Forum:CT:Canon/Legends image categorization

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Canon/Legends image categorization
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 No consensus. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 22:16, January 14, 2015 (UTC)

It seems, per the question raised at Forum:SH:Legends images, that some easy form of distinguishing between Canon and Legends images is needed to help reduce the number of images in the wrong continuity article. I threw together a simple system tonight, but after resistance at the aforementioned SH thread, I gave in and hereby propose a formal CT.

My system can be seen at Template:Information. It consists of one new parameter to the template, which is set to a value indicating its canonicity. This in turn adds a category (or two) to the file, which enables category intersections of subject categories and canonicity categories, enabling easier sorting through large subject categories. Links to CategoryIntersection are already present on every category page containing anything other than subcategories, and additional links can be easily added to enable one-click intersections with the canonicity categories.

Resistance in the SH has come in two forms. One says that we don't need any such system because people ought to check the source first. While true, a categorization system makes this step easier, plus this system eliminates the need to check dozens of images in a giant category before you find one that happens to be Canon (or Legends, as the case may be). The second proposes splitting the subject categories instead, meaning Category:Canon images of X and Category:Legends images of X. This seems to me to be too much extra work for not enough extra benefit; more manual work and/or more complicated bot work will be needed, and it simply produces the same results that are (or will be) only one additional click away on mine.

Adopt the proposed system

  1. As proposer. —MJ— Comlink 03:55, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
  2. Yay. - AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 03:57, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
  3. A great many images were removed from the Armor/Canon article, such as Stormtroopers, Clone troopers, Jango Fett, and Senate Commandos. It took me a long time to find replacement images that were from Canon sources; some of them I was not able to find at all. I had an especially hard time finding a good image for Clone trooper armor that was from a Canon source. I had to eventually upload my own from the StarWars.com Encyclopedia. If this new system will make it easier to find Canon images, I would like to see it implemented. MJ, if you can succeed in implementing the Special:CategoryIntersection returning a gallery instead of text (as you mention in the Discussion section) that would be a real bonus.--Richterbelmont10 R2 sig(come in R2!) 19:32, December 31, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Fe Nite (talk) 18:13, January 3, 2015 (UTC)
  5. What a lot of people may not be seeing is that this doesn't have to be the only thing we do to categorize images by canonicity, and even if we also want to split the individual categories, implementing this first will simplify that. It will also allow us to visibly tag images on their description pages to quickly see the canon status without having to check what categories they're in, which is much better for noobs who may not even understand how our categories work yet. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 16:40, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

Reject the proposed system

  1. I would support this if it was the only option, but I prefer splitting the categories (i.e. Category:Canon images of Anakin Skywalker and Category:Legends images of Anakin Skywalker). There's not enough reader awareness of Category Intersection, it's more of a niche tool, and it still requires a number of steps from readers. Category splitting may require more work in the short term from a small group of core users, but in the long term I find it to be the better option for readers. It allows them to quickly find images from canon or Legends, and we can use the imagecat template on canon pages (which we currently can't do). It's all-around preferable as a user-facing option. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 04:07, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) In terms of reader awareness, there's at least one link on every category, right next to the page and file counts. In terms of number of steps, the special page accepts URL parameters for the categories to intersect, meaning that I can literally make the whole thing a one-click process, with no need to manually enter categories on the special page. —MJ— War Room 04:12, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
  2. All things considered, I think this system is more trouble and work than it is worth. The initial bot work might not be too time consuming, but I foresee difficulties after the initial implementation. Firstly, I would guess that a lot of users just find an image in an existing article and add it to the new article without even using categories, which kind of goes around this whole system. Also, the continuity field is going to need to be constantly updated for new canon sources that use old images, and there will probably be users that use an image without updating the image file description, which will lead to more confusion. Additionally, if this system is implemented, the category intersection definitely needs to show images, otherwise people will still have to view the files individually and defeat the purpose of this system. Even if I thought everything else would work, I would want to have an example of the intersection showing images before considering this system for use on the site.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 04:55, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
    With regard to the last issue (wanting to see the image display), I want to see it approved before I do the work. It's fairly easy to do with one or two API queries and some JavaScript (all of which will be invisible to the end user), but it is quite a bit of work that probably can't all be done in one sitting. I'm willing to do the work, but only if I know it will be used. I don't want to do all that work only to see it go to waste. Rest assured that we can have full control over the formatting; the output can even be made identical to the category gallery layouts (in fact, that would be the easiest way to go and would eliminate the need to design the output, allowing me to focus on coding it). —MJ— Council Chambers 06:29, December 25, 2014 (UTC)
  3. Per EJ. I don't really see the need for it. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 18:14, January 3, 2015 (UTC)
  4. Per Brandon. I think there's the need to separate them very soon but I don't believe MJ's way is the one. Winterz (talk) 19:58, January 3, 2015 (UTC)
  5. Manoof (talk) 04:36, January 7, 2015 (UTC)
  6. Supreme Emperor (talk) 02:57, January 8, 2015 (UTC)
  7. --Emperor Jarjarkine MP-Mandalorian Senate Hall 03:08, January 9, 2015 (UTC)
  8. Trip391 (talk) 03:13, January 9, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

If people object to the fact that Special:CategoryIntersection returns text links instead of a gallery, I believe that can be solved with a little work, some JavaScript magic, and creative use of Special:Blankpage. —MJ— Comlink 03:55, December 24, 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm on standby on voting on this until I understand the objections better and hear more about how they could be solved, or why they're not that big a deal. ProfessorTofty (talk) 15:19, December 24, 2014 (UTC)