Forum:CT:Action figures - Revised

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Action figures - Revised

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 place Non-redundant info in "Merchandising" section under "Behind the scenes". —Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 23:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It was decided at Forum:Action figures to rewrite this proposal due to unclear wording and overlap between many of the choices. There are multiple parts to this vote, so be sure to check all of the options. Please put any comments under the comments section, and do NOT add any more options, to avoid further voting confusion. Finally, be sure to update the vote count.

Original options for this consensus track

Include information on action figures
Do not include
Have a separate Star Wars merchandise wiki, keep merchandise info off this wiki, and provide links to pages on the merchandise wiki
Include ONLY pertinent, canon, non-redundant information from toys, but do not make a list of merchandise HERE, regardless of whether a Star Wars merchandise wiki materializes
Include without comment in Appearances section, with links to overall set articles

Revised options

No information whatsoever
No information, but link to separate wiki
Non-redundant canon information and link to separate wiki, if created
- Non-redundant info in main body
- Non-redundant info in "Merchandising" section under "Behind the scenes"
All merchandise in "Sources" and link to separate wiki, if created

Voting

1. No information whatsoever (+0)

2. No information, but link to separate wiki (+0)

3. Non-redundant canon information and link to separate wiki (0/7 Total=7)

3.1 Non-redundant info in main body (+0)

~~With set figure came from cited in Sources or Appearances. jSarek 01:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)~~

3.2 Non-redundant info in "Merchandising" section under "Behind the scenes" (+7)

—Xwing328^(Talk) 22:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
--Scwhinky^Communicate File:Fettrockz.gif 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Sentry^Talk 00:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Jorrel Fraajic 14:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 17:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
.... 06:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
We could also have links to RebelScum.com under "External links" and/or links to StarWars.com under "Sources", if possible. —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Silly Dan - links to RebelScum.com and/or StarWars.com cargo bay under external links has my vote, perhaps under a merchandise sub-heading? I understand the concern about too many for common characters though. -- Volemlock 20:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Valin Kenobi 07:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

4. All merchandise in "Sources" and link to separate wiki (+1)

It's clear that toys are C-canon sources, just like anything else made recently, so, they should be treated like those other things. jSarek 01:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not gonna win though.Herbsewell 02:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

To give an example as to how the origin of this debate would be resolved: if and only if Option 4 were to succeed, the new Quinlan Vos figure would go under Sources, with a link to back up the information. Otherwise, no information about the figure would be provided, unless previously unknown canonical information was provided by it (ie. Quinlan Vos with 9 toes instead of the 10 we presume). —Xwing328^(Talk) 23:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay under what I'm voting for, would we have a link to the site stating that Quinlan Vos has a action figure in production?--Herbsewell 14:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose so... Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  - And just to make sure, for option 3.2, we'll still have a link to the merchandise wiki, right? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Herbsewell, I already told you many times. No. Quoted from above: "no information about the figure would be provided". Option 4 is the ONLY one to provide a link to the Quinlan figure. And to answer Jack's question, yes. —Xwing328^(Talk) 16:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Thanks. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
        And I take it this will last over a week, correct? Because I believe we might end up seeing more options. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        Please put any comments under the comments section, and do NOT add any more options Well, hopefully not any more options, as shown by this line of the first paragraph. Jorrel Fraajic 14:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        Then what do we do? Removed jSarek's option? After all, we don't want to say, "jSarek is allowed to put up another option, but everyone else isn't". Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        I think that's what has to be done, but his option isn't covered in any of the other options. Maybe we should get an admin in on this, to have him add it or something. Jorrel Fraajic 16:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well his option seems reasonable...but he did go against those rules I wrote at the top. Maybe I'll just move his comment down here. —Xwing328^(Talk) 18:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        And remove the vote option, correct? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        Possibly...I would hate to make exceptions, but the vote did just start. Do you consider the option reasonable, to keep that is? —Xwing328^(Talk) 21:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        Well, the vote option itself is valid, as it doesn't overlap anything, but I'm not sure it would be good to make such an exception. However, if you, as an admin and the one who restarted this, were to add it, that'd work. Jorrel Fraajic 21:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        I say we remove that vote option. No favoritism. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        I'm sorry, I did miss that line when reading through the vote. I consider it a bad idea to force a vote without all legitimate options, especially when those options were voiced with reasoning in the original thread; however, the rules are right there at the beginning of the page, so, if Xwing or another user choose to delete the vote option and my vote, I won't object. jSarek 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        Since some set articles are already allowed, I figure your vote will still work under the original Option 4. Let me know if it doesn't. We'd also thought that we already had all options represented, that's what the rule was for, because we definitely don't want to have this vote a third time. —Xwing328^(Talk) 01:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        Yeah, we definitely wouldn't want this happening again. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Ah, I read Option 4 as linking to the separate wiki in the Sources area. I'm indifferent as to whether there's a separate wiki, so long as we provide sufficient information in our own articles on the sets to be effective sources for our in-universe articles. If 4 covers that, then I'm fine having my vote placed there. jSarek 06:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        You're speaking as if your option won, jSarek. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        Huh? How do you see *that* in what I wrote? jSarek 12:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        "so long as we provide sufficient information in our own articles on the sets to be effective sources for our in-universe articles". That seems to me as if you believe your vote already one, especially since you called them sources. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        Read what follows that - "If 4 covers that, then I'm fine having my vote placed there." I was explaining under what circumstances I'd be comfortable having my vote under Option 4, in response to Xwing saying "I figure your vote will still work under the original Option 4. Let me know if it doesn't." jSarek 02:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at some of the articles, and I noticed links to StarWars.com's Cargo Bay in the "External links" section. Why don't we just do something like that? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- That would, in essence, remove the need for a merchandising wiki. And I just thought of another thing: this proposal would apply to all forms of merchandise, right? LEGO sets, action figures, puzzles, etc., right? Jorrel Fraajic 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  - That might not be too bad, but would you really want to link to every Luke Skywalker action figure, puzzle, placemat, poster, etc.? —Xwing328^(Talk) 16:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    - And that's why I think a Star Wars Merchandise Wiki whould be made. That way, we can have a "Luke Skywalker" article, with lists of all his merchandising appearances. Jorrel Fraajic 16:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Oops, I forgot about those with multiple action figures. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
        What about the mention of a toy in the article about Carnor Jax.--Herbsewell 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
        Hmm... well, that would fall under the Thrawn category in the earlier forum. And, I suppose that it would have to be removed... I think. I'm really not positive about it. Jorrel Fraajic 23:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
        That will have to leave once this closes, unless Option 4 wins. Like the Quinlan Vos figure, no new canonical information is given by the toy. —Xwing328^(Talk) 00:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        Exactly. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        How many people from the original vote still haven't voted here yet? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
        More than ten. Don't know the exact number though. —Xwing328^(Talk) 00:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
        We should probably leave a note on their talk page. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Tell me if I'm reading this right: under option 3.2, toys are not listed under sources; if and only if some new canon information is provided, then that information goes under Merchandising. But does it go ONLY under Merchandising? Continuing Xwing328's example, it seems that if we find Quin has only 9 toes, then that information should be in the body of the article as well.--Valin Kenobi 03:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Correct, and the 9 toes (in the main body) would be explained under Merchandising. —Xwing328^(Talk) 07:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  - The "Mechandising" section would be the only place where toy information would go. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.