Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Overhauling articles on essential topics
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. 1358 (Talk) 20:34, May 9, 2014 (UTC)
Recently, while on an RPG info-adding binge, I ran across several articles on essential topics that are, quite frankly, in need of a major overhaul. Unsourced, information missing, original research; you get the idea. Now, these are big, over-arching topics like hyperspace and blaster, and I can't blame anyone for not getting stuck into them since it would be a lot of work to rebuild the article. Even I baulked at the thought of tracking down sources and the like, and realised that it would take away too much time from the articles I really wanted to work on. That said, I really want to straighten these articles out. So, my solution: a collaborative project to get each article on an essential topic up to some semblance of respectability. Now, here's the catch. If we do this, there will be no reward. We will not be aiming to get these articles to any kind of status. If they end up as status-worthy, that's a different matter, but that would not be the goal of the project. The goal would simply be to make these articles as accurate and informative as possible. Once that is achieved to a satisfactory standard, then we move onto the next one. My plan for each article would be simple:
- Choose an article in need of overhaul
- Identify the key sources in which information for that article can be found
- Agree on the section layout (description, history, that kind of thing)
- Write the article up on a subpage, with full sourcing and references
- Do not worry about trivia or "X used a blaster one time" information, or about tracking down every single mention of the topic (that can be added later)
- Transfer the article text over once the project is satisfied
- Ideally, project members will watch the rebuilt article and guard against unsourced additions and like
The aim would hopefully be a fast-ish turnover of articles, not a months-long project on each individual article. The idea is to get the articles corrected swiftly but accurately. I have a current list of articles to begin with, but I would anticipate more topics being added. Thoughts and ideas? - Sir Cavalier of One
(Squadron channel) 10:16, August 8, 2013 (UTC)
- I like it. I've always wanted to bring back the improvement drives, and I like your idea of focusing on more abstract non-character articles. I would love to help out with hyperspace and a few others. What do you think of officially designating it as the return of the Improvement Drive? Similar to the barn-burner HQ threads, it would be a good way to keep track of everything and to allow the community to vote on the next one. Menkooroo (talk) 11:03, August 8, 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mind using this project to resurrect the Improvement Drive as long as alterations are made to the format to bring it more in line with the well-controlled WookieeProjects; it would only be used for the types of articles in need of overhaul such as blaster, etc, with no provision for improving, say, Luke's article (unless, of course, we get through all the essential articles I have planned plus the others that would undoubtedly be added, then it may be feasible), and taking away the time limit to improve the article in. Also, using the WookieeProject format seems to be the logical course as it has a proven track record. Restructuring Improvement Drive to WookieeProject:Improvement Drive might be the best course of action. - Sir Cavalier of One
(Squadron channel) 11:23, August 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good; I like the idea of keeping open the possibility of moving onto character articles if people are still interested after the list is done. Can we get a teaser of the list? Menkooroo (talk) 12:16, August 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Currently, the list stands at blaster, which I consider to be the article that spawned this in the first place and ideally will be the first one tackled, laser, turbolaser, ion cannon, proton torpedo, ray shield, particle shield, hyperspace, hyperdrive, sensor, star, and planet. The Force is another concern, but that has issues like categorisation of powers and the like. The basic tenet for inclusion on the list is something that underpins the GFFA, but isn't a main character/planet/battle. These things get lost in the mix, or are prone to OR. - Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 13:26, August 8, 2013 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in working on articles such as "planet" or even perhaps "Human." The latter could do with a massive overhaul. --LelalMekha (talk) 13:33, August 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Currently, the list stands at blaster, which I consider to be the article that spawned this in the first place and ideally will be the first one tackled, laser, turbolaser, ion cannon, proton torpedo, ray shield, particle shield, hyperspace, hyperdrive, sensor, star, and planet. The Force is another concern, but that has issues like categorisation of powers and the like. The basic tenet for inclusion on the list is something that underpins the GFFA, but isn't a main character/planet/battle. These things get lost in the mix, or are prone to OR. - Sir Cavalier of One
- Sounds good; I like the idea of keeping open the possibility of moving onto character articles if people are still interested after the list is done. Can we get a teaser of the list? Menkooroo (talk) 12:16, August 8, 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mind using this project to resurrect the Improvement Drive as long as alterations are made to the format to bring it more in line with the well-controlled WookieeProjects; it would only be used for the types of articles in need of overhaul such as blaster, etc, with no provision for improving, say, Luke's article (unless, of course, we get through all the essential articles I have planned plus the others that would undoubtedly be added, then it may be feasible), and taking away the time limit to improve the article in. Also, using the WookieeProject format seems to be the logical course as it has a proven track record. Restructuring Improvement Drive to WookieeProject:Improvement Drive might be the best course of action. - Sir Cavalier of One
- I think it's about time the ID returned. We should be as updated and accurate as possible to our readers, who will reading the most about essential characters, locations, and things. This will also allow us to remove the unnecessary "We're Doomed" template from problematic articles. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:45, August 9, 2013 (UTC)
- I think we're moving away from the issue here. Forget resurrecting the Improvement Drive because that is not the point of this thread, and I'm not going to let this discussion move way from its intended focus. I'm not looking to recreate anything - if the ID is reborn out of it, then fine. But that it not the goal here. I'm not looking to create a project to update articles like Luke, or Coruscant, or whatever the popular trend of the moment is. There are multiple WookieeProjects already covering multiple aspects. I'm trying to get help to build and write the basic articles that no one touches which are nonetheless vital topics, and, to be honest, if that isn't the main focus of the (hopefully) ensuing project, then I'll count myself out and go found a separate project where it is. - Sir Cavalier of One
(Squadron channel) 08:24, August 9, 2013 (UTC)
- I think we're moving away from the issue here. Forget resurrecting the Improvement Drive because that is not the point of this thread, and I'm not going to let this discussion move way from its intended focus. I'm not looking to recreate anything - if the ID is reborn out of it, then fine. But that it not the goal here. I'm not looking to create a project to update articles like Luke, or Coruscant, or whatever the popular trend of the moment is. There are multiple WookieeProjects already covering multiple aspects. I'm trying to get help to build and write the basic articles that no one touches which are nonetheless vital topics, and, to be honest, if that isn't the main focus of the (hopefully) ensuing project, then I'll count myself out and go found a separate project where it is. - Sir Cavalier of One
- I would like to add the Force power article to the list of essential articles needing major overhauls. That article is confusing. I don't understand why there are two seperate headings called "Control" and "Alter." I could use some suggestions as to what layout would be best. And there are hardly any references after the heading Using Force powers. In addition, the Telekinesis article also deals with a number of force powers and is likewise a little messy and in need of some work. These two articles are closely related to each other.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 16:47, August 9, 2013 (UTC)
- "Control" is control over one's personal connection to the Force, including such things as the ability to detoxify poisons or enter hybernation trances; "Alter" is altering the external world using the Force, including things like telekinesis. Along with "Sense" (the ability to sense things through the Force), this tripartite distinction was originally created by West End Games as a game mechanic, but has since been occasionally discussed in in-universe sources, and remains one of the primary ways of grouping Force abilities. jSarek (talk) 03:20, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood me. I understand why there is a separation between Control, Alter, and Sense. What I don't understand is why there are two separate headings called "Control" and "Alter." There is Control and Control, and then Alter and Alter. It seems inefficient. They should be combined into one heading each for neatness and ease of reading. Does that make sense?--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 15:46, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
- I did misunderstand you, and now that I see what you're talking about, I'm equally baffled. jSarek (talk) 05:53, August 12, 2013 (UTC)
- It's a very badly written article, yet it's one of the most essential topics in Star Wars. The article does not conform to the Layout Guide for force powers. It should be divided into 1. Description (gives a detailed description on what the power is and does.); 2. Applications (describes how and why the power is used.); 3. Users (details the specific instances of the power's use, and by whom.) "Aspects of Force powers" should be changed to "Description." "Using Force powers" should be changed to "Applications." The list of force powers in "Aspects of Force powers" section should be moved to "Applications." Are we even supposed to be using lists anymore?--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 15:29, August 12, 2013 (UTC)
- I did misunderstand you, and now that I see what you're talking about, I'm equally baffled. jSarek (talk) 05:53, August 12, 2013 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood me. I understand why there is a separation between Control, Alter, and Sense. What I don't understand is why there are two separate headings called "Control" and "Alter." There is Control and Control, and then Alter and Alter. It seems inefficient. They should be combined into one heading each for neatness and ease of reading. Does that make sense?--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 15:46, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
- "Control" is control over one's personal connection to the Force, including such things as the ability to detoxify poisons or enter hybernation trances; "Alter" is altering the external world using the Force, including things like telekinesis. Along with "Sense" (the ability to sense things through the Force), this tripartite distinction was originally created by West End Games as a game mechanic, but has since been occasionally discussed in in-universe sources, and remains one of the primary ways of grouping Force abilities. jSarek (talk) 03:20, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
- I like Cav's idea. If it's via ID, that's fine, but we should do this somehow. Maybe we can construct a list of some of the more essential sources that should be checked for these articles, like the A Guide to the Star Wars Universe series, various encyclopedias, etc. But whatever happens, I'm on board. ~Savage 13:54, August 14, 2013 (UTC)
- Has there been any progress with this idea? Wookieepedia has several major articles in need of overhauling. Force powers is an integral subject to Star Wars and it's a bloody mess. Telekinesis needs to be greatly improved. Lightsaber could use cleanup.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 17:28, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, got a little sidetracked with other stuff. Very easy to do around here. I'll rough up a project page in the next few days and see where we go from there. - Sir Cavalier of One(Squadron channel) 09:00, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds great! Thanks.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 16:10, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, got a little sidetracked with other stuff. Very easy to do around here. I'll rough up a project page in the next few days and see where we go from there. - Sir Cavalier of One
