WikiNarnia talk:WikiNarnia Format

Re-constructed Policy Page

 * The policy page isn't quite up-to-date. It hasn't been significantly edited since 2006, and there have been many discussions and decisions made since then. During the most recent wiki chat (see The Chronicles of Narnia Wiki/chat), it was decided that we should update both the clean-up page and the wiki policy page with our conclusions. This is the preliminary outline I came up with for the new policy page. Section I is about definitions; Section II is essentially a more categorised version of the old wiki policy; Section III is mostly concerned with the decisions discussed on The Chronicles of Narnia Wiki/chat; Section IV is the beginning of an attempt to formulize the organization of articles a little bit more; and Section V is an introduction to using the wiki. These last two are just my ideas, not a result of wiki community discussion, and they may or may not need to end up on the final policy.
 * Although most of the policies expressed herein are the result of wiki community discussion, they are not set in stone, so please feel free to discuss them here. Also, my way of organizing the policies into sections has not been discussed as a group at all, so feel free to critique those. Once again, this is a preliminary version, and it's here to be discussed before we actually do anything more final with it. This discussion is open both to longtime contributors and to new members. If you're new to the Wiki, you can especially help by commenting on whether the definitions in Section I make any sense. (Please discuss changes in a separate section below--not in the "Suggested Re-organization" section--for readability. Thanks!) Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 22:26, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

Current Policy Summary

 * Definition of Narnianization/introduction
 * Section 1: British English
 * Section 2: Write in-universe (and intro movie template)
 * Section 3: Past Tense
 * Section 4: Encyclopedia=>no opinions, with 5 exceptions
 * Section 5: How to deal with OOU stuff—brackets for a sentence, “Trivia,” “Notes,” or Behind the Scenes” for a section, OOU Template for article
 * Section 6: Don’t mention book titles
 * Section 7: Grammar and no fan-fic
 * Section 8: Quote template
 * Examples
 * Adapt template

Suggested Re-organization
(Note: I will use lettered/Roman numeraled, not numbered, sections, in order to distinguish suggested new sections from old sections. We may well want to change the letters to numbers later; this is just for clarity as we discuss the two different policy page organizations.)
 * Definition of Narnianization/introduction/adapt template (essentially unchanged from current version): The Chronicles of Narnia Wiki Format, or WikiNarnia Format, is a set of guidelines for writing all Narnia Wiki articles in a systemized, uniform fashion—a process that will be called Narnianisation (Narnianization) or Narnianising— in order to maintain a sense of consistency throughout the wiki and help prevent disputes among users.


 * Section I: Definitions
 * A. In-universe (abbreviated IU): “In-universe” describes anything that exists in the fictional alternate reality in which all of the Chronicles are factually true. All of the places, people, and events described by the books are in-universe. Also, it is possible for a thing to be both in-universe and real. For example, Lewis and the Chronicles are IU. (That is, in the fictional alternate universe in which the books’ events occurred, Lewis actually wrote the books.)
 * B. Movie-universe: This one's more complicated. Movie-universe describes anything that exists in the fictional alternate reality in which all of the movies are factually true, but NOT in the fictional alternate reality in which all the books are true. For example, Lucy Pevensie is NOT movie-universe, because she exists in both the books and the movies. The Green Mist is movie-universe because it exists in the movies and not in the books. Any article about something movie-universe should have the Movie template. (See Section V, Templates.)
 * C.Out-of-universe (abbreviated OOU): If you understand IU and Movie-universe, this one’s easy: Anything that is not IU or Movie-universe is OOU. (Movie actors, for example.) Any article about something OOU should have the Out-of-universe template. (See Section V, Templates.)
 * D. Canon: “Canon” applies to anything that describes in-universe things. For example, the books are canon because all of the events, people, and places described by the books are in-universe. (That is, they exist in the alternate reality in which the books are factually true.)
 * E. Movie Canon: "Movie Canon" applies to anything that describes movie-universe things. For example, all of the movies are movie canon. (In other words, Movie Canon is to Movie-universe as Canon is to in-universe.)
 * F. Deserving of an article: This is distinct from all of the previous terms. There are IU, OOU, and Movie-universe things that do deserve their own articles, and there are things from each category that don't deserve their own articles. For example:Lucy Pevensie (IU), Ben Barnes (OOU), and The Green Mist (Movie-universe) all deserve articles, but Zebras (IU), individual creatures seen only in movie concept art (OOU), and Pig People (Movie-universe; see Beast) do not.

'
 * Section II: In general, articles should be written as if Narnia Wiki were a formal encyclopedia about actual historical events. (This section contains essentially the same information as the old policy page. I haven't fully typed out the information, because we can just use what's on the page already for the most part. I suggest we use good/bad examples throughout, instead of the big one at the end on the current policy page.)
 * A: Historical Point of View
 * Historical Perspective (Old Section 2): All in-universe and movie-universe articles should be written from a historical perspective-- that is, as if Narnia is an actual place and all of the Chronicles are factually true.
 * Past Tense (Old Section 3): All in-universe and movie-universe articles should be written in the past tense--as if this wiki were a historical encyclopedia about real events.
 * How to deal with OOU stuff (Old Section 5): There are some topics relevant to the Narnia Wiki which cannot be made into in-universe or movie-universe articles (see Section III). Articles about these topics should have an out-of-universe notice like the one at the top of this page. (See Section V, Templates for instructions on how to add this to a page.) Also, the Citations section, Adaptions section, and Behind the Scenes section of any article should be written from an out-of-universe perspective (that is, they should treat the Chronicles and movies as fiction). I dropped the brackets option; I haven't ever seen it used. Does anyone think we still need it?
 * B: Formal, Encyclopedic Style
 * British English (Old Section 1): Because the Chronicles were written in and about England, all articles should be written with British English spellings. (For example, American English "color" is "colour"; "organize" is "organise.")
 * Grammar (part of Old Section 7): All articles should use formal English grammar, syntax, and spelling.
 * Try to avoid book titles (Old Section 6; slightly modified): Although it is possible to maintain a historical perspective and mention a book title (eg, "As recorded in The Horse and His Boy..."), it is highly preferable to reference the historical era instead (eg, "During the Golden Age of Narnia...") in in-universe and movie-universe articles. For a list of historical eras, see Time Periods of Narnia. Book titles may be mentioned in the Citations section of an article (see Section IV).
 * Awkward, unnecessary phrases to avoid (not in Old)
 * “Nothing else is known about ___.” This can be simply left off the end of an article. It can be assumed that if there were more information to be had about ___, you would have put it in the article.
 * “He was described as being ___.” Although this is still technically a historical perspective, it is awkward, wordy, and informal. Instead, use “He was ___.”
 * Others?
 * Quote Template (Old Section 8)
 * C: Things that don’t belong in articles
 * Opinions (Old Section 4)
 * Fan-fiction (part of old section 7)
 * Section III: What is IU, OOU, Canon, Deserving of article? (This section is entirely new, and reflects recent discussion on various talk pages (especially Prince Caspian movie) and wiki chat (see The Chronicles of Narnia Wiki/chat).)
 * A: Books
 * IU: All facts about book publication are IU. Treat them like history books.
 * Canon: All events described in Lewis’ text are IU.
 * Deserve articles: Each book deserves an article
 * Things described deserve articles: All events, people, and places directly referenced in Lewis’ text (as distinct from the illustrations) may be given an article.
 * B: Movies
 * OOU. Facts about the making of the movie are not IU or in the movie-universe.
 * Movie Canon: Things described by the movie and not by the book are movie canon.
 * Deserve Articles: Each movie deserves an OOU article.
 * Things described deserve articles: All named characters, all events, and all places not in the book but seen in the movie deserve Movie template articles. Species seen in the movie, none of whose members have names, and which are not mentioned in the book, should be added to the Adaptions section of the Beast page.
 * Special Note: Things described differently by books and movies deserve: IU articles about the thing as described by the book with an “Adaptions” section detailing the differences between book and movie from an OOU perspective.
 * C: Video games
 * OOU
 * Non-canon OR Partial movie canon—DECISION (Are characters described in the movie but only named in video games IU? I suggest not: it draws a cleaner line between canon and non-canon and is less confusing.)
 * Deserve articles: Every mass-produced, Narnia-based video game deserves an article.
 * Things described do not deserve articles, although they may be given re-direct pages to the video games to which they pertain.
 * D: Book Illustrations
 * IU: In-universe, Pauline Baynes and all of her illustrations exist.
 * Canon: Baynes’ illustrations are considered factually reliable in-universe.
 * Deserve articles: The illustrations as a whole deserve an article; so does Pauline Baynes.
 * Things described DO NOT deserve articles, unless they are also in the text. For example, one of Baynes’ illustrations portrays a zebra, but zebras are not mentioned in Lewis’ text, so zebras do not deserve an article. They are in-universe (because the illustrations are canon), and may be mentioned in articles, but they do not deserve their own.
 * E:Movie Concept Art
 * OOU
 * Non-canon
 * Deserves an article
 * Things described do not deserve articles, although they may be made as re-directs to the movie concept art page.
 * Section IV: How to properly construct a page (This is not something I've done much thinking about, and it's definitely not something that has been directly discussed. It doesn't have to be extremely prescriptive, especially at first, but I do think we need some standardization in this area. Below are a couple of ideas for specific regulations, but these are just my own thoughts and still need to be discussed as a community.)
 * Protocol for naming articles: In general, articles' titles should reflect the official, canon name for their topics. Some more specific guidelines--
 * For characters:
 * Use first and last names wherever possible (eg, Edmund Pevensie instead of "King Edmund the Just"; Harold Scrubb instead of Harold; Eustace Scrubb instead of Eustace Clarence Scrubb).
 * If there is no canon first (or last) name, use the title used most frequently throughout the books (eg, Mr. Tumnus instead of Tumnus; Mr. Beaver instead of He-Beaver. (I'm not quite sure how to frame this one. I think the real guiding principle is "If you were going to introduce this person to a crowd, what title would you use?" The problem with this is that it's vague. The problem with what I have written already is that it turns Lasaraleen Tarkheena and Ahoshta Tarkhaan into Lasaraleen and Ahoshta, but it seems like we ought to use those titles since they're available to us. We could just have it vague and let users figure it out, or I could try to come up with something more prescriptive.)
 * Standard Layouts for specific types of articles:
 * Characters: Character pages should contain the following: a brief (one sentence) general introduction followed by the headings Physical Description, Personality, and Role in the History of Narnia.
 * Places?
 * Events?
 * Actors?
 * Books?
 * Movies?
 * Additional Sections that may be added
 * Citations section: All pages should include a "Citations" section if appropriate. This section should always be the last section of the page.
 * To cite books: Use the title abbreviation (LWW, PC, VDT, SC, HB, MN, LB) and the chapter number in Roman numerals. If you need to reference a specific part of the chapter, add a period and the paragraph number (number of paragraphs since the beginning of the chapter) in Arabic numerals. For example, HB VII.24 points to The Horse and His Boy, Chapter 7, paragraph 24.
 * To cite movies: Use the title abbreviation followed by the name of the scene, if applicable. (Should we use hour:minute into the movie instead? I'm not as familiar with the movies as with books. What do you think would work best?)
 * Other works may also be cited, with external links as often as possible, where appropriate.
 * Adaptions section: If the subject of an article is IU but represented differently by movie canon, the thing should be discussed as a normal IU character, place, or event according to the books' description. An additional Adaptions heading should discuss the differences between book and movie from an OOU perspective.
 * Behind the Scenes section: This section is optional for any IU or movie-universe page. It may discuss from an OOU perspective OOU trivia, facts about the making of a movie, connections between the story and real events, etc. For example, a Behind the Scenes section of the Lucy Pevensie page might reference Lucy Barfield (a Lucy Lewis actually knew).
 * ''Anything else?'
 * Section V: How to use the wiki (I haven't done much with this section yet, and I think I am not the best person to do it. Storyseeker1, you do more with putting pictures on the wiki; do you want to take over this section?)
 * To get to source mode
 * Creating Headings
 * Creating Links
 * Creating links with display different from destination
 * Adding Pictures
 * Templates (adapt, OOU)
 * Delete template and protocol
 * Re-direct pages
 * For extra help

Discussion
Discuss changes, both to this organizational strategy and to the policies it describes, here. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 22:26, February 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * Section II D: on video games. I would keep them OOU and non-cannon. They change too many things in it.


 * Section II E: How would we name the articles for Pauline Baynes' illustrations? That could present a problem.

EdmundtheJust (talk) 22:05, February 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree about the video games. The illustrations conundrum is interesting; maybe that info just goes on the Pauline Baynes page, and we have a re-direct page titled "Illustrations"? Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 22:47, February 20, 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm loving this. Great job! I have no qualms with anything here. 05:15, February 21, 2013 (UTC)