an article should be split up and part of it should be moved to another page using the Main Article template, leaving only a summary behind. While it is desirable to provide as much information as possible to readers, the information should be presented where it is most appropriate. An article for John-117 should have summaries of his participation in specific battles, but should never have detailed explanations for his involvement in those battles nor should it discuss the actions of other individuals unless such actions provide context to his own actions.


 * 1) Summaries should summarize the important points while leaving the details to the main article
 * 2) The main article should be place at the top or near the top of a new section
 * 3) Articles that could have several Main Article references should automatically have all sections turned into Main Article references.
 * 4) Main Article references should not be used as a replacement for links within the text. Main Article references are where the user is given a summary of something (generally an event) and may wish to find out more detail by looking at the Main Article.
 * 5) Biographies should have references to Main Articles for all events that the character was a notable participant in
 * 6) Lengthy battles with numerous sub-battles should have Main Article references for the subbattles

References Standard
Remember back in High School when….wait…..right – remember your audience. When you start learning about references and bibliographies (some of you probably have), you’re given this huge list explaining how to reference different types of sources – formatting, expected information, etc. While our references information tells you HOW to reference an article, it doesn’t tell you how to format it. It’s like teaching someone how to use MSWord for referencing. So this standard will pretty much act as that reference for showing that expected information and such

While everyone knows that all information must be sourced and we have information explaining the code required to reference articles, there is nothing indicating what the expected information is for sourcing from various resources. As such, we have the references standard:

Games
From Manual
 * , Manual: Pg ,

From in-game quote
 * , ,

From in-game text
 * ,, ,

Books
Novel
 * , Pg ,

Comic book
 * , , Pg : ,

News Media
Online Article
 * , , , ,

Magazine Article
 * , , ,

Article Class Standards Standard
When articles have similar formats and organizations, they look like they were part of the same cohesive project. Since all these articles are from Halopedia, we should have common formats across Halopedia. However, different classes of Articles have different formats and as such, each Class of articles must have a different standard. This standard is for the sake of ensuring that all relevant information is provided in Battle Articles standards.


 * 1) The standard shall clearly define what subjects the standard is for.
 * 2) The standard shall clearly indicate what sections must be recorded for each article that is in this class. For example, an article detailing an individual must have a Biography section.  Where not immediately obvious, sections should be explained for what information goes into it.
 * 3) The standard shall clearly indicate the order that sections should be ordered and where to put miscilaneous sections

Battle Articles General Format Standard
As I said before, I’d like to standardize different classes of articles and give them some pretty general standards. Battle Articles would be the first that I’d like to standardize simply because I love doing them and I have a Standard that anyone that has read my work knows well. It pretty much follows this format: “Background” which goes over the causes of the battle, events that happened that lead up to it or important notes from previous battles that the user needs for context of later events; “The Battle” which pretty much details the battle itself. This can be subdivided as necessary; “Aftermath” which pretty much goes over notable details after the battle resolves, etc. Obviously, there are other things to add such as standardizing what is and isn’t relevant in the Battle Infobox, and other sections that could go in at the bottom of the page, but I’ll leave that for the actual discussion of the Standard itself

Battle Articles are any article detailing any armed conflict with exception to Wars and Campaigns. Battle articles shall all use one of the Battle templates as an infobox. It should include the following sections (in order):


 * Introduction giving a brief summary indicating where and when the battle was, what war or campaign it was a part of, who the combatants were, and any notable notes (if any) regarding its importance in the wider Galaxy
 * Background section detailing facts about the battle relevant to its events and other battles that occured either simultaneously or prior to the battle. Different topics should be grouped in seperate subsections.  In most cases, events referenced here should use the Main Article template.
 * The Battle section detailing the events of the battle organized in chronological order. Chronological order can be violated if there are multiple simultaneous events to focus on individual streams of events.  However, every reasonably attempt should be made to keep as close to chronological order as possible.
 * Aftermath section detailing the consequences of the battle and events that were closely related after the battle's conclusion. Different topics should be grouped in seperate subsections.  In most cases, events referenced here should use the Main Article template.
 * Notes section (optional) detailing any out-of universe notes regarding the Battle such as in-game missions (if any) that the battle was represented in.
 * Miscilaneous sections (if any) that are specific to the battles
 * See Also section (optional) with links to Halopedia articles worth further reading
 * References section

Categories Standard
Categories are methods of organization, not grouping. Having articles with excessive categorization for the sake of grouping may hinder the organization methods. As such, we have the Categorization standard


 * 1) For the sake of clarity, a category is a ancestor of an article or another category if the progressive movement up through categories will result in arriving in the original category. A descendant is the opposite.  Someone, for the love of God, make this sentence make sense.
 * 2) No category is to have an ancestor that is also a descendant.
 * 3) No ancestor of any category or article should also be an ancestor of any other ancestor used by that category or article. In such a case, common ancestor should not be included in the category or article.

Article Quality Standards
In accordance with the ideas that Darth Tom’s been coming up with, we could build an article quality scale. Obviously, the highest level of quality is Featured Article, but we could have levels such as “Stub”, “Poor”, “Mediocre”, “Good”, and “Great” with clear distinctions on what constitutes each.