Forum:CT:Appearances: issue vs arc

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Appearances: issue vs arc

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 Include single issues in Appearances sections rather than arcs —Xwing328(Talk) 21:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

At the minute, we are listing only comic arcs in the Appearances sections, rather than individual issues. I don't think this is a good idea at all, seeing as how we're supposed to be a comprehensive encyclopedia and all. Having simply the arc listed means we don't know in which specific issue the subject first appeared, and also whether it appears in one issue of the arc, or in every one.

Of course, listing each issue causes concern over article length, but bear in mind we now have scroll boxes for long Appearances lists - and IMO, I don't think we should be more concerned about space than including as much detail and information as possible.

We already have something similar to what I'm proposing with the Clone Wars cartoons; articles include both "Star Wars: Clone Wars" and each relevant chapter as sub-bullet points. This could work in the same way. For example:

Appearances

Or, we could simply list each individual issue as a separate source, without grouping them under their arcs. This would save a little space, at least. So, consensus: include single issues in Appearances sections rather than arcs? - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 16:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. comprehensive and detailed beats space-saving - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 16:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Havac 00:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Riffsyphon1024 00:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. SentryTalk 01:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Sikon 01:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. So long as we list the entire arc if that's what they appear in. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Space is not an issue. Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 01:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Unless they appear in every issue. -LtNOWIS 01:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Per LtNOWIS. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. It looks better if you put all the issues rather than just the story arc, and only put just the story arc if they appear in all the issues. Roron Corobb

holocron NR Seal 21:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  1. Jasca Ducato Sith Council Sith Campaign 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. I'd rather have each issue indivually, rather than under the arcs. Kuralyov 22:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Only having the arc doesn't help unless the character is in every story under the arc —Xwing328(Talk) 20:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. However, if the character appears in every single issue of a story arc, then only the story arc should be listed. Otherwise, I say list the specific issues. - JMAS 21:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Adamwankenobi 21:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Ozzel 01:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Imp 01:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Only list story arcs. -Fnlayson 18:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Lonnyd 21:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Wildyoda 00:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Changed my vote. If you list the story arc, the link to that will show a comprehesive list of every individual issue that arc contains. - JMAS 23:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • But that tells you nothing about which issues that person or thing is in within the arcs. Havac

Neutral

  1. So does this mean we now have to list each individual issue, arc and TPB? I mean, if you want to be "comprehensive", you have to include everything, right? This is gonna be messy... --Azizlight 21:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. I don't understand why this is so much of a good idea.Vladius Magnum

Comments

  • More worth to give all appearances, unless the character or item appeared in all stories within that arc. Then it might be okay to just list the arc. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I like the current policy, as in the Layout Guide. Comics are eventually collected in TPBs as complete story arcs, while the original issues go out of print. -- Ozzel 01:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • What about people like Zayne Carrick? Are we really going to list every single issue of the KoTOR comic series in his appearances, story arcs too? -- I need a name (Complain here) 01:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
        • If all his appearances fill an arc, we would just list the arc. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
          • While I see what you're getting at, that would leave a lot of articles giving the wrong idea for a long time if we were to change this. -- Ozzel 01:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes, but it's better to implement the change and alter articles over time than never change it. Yes, it's a lot of work, but then so were things like the Weapons recatagorization, yet they're still useful - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 17:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think listing the story arcs is fine. I feel comic issues are like chapters in a novel. -Fnlayson 18:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Just like the Star Wars films are episodes in a saga? We're certainly not going to condense them - and they, like comic issues, are (at least initially) individual products, not part of a product - TPBs notwithstanding - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 20:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
        • As stated before, issues are eventually collected, it's the TPBs that people can go out and buy or order, whereas single issues are out of print. Plus, for Zayne, Quinlan Vos, etc, it's going to be too cluttered. I'm noot a fan of those appearance scrollboxes to begin with. Lonnyd 21:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually, not every issue has been collected in a TPB - Republic: Starcrash, for example, so we can't use "TPB = Definitive" as a rule. Besides, what does it matter if it's "cluttered"? The information is what counts - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 22:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

holocron NR Seal 23:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

              • The Marvel annuals were collected in the A Long Time Ago... TPBs. Anyway, I believe what "makes the articles look better" is listing the name of the story, instead of "parts 1, 3, 5, and 6, and mentioned only in part 2" when everything takes place in the same story. -- Ozzel 04:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
                • But the fact remains that they are individual products and should be treated as such, regardless of when or if they are collected elsewhere. For instance, I've got omnibus editions of the three OT novels, and the three Han Solo Adventure books, but we're still going to treat each book as a separate product, despite their being collected elsewhere. Why should comics be any different? - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 12:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • There are Omnibus collections of comic TPBs too. Novels can stand on their own seperately. -Fnlayson 18:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
                    • And so can comics. That's the point. Both media can be collected, but they are all originally sold seperately - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
                      • It's the equivalent of listing the chapters in a book that someone appeared in. "Chapter 5 (Mentioned only)" and the like. Lonnyd 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
                        • No it's not, because chapters of a book aren't released individually. Chapters are an intrinsinc part of that book, whereas comic issues, cartoon episodes and the films themselves can stand alone as well as being part of the larger arc - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 09:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Any more votes, or can we go ahead and resolve this? - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 19:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Its been 4 to 1 for several days, I say we have reached a vote. Might as well get started. Roron Corobb holocron NR Seal 00:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • This applies to quotes too, right? -- I need a name (Complain here) 15:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • In that we should list the issue they come from? Yes. It only makes sense that if we're going to give quote sources, we should be as accurate as possible - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 18:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Fenn Shysa and Tobbi Dala are in dire need of fixing. Their appearances isn't even by arc - it's by an entire 103 issue run! :| QuentinGeorge 02:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Gah. On that subject, there's also the NJO book series to consider; most of the NJO-related articles simply list "New Jedi Order series" rather than individual books. That's going to take a lot of work. On the plus side, I went through the Legacy articles and altered them all accordingly - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 08:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
      • ...which is a direct violation of policy until this change is approved (which, IIRC, it can't be for at least a few more days). ;-) -- Ozzel 19:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • As per Azizlight's comment RE: listing issues, arcs and TPBs, I don't think all that is necessary. If we list the issue (or arc for entries that appear in all issues) then any collections are added by implication; we list TPBs on the issue articles anyway, so I don't think we need to list them under Appearances. It's just the original, core source we're listing, with variants available on respective pages for users who want that info - whereas if we don't list individual issues, users can't use other pages to reach that same level of detail - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • How long is this going to go on for? Surely it's a majority vote by now? - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 21:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there not a 2 week minimum? -- Ozzel 06:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, still 2 more days before 2 weeks is up. —Xwing328(Talk) 18:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So, this should be settled now, right? - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 14:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. Consensus Reached. Roron Corobb

Talk NR Seal 16:48, 3 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.