Forum:CT:"Locations" field of object-based infoboxes

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:"Locations" field of object-based infoboxes
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 Oppose proposal. 1358 (Talk) 11:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's time to address the utilization of the locations field in object-based infobox templates. After looking at pages like Din Djarin's blaster pistol and Ezra's heavy blaster pistol, which list all locations where the weapon has been used, I conclude that the locations field is no longer fit for our purposes and we instead remove it. The current usage of the field on templates like {{Weapon}}, allows for all locations to be listed. The issue is that this can potentially result in countless locations being listed for objects, which does not seem entirely correct due to how unruly and messy it could get, especially if it is not managed in some way. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 18:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1. As proposer. Erebus Chronus (Talk) 18:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. I had a think about this and even with the arguments to oppose, I think it still makes more sense to remove the field. The infobox is supposed to hold the main information available at a glance, so one knows exactly what we're talking about without needing to read the article in its entirety. The locations field doesnt facilitate this in any way, shape or form. Only a small portion of objects would need to specify a location, and I feel it is sufficient to capture that in the prose rather than the infobox Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  3. Per Manoof Fan26 (Talk) 18:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  4. Per Manoof --Potsk (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Object

  1. Going to have to vote against this proposal as it currently stands. I think that the "Locations" parameter has its uses, even though it is misused frequently. What should be done instead is implementing rules on when this field needs to be used. For instance, say we have a weapon or artifact that is kept at one location for a lengthy period of time before being moved, e.g. the Malachor Sith holocron. It makes sense for the location it was kept, in this example the Malachor Sith Temple, to be listed in the infobox. Rules need to be implemented on the proper use of this field, but I don't think that the field itself needs to go. SilverSunbird (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. Per Silver. Rules should be implemented, the parameter should stay. Samonic ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol (Ah, yes. The negotiator.) 19:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  3. Per Silver. Yes, there are items like the abovementioned blaster pistols which should not list all the locations they were taken to. But also yes, there are also immobile or semi-immobile items that should absolutely note where they were located. So this would unfortunately not be an ideal solution here. Imperators II(Talk) 19:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  4. Per Imp -- there is valid usage for the Locations parameter, but we need to define it better. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 19:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  5. Per the above. We need guidelines on when to and when not to list locations; not to delete the field. —- YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) linkWP:Chiss (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  6. Per above, no to deletion, yes to normalization. --NanoLuukeCloning facility 11:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  7. Per Silver. Wok142 (talk) 09:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  8. Per above Rsand 30 (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  9. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  10. Per SilverSunbird Jarhead002 (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  11. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 21:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  12. OOM 224 15:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments