BattleTechWiki talk:Project Characters

I've noticed that the fictional people aren't currently categorized as "PeopleFictional", but rather just as "People'. It appears that the real people (Weisman, Keith, et al) are being categorized as "PeopleReal". Do we want to migrate all of the "People" to "PeopleFictional"? If so, I'll do that shortly. Bdevoe 12:01, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

This has already been discussed, albeit briefly, at BattleTechWiki:Administrators#Category:People. Scaletail 15:43, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

We should probably change the Project to be "People" and not "PeopleFictional" then. Bdevoe 16:54, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

People & Minor Characters

I didn't think to bring this up here until after I had started it, but I've created a category called Minor Characters, defined as those who have supporting or lesser roles in the BattleTech universe. I've linked to it (and back again) in the People category.

Question: might this be a good time to re-name the People Category to "Major Characters"? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:54, 15 August 2008 (CDT)

I created lists instead of leaving individual articles intact. Do you want to reopen the discussion of how to handle minor characters, Revanche, so that we have one, uniform way of handling them; or are you seeing them as a little more than one-line blurbs, but not quite as much as we might expect for a full article? --Scaletail 10:31, 16 August 2008 (CDT)

I'm not ready to take a stand on what (officially) defines a Major or Minor Character. As Justice Potter famously stated about obscenities: "...I know it when I see it...," and generally I read what we have about a person and decide if they were a one-shot (or similar) character, that will probably not recur or is probably not well known by either BT fans nor other in-universe fans. The way I envision it is: if they make a movie about the story that concerns this character, would the actor get any billing on the movie poster? As far as stub articles go: no, that doesn't figure into my reasoning. If someone started a stub-article on Victor Steiner-Davion, Stefan Amaris or even Natasha Kerensky, I'd still recognize that they are major characters (with currently minor articles).

Scaletail, I vaguely recall a discussion on lists versus articles (for minor characters). I personally would prefer articles on everyone, but I acknowledge that sometimes that would just not make sense. For example, in my impending article on the Brotherhood of Randis, I would like to link to each member ever identified in source material. However, as the writeups for many of those minor characters would be summed up as, "He died on Antallos, defending the Brotherhood's efforts to unearth a Star League cache," I can see why someone would much prefer seeing all names together and no such write-up being necessary. Sorry, I ramble. Is there a policy on this, yet? Or are we free to do both methods? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:35, 16 August 2008 (CDT)

I enshrined it at Policy:Notability, but there's nothing stopping anybody from reopening the discussion. --Scaletail 07:21, 17 August 2008 (CDT)

(took my discussion there) --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:10, 17 August 2008 (CDT)

Scaletail, as to Major Characters: if we assume that Minor Character articles are not forbidden (and should be removed), how do you feel about re-naming the Peoples category to Major Characters? I'd be glad to change the individual articles, if you agree. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:10, 17 August 2008 (CDT)

It works for me since it will be much better. If we do that, then we also need to fix the sidebar. Since we will have no less than three categories for people (fictional or real), maybe we should switch that out to a short article that explains the system? --Scaletail 14:26, 17 August 2008 (CDT)

I can definitely do that, and thanks for reminding me of the Sidebar. To give this some time to percolate (as I believe Frabby may have some issues with the concept of dual (fictional character) categories), however, I'll be sure to add a note to the current fictional categories, bringing Users' attention to the real people category, as well. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:10, 17 August 2008 (CDT)

I've made some additons to the project page, in accordance with the recently passed proposal on additional character categories. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:29, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

Standards for Character Articles

A proposal was made and passed regarding developing standards for character articles, to include deltion in certain cases. The consensus was that the Project Biographies team would helm this process. Details:

“

Consensus: Proposal passes with the following directions: The BattleTechWiki:Project Biographies team discuss and institute guidance as to what qualifies as an acceptable character article, to include formatting, referencing, categorization, dates and whatever other standards the team feels appropriate, with an emphasis on requiring references. Character articles that do not meet these standards are to be flagged for either a) improvement or b) deletion. Currently, character articles can only be deleted if the subject character cannot be verified by source. Character articles that are flagged for deletion have a minimum period of time (advertised in the tag) that must be allowed before the deletion can occur. The Editor assuming responsibility for the deletion of a character article will also assume responsibility for adding that character to the appropriate minor characters list (if the deletion occurred for a reason other than verifiability of the character's existance). The standards developed by the Bios team, after an undetermined test period within the team's scope of articles, will become a basis for use throughout BTW.

”

This is a big project. Based on the above directives, I propose breaking this guidance project down into several categories for discussion, discussing the merits of each, instead of a broader picture. I'll take the liberty of creating those areas of discussion now.

Formatting

I define formatting as to what sections are included in an article. The basis I'm using right now (pre-discussion) is that an article has the following:

• image - if one is not available, then no allowance should be made for it on the page ; a size standard needs to be set
• intro - one to three lines to include:
  • summarizing why this person is notable (not to BTW, but who they are in the 'verse).
  • the character's name bolded
  • life dates immediately following the name. Formats would be in years only (if dates are known, they should be in the history section) and in the following styles: (b. 3009 - d. 3071) and (b. ? - d. ?).
• History - with child-sections breaking up the person's life into eras, if an appropriate amount of data is available on the character
• Personal Description - more than just a physical description, this can describe people's perceptions, the character's attitude or habits, hobbies, equipment, etc. Basically anything known that rounds out the character but doesn't fit into the History section.
• Source Analysis - this would be an optional section. It can be used to describe the validity of a in-universe source (such as doubtful or debatable information from another shady character (such as Starling), an intentionally shady source product (i.e., Interstellar Players) or even something that may fall outside the official CBT canon, but is still from a licensed source (such as from Ronin! (Scenario pack)) or the animated television show). This section can be done from a analyst's perspective (ather than a biographer's), with acknowledgement that some data might be doubtful. It is not to become a discussion area, but refined on the talk page (if necessary). In otherwords, it speaks from one voice.
• Notes - for anything either that doesn't fit into the History or Personal Description sections, or the adding Editor is unsure of how to add. If the latter case, following edits should be made to incorporate the material into appropriate sections. There should be no Trivia section; Notes is the closest that should come to this concept, but should itself be minimalized.
• See Also - this section provides links to other articles that are major sources of further information. The section should not be a repeat of every wikilink already evident in the article.
• References - should be included in every article, to prime the need for references. More details below, but the tag <references/> should be added immedately under the section title.
• Categories - also discussed below.

Anyhow...that's what I see as necessary for formatting. Anything that I'm missing, or that needs to be included or debated? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:07, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

Is this to supersede or supplement the current format? --Scaletail 19:06, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

Uhhhhh...gonna plead ignorance, my friend. I didn't see anything on the Project page; what is the current format? --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:27, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

Template:Biography. --Scaletail 21:50, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

References

Thare are two ways we can expect to see references handled in a character article:

1. the first is where an Editor just adds the book title (hopefully wikified) to the References section. This is fine for acceptance (of a new article), because at least the character's existance is easily verifiable. However it should be 'enhanced' with a bit more helpful data from a more experienced Editor...
2. This method uses the <ref></ref> tags, so that the information appears under the References section.

The second method is the 'proper method' for referencing that material. However, it needs a bit more refinement than that.

• Placing the references at the end of paragraphs, rather than in the paragraph. In my explorations in properly referencing material, I've found that references within the paragraph lead to a disjointed appearance within the paragraph and (sometimes) the need to replicate the same reference twice or more. I propose that the references all appear at the end of the paragraph. If the source is properly annotated, then anyone seeking to find the data in the source will only have to look thru the references listed at the paragraph and will find it within mere minutes of accumulating the source materials.
• Every paragraph, with the possible exception of the intro, needs to have references following it. The reason for this is now all the data within that paragraph now has a clear source(s).
• Use the Ref Name method when using a reference more than once. Scaletail taught me this method (guidance located here). In summary, when you have the same page of a book (as an example) being used more than once in the article, use <ref name=xxx></ref> for the first use of the reference, where xxx is any name you want. Thereafter, just use <ref name=xxx/> (note the / addition to close it out) at subsequent paragraphs. The advantages in this are twofold: it makes it easier than having to type out the whole reference again and it clears up the reference section, as the reference is listed only once, even if used numerous times.
• Reference format: this one may actually be the area that involves the most discussion, as preferred methods may differ. For the recent articles I've been working on, I use the following format:

source name (wikilinked & italicized), page number, section title.

ex: The Fall of Terra (scenariobook), pp 7, "Gathering Storm".

Unlike other more literary sites, we generally have good documentation on publisher, date of printing, etc., on the source article to which the ref is linked. So, I propose just identifying the source material, give the page name and where on the page it can be found. A minimalist approach, I believe. If a section (in the source material) spans multiple pages, then give the range of pages (ex: pp 7-10). I believe this approach gives more than just the exact passage needed; it also provides the context from which the article is derived.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:12, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

I'll disagree with you here. In-text citations don't foul up the readability, and in some cases are needed for clarity of reference (see Draconis Combine as an example). I also use a simplified format, even simpler in fact, but I like the idea of using the section title. --Scaletail 19:06, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

First off, that is a very-well documented article. And, yes, I have to agree that as a demonstration of intra-paragraph citations, it handles it well. In some of the articles I've written or improved upon, I've found two or more references for the same data point. With intra-paragraph citations, there would be an instance of having a ^[4][6][7] breaking up the sentences (and yes, I do feel that if multiple references can be cited, they should). It disrupts the feng shui (so just kidding). Single cites, I'll admit, don't disrupt the flow for me, but I do think finding the citations at the end allows your eyes to skip over them, if you're intending to follow the cites.

As for clarity of reference, I see your point.^[1] But I'd argue that you could have two-three sources all providing details on the same subject (of the paragraph).^[2] Source A provides the information for the 1st and 4th sentences, as demonstrated in this paragraph.^[3] Source B provides for the 2nd and 5th sentences.^[1] Source C provides for the 3rd and 4th sentences.^[2][3] And then you'd get something like this paragraph, when the article is fully and properly cited.

In the end-paragraph method, everything is accumulated at the end. As generally, you won't have more than three or four sources cited for any one paragraph, they will still be facts easily verified, because the cited sources are limited to those three or four sources. Granted: not nearly as directly attributed as intra-paragraphs, but still fully cited, and allows later Editors to not have to ensure that an inserted sentence isn't breaking up a cited references (for say 2-3 sentences that previously all came from the same source; broken up, they have to be individually re-cited, and its less than positive that the latest Editor will do that). See the previous (example) paragraph, where the first Editor used Source A for his first two sentences, only to have another Editor add 2 more sentences in-between. In this case, Editor #2 was thoughtful, and added another cite for Source A after the fourth sentence. ^[1][2][3]

However, I'll roll over on this point easily enough, if we do allow for end-of-paragraph cites as an alternative method.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:27, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

I guess, because of my background, the citations don't bother me as I'm used to seeing them. Your method makes it more difficult to look up citations, but easier to add information to the articles. There is a trade-off, and I'm not sure which one is better. I do think we should pick one so we don't end up with both strewn about, or even both within an article. Lastly, there is no reason for multiple citations for one sentence. You make one footnote and include all citations within that one. --Scaletail 21:50, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

Categories

Three things:

• Per the Category:People renamed to Category:Characters proposal, all character articles are to be gathered in the new Category:Characters.
• Per the directing proposal above, child categories are allowed. That gives us two parent categories (PeopleReal and Characters) and then a family tree down from the Characters parent. Most child categories will be in-universe based (i.e, House Davion or Khans), but there are two non-universe cats: Major Characters and Minor Characters. These two may develop their own child categories, but I propose they don't (otherwise we'll get variations on categories that deal with similar, but slightly different collections, which could be confusing because of similar naming conventions; ex: Davion Characters, Major Davion Characters).
• This is just a nitpick, and really not that important, but I propose we guide the order of the categories on the character article: the cats should appear below any displayable subject matter and be ordered in accordance with their parent-child ranking. Ex: Category:Characters, Category:House Davion Characters, Category:First Princes.--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:30, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

I agree. If we need child sub-categories later, we can discuss that then. --Scaletail 19:06, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

Dates

I'm unclear as to the intent of this issue in the proposal (yes, I know I wrote it). However, I'd say, like references, knowing when something occurred is an important fact. Specific dates, when provided, should be included and every sentence is assumed to be based on events that occurred since the last year mentioned (unless an unknown amount of time has passed, which should be indicated in the paragraph). Years should be wikilinked and, if possible and appropriate, that linked year article should have a brief entry as to the event quoted in the article (though trivalities, such as "Battle Magic bought three pounds of beans from a vendor on Outreach" should be avoided).--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:35, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

Years should be linked. --Scaletail 19:06, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

Deletion Requirements

The consensus was clear that there are few instances where deleting an article is appropriate. As it states in the Notability policy, any character that exists in a licensed BT product is eligible for an article; if its from an unlicensed article, then it is considered fanon, and labeled as such (this is from the Canon Policy under final review phase now). Therefore, if an article is written about a dubious character, it will either have references or it won't:

• If it does, then check the references.
  • If the reference is licensed, then it belongs in the majority side of BTW
  • If the references are unlicensed, then kick it to the fanon side, adding the appropriate tag and ensuring the categories are Custom.
• If it doesn't have references, tag it as needing references or a fanon tag within a set period of time (I say one month exactly) or it will be deleted. (We'll need to have a Deletions log available for archival purposes, explaining why.) After the set period of time, an Admin may delete it.

Frabby made the point in the proposal that any article that was to be deleted must have that character added to an appropriate minor character's list article. However, under the current rules where only dubious character articles would be deleted, that requirement is not necessary. However, if deletion rules expand to encompass other types of submissions, then by the consensus wording, Frabby's point is valid and mandated. --Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:50, 26 August 2008 (CDT)

Tag Development

I see at least three tags needing to be developed:

• article needs improvement, expandable to all details of what areas at a minimum are needed
• section needs improvement, indicating exactly what is wrong with that section
• article needs either fanon tag or licensed references within so many days or it will face deletion

--Revanche ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:57, 26 August 2008 (CDT)