Forum:Reformatting feature lists
From Halopedia, the Halo wiki
| Forums: Index → Community Proposal → Reformatting feature lists |  |
When listing appearances of in-universe subjects in game articles, we currently use a system in which all of the subjects are listed under a set of rather rigid in-universe categories in alphabetical order. However, I'm not convinced that this is the best way to convey the information to readers.
Firstly, in our current format, the in-game roles of the various items are largely ignored in favor of in-universe based categorization; for example, enemy types may be found anywhere depending on whether they're living beings or machines. In addition, the usage of highly technical designations for weapons and technology is probably not the best choice in game articles; a lot of people who look for information on the games aren't hardcore fiction fans. The average person sees a title like "Deployment Platform Type-56 Ground Support/Ultra Heavy" and they have no idea what it might be referring to, so it's not helpful in the least. Add to that the confusing lack of faction-based categorization and most people will be completely lost with all the designations.
That is why I'm proposing a new format for feature lists: not a raw list of things that appear in alphabetical order, but something more informative and actually useful: a list sectioned more closely based on in-game function and role, such as Weapons, Enemies, and so on. The lists would also be faction-specific, unlike our current quite uninformative style of putting everything under a single category in alphabetical order. I know how much we all love painstakingly specific and rigid in-universe categorization and complex technobabble terms, but there are instances where this does not benefit the purpose of the article in any capacity. Ease in finding information should be the key point and that will not happen if we get caught up in technicalities. In addition, the lists don't need to be nearly as long and include every scrap of detail possible, like the various Covenant species combat harnesses. If we did this with everything the list would be endless.
For example, this is what Halo 4's feature list looks like now, and the following is what it might look like with this proposal implemented:
Features
Comments
The main differences, as you might notice, are the following:
- Characters are no longer listed in alphabetical order but rather in rough order of significance; one-off or mentioned-only characters are dumped into the "Other" list
- Enemies are now listed under their own category and not in random categories
- Armor, armor permutations and abilities now have their own category and one doesn't have to look for them amongst loads of other random tech - again, in-game function is key here, not technical in-universe categories
- Only the more prominent pieces of technology important to the plot or gameplay (e.g. Composer, Cryptum) are listed - trivial items such as the Sangheili combat harness or Kig-yar shield gauntlet are left out, just like the various MJOLNIR permutations
- Enemies, weapons and vehicles are listed based on faction and use popular terminology with the exception of the Species section (e.g. Grunt, plasma pistol as opposed to Unggoy and T-25 DEP) and specific models are only identified when necessary to disambiguate them from others (e.g. beam rifle, Phantom)
Now, I know that forgoing our precious in-universe terminology is tantamount to heresy, but if you were a random player looking for information on one of the above subjects, would you rather look for it on this list or the one we currently use?
While we're on the subject, in addition to changing the standard in our game articles, I'm proposing we add similar appearance lists to novels which currently only list characters. This is for the simple reason that a lot of pages get made based on subjects that appear in novels and it would be useful to link them somewhere in the article for the novel - a plain appearance list is a better solution than stretching out the synopsis to the level of detail it includes every minor character, location, ship and so on. We might even use a tabbox as an elegant way to save space.
--Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 01:48, 27 November 2012 (EST)
- *raises pitchforks* — subtank 02:13, 27 November 2012 (EST)
I like it. Events should also get listed in order of occurrence, though. Currently everything under Human-Promeathean War is alphabetical and thus in reverse-order. Tuckerscreator(stalk) 02:39, 27 November 2012 (EST)
I'm alright with this. If we're going to put "M6H Magnum" or "M808 Scorpion", could we list Covenant weapons, Covenant vehicles, and Promethean weapons in the same style as this template? Like "Type-56 Lich", "Type-55 Storm rifle", or "Z-750 Binary rifle" for example?--Spartacus Talk • Contribs 10:51, 27 November 2012 (EST)
- I don't see why not. Just so that it stays relatively simple and the colloquial name comes across somewhere. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 11:28, 27 November 2012 (EST)
I don't care for it. Its over-simplifying something that doesn't need to be changed/fixed/etc. One concession I will make is the inclusion of a "cast" sub-section under each game's 'Plot section including their character's name and voice actor as well as a separate section to include starships and aircraft. On another note however, I have been thinking of a way we can continue to use the same format as always in an easier fashion for readers. Simply put, it will entail the creation of multiple "drop down" lists, one each for Campaign, Multiplayer, Spartan Ops, and Terminals modes. No list will be "unlocked" from the start to avoid precedent and users can view each features section at their leisure. For Halo 4, with the amount of new characters in Spartan Ops introduced each episode, the characters section will be as long as the entire features list by the end of Season One. The Terminals (including the animated sequence in Reclaimer) give a false representation that things such as the ancient Human, Forerunner, and Flood wars were commonplace inclusions in the story of Halo 4. This new system will even give us a chance to effectively organize content revealed in War Games (locations, organizations, events, etc.). If anyone is interested in viewing an example of this, I'll be happy to write it. Grizzlei ♥ ツ
- Simplification was pretty much the whole point, or more so, accessibility for those who might not know where to look (who probably make up a large portion of the wiki's readers). The above example is not final, however, just a sample of how it could work, though I'm still in favor of the basis of my proposal - that is, more obvious categories like enemies and armor, and the inclusion of the colloquial/in-game names of weapons/vehicles. As for your suggestions, I like the idea to include voice actors and drop-down lists for the different modes of the game, not just to make a distinction between Campaign/MP/Spartan Ops/Terminals but also because appearance lists typically take up an enormous portion of the page. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 04:25, 28 November 2012 (EST)
- That's why they would be drop down lists. It would be the individual reader's problem if they made the page too long. </plausible_deniability> Grizzlei ♥ ツ
I like it but Grizzlei makes some good points. Spartan Ops introduces not only new characters but other things as well, Requiem translocation artifact for example, eventually the features list could grow very long. Still, I'm fine with it either way. File:Colonel Grade One.pngCol. Snipes450File:Colonel Grade One.png 12:22, 27 November 2012 (EST)
Not too long ago, I played around with the idea of using tabbox as a solution to resolve the feature lists. While it worked as a function, it falls short when it comes to presenting itself nicely (e.g. this article struggles to look nice for mobile users and those using 1280x screen resolution). As the list expands, the tabbox will no longer be useful. I thought of importing Wookieepedia's feature list template (App) but as I played around with the template, it didn't really help the article as much as I thought it would. As for now, I think the best solution would be to create a template that uses a combination of the hide template and the scrollbox template. I can improve it by making it customisable by allowing editors to specify the field parameters without having to edit the actual template, but let's just focus on creating the template first. — subtank 01:10, 27 August 2013 (EDT)
- To avoid extra work, we should also agree upon our new listing format before adding the new templates, given the fact that issues with the list categories were the main reason I started this proposal in the first place. I still think my initial proposal for the categories is mostly workable (excluding the Spartan Ops content of course), though only to games; sections like "Enemies" would hardly be appropriate for a comic book article, for example. How about something like this:
|
|
- As an additional note, my point about not including every tiniest bit of detail still stands (this is especially applicable to technology). I'm still a little on the fence about the terminology usage in these lists - should we go all the way and only use the colloquial/in-game names (e.g. Banshee as opposed to Type-26 Ground Support Aircraft) like I did in the initial example above, or should we merely include the more well-known name alongside the official designation (e.g. Type-26 "Banshee" Ground Support Aircraft)? I almost prefer the former, because it looks less messy and is more accessible (which has been the key point from the beginning). Besides, our guidelines on article viewpoint and terminology usage instruct using the non-technical terms in real-world articles. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 09:50, 27 August 2013 (EDT)
- In my own tome of Halo info I have a major title of the colloquial name such as "T-26 Banshee" and a subtitle heading of "Official UNSC Designation: Type-26 Ground Support Aircraft". It's worked well for my own Halo info and lets me include it all. I think the main titles here should use the colloquial where possible. If someone is looking it up, that's what they'll search for, not a T-56 Deployment Platform...who's going to text search that? Also, whoever made the list above, the Song of the East is NOT a Halcyon-class. :) -ScaleMaster117 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2013 (EDT)
- I'm gonna go with what I said back on November 27. The best and simplest way to list items would be to include the model number and then the colloquial/in-game name. Examples: Type-52 Phantom, M6D Magnum, or Z-110 Boltshot. The Type/M Series/Z designation provides a nice way of dividing the lists between the factions, so I feel this is the best way to do it.--Spartacus Talk • Contribs 11:48, 27 August 2013 (EDT)