Forum:CT:Appearances lists

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Appearances lists

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: Adopt Xwing328's proposed template to make Appearances lists in OOU articles less intrusive. --Imperialles 18:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

After seeing a Senate Hall discussion regarding lists of appearances, I decided to create this CT. Basically, the discussion revolved around what should be done with appearances section on OOU articles. Initially, the options discussed were simply keep or kill, but then Craven proposed keeping but hiding such lists, which is what I am now turning into a formal proposal via the CT.

If approved, the MOS for OOU articles would be adjusted to specify that the Appearances section should be placed inside {{App}}. The correct format would be: 

==Appearances==
{{App|
===Characters===
insert list here

===Creatures===
insert list here

etc.
}}

Here's an example of what this would look like. IU articles would not be affected in any way by this proposal; {{Scroll box}} would continue to be used on those lists when they get long. Have a nice day! —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 22:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

  • UPDATE: After seeing what Xwing has come up with below, I'm replacing the originally proposed {{App}} template with Xwing's idea, which accomplishes the same objective while being much more aesthetically pleasing. Check it out here: User:Xwing328/Template:TestB Let me know if you have any objections to the change. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 06:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Voting

Adopt proposal

  1. No need to take up 75-90% of each OOU article with a huge list that the casual reader could probably care less about, yet the lists are still useful to some editors. Therefore, it makes sense to me to hide them. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 22:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. Definitely. --Imperialles 22:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. This is certainly the best solution, though I don't think it would be as much of a problem if our OOU work articles had more proper content. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 22:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 00:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. Chack Jadson (Talk) 06:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. Grunny (Talk) 09:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  7. I guess. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 09:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  8. I agree with Mauser below that I'm not sure the appearance lists are useless to most readers, but making them smaller could be helpful. —Silly Dan (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  9. I like this idea. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  10. As long as they're not removed altogether, I suppose. CC7567 (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  11. Per Imperialles's comments below. jSarek 00:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  12. Reading the Senate Hall, I was skeptical, but your example won me over. DarthDragon164BlackdragonDragon's Lair 17:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  13. I vote for Cylka's proposal/method first, the hide option second.--ToRsO bOy 17:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    Per Xwing and CC below. Darth Trayus Sith Emblem (Trayus Academy) 07:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  14. For this discussion, I consider myself more of a "reader" than an "editor" (I get out way more than I put in) and I hate scrolling through pages with long lists like that. I'd much rather have the list initially hidden but accessible if desired. - Esjs(Talk) 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Update: I maintain my vote for the new template. :) - Esjs(Talk) 16:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  15. I guess I should support my own template now. —Xwing328(Talk) 18:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  16. If thats the template we're using, I'm all for it. Darth Trayus Sith Emblem (Trayus Academy) 09:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  17. X-wing's an Cylka's templates look really nice. MauserComlink 12:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  18. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 00:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  19. Per above. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 00:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  20. Support Xwing328's newly created template. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  21. Oops, I missed adding my support for Xwing's template after I linked my example. Cylka-talk- 07:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  22. Absolutely.Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 07:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  23. Brilliant and great work by XWing. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 01:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  24. Nice solution.–Victor Squishy Vic (talk page) 05:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  25. I'm glad to see that the Senate Hall discussion I started has resulted in this great change. -Thunderforge 00:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  26. --Borsk Fey'lya Talk 18:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  27. If it's XWing's version, then yes. --Golden Monkey 21:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  28. Definitely. Nice work, Xwing. --Eyrezer 02:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  29. --Darth tom Imperial Emblem (Imperial Intelligence) 11:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Reject proposal

I wonder who decided that appearances lists aren't needed for the majority of readers. I started browsing them long before I started editing the Wookieepedia. MauserComlink 03:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. I'm a fan of the Appearances lists being just the way they are. Makes my reference work go a lot more smoothly. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith 15:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. I think you should look at the value to the reader and not just to the editor. The appearance list is the entire reason I use articles. While I'm reading something, I click on the appearances when they show up in the book so I don't have to type each one in individually. It saves a lot of time and it is 99% of the reason I use out-of-universe articles. Hiding this would be hiding the important stuff, and having basically a commercial for the book take priority, one that doesn't help me. -- Xell Khaar 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait a little bit

I highly suggest that we hold off on this for a little bit. I've cleaned up Cylka's version so it is extremely easy to implement compared to the original version. It easily expands and contracts, so each section can have it's own number of columns. Take a look to see how it's done and view it in action here. (You may have to refresh your browser cache to see styling, as I edited the site's CSS.) Also, I will try to implement a template method of this to promote consistency site-wide. —Xwing328(Talk) 06:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
While I do see the merit behind the idea of "hiding" the appearances, this is a major change that will effect many articles. We seem to be moving very quickly towards an incomplete resolution that isn't going to be as fulfilling as it would be if we were to wait and reexamine both the issue and the results. Perhaps, as Cylka and Xwing have said, there are other options. Darth Trayus Sith Emblem (Trayus Academy) 07:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Quick question: is this suggesting a simple show/hide which the viewer can change as they please, or a logged in versus logged out, whereby the user doesn't have a choice? -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 22:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Just curious, for those who would want the list displayed as the default setting, or those who want it hidden as their default setting, would it be possible to make something they can check/uncheck in their personal preferences as a "default setting"? - JMAS Hey, it's me! 23:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • AFAIK, no, although it's only one quick click to show it, so I wouldn't anticipate that being a problem. It's hidden by default. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 23:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Because the way things are currently is to show the list, then I think displaying the list should be default, with hiding it as the option by clicking the link. I'd support that. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 23:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, I think a whole new template would have to be made for that. However, I wouldn't support such an idea for the simple fact that the majority of readers aren't going to need or want to read the list. The only people who are going to want the list are a small minority of editors, and even they aren't going to want to see it every time they load an OOU article, so it makes more sense to me to hide it by default. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 23:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Per Jonathan. We should cater to our readers, not our hardcore list-loving editors. --Imperialles 23:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I see your point. I'll have to give it some more consideration. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 23:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • While I'm still weighing the options, I'd like to point out that we won't know for sure who actually uses the Appearances list unless we take a poll of every single person that visits Wookieepedia. There isn't anything that can support that claim. Also, we shouldn't be "catering" to anyone here specifically; the wiki is for more knowledge about Star Wars, and that's both for spreading the knowledge (readers) and gaining more (editors). I fail to see how holding one over the other in importance will improve the wiki. CC7567 (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm going to watch this for a little before I lean one way or the other, but the idea is more promising than complete deletion at least. Redlinks are power to the wiki! -- Riffsyphon1024 06:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • While I'm all for hiding these lists, I think that the actual show/hide-button doesn't look really good. Are there any plans/ideas to make it look better? Otherwise I'd have an idea how this could possibly be resolved. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 11:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with JMAS: surely we can set the button at show position by default, like on infoboxes. MauserComlink 12:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Why on Earth would we default it to show? The goal here is to reduce article length for the average reader, not save a minority of editors the single calorie required to press "show". Consider that a vast, vast majority of the visitors on this site are non-contributing readers. The very idea behind Wookieepedia is to create a Star Wars information repository that everyone can enjoy. If we start catering to editors, we remove ourselves from that goal. --Imperialles 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Whatever gives you the idea that the "vast, vast majority of the visitors" don't want to see this information? Nobody has ever taken a site-wide poll. I'll support this proposal to wrap appearances in a template, if only to stop people trying to delete all of that information. But before I do, I think the template needs some work - something specifically designed for this and a bit more aesthetically pleasing. —Xwing328(Talk) 06:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree with Xwing in that I will support this measure, but before I vote, I would like to see a more pleasing template. I have been periodically working on the KotOR II video game article and I have spent a lot of time trying to organize it in such a way as to have a pleasant layout. My solution to the overwhelming number of appearances has been to create four columns in order to reduce the space taken up by those sections. Cylka-talk- 08:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I think Cylka's design here is a great solution. The thing that always annoyed me was that they're so long, but using this method makes them very short. Though I'm not opposed to a show/hide button, I'd support this solution. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 13:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Quick questions: Will this apply only to out-of-universe articles (e.g. books, comics, movies, etc.)? Or will it also apply to in-universe articles (e.g. the Appearances section for Luke Skywalker)? I think that makes a difference, because having all a character's appearances handy is important, but the list of all characters/creatures/places/ships/technology/droids/etc. in a given book might be tedious enough to get condensed (I still voted to leave as-is, but I understand the logic). Thank you. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith 11:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't intend to sound accusatory, but specifically what is the purpose of the "Wait a little bit" option? What exactly do we wait for: to review the new modification and then vote, or simply hold off voting altogether? CC7567 (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Also, no offense Cylka or Xwing, but the four column thing looks...ungainly, just kind of sloppy. I think show/hide would be much better, and I don't care what it's defaulted to. I also don't think it's a big deal about if it's defaulted to show or hide. I mean, you can click the button to show it if it's hide by default or vice versa, it takes maybe a second of work! Chack Jadson (Talk) 13:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The reason for the untidy look of the 4-column layout is the indentation of the sub-bullets. If all of the bullets lined up, then the columns would look nice. Also, I think it would nice to have the 4-column layouts with each subsection (characters, vehicles, etc.) "hidable", if possible. - Esjs(Talk) 15:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Per Chack. The point here is not to try to make the appearances look better, but to simply hide them from view so that they don't interfere with reading. Cylka's suggestion does reduce the space taken up by the appearance by quite a bit, but the reader still has to scroll past a huge list. My proposal completely hides them so that they don't take up any space at all, yet an editor interested in looking through the list can see the whole thing with one click. Maybe after some fine-tuning, Cylka's suggestion could be adopted, but it should still be in conjunction with this proposal (i.e. place the code inside the hide/show template). —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 19:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The hidable part is what I was planning on adding. Also, looking into making it so that the appearances subheadings don't dominate the TOC but are still easily navigable. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • See User:Xwing328/Template:TestB for an example of what we could do instead of {{App}}. Let me know if you have ideas or feedback in regards to it. —Xwing328(Talk) 03:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • That template is definitely very promising. However, is the "Wait a little bit" option still in effect, if we want to support this CT in favor of that new template, or at least adopt it as a base? CC7567 (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I say we go with the new template, but I'd like to get some input on it, to see if anybody has idea's to make it even better. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I love it. Definitely accomplishes what I was aiming for with this CT while much more aesthetically pleasing than {{App}}. Really, the whole point of this CT thread was to simply add a hide/show button; {{App}} was proposed only because there were no other existing options. On that note, I'm going to change the official proposal to Xwing's idea, as I don't see any reason why someone who voted for {{App}} would object to this. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 06:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Looks good, though I'm sure we can find a better header text for the template. "Appearances sections" seems repetitive when "Appearances" is directly above it. --Imperialles 07:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • For those who are interested, I have adopted Xwing's template for the KotOR appearances on a subpage, here, in order for everyone to see what it looks like with a massive appearance list. I do want to apologize in advance if any of the columns are highly unequal. I'm not on my regular computer, so I find it difficult to judge if I separated the columns correctly with the screen I am using. Anyway, everyone will be able to see the effect of having columns. However, I suspect that few of our OOU articles will have as massive of an appearances section as the video games. Cylka-talk- 08:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Nice job. Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It looks great now; thanks, Xwing, for making it, and to Cylka for creating such a good example. CC7567 (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
        • A great job using the template, Cylka, and the best part yet... only one redlink on the entire page! -- Riffsyphon1024 06:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I wonder, can a bot droid handle a transfer to a new template? MauserComlink 12:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • This may be my own computer doing this, but when I looked at Cylka's or Xwing328's examples, the default is "show", not "hide". If the purpose of this is to keep the massive appearances lists hidden, then the default fro all of them should be "hide", with the option of showing them if you want, not the other way around. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith 13:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
      • No, it should be shown by default, just like with infoboxes. MauserComlink 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
        • No offense, but isn't that a bit ridiculous? Reading the above, it was very clear to me that the purpose of this change in format was to make it so that the appearances only appeared IF YOU WANT THEM TO, in order to make it easier to read. Would that not mean that the appearances should automatically be hidden, and only viewable if you click SHOW? Otherwise, anyone wanting to remove them "for an easier read or the article" has to scroll all the way down, basically read the appearances, and click the HIDE. The default should be HIDE, otherwise this is an exercise in futility, no? Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith 20:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I just checked the test template and the "Show/Hide" button is actually at the top! I agree that the default should be hide, but it definitely is not as bad as the button at the bottom as with infoboxes. - Esjs(Talk) 21:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
            • That is something that I overlooked, but I would think it would be a quick fix. It really should be hidden by default as explained above. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 03:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Sorry for repeating this, but I still cannon see anything that supports the statement that most of our non-editors always skip those lists. Just because some users do so, it doesn't mean the majority of the readers doesn't them. Therefore, it should be "show" by default, but if someone decides he doesn't need it, he can click "hide", not the other way around. MauserComlink 14:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
                • I think it's kind of pointless that we're having an argument over whether or not it show be show or hide by default. If anything, it should be hide. But really, the bottom line is, whatever it is set to, it takes maybe a second of work to click the button and change it. Chack Jadson (Talk) 15:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • To answer a few questions:
    1. Yes, a bot can handle a majority of the changes. I've put together a script that will make what changes it can, and flag any articles that need extra work to be done by hand.
    2. I suggest this CT simply adopts the use of the template, and an additional discussion can be held for whether the template shows or hides content by default.
    3. Just an FYI, like infoboxes, if you show/hide the section on a specific page, your browser will remember that setting if you revisit the page.
    4. Not a vote, but suggestions for the template name are welcome, as well, assuming this gets adopted. Probably {{Appearances}} since {{App}} is already taken.
    5. Suggestions are also welcome for what the slightly redundant "Appearances sections" in "Appearances sections [Show]" text should read. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact that {{App}} is only used on one single main namespace page, I say it's safe to simply overwrite it. MauserComlink 01:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I would suggest moving {{App}} to {{Hide}} and putting this at {{App}}. As far as the last one, try simply "Sections" instead. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, if we're probably not going to use the current {{App}} template, there's no use in keeping it. CC7567 (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It's being used (usefully) on a Wookieepedia namespace page, so don't get rid of it entirely. But we could move it if need be. —Xwing328(Talk) 05:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)