Xeno Series Wiki talk:Manual of Style

Date format

I propose to change the current date format (mainly used for release dates of games) from the American-style "Month DD, YYYY" to a more robust "YYYY/MM/DDDD" or "YYYY-MM-DDDD". This has the advantage of actually making sense and being easier to read. Alternatively, I'd also be happy if we switched to "DD Month YYYY", just anything but the American system. Would like to hear other opinions before I change the articles (and possibly put this in the Manual of Style to guarantee it stays uniform). Reggimato (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2022 (EDT)

Edit (more like an append): I found out that "~~~~" uses "DD Month YYYY" regardless of user preference, therefore I'd propose we stick with that so it stays uniform. Reggimato (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2022 (EDT)

I support 'DD Month YYYY' — it's unambiguous, widely used, arguably easier to read at a glance than YYYY-MM-DD, and makes sense. Rtg142857 (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2022 (EDT)

Yeah, "DD Month YYYY" is probably the best choice. I made a template Date that handles the formatting (and also the flags). Could be useful if we change our mind later. Reggimato (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2022 (EDT)

Since I've heard no objections, I'll edit this into the MOS later. Reggimato (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2022 (EDT)

I agree that we ought to pick a date format and enshrine it in the MoS as what we use everywhere, though I myself am indifferent as to what gets selected. I will also note that 1. I can change the wiki's automatic date display format (which would affect things like talkpage signatures) (edit: maybe not, I can't find it now but I thought I saw it somewhere previously) and 2. I don't think it should necessarily be required for talkpage signatures to follow this (only content pages). STM (t) 19:53, 18 April 2022 (EDT)

Translation quality

I'd like to add this passage somewhere. Maybe under "writing style", or maybe in its own "translations" section.

When translating text from other languages:

• Do not simply paste in a machine translation (e.g. Google Translate), especially for Japanese.
• Avoid translating only part of something. Save your work somewhere if you don't have the time to finish it, but "all-or-nothing" is the preferred method for pages. Among other reasons, partial translations make it hard for things like templates to detect whether a page should be marked as "needs translation" or not.
• Try to avoid copying a translation from elsewhere. We'd rather not depend on the accuracy of other sources. In a perfect world, all of the wiki's translations would be made "in-house".

Discuss. STM (t) 18:45, 4 May 2022 (EDT)

Looks good to me, although maybe something should be added for prioritising official translations if and when they exist. Common sense, but still probably worth a mention. Rtg142857 (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2022 (EDT)

Don't have anything more to say, looks all good to me. Reggimato (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2022 (EDT)

I think we've had more than enough time to discuss now. Reggimato (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2022 (EDT)

Yeah okay I'm adding it. STM (t) 09:14, 27 May 2022 (EDT)

Info on guiding page splits/merges

There's been some consternation recently about whether certain pages should be split or not, so I'm suggesting this addition to provide guidance on the topic.

Sometimes it can be debated whether two subjects should share a page, or whether they should have individual pages. Keeping them on separate pages is the default action because this makes it easy to comply with our spoiler policy, but sometimes it makes more sense to merge the two into one page. If all three of these are true, then merging should be considered:

• One page redirecting to the other (in either direction) is not a spoiler in and of itself.
• The game makes little or no attempt to hide that the two subjects are the same.
• The subjects are not of equal importance when compared to each other.

Of course, every case is unique, and the less clear-cut situations will need discussion to judge consensus.

Yup. STM (t) 11:45, 13 November 2022 (EST)

Can't think of any major issues with this, support. Rtg142857 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2023 (EDT)

I support --Dragon146 (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2023 (EDT)

Section headers on story-oriented pages

There seems to be some inconsistency with how section headers are labelled on story-oriented pages (compare the current Citan revision with the current Shulk revision). I propose that this be standardised to an extent.

Looking at the Shulk page as an example, it seems some pages use the following header scheme:

• Story arc: The events in the games' main story that are centred around the subject of the page, in the order that they are presented in-game.
  • This section may be forgone in some non-character cases where the story events aren't as centred around the page's subject and presenting in a chronologically-ordered 'Lore' section results in a more sensical organisation (e.g. the current organisation of the Gear page) — decided on a case-by-case basis.
• Lore: Additional canon details about the subject of the page which are not covered in the game's main story. This may include things covered in side content (like what's on the Shulk page wrt H2Hs) or canon extra material (such as what's currently mostly covered in the 'History' subsection of the Story arc section of the Citan page).
  • Given that there may be a lot of this (e.g. in Citan's case), organising chronologically in-universe where possible feels like a reasonable suggestion.
• Trivia: Meta information, such as discussion of the Uzuki/Van-man character archetypes, and non-canon matters such as Noah using Shulk's outfit.

To me, this seems like a good way to organise pages. The exact scheme can be tweaked (or reworked) — other opinions here are welcome — but I think suggesting in the MoS that some consistent header scheme be used where applicable would be beneficial. Rtg142857 (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2023 (EDT)

Having a general "what headers to include in which order" would indeed be good. Here's my suggestion:

• Appearance and personality (maybe named something different for non-characters)
• Story arc (in game order by default; in lore order if necessary)
• True appearance and personality (if applicable)
• Lore (additional canon details found in side content/non-game material)
• As a [gameplay feature] (in the order: main party member, side party member, NPC, enemy, boss, other mechanic)
• In [other media] (if there's only one, maybe using its name directly)
• Gallery
• Trivia (interesting stuff that doesn't belong in the lore section)
• In other languages

There would be a general note that this is a preferred framework, but there are many cases where a page might be better with something different. It would also not apply to any mostly data-based page (like enemies or collectables). STM (t) 11:42, 16 April 2023 (EDT)

Mostly works for me, but is there a justification behind Gallery -> Trivia -> Languages as opposed to what appears to be the more common Trivia -> Languages -> Gallery? (Not that 'we should do this because we've always done it' is a good justification, but the latter would mean fewer pages have to be reorganised.) Rtg142857 (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2023 (EDT)

For the Gallery part, we should divide them in sub-sections depending on the subject, E.G. Screenshots, Artwork, and so forth so the images don't become unorganized. --Dragon146 (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2023 (EDT)

I dunno, it just feels wrong for the gallery to be cutting off the trivia and languages from the bottom of the page. Taking a look around, most other NIWA wikis do either GLT or GTL - there must be a reason for it. STM (t) 12:57, 16 April 2023 (EDT)

Galleries

I added a section for galleries. We've informally discussed it in the Discord channel already, but if there are any concerns or additional proposals, feel free to submit here. Reggimato (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2023 (EDT)

Sourcing different "levels" of information

I brought this up on the Discord and there seemed to be interest, so I'm putting down a draft.

==Sourcing==
It is generally expected that any information found in an article does not require to be explicitly sourced if it can be easily (if perhaps not quickly) verified by anyone with access to the subject. If it is not so easy, it becomes more important to state the source.
* If the information is present in the work, but hard or impossible for the average person to find and verify, sourcing is not required but appreciated.
** Examples: hidden dialogue only visible under difficult conditions, datamined information
* If the information is not present in the work, the source must be specified in the text alongside the information. An exception can be made for infobox entries; they can be allowed to get away with only a rollover or a footnote tag.
** Examples: crossover game, artbook, developers' interview, model kit

DLC counts as the same work as the base game; a sequel does not.

STM (t) 21:03, 11 March 2024 (EDT)

For stuff like in game dialogue etc... I honestly want to say to require it, I know that sounds scary but if information someone is putting on the wiki is coming from a dialogue, surely they can take the two seconds to identify where in the game the dialogue is. Not sure if this would be too alienating for new contributors though. Zachruff (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2024 (EDT)

I agree except for the "the source must be specified in the text alongside the information" part. Using footnotes is common practice everywhere from Wikipedia to academic journals; I believe it should be sufficient for our purposes. (That being said, I agree the source should be clearly included somewhere.) Also, I think impossible-to-verify information should also have its source mentioned in some fashion. Rtg142857 (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2024 (EDT)

That's kind of the whole reason I'm suggesting this though. I want it to be extremely obtrusive and blatant, to have the info be almost cordoned off, when we are forced to use an inferior source for anything more than "character is 30 years old and smells like lilac". In fact I would actually prefer limiting such information to its own "lesser canon" section on the page, but I don't think anyone else would like that so I didn't go there. STM (t) 07:58, 12 March 2024 (EDT)

Fair enough, that does make sense, although in that case I'd suggest that this only apply when the respective "greater canon" could even exist (and the section be reworded as such). It shouldn't be necessary to inline every single source in (say) the bio section for a developer's page, since such sources aren't going to be "lesser" than others. Rtg142857 (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2024 (EDT)

I'd say "the bio section for a developer's page" is a different case because, for a subject like that, things like interviews are the primary/inside source rather than a secondary/outside one. STM (t) 18:57, 19 March 2024 (EDT)

Right, I'm saying the MoS's text should allow for that distinction. Maybe something like "If the article's topic is about something other than a game's content (e.g. the biography of a game developer), external sources do not need to be specified in the text alongside the information, but they should still be included."? Rtg142857 (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2024 (EDT)

How about adding this third bullet point?

* If the information is about something that isn't part of a work, sourcing is strongly recommended.
** Examples: articles about a game itself, articles about developers

STM (t) 21:12, 19 March 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, that works. I'm borderline as to whether it should be required, especially when it's people we're talking about. Rtg142857 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2024 (EDT)

I wouldn't mind slapping "If it's information about a real-world person, sourcing is mandatory." on the end there, as long as this doesn't lead to twelve footnotes per paragraph or something. STM (t) 07:57, 20 March 2024 (EDT)

I'd be happy with that - I think it's almost always better to be on the safe side in those situations. Rtg142857 (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2024 (EDT)

Sounds

There's a persistent demand for the wiki to allow sound uploads. My chief concern with this is that our main competitor (the wikia/fandom) has significant amounts of voice clips uploaded (I think they have every single XC2 post-battle line), so our editors are likely to want us to do the same to "keep up". But I don't want the wiki to be used like it's sounds-resource.com because it stretches the boundaries of fair use - we should only host as many files as we need, not every file in the game indiscriminately. So, I propose changing the "Images" section to be called "Files", and adding this to it:

Voice clips and other sounds are only to be uploaded for specific illustrative purposes. Do not upload all of a character's lines just for the purpose of us having all the lines.

STM (t) 22:22, 19 May 2024 (EDT)

Sounds good, support. Rtg142857 (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2024 (EDT)

Support --Dragon146 (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2024 (EDT)

Support, though I would appreciate more clarification on what qualifies as a 'specific illustrative purpose'. --ToxicPea (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2024 (EDT)

Basically, the point is that there should be a purpose for uploading the sound that isn't just "so we can have the sound". There needs to be a reason that just text is not good enough. STM (t) 12:32, 8 June 2024 (EDT)

I'm passing this. STM (t) 16:26, 21 June 2024 (EDT)

Infoboxes overlapping through sections

When a page section is relatively short but contains an infobox (which is especially the case on character pages, in particular for "As an NPC" sections; see e.g. Wunwun), the height of the infobox may exceed the height of the section. In this case, the infobox will poke through into lower sections, often disrupting the horizontal line of a level 2 header. This is not ideal, but the alternative - using Template:Clear to force the lower section to go below the bottom of the infobox - is also not ideal, as it results in a substantial amount of blank space in the middle of the page.

I suggest that we decide on one of the two styles and add it to the MoS so that at least it can be coherent across the wiki. As for which one, I propose the use of Clear with extra blank space - partially because this prevents infoboxes from entirely pushing out lower infoboxes from their own sections, but mostly because of personal preference. Rtg142857 (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2024 (EST)

I think the correct choice is reliant on the subsequent content. If the hanging item (any image, not just an infobox) isn't in the way of anything but a bunch of prose, that's okay to allow filling the blank space. If the hanging item is getting in the way of a table or another infobox, then clearing it out instead is correct. STM (t) 20:19, 9 November 2024 (EST)

Official names being changed in a remake

There seems to be some evidence that the Verus is being renamed the Wels in XCXDE, so we should probably figure out now what we're doing for all potential cases (not just this one). I think the page should remain unchanged because it's the first official name (it's not like a fan name is being supplanted), and in general we default to the original version of something rather than the most recent. Any dissenting opinions? STM (t) 08:56, 13 January 2025 (EST)

I agree on keeping the old name just because in case they change more things like 600 weapons, it would be a pain changing everything. Although the new name definitely needs to be a redirect to the page with the old name, and the first phrase should something like "Verus (called Wels in the Definitive Edition) is a...". --Palvo1420 (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2025 (EST)