Wowpedia:Item articles policy

I believe that it is time to address a growing issue on the WoWWiki, that of item article standards. Item pages are one of the most prolific on the Wiki, and as such have been addressed in a number of different ways by different authors.

The Policy

This proposed policy is twofold.

Firstly, to ratify that a standard should be set set in place for all item pages and what elements they need to contain. This standard would be enforced on all item articles and a standard template or series of templates will be selected for use.

Secondly, to decide what that standard should be in constructing them. There seems to be a degree of differing opinions on how we should go about doing so, so two solutions will be proposed, with room for additional ones.

See Below for Proposed Details

Reasoning

I believe something as important as these types of articles should be brought to an official standard, especially with the surplus of items coming in from the Burning Crusade. An official policy would both help bring some level of continuity to the Wiki, as well as make it easy as possible on authors writing item pages.

In my opinion, the Wiki isn't meant to be a straightforward item database, rather, one that organizes items and allows for comparison and discussion above and beyond what is available on Thottbot or Allakhazam.

Policy Details

Overall Standards

Item articles should have the following elements regardless of how the page is ultimately constructed:

• Full and complete Item Name
• Icon
• Correct and Complete Tooltip (with extended information, if needed, ie: Vendor Price, Item Level, etc)
• Categorization (ie: Category:Cloth Armor, Category:Mined Items, etc.)
• Where the item is obtained (detail can vary)
• What the item is used for (if not obvious like armor or weapon)
• External Links to Item Databases

These elements must all be in place for an item to properly be un-stubbed.

Options

This proposal will have four outcomes. Three in favour of different solutions and one disagreeing with standardization all together.

Option 1 - No Standardization

You do not believe a standard is neccessary and would prefer each author use their own methods to address item articles.

Option 2 - Standardizing, One Article

We should standardize item pages, but have all of the information (most importantly, the tooltip/attribute data) entered into the original article with no inclusions.
(Example:  [Redemption Tunic])

Option 3 - Standardizing, Sub-Article(s)

We should standardize item pages, and have at least one sub-article (at the very least, a /Tooltip sub-article) that can be transcluded in other articles for various uses. Sub-articles should be used sparingly as not to affect server performance.
(Example:  [Design: Pendant of Shadow's End]) which uses /Tooltip and /Icon)

Option 4 - Standardizing, Something Else

We should standardize item pages, but none of the above two options quite feels right to me. Please detail your suggestion in the comments. Or if you see another user's suggestion that feels right, make a comment for that as well.

Tooltips

How the tooltips are formatted exactly should be something that is decided afterwards (if there is a standardization ratified), however there are a few templates already in place that are certainly up to the task.

Policy ratification vote

Option 1 - No Standardization

Option 2 - Standardization - One Article

1. Option 2 ClydeJr 11:54, 25 January 2007 (EST) - (I think everything should be contained on a single page. It makes it easier for editing and maintaining. We can still use noinclude tags so you can link the tooltip into another page.)
2. Option 2 Voidvector 15:23, 25 January 2007 (EST) - (Single page. Having every in-game item's price/icon/quality pullable via a separate template is beyond the scope and design of of a wiki.)
3. Option 2 User:Zeal/Sig 16:35, 25 January 2007 (EST) - (I don't agree with some of the standard's you've layed out, but those can be adressed with more detail later. I question the need to pull anything from a page however.)

Option 3 - Standardization - Sub-Article(s)

1. Option 3 Tusva 11:05, 25 January 2007 (EST) - (Sub-articles would allow greater flexibility for inclusion in other articles. EDIT: Though a noinclude solution as ClydeJr brought up above would also suit the purpose, as well.)

Option 4 - Standardization - Something Else

Comments

Shouldn't this be on the talk page? :p --User:Zeal/Sig 16:36, 25 January 2007 (EST)

---