Forum:Sector main page layout
This is from a discussion on my Talk page, and I thought I would bring it over here for a broader discussion. I am suggesting a change/update to the current outline used for the sector and subsector pages.
The major driver for this change is the Spinward Marches Sector page. As I complete the updates for the worlds from the Regency Sourcebook, we now have two major era's information to include on the sector page and no obvious way to include it.
This outline has been re-ordered slightly from my talk page. The biggest change (other than the simple moving of subsections) is the Political Astrography is duplicated by era. For the Spinward Marches there would be a Political Astrography: Milieu 1116 and a Political Astrography: New Era. The Solomani Rim Sector may have a Interstellar Wars, Milieu 990, Milieu 1116 sections and so on.
- Description
- Astrography
- Native Sophonts
- Mains, Traces, and Clusters
- Other Astrographic Features
- History
- All major historical events with links to longer articles and year pages
- Political Astrography -> by era
- Generated sector summary paragraph for the era
- World Listing
- Demographics
- Territorial Overview
- Subsector listing
- Polity Descriptions
- Major Powers plus sub divisions (e.g. Imperial Duchies and districts)
- Minor Powers
- References
Feedback and updates are appreciated. Tjoneslo (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2016 (EDT)
- I saw the Rhylanor updates on my talk page.
- As you note, the wiki's main purpose is to be the Imperial Encyclopedia. To that end the original goal was to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style. For this discussion the Layout description should be followed. In this case references like the meta-history should be placed at the end of the article.
- As previously discussed the long time style for the Traveller Wiki is to separate the Metadata/story/history from the main article. Either by putting on to a sub-page (like is done with the Talk and Meta pages) or by putting it into a differently colored box (like is done with the Sources box).
- In theory, the Sources box at the bottom of the page, if correctly filled out for an article, should supply the complete information about the sources and history of the article in both canon and non-canon. I feel that adding a second copy of this information is redundant.
- Tjoneslo (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2016 (EDT)
- The reason the T5SS is not included in the Sources template was for two reasons. First, it was included in the categories at the bottom of the page. I had assumed, and no one voiced a contradictory opinion, that it was sufficient. Second, when the T5SS work started it was not published anywhere. It was kept on Don's computer and sent to a select group of people.
- So neither of these is true any longer, and every sector page should have the Sources box updated with the Spinward Marches (for example) and the explicit notation about being part of the T5SS (or not) should be sufficient.
- Please be more specific about the "dead ends" you see in my suggested format. This is the point of having a discussion before changing 200, 2000, or 20,000 articles. Tjoneslo (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2016 (EDT)