The result of the debate was Adopt proposed changes. Imperators II(Talk) 07:52, December 16, 2017 (UTC)
Topic
I was wondering if anyone would mind if I changed the way the media tables for comic series' appear. Right now the TPB cover art and release date are in two separate columns, while the omnibus column includes both the cover art and release date. I would like to remove the TPB release date column and simply include it below the cover art like we would do for the omnibus. I think this would make the table look much better. For example:
Table Before Changes
| Issue | Title | Publication date | Trade paperback | Publication date | Omnibus |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Part I | September 9, 2015 |  Journey to Star Wars: The Force Awakens — Shattered Empire |
November 18, 2015 |  Star Wars: Journey to Star Wars: The Force Awakens – Shattered Empire (hardcover) September 13, 2016 |
| 2 | Part II | October 7, 2015 | |||
| 3 | Part III | October 14, 2015 | |||
| 4 | Part IV | October 21, 2015 |
Table After Changes
| Issue | Title | Publication date | Trade paperback | Omnibus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Part I | September 9, 2015 | Journey to Star Wars: The Force Awakens — Shattered Empire November 18, 2015 |
Star Wars: Journey to Star Wars: The Force Awakens – Shattered Empire (hardcover) September 13, 2016 |
| 2 | Part II | October 7, 2015 | ||
| 3 | Part III | October 14, 2015 | ||
| 4 | Part IV | October 21, 2015 |
There has been a discussion about this on the Senate Hall, and it was suggested that I create a formal vote. I believe these changes make the table look a lot cleaner, and it makes it much easier to tell which item the release data is referring to. I see no reason for the paperback to have it's release date in a separate column when the hardcover does not. I would be happy to do all the work myself, I just need you all to approve it first.
Vote
Support: use "Table After Changes" version
- IPodwithnomusic (talk) 15:47, December 1, 2017 (UTC)
- JMAS
Hey, it's me! 00:18, December 2, 2017 (UTC) - Much clearer this way. 1358 (Talk) 23:35, December 10, 2017 (UTC)
- AV-6R7Crew Pit 23:39, December 10, 2017 (UTC)
- Imperators II(Talk) 20:42, December 11, 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. MasterFred(Whatever) 21:03, December 11, 2017 (UTC)
- ProfessorTofty (talk) 16:52, December 12, 2017 (UTC)
- - Tommuskq (TAKE A SEAT) 17:34, December 12, 2017 (UTC)
- Asithol (talk) 17:36, December 12, 2017 (UTC)
- Supreme Emperor (talk) 16:02, December 13, 2017 (UTC)
Object: leave tables the way they are
Discussion
- I would definitely be in favor of these changes for ongoing/finished series like Star Wars 2015. However, in the case of limited/mini series such as Dark Empire, I think it would be best to follow the example in the Layout Guide. - Cwedin(talk) 00:06, December 2, 2017 (UTC)
- For series that have been anthologized more than twice, yes, there might be better ways of presenting them than what this CT proposes. But that example from the Layout Guide is awful: nothing visually associates the list of anthologies with the list of dates. They're in the same order, but, on my display at least, they're not even lined up. It's also inaccurate: it calls Star Wars: Dark Empire Trilogy a trade paperback, but that collection isn't a paperback at all. Asithol (talk) 17:48, December 12, 2017 (UTC)