FANDOM

9,276 Pages

Forum: The Situation Room > Character headings (again)

Guess it's time to get into this again. I have two ideas for how to reorganize character articles - they're not one and the same, but the first leads into the other. Here goes:

  • Remove superfluous "Day X" headings for characters that are in one or few episodes of a single season.
I'm no longer in favor of completely eliminating "Day X" from in-universe articles; it would just make things more confusing and reduce the helpfulness of articles overall. However, I do not see the need to have articles where, immediately after saying "Character X was a Y in Day Z," there is a heading for "Day Z." It's stated no fewer than three other places near the top of the page - the season icons, the sidebar, and almost always in the introductory sentence. Personally, I find that it disrupts the flow of the article, and for navigation it's virtually never necessary since, for the most part, these articles are short enough to be read entirely without scrolling down very far. I know it's in keeping with how the longer character articles handle chronology, but it's simply not required for stubs like P. Collins or Joel Levine. That leads into the second idea:
  • Reorganize longer articles under a single h2 "Biography," with descriptive subheadings of the form "Day X{: Optional Description}"
I've never been a fan of the "Before Day X", "Day X", "After Day X" system. It makes logical sense - and admittedly, my idea follows the same basic principle - but in my mind it's not IU "enough," if that makes any sense. Plus it's not applicable to expanded universe characters. What I've done with Ira Gaines and Kevin Carroll is what I feel the character articles should aspire to - treating them as if they're biographies of real people, while keeping "Day X" in the subheadings so that readers don't get totally lost. Essentially: h2 for "Biography," h3 for "Day X" or "After Day X" (using better descriptors), and h4 for individual "acts" of each season. It's a bit of work, but I feel it makes a huge difference in quality, and the basic structure is already in place. --Pyramidhead (talk) 20:13, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
Overall my perspective is if it isn't broken, we don't need to fix it. I just don't agree that any of this requires attention at all. And the headings for the smaller character articles are visually consistent... there's nothing superfluous about consistency. They're major visual milestones and veteran editors look for them immediately. The idea that "Day X" isn't IU is accurate, I agree, but inserting some arbitrary text in there is, well, as equally arbitrary as a "Day X" heading. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 02:11, August 25, 2013 (UTC)
At the very least, I'd like to make it optional to use or not use the headings. It seems wrong to use the headings as some kind of automatic signpost regardless of whether or not the page is long enough to justify them. Remember that their main purpose is to organize and make it easier to navigate to a particular topic - something that's certainly called for on a page like Chloe O'Brian, but really not on one like Bannon. My view is that, since (unlike the sidebar) the "Day X" format doesn't easily apply for every character - all the mentioned and real-world ones, for example - it's not right to force it on them all. Trivial stuff, I agree, but I think it's a way to encourage more creative article writing and make it more case-by-case rather than relying on guard rails. Acer, do you have any preference on this? Just ask because I notice some of your edits recently go along with (or at least didn't undo! :)) what I'm proposing. --Pyramidhead (talk) 18:56, March 13, 2014 (UTC)
I was firmly of the opinion that having "Day X" headings for all the articles should be the standard, but after seeing some of the smaller pages being changed to without them, I think I'm now leaning towards being less dogmatic about having them on every article. I agree that some articles are so small that the heading clutters them up, and if the paragraphs have citations after them you can instantly see which season is being talked about anyway. I think I agree with the headings being optional, and a judgement call on whether or not they are appropriate for the article--Acer4666 (talk) 19:48, March 13, 2014 (UTC)
Pyramidhead your work has always been excellent, as all longtime editors will agree. But on this one point, we've always had a major difference. Please understand there's nothing superfluous about our headers. They are not strictly for navigation, especially since many editors turn off the TOC in their preferences Wikia-wide. They are also crucial visual mile-markers that we have had in this project since the wiki began, for all articles. To make arbitrary removals will erase the consistency. They are the biggest visual cues regarding just what season that topic is exactly about, bigger certainly than the sidebar, the little tiny icons, and the introductory sentence. You, me, Acer, and the veteran editors pretty much know every season/spin-off that all our content is sourced from... so we don't need the headers... but the vast majority of 24 fans generally aren't as rabid as we are. They need the cues, and so do the casual visitors we want to attract. Replacing them with "creative headers" will turn Article A into its own little microcosm of Editor 1's chosen headers, Article B into a little microcosm of Editor 2's preferred headers, and so on.
Creative article writing is key to maintaining a quality wiki. If the content sucks, its wiki will suck. But suddenly undoing a system of clearly-understandable header consistency is not equivalent to creative writing! It's a shell of a substitute for creative writing. In huge articles, you can definitely make creative sub-headings. But the major ones should stay. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 23:17, March 13, 2014 (UTC)
I'm not trying to undo the system we have - it's simply the same system moved down a tier! - but it would benefit from a little flexibility. Whatever the interest level of the average reader, it seems to me that what's most important is that they can quickly tell what season or thing the article is relevant to, and 99% of the time that is done within the first sentence by writing "during Day X" or "before Day X." We obviously disagree on this point, but to me (and others, apparently) it's jarring and redundant to then have a header breaking up the page to restate that information, when the content of the article is no more than a couple sentences. Yes, using the headers everywhere is a long-standing tradition, but so was the spoiler policy, and after a great discussion we decided that it was no longer best serving the site's mission. Again, the basic article format stays exactly the same as it is now while allowing the freedom to modify or discard it for pages where it just doesn't make sense to use. Between the intro, the citations, the sidebar, and so on, there's really no danger that someone will be completely lost without this one element. --Pyramidhead (talk) 19:08, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if we're just discussing character pages here, but other in-universe pages follow the same visual style as them, so I'd bring up as an example Edwards Air Force Base. The page has four 1-2 sentence long sections each from a different season, and as it currently is (without a separate header for each sentence) looks good and clear what comes from what etc. I think with the headings in it looks a lot worse and weird to have 4 sections with such a tiny bit of writing in each one. The effect isn't quite as bad with the small character pages (because they only ever have one section), but the argument of a consistent visual style would suggest that if we agree the Edwards AFB page (and other similar iu pages) benefits more from losing the headings when appropriate, then we can do the same for the small character pages too--Acer4666 (talk) 20:10, March 17, 2014 (UTC)
Good example! In general, I think it's fine to have separate paragraphs starting with "During Day X" or working in the season some other way. For pages that have either a lot of seasons or a lot of info on one particular season, we can use the History/Biography/Service record/whatever h2 and then use h3's for Day 1, Day 2, etc. like on United States Air Force. I think just using h3s instead of h2s goes a long way to making the pages feel less fractured. --Pyramidhead (talk) 21:03, March 17, 2014 (UTC)
I may not have been around so much recently, but if my opinion counts for anything I thought I'd throw it in! My immediate reaction would be to agree with Blue Rook because I can see the benefit of consistency, and a restriction of personal choice article titles - there certainly is something to be said for the difference between writing a creative article and a creative header. An article can be creative but a title needs to be succinct, and the best way to do that is to limit it to 'Day X'. That being said, Edwards Air Force Base is a good example. Do you propose that for single-season characters there would be no header whatsoever, or would they have a 'biography' header. I would argue that if it was the latter, it certainly seems like a lot of effort for very little gain, because we still have just as many headers so the TOC will still be there, but it will be a huge job to go and change them all. Furthermore if we come up with as frequent subsections for, say Charles Logan as you have done for Ira Gaines, the TOC would be gigantic.
So this is quite a roundabout way of agreeing with Blue Rook's initial statement that if it aint broke don't fix it: I don't see what real benefit this is to the site overall besides a huge re-chronicling job which will leave the Wiki temporarily disorganised as it will take a lot of time to sort it all out. --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 22:41, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
The goal isn't necessarily to get rid of the TOC, as that can be done manually - it's just to allow the exclusion of "Day X" headers where they aren't needed. Conversely, yes - some of the TOCs are going to be long and complicated, but that only happens for pages important enough to warrant it. Logan is one of the most important characters in the show and has a lot of distinct arcs and roles in the story. In any event, that table of contents would look far better and more thorough than the "Day X", "After Day X", "Day Y", etc. mess that it is now, in my opinion. I think part of my issue is the h2's bottom border and how having a lot of them close together fractures the page; the h3s are much better in that regard.
For single-season characters, I think organization should depend on how much they "did" in that season - for example, there's no need for any headers whatsoever on something like P. Collins, whereas Cole Ortiz has some pre-Day 8 info and there's enough in the main section to further divide into "Hassan assassination attempt", "Nuclear fuel rods crisis", etc. So basically, you would only subdivide an article or section if there's enough material to justify doing so:
  1. Below length threshold: first sentence describing person's significance and the relevant season(s) ("during Day 8" or "before Day 1"), one or more paragraphs giving context and describing their actions. If more than one season, multiple paragraphs beginning "During Day 5" summarizing what they did.
  2. Above length threshold: first sentence as above, followed by an h2 - usually "Biography" but potentially "Service history" or something similar for all the CTU drones if you want - followed by h3s titled "Day X" and sections that follow the current method.
Keep in mind that it's really not a radical change - for almost all pages, the only thing that will change is the addition of the "Biography" h2 and changing the "Day X" h2s into h3s, while others will simply lose the "Day X" h2. In terms of the number of pages that would be changed, it might be a lot of work, but honestly, I don't think it warrants a concerted effort - just that we organize new articles this way from now on and change old ones over as we continue to edit them. I'd be willing to do most of the legwork myself; I've been putting off a bunch of new edits from my last rewatch anyway. --Pyramidhead (talk) 00:14, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
With respect, I still just don't agree to any of this. The reason behind your proposal, as far as I can tell, is that you feel small articles are "fractured" and the headers are "jarring". I find nothing jarring about them; they've been this way forever, and I cannot recall anyone else ever trying to change it. Also, changing this now would be abolishing the consistency. Isn't that nearly a definition of fractured? The only part I can see adding would be "During" Day X, but it would be an overwhelming workload for an extremely trivial change with utterly trivial benefit. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 05:15, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
Article aesthetics is a side benefit - I proposed this because I wanted to reconcile the work I've done on pages like Victor Drazen with the way these articles were done in the past. If we're really insisting on sticking to how it's always been done, that article - and many others - will have to be reverted to "Before Day 1" and "Day 1." Then you have articles like John F. Kennedy, whose pages would become one massive "Before Day 1" section. Do you really think these would be preferable to the way they are now? I don't! I want to be able to organize articles in a way that makes sense based on the content, and the current standard doesn't let us.
As for the workload, the bulk of it will consist of routine edits for the characters listed here and here. I totally agree that it's trivial, which is why I'd be more than happy to knock these out myself in a couple hours - wouldn't be the first time! --Pyramidhead (talk) 21:02, March 31, 2014 (UTC)
I think we may be getting to a point where we can both agree.
Yes, JFK's info should be beneath a "Before Day 1" header because everything about him happened before Day 1. The seasons are the reference points for everything, and it always has been, for a reason: this is a wiki about a television show. As an opinion, articles missing those headers look like garbage, just disorganized sentences floating around. But that is just my opinion, and your opinion differs, so when we both back up out of the subjective, the objective thing here is that my view reinforces consistency. But it is negotiable. It's great to have the Victor Drazen article without "Before Day 1", like you made it (and as it is as of this post) because there is a "Day 1" present as the benchmark. I would not change that. Just please, let's put this to rest, and agree to keep at least 1 Day/Before Day benchmark, for all articles, and especially to cease erasing them from any character articles. You can rock out with descriptive subheadings, etc., for larger articles, but the idea of crusading around and erasing them from smaller articles, puts me off contributing here the same way the idea of making spin-offs a separate canon had threatened to put off Proudhug from contributing. What do you say? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:52, May 15, 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, I still think certain articles (eg something like Bill (Kim's friend) or the Edwards AFB page) are better without headers. As a compromise, what are people's thoughts on changing all H2 "Day X" headers into H3? This would be consistent with the longer articles where the Day X's are h3 (because theyre subsections of biography or whatever), still gives a reference point like Blue Rook is concerned with, and loses the long horizontal line which would hopefully make the articles look less fractured. And this should hopefully be a fairly simple bot task to implement?--Acer4666 (talk) 17:55, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
I assume, if we were going to be really consistent, we would put ==Biography== on every character page, followed by some number of subheadings. But I still don't see why it's so necessary to do that in EVERY situation. It's like if we were to take the article structure for Kiefer Sutherland and require that every new actor article be written that way. We know that Marine #4 is only ever going to be in Day 9, so there's no point in having a "Biography" section that's never going to exceed a paragraph. It's obvious that the real JFK doesn't have an active role in the series, so you don't need to point out that he lived and died before Day 1. It just seems to me like we're being needlessly fixated on a standard that, yes, is helpful most of the time, but really isn't necessary the rest of the time. It's also odd that it's absolutely essential for characters, but no other IU articles - I don't see what's so ugly about Semtex or Van Nuys Boulevard, for instance, and they go by the exact same principle. Plus, dividing solely by "Day X" signposts isn't workable for all of the EU-only characters - someone like Zapata with a ton of backstory, for example.
It sort of defeats my goal in doing this, but if we're happy with ==Biography==, ===Day 9===, etc. I'd be okay with using that on all the character pages that currently have the h2 headings. But I believe they should not be required for mentioned-only characters - all the real-life Presidents, for example. How does that sound? --Pyramidhead (talk) 18:37, May 20, 2014 (UTC)
Okay - we need to come to a decision on this. I'm tired of having to tiptoe every time I make the slightest change to article organization. I'm sorry that not having headings is so off-putting to you, Blue Rook, but to be frank: nobody else but you seems to have a problem with using or not using them on a case-by-case basis. I can point you to a number of new character articles - Cutler, Harris, Harwell, etc. - which other editors made, without headings, and which I had no part in reorganizing. I know I've been prone to making sweeping changes (and not always sensible ones) with absolutely no support in the past, but this isn't one of them. I was willing to compromise, but now I feel fairly confident saying that, at the very least, the majority of editors tacitly support my original proposal. Which is, essentially: use "Biography" and subheadings where it's justified; use only paragraphs where it isn't.
Only semi-related, but Memory Alpha - which this project is largely based on - specifically advises against using unnecessary headers. I can't disagree with the following: "Headers are a useful way to divide the content of an article into appropriate parts (see Section). However, do not use an excessive number of headers, because the article will start to look cluttered, the more headers there are. Try to avoid creating one-paragraph sections, for example. (In these cases, perhaps bullet point lists would be more appropriate.)"Guide to layout --Pyramidhead (talk) 01:49, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

Proudhug used Memory Alpha as inspiration for this wiki, before either of us were here, and Proudhug created the precedent for the system I'm defending. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 03:25, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

And? There are a lot of aspects of how the wiki used to work that we've rightly moved on from - just because it started one way doesn't make that way sacred, or the best option. The fact that the most active contributors on the site are already adopting this, without intervention, speaks volumes. I'd also add that, back in 2005, content from the TV show greatly outnumbered content from the spinoffs, so of course it made sense to just divy everything up by season. I don't know about the exact proportion now, but it's certainly not as lopsided as it used to be, so something less restrictive is called for. --Pyramidhead (talk) 04:59, June 30, 2014 (UTC)
So you brought up MA to use as an example, but when I state that the header system I'm defending was taken from MA, MA suddenly becomes a bad example? Also, the occasional newer editor following your example does not "speak volumes", it just indicates that your disruption of the consistency is muddying the water for other editors who are looking for precedent.
And look. (1) Your examples are maddeningly inconsistent. The rest of your work on James Harman is, of course, excellent, but look at what you're doing to his headers. 1 Biography, 1.1 Career, 1.2 "Day 9". That's 3 divisions; 3 headers. At this point, I feel like I'm being pranked. You already are aware that the existing system calls for 2 divisions; 2 headers. And yet you've been stating that the reduction of "excessive" headers is one of your goals.
Would you be willing to finally let this go? None of it adds up. It opens the floodgates to inconsistency, and in even increases the number of headings with extraneous things like "Biography".... in a character article. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 22:40, June 30, 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure Thief12 would appreciate being called a "newer" editor. But that aside...
  1. You're dead wrong about this "system" coming from Memory Alpha. The short pages generally use no headings at all ([1], [2], [3]) while the more complex ones are organized in a way that makes sense based on the amount of information ([4], [5]) - exactly what I'm proposing here! If you were under the impression that they go by "TNG Season 1", "TNG Season 2" etc. you're mistaken.
  2. Once again, you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding me. I've been over this dozens of times... Yes, longer articles are still subdivided, because there's a ton of info to include. For a page as long as James Harman, I couldn't care less about two vs. three subheadings. I'd prefer to go with "Biography" because a) it's supposed to be about a "real" (albeit fictional) person; b) it jibes better with using "History" for locations/objects; and c) it doesn't telegraph that it's from a TV show right when you start reading. I'm against using unnecessary headers where it makes no sense to use them.
  3. Why should I "let this go"? You're the one person who is objecting. The others who've weighed in either agree, or at least don't object as long as it's not too much work. Since it can be done automatically (for the most part) and people are already doing it, it won't be. --Pyramidhead (talk) 23:43, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

You are not accepting how certain character headings should be like. I think some of the current headings are okay. I think headings "Before Day 7" and "Day 7" are a good way to describe the biography of the characters and the longer ones would be sub-divided without shortening the worlds like Day 7 and the current events of the characters in a season. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:19, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely! It would be foolish to completely remove "Day X" from the headings and I'm not suggesting that. Ira Gaines, Victor Drazen, Chloe O'Brian, James Heller - these all follow what I'm after, and you'll notice they're still largely divided by season. But you don't need to divide an article like Marlow when you can read what season he was in, and what he did, in the space of thirty seconds. --Pyramidhead (talk) 00:23, July 1, 2014 (UTC)
Another thing is that we should link the sections of each season like Day 1, Day 7, etc. So we can have links to whatever seasons the heading sections are. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:59, July 1, 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary - it usually crops up in the article text, and definitely does in the sidebar and the end sections. --Pyramidhead (talk) 07:18, July 1, 2014 (UTC)
I guess you're right. Nevermind. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:23, July 1, 2014 (UTC)
Not to muddy the water of this debate, as I've made my position clear already, but I have to take issue with Pyramidhead saying that the new Day 9 articles are an example of editors "adopting it without intervention". Unless you call editing the newpage templates to remove the header "no intervention". This happened with actor pages too, changed layout without any discussion, and now we have different styles of pages for new pages inconsistent with all the old ones. If you want to change the layout, fine, but everyone needs to agree and know about it - we all need to be on the same page!--Acer4666 (talk) 23:03, July 1, 2014 (UTC)
Guilty, but when I updated that template I was also trying to account for the fact that many new characters are mentioned-only and wouldn't necessarily need the headers even with the status quo. Besides which, assuming we are okay with the pages I reworked before this whole fiasco - Ira Gaines, Victor Drazen, etc. - that header would still need to go. The point I was trying to make about other editors going along was that, contrary to Blue Rook's position, not having an immediate h2 for "Day X" is not a site-breaking catastrophe. If it were, surely one of these "newer" editors (or you) would have put it back, no? --Pyramidhead (talk) 23:19, July 1, 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I realize now that it's pretty shady to alter such a central template without talking about it first, regardless of my intentions. I'll be sure to avoid it from now on. --Pyramidhead (talk) 23:38, July 1, 2014 (UTC)
Acer brings up an important point. Regarding character articles, we haven't made any headway with it. But is important to remember that consensus doesn't change as soon as something is challenged. The consensus has not changed with this, so by default these things should be reverted until it has. I'm fine with subheadings under a "Day X" or a "Before Day X" heading, so I will not be reverting any of those. But the "biography" heading, the removal of headings from character articles, all those, are liable to be reverted. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 02:12, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with Pyramidhead's suggestions on having biography on those who have background information revealed (James Harman, Jim Ricker, Viktor Grigorin etc). But for characters like Witt or Michaels, I think Biography might be inappropriate (or at least for me). The current "Day X" section on these pages are just fine.
As for those single-season or single-episode characters, it's up to the characters themselves. Characters like Baker or Ken Williams, we don't really have much to say about them so we can merge it altogether. But characters like Koo Yin, whose page has rather long contents so if we remove the headings the page could be a mess. So I think headings are optional and we really don't need to stick to consistency. --William (talk) 04:25, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
Fair points. For all the CTU goons I think it might make more sense to use "Service record", or "CTU missions", instead of "Biography", since really all we know about them is a few missions they went on. As for Koo Yin and the like, I honestly don't think there would be a problem with having no headers there - he appeared in one episode, and while there's a good amount to unpack, the entire article is about that one episode; there's no "other" sections to be had there. All of this is to say, I just don't believe it's necessary or logical to shoehorn every single article into following the exact same layout - if "Service record" applies better to a given article's contents than "Biography", then so be it! By the nature of the show, many things can (and will continue to) be divided by "Day X", "Day Y", and so on - but not everything can, nor should it. --Pyramidhead (talk) 07:42, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
New subheadings are fine, but I disagree that we can arbitrarily start deciding to trash the old header system at individual users' whims. Everybody wins if we leave the old headers alone and also use new ones where large size calls for it. Let's leave it at that. Pyramidhead what you have been suggesting is closer to creative chaos than consistency. Again, we can both be satisfied if descriptive subheadings are used as breakouts where size is concerned, but always keeping our consistent system of headings which has been maintained by something like 7 years of user sweat and toil. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 00:00, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

Since I've been on the sideline through most of this discussion, I'm writing aside of all the above.

First I'd like to clarify something, since it was brought repeatedly through the last paragraphs, which was the use (or lack of) of the "Day X" headings in new character articles. Pyramidhead brought up Cutler, Harwell, etc. which were all created by me, without the "Day X" heading, but I don't want that to be taken as an acceptance (or rejection) of Pyramidhead's preferences. Like Acer stated, I didn't use the "Day X" heading because the template didn't have them, I didn't even notice, and I really didn't give much thought to it while creating the articles.

With that clarified, I'll share some thoughts on the issue. I do see the advantages and disadvantages on both sides; I think some of the work Pyramidhead has done with the headings in some articles looks pretty cool, but I also understand Blue Rook's concern for consistency and standardization.

I think that the first thing we need to put forward is what we want the purpose of the wiki to be. What do we want it exactly to be? A source for who? How do we want the "uneducated" viewer to see/read the articles? For perspective, I checked out that James T. Kirk article on Memory Alpha that was posted above and, although I do agree it looks pretty much like a real biography, for someone who doesn't know much about Star Trek like me, it gives me no idea of what happened when in respect to the show or the films; at least from the TOC. So I do think the "Day X" headings are important, and easy to follow, considering that the "days" are the basis and cornerstone of the show – and hence the wiki. Plus, since this is pretty much a linear show, with no flashbacks, it isn't that difficult to apply and enforce.

I'm also a bit wary of more "creative" headers for reasons similar to the ones that Blue Rook posted above. It just opens up the door for some arbitrary and subjective edits in how the article is organized (will everyone agree on how the plots and subplots are divided for each character?) and how the heading itself is written. We know that articles edited by veteran editors like ourselves will probably stand up to quality, but if we want to encourage more inexperienced users to edit (again, what is our goal?), having them come up with what might be subjective article divisions and headings could cause more harm than benefits.

Finally, the fact that there is such a strong disagreement between two veteran editors is a clear signal that the idea, regardless of how useful it might be, needs polishing to satisfy both sides. So I think that we could all go back to the drawing board, keep looking for alternatives to make our articles more attractive, but equally streamlined and easy to navigate, not only for us, but for whoever stumbles here. Again, this isn't a complete disregard on Pyramidhead's suggestions. I do like some of his ideas, but I do think others need more work. Thief12 (talk) 01:26, July 10, 2014 (UTC)

My main problem, I think, is that when you start reading an article and see "== Day 1 ==", it immediately breaks the "illusion" of in-universeness. With the way the show is, it's unavoidable, but there's a fine line to walk - I don't know why it seems so much more "real" to put that "Day 1" in the text itself, or in an h3, but it does, to me at least. I agree that keeping "Day X" in the subheadings is important, and pretty much every article divided that way will stay that way - there's no danger of losing that, whatever we decide. As far as "creative" titles go - 90% of the time, it's impossible to succinctly describe a particular season, so in practice it's going to still be just "Day X".
The really big point of contention seems to be on single-season pages. There's just no need to insist on divying up the main, when the very first sentence - and probably others - say "during Day X." The need to delineate each topic doesn't exist on those articles, and neither does the need for that heading. Anyway - Really appreciate your input, Thief - sorry if I misrepresented you. :) Check out the guide I just wrote and see if you have any thoughts! --Pyramidhead (talk) 01:44, July 10, 2014 (UTC)
Just drafted a new character article guide incorporating all of this. (Plus, it was out of date in a lot of other ways.) Hopefully it clears up or clarifies some questions. I don't think it's "chaos"; it's just recognizing that not everything needs to be arranged the same way. The biggest fan wikis on the internet - Memory Alpha, Wookieepedia, I can go on - they all get by with general guidelines for how articles are written, not mandating what section goes where. I don't think it's outlandish to trust that editors (and readers) can find their way without this one outdated stricture. --Pyramidhead (talk) 01:34, July 10, 2014 (UTC)


Any thoughts or objections on this guide? I think it's a good middle ground - it makes allowance for more flexible organization, while also ensuring that the "Day 1", "Day 2", headers will still be present where they are called for. The fact is, if we are okay with having no headers on certain location/object articles - which I know Acer and Simon are, at least - it's completely arbitrary to continue to require them for characters. --Pyramidhead (talk) 19:09, July 16, 2014 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.