Forum:CT:Appearances revamp project

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Appearances revamp project

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: Hide new Appearances by default, and always show Appearances TOC. Toprawa and Ralltiir 15:33, September 29, 2009 (UTC)


This is just a page to help keep track of some things in our site-wide revamp of the "Appearances" sections on OOU articles. See Forum:CT Archive/Appearances lists for more info. In short, we are wrapping current "Appearances" in {{App}} in order to cut down on TOC length and allow users to show/hide appearances at will.

Adding {{App}}

I have written a script that Whistler will run in an attempt to convert most of our articles to the new layout. Articles that the bot cannot completely convert for one reason or another (typically sections named incorrectly, or additional sections) will be tagged with {{Appearances Needs Work}} directly under the ==Appearances== header. See Category:Appearances need work for a list of tagged articles. If you have manually fixed an article, please remove the "need work" template. Also being added on some articles is {{Merge New Continuity With Appearances}}, as we removed the "New continuity" section a long time ago.

There have also been several points raised regarding the template that can be discussed/voted upon further down the page. I didn't feel these warranted a full-fledged CT, however.

Pages to work on

Feel free to add any appropriate pages or categories that need work to this list. Also, I've noticed that Whistler's script has skipped over some random categories, so if you see any that appear to need work still, please add it back. —Xwing328(Talk) 06:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Voting

Show/Hide

Show by default

  1. —Xwing328(Talk) 02:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. MauserComlink 02:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. JMAS Hey, it's me! 12:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Darth Trayus Sith Emblem (Trayus Academy) 18:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hide by default

  1. There's no reason to show by default. Most people looking at these articles are not going to want to look at the list or spend time looking for the "hide" button; they're probably just going to see a list they don't want to read and automatically scroll past it without even looking for a "hide" button. They should be hidden by default to save them that trouble, which was the whole point of the CT thread in the first place. Imp said it best on the CT page: "We should cater to our readers, not our hardcore list-loving editors." —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 02:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. The template is pointless if defaulted to show. --Imperialles 09:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Per Jon and Imp. --Darth tom Imperial Emblem (Imperial Intelligence) 12:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. - Esjs(Talk) 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Per everyone. -Thunderforge 04:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. --Eyrezer 10:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Per above. Chack Jadson (Talk) 12:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. Aye. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 18:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 18:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  10. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 17:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  11. Yeah, not sure what the point of this whole thing is if it isn't hidden by default. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  12. Per above. CC7567 (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  13. Cylka-talk- 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  14. I advocated this in the last CT. The whole point of making this is to hide it. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith 00:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  15. Per the whole point of the new format to begin with. jSarek 09:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  16. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 21:37, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
  17. JangFett Talk 21:56, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
  18. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 02:30, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Displayed text

Currently, the template reads Sections [Hide]. That seems rather non-descriptive to me, whereas "Appearances sections" was rather redundant. Small detail, but any suggestions?

Suggestions

Appearances TOC

Finally, a point was raised that if the table for the "Appearances" TOC was shown while the appearances themselves were hidden, clicking on the section links for the appearances would appear to do nothing. If I can find a fix for this, this section will become irrelevant, but until then, should the "Appearances" TOC table be shown/hidden along with the appearances or not?

Show/Hide with appearances

  1. It would probably be a bit confusing to someone that isn't aware of this bug, so show/hide with the appearances until a fix can be found. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 02:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Per Jonathan. --Imperialles 09:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. When people click on a link, they expect something to happen.- Esjs(Talk) 19:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. If no fix is found, this would be the most intuitive. -Thunderforge 04:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 17:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Always show

  1. —Xwing328(Talk) 02:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. MauserComlink 02:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. --Eyrezer 02:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. If only for superficial reasons, but my vote is here until someone brings up a life-shaking point. It's minor either way. CC7567 (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. JMAS Hey, it's me! 12:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. --Darth tom Imperial Emblem (Imperial Intelligence) 12:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Darth Trayus Sith Emblem (Trayus Academy) 18:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. Aye. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. Absolutely… — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 18:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  10. Cylka-talk- 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  11. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  12. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 21:37, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
  13. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 02:30, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
  14. JangFett Talk 20:18, September 22, 2009 (UTC)
  15. Grunny (Talk) 04:24, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

New subsections

The current App template follows our MOS/LG for the sections to include. However, many articles also have sections such as "Food and beverages," "Languages," and "The Force." Feel free to discuss whether or not to include parameters for sections such as these. —Xwing328(Talk) 06:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Would it be possible to add these as optional parameters? Meaning that if they aren't included in the template, then they don't show up in the initial table of contents? I'd think that would be the best way to go about it, since not all articles would need them. OLIOSTER (talk) Imperial Emblem 06:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Unless they're extremely plentiful, I don't think they constitute their own sections in the template. However, it looks like simply bolding "Languages" and listing them under it in the template works. CC7567 (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Agree with CC. We can simply imitate them by bolding the headings. MauserComlink 07:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Doing it that way just looks awful, in my opinion. OLIOSTER (talk) Imperial Emblem 06:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I like Oli's suggestion of an optional parameter since I would be interested in having additional sub-sections as part of the template. However, if it would be unrealistic to include it in the actual code, I for one would be willing to alter the code specifically for a particular article to create an individual template -- that is if Xwing wouldn't mind giving me a couple of pointers. This way the original code wouldn't have to be changed. Maybe others would be willing to do a little extra work on those few articles that need subsections. Cylka-talk- 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I moved this to CT, because it seems like it should be here rather than Senate Hall, as there is a vote taking place in the topic. Chack Jadson (Talk) 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see that this is mentioned anywhere else on the page. Don't know that I'd call it a bug, but if you look at the example on The Clone Wars: Hunting the Hunters (Part 1), you'll see that when it is set to "show" the list, it pushes it down to below the infobox leaving a massive empty space the length of the infobox. That is something that will need to be addressed. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 12:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The easiest way would be to get rid of the tables around each section. Unfortunately, there are a few articles that already rely on this in order to easily make multiple columns. This would also help with things like this layout problem: Star_Wars:_Empire_28:_Wreckage#app_vehicles —Xwing328(Talk) 06:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Since the {{App}} template has already been approved by the community, will it be integrated into the Manual of Style—and possibly, the Layout Guide—as a guideline or policy? CC7567 (talk) 04:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It won't go in the LG, which deals solely with IU articles, but it should be put in the MOS. Do we need a separate vote for that or not? —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 04:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't think so... I think the previous CT implied that the MOS would be updated. That's just how I read it. - Esjs(Talk) 17:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Maybe I should listen to what I say sometimes. Direct quote from the previous CT: "If approved, the MOS for OOU articles would be adjusted to specify that the Appearances section should be placed inside {{App}}." (emphasis added) In other words, it doesn't imply updating the MOS; it explicitly states it. D'oh! —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Just an FYI, I updated the MOS to reflect the previous CT's decision to use Template:App. If anything else changes from this CT, we can update it again with the specifics. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Can the App template be altered so that when someone has it set to show, you can still edit the subsections of the Appearances list, not the whole thing? - JMAS Hey, it's me! 18:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No, you can't. It's uses <p>Heading</p> instead of <h3>Heading</h3>, plus you can't make editable subsections with things that rely on |fieldname=. Sorry, but I don't think that that's possible. --Michaeldsuarez (Talk) (Deeds) 18:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
    • One of the ideas of this was to cut down the TOC by not using real section headers. And unfortunately, you can't have one without the other. So it's either edit links and a long TOC or no edit links and a short TOC. —Xwing328(Talk) 03:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Images within Appearance section

So I was working on the Appearances need work articles when I came upon Jedi Academy Training Manual which has a bunch of neat images that get hidden in the Appearances section. I'd like to take them out of the section so they aren't hidden, but the remainder of the article is too short to just add a cluster of images to it. Previously, when I've encountered images within the Appearances section, they are examples of different covers for a novel, and I could just toss them into a Covers gallery section per the MOS. But in the case of this article, these are just generic images from the book. Any recommendations? Can we have a generic gallery section of images (seems to be against the MOS)? Thoughts? I figured I'd bring this up here instead of Talk:Jedi Academy Training Manual in case it is more widespread that just this article. - Esjs(Talk) 20:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

  • One of the many obvious downsides of being hidden by default. Ah well... MauserComlink 20:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Per Mauser; however, in this case, I don't think the random smattering of images from inside the book really fit our fair use standards. —Xwing328(Talk) 05:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think there should be any images in the new Appearances template. And if they can't otherwise fit in the article, they should be deleted from it. As has been said elsewhere, the images should support the text. If there is no text, get rid of the images. --Eyrezer 01:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Per Eyrezer. We've tolerated those images in those sections before, despite them obviously failing any reasonable Fair Use test, because the Appearances sections were so long and needed a little visual breaking up. With the new format, they aren't needed for that, and can now finally be removed. jSarek 09:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)