Halopedia talk:Manual of Style

(no subject)

Comming from Wookiepedia myself, I have a huge problem with the way the pages on this site are formatted. I know this is only the voice of one person, but i find all of these in-article references to real world sources appalling. I beleive we should format a Manual of Style that holds all references towards the end of the article, with the in-universe information staying as such. For example, compare the Master Chief to Anakin Skywalker (sorry for such a long page to link to). Notice how the article is well written, the pictures are scattered and alternate from left to right as the article continues. There is no reference to sources or the real world until the "Behind the Scenes" section. From here, look at the Chief article. There is great disorder, the pictures are all on the right side and out of chronological order. There is even a book cover in the middle of the article. If you refer to Johnson's page, there are references to sources in inappropriate ways:

"Johnson mowing down Grunts in Halo: Combat Evolved."

— Picture quote from the Sergeant Major Avery Johnson article

We should save all references to the real world for the end of the articles.

Also, we need a new naming system here. While Anakin and Darth Vader are different names for the same character, Wookieepedia takes this into account and puts all biographical information under the one true name: Anakin Skywalker. Here we have Covenant names mislabeled, with the true name Unggoy being redirected to the human slang term: Grunt. Instead of Avery J. Johnson, we have Sergeant Major Avery Johnson, rank and all. Personally, i believe that ranks should follow and be bolded in the introduction paragraph (e.g. Sergeant Major Avery Johnson was a dear ally to Master Chief).

While i may just be one person griping, I'm a devoted Halo fan and have come to this site often. That being said, i am dissapointed at the formatting of the articles here and wish for a revolution for the better. I say this only to improve the site, not to bash it or flame it in any way. I hope the administrators take this into consideraton. I have a busy school schedule, and i won't be able to help out that much, but nevertheless i would be glad to contibute to any reformatting if it does indeed take place. Thank you for reading. Dude984 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You know what, while I had never thought about this before, I completely agree. To start reformatting and making everything better, we should start with rewriting all the articles that are written poorly, re-captioning images, general stuff like that, and I'll put a poll on the main page talk, since more people look at that than this, I think, about renaming articles. If we get enough votes, I'll start changing all the articles like Master Chief and Sergeant Major Avery Johnson to either redirects or disambiguation pages, and all that. Thanks for coming by and pointing all this out, and contratulations on writing what I think is quite possibly the longest talk page comment I have ever seen. ;D g^ue_st^y-p_er^so_ny-^th_in^gy^{I too have an AI... his name is Supreme Honcho.} 21:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully we can get enough backing to upgrade this site to its true potential. While i may have my times of absence, I'm with you 'till the end. Dude984 02:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like a good way to make the articles smoother, but just be careful not to make fanfiction. Wanting to stay in the tone of the universe can lead to stuff like "ONI operatives have uncovered information suggesting (insert Bungie's latest teaser here)" when the info came from a source not in universe. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 02:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Links

Okay, this one should be pretty obvious, but I just want to make sure we're at a consensus: Should we link to an article every time it's stated, or only the first time? It can be rather hard to determine which is the first time, and it can be annoying if someone wants to find information about something and it's not linked to further down, but the page gets really blue if it's linked to every time, so I'm kind of neutral... or does it really matter? g^ue_st^y-p_er^so_ny-^th_in^gy 07:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally we just link to things the first time they are stated. -ED 21:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so it's not really that big a deal, but it's best if we just link to the first one? Got it. Thanks! Guesty-Persony-Thingy Early 90's to March 31, 2007. RIP. 20:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe if a page is really long you could link again like halfway down the page or soemthing, I guess, but in general, one link to an article per page. --ED_(talk)^(shockfront) 17:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Way too many links

I'm trying to disambig Halopedia (daunting task) but I've notice due to the point system people are linking everything.

This makes trying to disambig very very hard. What is in the MoS about linking every other word? Can I take them out or should I just leave them and forget about disambiging anything? Whispering 04:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Our manual of style says to see Wikipedia's manual of style for more information. However, part of Wikipedia's manual of style says to use the most common name of a person or thing. This is a practice that we do not follow. See, for example, the inane naming of the Needler article: Type-33 Guided Munitions Launcher. As you can tell, I think this practice is horrifically moronic. Nevertheless, it conflicts with Wikipedia's manual of style, so note on our naming conventions needs to be added here. I'd do it, but I'm bitter. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over that. We'll look into it. Tigerrrrr 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked some Wikipedia articles, and I found that most common names are used. For example, the article on the AK-47 is named AK-47, not Automatic Kalashnikov Model of 1947. If we really are trying to follow the style of Wikipedia articles, we should rename all of our weapons and vehicles. But we also must remember that content must conform to canon, and these are not the official names. This is really an issue of Halopedia's objectives. Therefore, I am Neutral. Jora 'Mantak_{An elite '92}-Battlenet-Brothers-Combat History 00:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a vote. --Andrew Nagy 03:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Unggoy" is better than "Grunt" because while it is used less, it is almost equally recognizable and more accurate; "M41 LAAG", on the other hang, is far less recognizable and used than "Warthog". Original names for species and maybe even weapons should be used, but for vehicles, the most recognizable name (the name used in-game) should be used. It's a "Wraith" first and a "Type-Something Whatever Carriage Thing" second. My rationale? A mix of canon and Wikipedia:Wikipedia:UCN (That link actually does work -- UCN in the Wikipedia namespace on Wikipedia). DavidJCobb  01:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Appearances

I think it'd be helpful if Halo universe articles all included an "Appearances" list, same as at Wookieepedia. Anyone agree? --Andrew Nagy 03:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the purpose of the Era template. Jora 'Mantak_{An elite '92}-Battlenet-Brothers-Combat History 00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the advantage of that over simple text lists? What's the syntax to include a footnote when a subject's appearance somewhere isn't obvious? What about to add annotations like "Mentioned only", "Possible appearance" and so on? --Andrew Nagy 03:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

I'm glad my originally unappreciated idea of splitting the trivia has been made official in the MOS. Thx Subz! Template:Arby116Sig

Recommendations

A few recommendations for changes, amendments, etc.:

The placement of the Walkthrough template in a level article is not intuitive. New users may miss it entirely. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies between practice and the specification: we place the Walkthrough template in the "Behind the Scenes" article if there is one; otherwise, we stuff it in "Transcripts". The spec fails to mention that conditional alternative location for the template.

I would recommend either returning to the Section-With-{{Main}} notation we used to use, or modifying the Level Infobox template to contain a clearly-marked Walkthrough link. If the latter idea is used, I'd recommend that for aesthetic purposes, we put the walkthrough link next to or below the level title, move the Prev/Game/Next links below the level title, and "stack" them horizontally (with a nested table or by setting colSpan="3" on every other cell in the 'box).

In the Level spec, do the "Summary/Brief Introduction" guidelines cover the sectionless intro paragraph? If so, then we may need another section called "Background" or "Description", as the intros for levels like The Covenant are detailed and long, traits that are explicitly discouraged by the spec.

We may wanna also specify a max-width for level thumbnails/images in Level Infoboxes, preferrably one that can be consistently met across all levels. (That is, no level image should have to increase in size to match other levels.) I'd recommend something like the intros I write for glitch articles: brief, maybe one or two sentences, providing a really brief summary.

Example:

"The Covenant is the eighth mission in Halo 3's Campaign. In this level, the eponymous Covenant Empire makes its last stand, and the Covenant Separatists and UNSC cooperate to attack the Prophet of Truth, who is hiding in the Ark's Citadel."

...And then toss everything else in a "Description" or "Background" section. An added benefit is that the new section could also summarize and explain the level's plot and actions (such as the breaching of the barriers and Truth's dependency on Johnson to activate the Ark).

Thoughts? DavidJCobb  01:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Anyway, I've modified the Level Infobox and it should now show a Walkthrough Link. However, the "Prev/Game/Next" stays. Secondly, yes it covers the sectionless intro. Could you add the sections into the MOS? Lastly, the Level Images should be 300px and yes, a brief summary such as the one above should be practised. Again, sorry for the late reply.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 10:34, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Added a basic spec for a "Description" section. DavidJCobb  18:57, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

Seizing the use of 1st and 2nd person pronouns

I strongly recommend that the MoS calls for an end to using first and second person pronouns. First pronouns are vague and with the new call for stopping signatures, it becomes all the more useless and improper. In addition encyclodpedias or any informative article should leave out all first person pronouns, making sure the article is objective in everyway. The second person pronoun is also improper. Though it is not necessarily incorrect for objective articles to use them, it does show a poor demostration of proper writing. In short it just makes the article look bad. I believe these suggestions are things that are overlooked by the admins. Thought it may not be the BIGGEST problem, it sure is one that should be changed and restricted! Thanks for reading.~ oy0sh1o

Link Once

If an article is really long, are we allowed to add more links to the same article that was already linked to at the top on the bottom area, so people don't have to scroll all the way up to the top to find the link? It can get really frustrating on an iPod or a slow computer. Teh lolz! Bionicle+Lotr 01:25, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

Link once MoS suggestions

This section should be more specific. I will be using the Flood article for examples in this. The current policy (A given page should only contain one link to any other page. Typically this link should be the first instance of the term in the article) is somewhat vague in it's explanation, and we should specify which circumstances allow a second link. Here are my suggestions as to those circumstances.

• A: A second link is allowed if it is the title of a section, such as "==[[Flood Combat Form]]==" in the Flood article, even though it is not the first link to the "combat form" article. (Use of Template:Main is meant here)
• B: A second link is allowed if the first link is within a picture, such as the second link within the article to John-117, even though there is one inside the subtitle to a picture. This is to allow people viewing only the picture to see the context of the picture, without having to search the rest of the article for the first mention of John-117.
• C: A second link is allowed if the first is within the infobox at the top of the page, such as the forms mentioned within the infobox of the Flood article, and those mentioned within the article itself.
• D: A second link is allowed if it is within a listing of people/places/things, such as the "Known Victims" section of the Flood article. This allows easier research without having to search the rest of the article.
• E: A second link is allowed if it is within a reference, for obvious reasons.

When a second link is not allowed.

• F: If the first link is within a quote at the top of the page.

When the first mention should not be a link.

• G: The first links should not be within an {{Article quote}} template. In my opinion, it makes it look bad, but others may feel differently. (new!) --16:17, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
• H: The first link should not be within a section title. This is the opposite of former suggestion "a."

There may be other circumstances, but these are the ones I have run into the most in the Wiki. --KickButtUnggoy 21:56, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the usage of links in section titles, but other than that, I think you've made some good points. DavidJCobb  22:13, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Aye. Instead of putting links in section titles, remove them and use the Main Redirect template.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 22:15, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

And in cases where that's not so fitting (like the level headers in Hall of Mirrors), try wording it so that you can mention the title again in the text. DavidJCobb  22:26, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Aye.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 22:27, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Clarification for Appearances Section

I just noticed that several articles with Appearances Section had two different formats: 1) Either listing what level they appeared in or 2) Detailing how they changed visually across the series.

Shouldn't we put more emphasis on how they changed visually in the franchise rather than having a list of appearances? It sounds very redundant, referring to the list of appearances, and the Era Template has filled up that role.--Lol@Phailure 03:00, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

See above. --Andrew Nagy 18:20, November 1, 2009 (UTC)