User:Forgottenlord/Standards Proposals

Below are the various ideas I've had for standards. Some are ready to go to the SCoH as soon as it's ready, some still need work, but the general idea is down since it's been bouncing around in my head for a bit.

Really, bouncing - I have one hell of a headache

Quoting Standard
Individual quotes used at the start of a section or article can make it look much nicer and more interesting, but quote sections detract from the quality of an article. At the same time, they are things that people enjoy looking at. To bring out a balance, we have the Quoting standards:


 * 1) Quote sections should not be on an article's page. Instead, quote sections should be moved to a separate page (/Quotes) and leave a link on the main page using a template (to be developed - probably in a similar format to Wikipedia/Wikiquote)
 * 2) Singular quotes used to give context to a section in an article or the article itself should be made using the Quote template.

References Standard
Remember back in High School when….wait…..right – remember your audience. When you start learning about references and bibliographies (some of you probably have), you’re given this huge list explaining how to reference different types of sources – formatting, expected information, etc. While our references information tells you HOW to reference an article, it doesn’t tell you how to format it. It’s like teaching someone how to use MSWord for referencing. So this standard will pretty much act as that reference for showing that expected information and such

Battle Articles General Format Standard
As I said before, I’d like to standardize different classes of articles and give them some pretty general standards. Battle Articles would be the first that I’d like to standardize simply because I love doing them and I have a Standard that anyone that has read my work knows well. It pretty much follows this format: “Background” which goes over the causes of the battle, events that happened that lead up to it or important notes from previous battles that the user needs for context of later events; “The Battle” which pretty much details the battle itself. This can be subdivided as necessary; “Aftermath” which pretty much goes over notable details after the battle resolves, etc. Obviously, there are other things to add such as standardizing what is and isn’t relevant in the Battle Infobox, and other sections that could go in at the bottom of the page, but I’ll leave that for the actual discussion of the Standard itself

Categories Standard
Pretty much codifies what DC talked about in his blog. I don’t think I need to go into further detail

Article Quality Standards
In accordance with the ideas that Darth Tom’s been coming up with, we could build an article quality scale. Obviously, the highest level of quality is Featured Article, but we could have levels such as “Stub”, “Poor”, “Mediocre”, “Good”, and “Great” with clear distinctions on what constitutes each.

Main Article Standard
Ok, this is me getting ticked at Relentless over his Battle of Installation 05 where the most defining feature, IMO, is that the section covering the Battle of High Charity is LONGER than the actual article First Battle of High Charity. In cases like that, a summary should be put on the page with a Main Article reference to the page Battle of High Charity. I think we should also say something about when an article is, in fact, getting too long.