Wookieepedia talk:Layout Guide

Databank Link
Are we sure we want this in sources, not External Links? Most of the articles have it in External Links. What about pages on the Wizards.com site? Same deal, yeah? QuentinGeorge 08:44, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * My arguement is that the Databank is a very official source, so it should be considered more like a source rather than just an external link. The same goes for the Wizards articles - those articles are actual official sources. Perhaps the Sources section could link to their corresponding Wookieepedia article, while the External Links section could link directly to the source article on the WotC website. That could work. --Azizlight 08:59, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we should save External Links for useful non-canon analyses offsite. For instance, the SWTC have relevant and useful information on a number of topics, but they're not canon; that's the sort of thing that should go in External Links.  If it's a canon source, it should go in Sources, instead.  jSarek 10:46, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * My reasoning for putting Databank links under External links is that... it's an external link. Sources are usually internal links to articles about sources rather than links to sources themselves. Perhaps it would be accurate to put " Databank " under sources, but I think it would be confusing to users if the Databank link itself was under Sources because of the different nature of the link. – Aidje talk 22:07, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with jSa&mdash;er, Aidje. MarcK 07:05, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Sources. I see what Aidje is saying, but I agree with jSerek on this one.  External links could be used for the CUSWE article or some other reliable site, but if it's an official source, it should be under Sources...no matter the medium in which was delivered (book, web, whatever).  It's not possible (yet) to link to the page of the source book, so we just link to the article about the source book.  Brain works funny but that got me to dreaming about the day when all books are online.  :)  WhiteBoy 22:52, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Sources, so you don't need to guess which links are canonical and which are not (and you can always tell an external link from an internal link. The External links section is for unofficial links. - Sikon [ Talk ] 15:04, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Sources, for Sikon and WhiteBoy's reasons. I would also suggest we treat other articles on StarWars.com, WOTC RPG "web enhancements", etc. the same way.  &mdash; Silly Dan  00:12, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Appearances

 * Do we want "mentions" of the characters in appearances? ie, Quinlan Vos was mentioned in Ep3, but doesn't appear. QuentinGeorge 08:46, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we should. Perhaps we should just write "(mentioned)" next to these appearances, that seems to be common practice at the moment anyway. Unless we create another section called "Mentions"... but I think that may be going overboard. --Azizlight 08:54, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we shouldn't. Someone should have to actually *appear* to count as an Appearance.  If he doesn't appear, but the mention tells us something about him that goes in the article, call it a Source. jSarek 10:46, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with jSarek. MarcK 07:03, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that sometimes the film will be listed in Appearances, and sometimes it will be listed in Sources... isn't that a little confusing? --Azizlight 07:09, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really; once this goes through, hopefully everyone will know that if a non-reference book/sourcebook etc. source (Episode III in the above example) is in the Sources section, then that means it's a mention, as opposed to a prototypical "source" per se. Hmm...don't think I've ever used the word "source" so many times in a single sentence. MarcK 07:14, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Dunno...I think that's going to be too confusing for everyone. But I do see both sides.  I can go either way on this one.  WhiteBoy 23:01, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * And another thing: when we're dealing with, say, an alien species that shows up all over the place (like Wookiees or Twi'leks), is it acceptable to put "see also insert names of major characters here" for additional appearances? Or should we just add all of the appearances?  &mdash; Silly Dan  04:36, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Title only in appearances and sources
Did we agree that it should be title only for appearances and sources? I mean, I agreed, but I don't know about everyone else. &mdash; Silly Dan 21:30, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing has been agreed on yet, hence the creation of this page. People can continue to discuss it here. It seems that the most popular arguement at the moment is that additional information such as author, publisher, and year are not required, since all this information can be accessed by simply clicking on the title. --Azizlight 21:39, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Title only is the way to go. It's redundant information, plus many references are still being filled in with additional info.  Also, from a practical standpoint, there's only one place to misspell an author's name, hence only on place to have to correct it.  WhiteBoy 23:08, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Title only for Azizlight's reasons. MarcK 00:22, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, title only. - Sikon [ Talk ] 01:09, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Title only. It's easier, and that's what people seem to be doing now anyway.  &mdash; Silly Dan  01:20, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Title only. No shock, I'm sure. ;-) jSarek 01:45, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)