Wookieepedia talk:Manual of Style

Sides of the Force
See Wookieepedia talk:Community Portal/Sides of the Force.

Genderized Ships
"# Referred to by feminine pronouns (she, her)" - I think it would help establish a more encylopedic tone to refer to all starships as "it". Naval officers and starship captains may refer to their ships as "shes", but we are neither of those. It would help keep an objective feel. If a particular character, such as Han Solo, commonly refers to a ship as a particular gender, it should be noted in the article. Otherwise, it would be ethno/xeno-centric to assume that from an IU perspective, all species are bi-gender, or have a naval history dominated by heterosexual males. --SparqMan 22:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, for the record --Fade 22:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If you think an encyclopedia does not use the feminine pronoun in reference to ships, I refer you to this Wikipedia article, which is one of many. Calling a ship "it" is often considered an insult to both the crew and the ship's builders.
 * "Naval officers and starship captains may refer to their ships as "she", but we are neither of those."
 * Neither are some of us subjects of the British empire, but it is still considered courtesy to refer to Her Majesty as such. Some of us are not Jewish, but it would be courtesy to don a Yarmulke when entering a temple. Referring to a ship as "she" is likewise traditional and courteous.
 * "...all species are bi-gender, or have a naval history dominated by heterosexual males."
 * Which is true of His Imperial Majesty's navy, which was the dominant navy of the galaxy. I do not think it too far a stretch IU to make such an assumption of all navies. for a RW reference, the Japanese navy does not use ship prefixes, but many western authors use HIJMS, which is used to prevent accusations of the author considering that navy unequal to others.--Eion 22:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's a pretty grey area, given the sheer scope of the galaxy, and the relatively fleeting existance of the Empire. Open to personal preferance perhaps? Personally, I find it jarring to read it in the feminine style, but I'm sure there are others that have the opposite opinion. I don't suppose we can really say until we have more information from the material? --Fade 23:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fair to say that Imperial warships would be referred to as "she"; I don't think that is too much of a leap of faith. The Rebellion might refer to their ships in some neutral manner. The problem is we need a universal standard. I was merely trying to apply the universal standard of our universe to this one. Using "she" also prevents pronoun confusion in long articles, b/c "she" is used only to refer to specific ships, not classes.--Eion 23:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone know how the Hapans do it, with their matriarchal society? I haven't read Courtship of Princess Leia yet. Or the Old Republic, throughout it's long history?-LtNOWIS 00:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the "ship as a she" rule can be abolished. De facto nobody follows it anyway. - Sikon 15:23, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Ship type (not class)
Unless a ship's proper name includes the type of ship, it should not be capitalized. For example: "Carrack-class light cruiser" vs. "Carrack-class Light Cruiser". We might want to include this. --SparqMan 23:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC) One sticking point will be Star Destroyers. Is Star Destroyer a ship type (an unfortunate situation if it is), or is it part of their proper name? --SparqMan 01:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * agreed--Eion 23:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * In all my guides, Star Destoyer is capitalized when referring to classes (ex: Victory-class Star Destroyer)
 * Ship types in the SWU seem to fall into two levels, "normal", and "Star". A Carrack-class light-cruiser is levels of magnitude less powerful than a Thunder-class star cruiser (okay, I just made that name up). But, there is no clear consensus on this yet. Star Destroyer is also a general name for any large, wedge shaped ship of GE and NR. There is much confusion.--Eion 01:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Quotations
Thoughts? I'm still debating which makes a better block quote:
 * block quote

or block quote Shadowtrooper 02:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I prefer the second in cases of long or important quotations.--Eion 02:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I like it on any website when block quotes are in boxes (like your second option), but I don't like it on MediaWiki wikis for the simple reason that it disallows word wrap. -- Aidje 02:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If you put in line breaks you can avoid it going over the side, but it take time to find out where to put in your breaks. Shadowtrooper 03:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Hence the pain in the butt portion. I hereby change my vote.--Eion 03:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * More importantly than our own comfort (maybe (-:), where the line breaks should in fact go is not a solid fact. Consider different screen resolutions, different font sizes depending on personal preference or accessibility needs, or perhaps someone who just doesn't maximize their browser like we do (or do we all, eh?). -- Aidje 03:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Ship class
This method of using lead ships to name ship classes is common amongst American and European navies (although they differ on which ship is considered first), while the British name a class and then have all ships in it use the same letter (Thor-class cruiser would yield ships named Thunderous or Thane). It may also be that many of the names we see are reporting names used by adversaries to identify enemy vessels. Militaries are not prone to publishing their Order of Battle. What I'm getting to is that we should carefully assess the canon materials to ascertain which ships are named after lead ships (resulting in the italicization rule above) and which are not, as we have done recently with the Dreadnought heavy cruiser. --SparqMan 03:34, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * "Class names are italicized only when a spaceship in the class bears the same name."
 * As we have Star Destroyers with names ranging from ideals, (Indomitable), to titles (Imperator), to creatures (Chimera), we might safely assume they are using the American-style and that the class is indeed named after the lead-ship of the class. In the case of the Imperator/Imperial, the lead ship’s name was obviously changed, and the class name was changed along with it. But you're right, it's a sticky wicket to be sure--Eion 03:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The Imperator was rechristened? Do you have proof for this? I have no reason to believe that "imperial class" is something other than a colloquial use of the formal Imperator-class.--Gen.d 09:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

RPG-material

 * The so-called Guardian-Consular dichotomy is based on RPG material by Wizards of the Coast, which were the basis for the computer games series Knights of the Old Republic. Though I don't automatically disregard Rpg-material when it comes to judging canonicity, one has to understand that the Dungeons&Dragons-inspired approach (character classes) does not translate well into the Star Wars universe. I find no film reference on it whatsoever and no evidence that the so-called guardians are better fighters and worse diplomats. Therefore I edited the passage that basically implied the following: As a Guardian, Windu should not be as good a diplomat as he is. I suggest completely refraining from something that in my eyes is just as bad as fanon. -- Gen.d 18:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This should be moved to the Community Portal talk page. It is not related to the Manual of Style, unless you are questioning the validity of RPG material as a canon source. If that is the case, your view is not supported by LucasFilm, Ltd. --SparqMan 18:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a question of style whether or not to mention a "character class" in a character description (that's what happened in the Mace Windu article). I strongly recommend to include this in the Manual. --Gen.d 09:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ---Besides, I adressed my pov on canon in this matter, even though it is as irrelevant for this point as LucasArts': Even if character stats are canon (outrageous!), I judge it bad style to include them.

Tense
Can anyone (admin) perhaps mention that the IU tense of this wiki is the past tense? There are so many articles whose authors seem to not be educated about this. --Imperialles 18:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * True, we should point out the the past tense should be used in most cases. However, there are some cases where present tense should be used (for instance, entirely OOU articles about an actor, video game, or film), as pointed out in Talk:Main Page.  Anyway, the policy on tense should definitely be in the Manual of Style. --Silly Dan 23:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, even in universe, I would argue some articles should be partially in present tense. Saying something like "Trianii had fur" seems to me to imply that the Trianii all either went extinct or began to shave themselves at some point. Similarly, if an article said "Abregado-Fus was the fourth planet from the star Anza", that makes it sound like the planet was destroyed or moved.  Most of the current articles on planets and species are in mixed tense, which I would argue is perfectly fine.  --Silly Dan 23:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that mixed tense is barely acceptable doesn't help authors who want to produce stylistically well-written articles. --Gen.d 09:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * My point is that I think mixed-tense is perfectly acceptable, not barely acceptable. If the consensus is that everything should be in past tense, that's fine, and we can edit everything in List of races and species and Planets of Star Wars into pure past tense.  All the same, I'd really like someone to give a reason why we should be writing articles that imply the Trianii are extinct and Adregado-Fus was destroyed.  --Silly Dan 12:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * True, I agree that we shouldn't force anybody to create sentences that imply such things. But the question is not what to enforce, but what to recommend, isn't it? --Gen.d 12:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if a certain style is recommended, it will end up being enforced by the editing done by other Wookieepedians, right? Silly Dan 21:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Silly Dan, I see your point on giving presumption to the extinction of species and destruction of planets, but there are two good reasons I see for creating a consistent past tense form here. The first, as stated above, is to create consistency. It will be easier for writers to keep one tense. The second is that unlike a project like Wikipedia, we commonly do not have all the details for articles. An article on, say, Kit Fisto is only based on the history and details that we have been provided so far, but clearly there are other parts of his history that we are not privvy to because they have simply not been detailed in a source yet. With that in mind, it seems best to write this as if it has been pieced together from the scraps of history left over from the GFFA millennia after that last "dated" event in a source. I hope that was clear (I rambled a bit at the end). --SparqMan 12:56, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Perfectly clear -- one big advantage to saying "past tense on everything" is that it's simple. Newcomers will know which parts of their article should be in present tense if we suggest that none of it should be.  It would be a little more complicated to say "present tense on everything that's likely to stay the same, like a species' physical characteristics or a planet's location, but past tense everywhere else."  If I were writing this on my own, I'd prefer a mixed tense, but this should be determined by consensus, and I'm in the minority right now.  8) Silly Dan 21:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with you. Past tense on everything seems a bit much. It's especially strange when writing about species, planets, and things like the Force. You'd think that the Force would stick around. I suppose midi-chlorians could become extinct, but that would only eliminate the connection to the Force, not the Force itself. – Aidje talk 21:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I seem to have lost the argument at this point. I'll be putting any new alien articles entirely in past tense (though I'm still not convinced it's necessarily the best solution.) Silly Dan 18:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The Star Wars universe takes place along, long time ago, though. It's supposed to be in the past. I say keep articles on characters, races species, etc. past tense (except for behind the scenes sections), and articles on movies, books, comics, etc. as present. --Imperialles 22:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you think it would be a good idea to include something on the Style page about the reasons for past tense? This might help newcomers (such as myself) understand and accept this policy, and perhaps not everyone will read the talk page. It could be something like "All in universe articles should be in past tense. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, the articles on Wookipedia are presented as historical recordings that have been pieced together from scraps of information left over from the GFFA millennia. As such, all details pertaining to this history have not yet been uncovered, and more information may be added at a later date. Keeping articles written in past tense provides consistency and flavor. Secondly, the Star Wars universe takes place along, long time ago, in the past. Writing in universe articles in past tense properly relates the timeline of that universe with our own perspective."--Culix 14:16, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not just say "it's a standard convention for encyclopedic articles about fictional universes"? - Sikon [ Talk ] 16:51, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Because it's not exactly a standard - A Guide to the Star Wars Universe, 2nd Edition uses a mix of tenses, for instance. I think Culix's explanation is clean and good; I'm going to be bold and post it on the Style page. jSarek 02:39, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Birth/Death
Can we settle on a style for birth and death dates? There seem to be three main options: Any others that I missed before we begin the discussion? --SparqMan 13:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Dooku (102 BBY - 19 BBY) was a weak character and plot device...
 * Dooku (born 102 BBY - died 19 BBY) should have been Darth Maul...
 * Dooku (b. 102 BBY - d. 19 BBY) was an attempt to legitimize the movie with top name actor...
 * The only other possibility I can think of (the old-school asterisk-cross method) is too difficult to do with our fixed character set. Of the ones you've mentioned, I think the first gets the point across with a minimum of typing.  jSarek 20:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh, I can tell you don't like Count Dooku. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been using the following:
 * Dooku (102 BBY - 19 BBY) was a far more rounded and complete character than that one note wonder, cardboard cut-out Darth Maul...
 * Go with the first option, I say. If the year of birth and death are precise (as in not c.), the birthyear should be a wikilink. --Imperialles 06:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh. -- Riffsyphon1024 15:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you and Imperialles did put all that work into making them. Silly Dan 23:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

References, Appearances, etc.
Should we settle on a preferred style for citing references and appearances? For example, when citing an RPG sourcebook, I tend to write Some articles elaborate on the citiation by adding ISBN numbers and dates. (A lot of other contributors would cite the author as "Denning, Troy" in this case, too -- I don't, because that's not standard practice in my field.) Other articles just give the book title, trusting the user to follow the link to that article to find the publisher and author. Further, I'm not sure if it's best to cite a movie appearance as Episode I, The Phantom Menace, or Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Any opinions? Silly Dan 23:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Troy Denning, Galaxy Guide 4 - Alien Races, West End Games
 * I think, in a world with hyperlinks, that citing and linking the source's title is sufficient. People wanting to further pursue the topic can follow the link.  As for citing the movies, I think the fuller version looks more professional, but so long as the links go to the right place, I think all three are acceptable.  jSarek 01:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Appearances only require the title. References require more, and should be consistent no matter the type of source (movie, book, comic, etc.). A complete source reference should include the author(s), title, publisher, copyright year and the author believes the topic will be difficult to find (something without an index or table of contents that lists the topic referenced) the page/scene should be included as well. The style I use echoes the common format on Wikipedia:
 * Lastnameauthor, Firstnameauthor. Source title. Publisher: Copyrightyear.
 * I think that is the most professional, repsonsible and helpful method. --SparqMan 01:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree most with jSarek. I think quoting the source is sufficient, unless you can give more detail as to a page number or an article title.  I think author, publisher, ISBN, year-published, etc. info is redundant because it is all information that should be in the source book's page to which you link.  As to how to cite a movie appearance, I think the best way is to use the full (non-redirected) title of the article (e.g. Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace).  WhiteBoy 22:43, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with jSarek here. And I think we really need to make a decision and put it in the Manual of Style as soon as possible, because at the moment there are just too many variations throughout the whole wiki. --Azizlight 04:18, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Sith vs Dark Jedi
Should we make some sort of distinction between the two since they keep getting mixed up? If I'm not mistaken, all Sith are Dark Jedi, but not all Dark Jedi are Sith. -- Shadowtrooper 02:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Dark Jedi = Jedi gone bad. Sith = People who have specifically joined the Sith. For example, Vader and Tyranus could be considered both, but Darth Maul and Darth Sidious are pure Sith (as they were never Jedi), whereas Xanatos, Jerec and others are Dark Jedi. QuentinGeorge 03:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Layout Guide
I think we really need a guide as to how a page should be structured. The below example is a suggestion, based on the unnofficial format that most Wookieepedians seem to be following already (though I'm not sure about the placement of the Succession Box). I think this should be one of the first entries in the Manual of Style.


 * 1) Main Article
 * 2) Stub
 * 3) Succession box
 * 4) See also
 * 5) Behind the scenes
 * 6) Appearances
 * 7) Sources
 * 8) External links

Please add anything that I have forgotten. Discussion is welcome. --Azizlight 01:18, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * If we choose to continue with the use of succession boxes, a practice I find to be an exercise in redundancy and request for fanon, they seem to fit best at the end of the article. --SparqMan 01:55, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Okay, a revision based on the above comments so far... I am also not a fan of succession boxes, and i'd be happy to see them gone. I also think the "stub" notifications make any article look ugly, maybe we could just replace them with a small symbol or something. --Azizlight 03:43, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC) Revision Number 3! --Azizlight 04:54, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this structure is necessary. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone knows the correct format to structure an article. Case in point: I didn't know that stubs apparently go before appearances, and I've never seen it written anywhere on here that they do. I mean, how are we supposed to follow the format if only a select few *KNOW* the format? Unless a policy is established, people are just going to format it however they like. StarNeptune 02:32, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I was also surprised by the stub placement commments. Placing it in the middle is out of place. --SparqMan 02:44, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Placing the stub in the middle of the article is jarring and interrupts the flow of the article, IMO. I prefer it at the very bottom, just after a succession box (if applicable). StarNeptune 03:00, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a de facto convention that "See also" follows "Sources", so it must be number 7. Sikon [ Talk ] 02:47, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Main Article
 * 2) Behind the scenes
 * 3) Appearances
 * 4) Sources
 * 5) See also
 * 6) External links
 * 7) Succession box
 * 8) Stub
 * I think that list looks good so far. If stubs need to be changed, then we need something small and unobtrusive. Maybe a small box or just the word "stub" at the bottom of the article. I'm sure we can figure something out. StarNeptune 23:37, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Click here for discussion (and visual example) about a new look for the stub. --Azizlight 23:42, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not think stubs need to go all the way on the bottom. The reason a stub is where it is marks the end of the text that needs expanding. BTS, Appearances, and Sources do not belong to this. See also and external links remain farther down. I'm sticking with the first arrangement, but the succession box remains on the bottom. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:19, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with the 2nd revision, except with the stub tag right after the behind the scenes section. After BtS, there really isn't much in the way of text. I think succession boxes are awesome. They're used effectively for the Mandalores and for most of the Sith. But they should be at the end of articles. But a uniform style would definitely be great.-LtNOWIS 04:31, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Riff about the placement of the stub; it makes more sense to put it just after the main text, and i also think it looks uglier somehow when it's under the Sources section. Also not sure if See also should go above or below External links, or perhaps even higher up.
 * 1) Main Article
 * 2) Stub
 * 3) Behind the scenes
 * 4) Appearances
 * 5) Sources
 * 6) See also
 * 7) External links
 * 8) Succession box
 * Support *thumbs up* --beeurd 15:17, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. - Sikon [ Talk ] 16:05, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. (If we're writing this up, we should also make notes about what each section is for &mdash; some editors are getting "see also" and "external links" mixed up, and I'm still not sure if a mention in dialogue counts as an appearance or a source.  &mdash; Silly Dan
 * Good idea about the notes thing. I'd say a mention in dialogue would simply be a source, not an appearance. --beeurd 19:15, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. (We should also have a note about stub usage and classification.) -LtNOWIS 01:38, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, we definately need notes to supplement the recommended layout. I have created Manual of Style/temp/Layout Guide, please discuss and contribute! --Azizlight 08:36, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Personally I prefer stubs at the bottom, but I seem to be in the minority.  Everything else I like.   WhiteBoy 01:45, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Version 3 -- Riffsyphon1024 06:48, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I still think stubs look better at the very bottom, but I'll Support this. StarNeptune 06:55, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Human"
In article text, should we capitalize the word "human" or not? &mdash; Silly Dan 13:52, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Difficult to say. The Databank doesn't capitalize it, but Wizards.com articles do. - Sikon [ Talk ] 14:39, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * We capitalize the name of every other species. Some examples: Wookiee, Ewok, Mon Calamari, and Quarren. – Aidje talk 16:12, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is one of the sticky points, lol. I think that if we capitalise the others, then we should capitalise Human. But not "humanoid", I reckon. --beeurd 21:24, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Treat 'humanoid' the same as 'reptiloid', 'avian', etc. – Aidje talk 06:45, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * As above. --SparqMan 10:11, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Revision
I have begun a revision of the Manual of Style; the current version is here: Manual of Style/working. The aim is to better reflect de facto conventions that contradict the existing MOS (like "it" and "the" for ships) and Community Portal/Consensus track decisions. - Sikon [ Talk ] 06:38, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Measurements and units
Is there a standard system for units of weight, measurement, and other things we should use on Wookipedia? I notice some pages like Ysalamiri use both metric centimeters and imperial feet. Should we pick one and explicity state it? (I would vote metric, as all official Star Wars matrial I have seen seems to use meters). --Culix 22:25, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you there (of course, I say one should use metric in real life anyway.) &mdash; Silly Dan  02:12, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I usually find units in metric, however having English units can still be helpful to us. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:57, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitely metric. - Sikon [ Talk ] 04:00, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Metric. Because: 1) Star Wars material is usually metric, as is sci-fi in general, 2) this is supposed to an international site, and 3) the metric system is just plain better. – Aidje talk 06:48, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting point Riffsyphon. Does anyone think it would be worthwhile to include both units to help out those who prefer imperial measurements? Personally I would vote no, just because I think it would clutter up the page. It's a valid point though. --Culix 03:45, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Ditch non-metric. I'm a bit fuzzy on them anyway. (except inches/feet). :) QuentinGeorge 05:18, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Added a brief blurb, and I will convert any imperial articles I see. Riffsyphon, if you think having both units would add value, feel free to post. --Culix 05:48, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Out of universe articles
Do we have any standard for out of universe material? I'm wondering about two things in particular. First, what the standard for headings is: I've seen "Plot", "Plot summary", "Plot synopsis", "Brief plot synopsis", "Synopsis", "Summary", etc. Second, tense in synopses. Since this is an analysis of a literary work rather than an encyclopedic detailing of in-universe events, I was always taught to use present tense (the publisher's summaries do this too). But I don't know if we treat events in synopses here the same as encyclopedic narratives. - Lord Hydronium 18:50, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)