This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was do not implement Issue 1; no consensus on Issues 2 or 3. CC7567 (talk) 02:30, December 5, 2013 (UTC)
As has been pointed out by Menkooroo, our usage of the {{1stp}} ("(First pictured)") template is inconsistent. In some cases, it is used in the same way that (First mentioned) is used relative to (First appearance), saying that it was simply pictured before it was mentioned or appeared. In other cases, it is used like (First identified as {{{1}}}), meaning that it was not pictured until a later appearance/source. As this could lead to reader confusion, something needs to be done.
To solve this, I propose that usage of (First pictured) be mandated on all articles where the subject has been visually depicted, regardless of when this first visual depiction occurs relative to other appearances and sources. In other words, it would function separately and independently from the rest of the {{1st}} family of templates. This ensures that the reader always knows when the first visual depiction occurred and is not left hanging when the template is omitted. Rather than apply two such templates to the same appearance or source in cases where (First pictured) is simultaneous with a (First appearance) or (First mentioned), two new templates will be created: (First mentioned and pictured) at {{1stmp}}, and (First appeared and pictured) at {{1stap}}. (I chose "appeared" instead of "appearance" because two verbs reads better than trying to mix a noun and a verb.)
Two changes to the Layout Guide would be made. In Wookieepedia:Layout_Guide#Appearances, immediately under the sub-bullets regarding usage of {{1stID}}, the following would be added:
- For the subject's first visual depiction, use the {{1stp}} template, e.g. for Cal Omas:
- The Essential Reader's Companion (First pictured)
- When the subject's first visual depiction is simultaneous with its first mention or first appearance, use {{1stmp}} or {{1stap}} respectively instead of the individual templates, e.g. for Ona Nobis:
- Jedi Apprentice: The Deadly Hunter (First appeared and pictured)
In the succeeding section of the LG, Sources, the line:
- Apply {{1stm}} and {{1stID}} as per "Appearances" section above. If subject first appeared in a vignette within source material, use {{1st}} in conjunction with {{C|Vignette}}.
will be modified to:
- Apply {{1stm}}, {{1stID}}, and {{1stp}} as per "Appearances" section above. If subject first appeared in a vignette within source material, use {{1st}} in conjunction with {{C|Vignette}}.
—MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 03:46, November 8, 2013 (UTC)
Issue 1
This is to approve or reject the main change discussed above.
Support
- As proposer. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 03:46, November 8, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
- I'm very skeptical about why we need to go this route exactly. I understand the desire for clarification between the two uses of (First pictured), but I don't think it's necessary to mandate, to use your own word, every instance in which a subject was first visually depicted, especially in accordance with the (First appearance) template. It's common sense that if a subject first appears in a novel, unless the subject is illustrated on the cover, that he's not being pictured. It's common sense that if a subject first appears in a video game or comic, that he is being pictured. We don't need to spell that out for people. The easier solution to me seems to be that in instances in which a subject is only pictured and not mentioned in its first source, to use (First pictured) (Picture only), instead of going the roundabout route and forcing every article to needlessly and redundantly indicate a subject's first visual depiction. This is akin to what we would do if a subject was indirectly mentioned in its first source. We would present it as (First mentioned) (Indirect mention only). Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 04:49, November 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, yeah. That's a better solution. Cade
Calrayn 04:58, November 8, 2013 (UTC) - Frankly, Tope's explanation makes a lot more sense.—Cal Jedi
(Personal Comm Channel) 14:14, November 8, 2013 (UTC) - Per Tope. Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:38, November 9, 2013 (UTC)
- As above Manoof (talk) 02:14, November 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Per Tope. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:28, November 10, 2013 (UTC)
- Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 15:39, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
- Definitely. Corellian Premier
The Force will be with you always 19:13, November 11, 2013 (UTC) - —Tommy 9281 Monday, November 11, 2013, 23:08 UTC
- Per (unlimited) Topowaaah. Winterz (talk) 17:23, November 13, 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
Issue 2
As stated above, I chose (First appeared and pictured) over (First appearance and pictured) because two verbs reads better than mixing a noun and a verb. If adopted, this would leave an inconsistency with the existing {{1st}}, which uses the noun. {{1st}} is also already inconsistent with the rest of its template family, as this is the only one to my knowledge to use a noun, while the rest use a verb. Thus I propose changing {{1st}} to (First appeared) for consistency. Since an inconsistency already exists, this issue is independent of Issue 1 and can pass even if Issue 1 fails. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 03:46, November 8, 2013 (UTC)
Support
- As proposer. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 03:46, November 8, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
Issue 3
This will require a lot of work to bring our one-hundred-thousand-plus articles in line with the new policy. Since this cannot be done by a bot and human attention will be needed on each and every article, it is unreasonable to expect every status article to be fixed quickly. I am therefore proposing a six-month grace period for existing status articles to be fixed, after which they can be probed and stripped of status by the appropriate reviewing panel if they remain unfixed. This does not apply to current nominations, which can be objected to immediately (since they should have active attention on them). This issue is dependent on Issue 1 passing and is moot if it fails. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 03:46, November 8, 2013 (UTC)
Support
- As proposer. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 03:46, November 8, 2013 (UTC)