Forum:CT:Character infobox changes (multiple votes)

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Character infobox changes (multiple votes)

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 was:

  • Titles and ranks — The proposal to add the last known title to the name field of the infobox failed.
  • Relations fields — these are not to be added or used in infoboxes.
  • Consolidating character templates — the current character templates/infoboxes will stay as is, and no efforts at consolidating them will be done.
  • Booting the eras field — split vote. The era field system will stay as is in our infoboxes.
  • Removal of bullets — writers are allowed to continue using bullets to organize lists in infoboxes.
    Greyman(Talk) 00:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Peoples, the character infobox as we know it has remained basically unchanged for a considerable amount of time. And while it does its job well, I think it's time to just tweak a few knobs here and there to improve the device. Here are a series of separate votes on separate elements of the character infobox. Please, for the love of God, do not create third options here...

Titles and ranks

At the moment, we have a massive redundancy in terms of presenting a character's name. We have the name of the article, the bolded name at the start of the intro, and then...a third time in the infobox. And it's not charming. To make that infobox name earn its keep, and to provide some more essential information to the reader at a glance, I think it would be prudent to list the last known rank or title of a given character. It wouldn't have to be directly sourced, obviously, since it will be in the prose, but I'll let the details of sourcing get worked out later. So, we'd go with "Admiral Firmus Piett," "Lord Shadowspawn," et cetera. When a character holds a comission and has another rank or title, well, it might be a matter open to debate, but I think it would be wise to go with what organization they've been involved in for longer, or what they're most widely recognized with...something like that. It might have to be case-by-case in those instances, but I don't think it will crop up often enough to be a problem. If it does, we just do another CT, and sort those things out. I've been doing it for a year or so anyway, and I've seen it used elsewhere.

Support

  1. Thefourdotelipsis 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. I'm all for this. Would nicknames count as titles/ranks, I'm assuming? Trak Nar Ramble on 06:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. I can see this working, but as you state there's times when it's a case-sensitive issue, such as with Revan.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Lord Hydronium 07:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. --Eyrezer 11:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Per wood. Unit 8311 16:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Per Goodwood. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12) (Chow) 04:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Greyman@wikia(Talk) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Certainly not. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Strong oppose. —Xwing328(Talk) 18:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. This policy, if enacted, would cause new users to add every title into the designated field. It would be a mess. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Only if they're not paying attention to the policy. It says "last known title" only. - Lord Hydronium 00:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. This'll just cause more problems. For instance: is Anakin Skywalker's last title Darth Vader? Yrfeloran 22:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Not exactly encyclopedic. Makes it messy. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. RedemptionRedemptionusersymbol(Talk) 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Green Tentacle (Talk) 23:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Baaaad idea. So will we have Assistant Syndic Soontir Fel, or Assistant Syndic Baron Soontir Fel? What about characters whose title is somewhat curious? What about characters holding multiple titles concurrently? Do we adopt the (Ret.) convention for retired officers? Are we going to have Jedi Master Battlemaster Captain Kyle Katarn (Ret.)? Probably not. So which parts of the title do we choose? It's just going to be a fanony mess. It's about as stupid as the "favorite ship" field in the databank entries. Havac 04:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Could become very unwieldy and even detract from the recognizability of the character's name. Graestan(Talk) 04:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. --Borsk Fey'lya Talk 09:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. No need for a policy; I wouldn't be opposed to it being used occasionally, like on Antinnis Tremayne, but not as a rule. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 14:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Case-by-case. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 00:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. I don't see a problem leaving it the way it is. I've always taken it as a caption for the image or a title of the infobox itself. Redundant? Maybe a little. But better that than confusing, which this title thing (while well-intentioned) would almost certainly become. Gonk (Gonk!) 17:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. KEJ 14:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. --Zadi (Yack Track) 12:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. Riffsyphon1024 07:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  18. Kyp 02:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  19. Categories serve this purpose for me. - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 09:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • To answer Trak Nar's question, nicknames, as far as I'm aware, find their way into the name field anyway. Thefourdotelipsis 06:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Would we just be adding the highest rank? Because for someone like Palpatine, that could get messy (it'd be Emperor for him). Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • That's what I was talking about. You know there'll be someone who's going to add Senator and Supreme Chancellor. Actually, now that I think about it, I would support this if all the titles would be placed there. Scratch that. I changed my mind about that suggestion. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 22:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In case it wasn't clear at the start, we would have one rank or title listed. So just "Baron Soontir Fel" and "Emperor Palpatine." Thefourdotelipsis 05:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You were clear, at least to me, but I can just tell this whole thing would get messy fast. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 11:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Relations fields

We have a "master" and "apprentice" field already in the infobox, but it's struck me as odd that we don't have relations fields, for "parents" "siblings" "spouse" and "offspring". This one's fairly simple: We add those fields. It would be really helpful.

Support

  1. Thefourdotelipsis 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. I can get behind this one. -- Ozzel 06:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    I like it. Trak Nar Ramble on 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Now that I think about it...
  3. No more complicated than the master/apprentice fields. - Lord Hydronium 07:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. I don't see the problem. The infobox should be the go-to section for quick info. For larger families, linking to a specific famly article would probably be just as good. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 00:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Could be helpful. KEJ 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Needlessly complicated.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Greyman@wikia(Talk) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per wood. Unit 8311 16:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Very messy. I would, however, support a family field. (Clarification: A link to the family page, if it exists) —Xwing328(Talk) 18:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. I agree with Xwing328. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. The purpose of the Masters and Apprentice fields is that in the cases those are actually utilized, they are specifically notable. Family members are kind of extraneous. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    RedemptionRedemptionusersymbol(Talk) 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Until a good argument can be made against the illustration below.
  8. Could get real messy real quick. Graestan(Talk) 04:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. To Xwing, family pages are generally linked in "See also" and that, I think, is all we need. Havac 04:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. --Borsk Fey'lya Talk 09:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 14:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. Weak oppose. It's not that it's a bad idea, but we do have this covered elsewhere. The Harry Potter Wiki has some positively eye-clawing examples of family stuff in infoboxes. We would see a fair amount of that here, were this implemented. Gonk (Gonk!) 17:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Link to family page instead. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. Kyp 02:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Could get messy for giant families like the Darklighters. Yrfeloran 06:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Now that I think about it... I'm nixing my vote and remaining neutral. While I can see the use for such a field, I can also see where it'd become a problem. Trak Nar Ramble on 06:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The same thing could be said for someone who taught many apprentices, like Anakin/Vader. Conversely, he has a small family. It shouldn't be too hard to follow. Thefourdotelipsis 07:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If we have all four we should make a new "Family" section for it. - Lord Hydronium 07:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If this doesn't work, we should at the very least push for spouses. -- Ozzel 22:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You might like to see what this will look like in practice before voting. FourDot produced a demo here that is a useful illustration. --Eyrezer 23:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That looks neat, orderly, and useful. It's not complicated or messy in the slightest. - Lord Hydronium 04:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Perhaps...what about instances where said parents aren't spouses, ala Jacen Solo and Tenel Ka Djo? Babies mama/daddy? Or do we just leave that nasty business alone since it's only relevant (sort of...) on the offspring's page? --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbol(Talk) 04:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, for the offspring's page you'd just list the parents like normal. And for the parents, you wouldn't list the other person under "spouse" unless they were married. - Lord Hydronium 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
        • This is what I mean by real messy, real quick. Too many variables. Admirable concept, but a lot of testing should be done before this sort of thing is put forth. A lot. Graestan(Talk) 04:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
          • The fields seem pretty unambiguous to me. Parents, spouse, siblings, offspring...what's messy or complicated about those? - Lord Hydronium 04:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, the fact that these fields could make the infobox unnecessarily enormous, for one. I'd nix siblings right off the bat—their importance biographically is considerably less than the others. Also, the need to define relationships such as spouse is complicated. In all honesty, I'd be in favor of dropping the apprentice and master fields in infoboxes, as well, along these lines. The possibility of speculation, or as some like to say, "logical extrapolation," defining the contents of these fields is too high, in my opinion. Graestan(Talk) 04:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Why not just have a separate "Family" section in the article? Not like a family article with the whole family tree, just a few paragraphs saying who their parents are and if they have any siblings. I think it would look better there than in the infobox. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 12:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
                • All of that info ought to be in the Biography section anyway, so another section purely devoted to it isn't a good idea, IMHO. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 14:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Red, Grae: perhaps something like this (as far as the fields go). -- Ozzel 05:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Consolidating character templates

OK, we seem to have had this feature for several years now: Multiple character infoboxes, sorted by affiliation. And...the difference is...they're colour coded. That's cute and all, but I think we've progressed beyond the need to color code by affiliation. No other templates are split up like this, and I think it's best for consistency's sake. Also, the different infoboxes seem to invite argument more than anything else, as people sometimes can't seem to decide on just which one should be used. It's really unnecessary...we can easily do without it.

Support

  1. Thefourdotelipsis 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. I see no reason to keep a mess of different infoboxes if the only difference is color and the color can be changed with the simple coding Xwing mentions below. Makes things simpler and easier to remember. jSarek 07:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the color variable thing is a pretty good idea, though at this point I think a separate CT would be best, with the momentum this thing has already. - Lord Hydronium 07:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Probably, though I'm afraid a new CT might be seen as trying to unfairly revive this one. Anyway, it doesn't matter, since it's not like my vote is going to change anything. ;-) jSarek 07:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Imperialles 13:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Part of what makes character articles different is the fact that they're so numerous and that they can be divided by affiliation so readily. The different styles are part of the site culture already; there is really no need to change this, IMHO.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Eh...the only problem I really see with this are the arguments, which are kinda stupid when it comes down to it (should Vergere's infobox be red or brown?). Other than that I rather like the color-coding for adding some style to articles. - Lord Hydronium 07:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. I think the colors are useful. You soon become familiar with them and tells you at a glance their affiliation (less than a glance even). --Eyrezer 11:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. I don't think it's unnecessary at all. I do like the colour-coding, for the reasons some have stated above. Greyman@wikia(Talk) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Per all above. Unit 8311 16:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Certainly not Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. —Xwing328(Talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. RedemptionRedemptionusersymbol(Talk) 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. I've always liked the color variances and have felt they were some of our more endearing little features. They're "cute," if you want to put it that way. :P Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Green Tentacle (Talk) 23:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. Ozzel 00:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Graestan(Talk) 04:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. Havac 04:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. --Borsk Fey'lya Talk 09:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. Per Toprawa. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12) (Chow) 14:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 14:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  18. Nope. KEJ 14:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  19. Per Tope, they have their charmes so to say. MadclawShyriiwook! 21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  20. Din's Fire 997 06:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  21. Ooooh look, red means bad guy. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  22. Kyp 02:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

A comment: the organization infoboxes also get color-coded, just through individually changing the colors rather than distinct templates. eg, Empire Reborn and Black Sun use the Imperial and criminal colors respectively. You want to get rid of the colors entirely though right? Not just manually modify them? --Eyrezer 06:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, I suppose you could, if you wanted to, but it might complicate things. Thefourdotelipsis 06:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe all of these could be consolidated into one character template, where you define a single variable to select from the various color schemes we already have in existence. —Xwing328(Talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, if you really must have colors, wouldn't that make life a hell of a lot easier? Thefourdotelipsis 05:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I like Xwing's idea. Colors are good. Just because we're a sort-of-encyclopedia doesn't mean everything has to be monolithically monochrome. Gonk (Gonk!) 17:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Booting the eras field

Seriously, this one makes no sense at all, and it's become so ingrained that we don't even question it anymore. The eras field is what I'm talking about here, and it's a prime subject for a game of "One of these things is not like the other." Because, unlike everything in the infobox, nay, the article bar the BTS, it links to an OOU article. I understand the intent, but with the eras tags up there, I just don't see the need. For consistency's sake, I think it could be removed, or the field should contain the IU eras instead, listed in Category:Time periods. And if there's no applicable time period, you could list the relevant intergalactic war or something. They're always having one. Or maybe the dominant galactic government at the time, which would probably be better still. Basically, we get this CT through, then we vote on just what we replace it with.

Support

  1. Thefourdotelipsis 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. I'm not sure what purpose they serve. - Lord Hydronium 07:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. I like this idea, considering how we have the eras templates at the top of the page. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Get rid of these in IU templates, since we do have the eras tags. However, leave them in OOU templates such as {{Book}}. Don't replace with anything, because there are so many conflicting time periods. Don't put which government is dominant at the time either, because choosing one could be considered POV, especially during a time of war, etc. —Xwing328(Talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. One thing we could replace it with could be an "active during" field showing when a person of uncertain age whose death is unrecorded was at least known to have been around. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. It doesn't serve any useful purpose. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12) (Chow) 22:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Per Silly Dan. Green Tentacle (Talk) 23:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Never been a big fan of it. Graestan(Talk) 04:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. QuentinGeorge 05:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC) - OOU and I hate it. Nuke. QuentinGeorge 05:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Another of my long-standing issues. Eras are pretty meaningless IU. But if this fails, we certainly link to IU era articles like, the kind the Poles have. -LtNOWIS 02:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. The only thing I have against this is that it further relies on the era tags, which I never liked. But since they aren't going away... I can support replacing the silly (and by "silly" here I mean one spanning 5 years while another one is 24,000 years) OOU eras with some IU ones. -- Ozzel 22:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. If it stays, at least make it IU eras, not OOU. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 00:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. --Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Greyman@wikia(Talk) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unit 8311 16:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. They're helpful. And people don't automatically just know what eras the character lived in just by looking at icons. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. While I agree that OOU info in an IU "area" is not so good, this would be bordering on the haphazard. Dominant governments over certain periods could easily be a matter of dispute, and classifying time periods by wars isn't as encyclopedic as the eras. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. RedemptionRedemptionusersymbol(Talk) 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. --Borsk Fey'lya Talk 09:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. Let me be clear: I hate the "era" section in the infobox. It's always a pain in the ass. But I don't think we can switch to IU and I don't feel relying on the tags alone is user-friendly. Gonk (Gonk!) 17:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Zadi 02:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Nah. KEJ 14:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. OOU doesn't work in an IU infobox. IU won't work due to overlap. I second Ataru. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. Kyp 02:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Before I vote, I need a reminder . . . if this passes, how are we sourcing the era icons, again? jSarek 07:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • The body of the biography would source them. - Lord Hydronium 07:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't they be just as out of place there? Or do you mean the body of the Bts section? jSarek 07:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I mean, say, if there was a "Rebellion era" icon, that would be sourced by Rebellion era events in the bio body. - Lord Hydronium 07:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Sourcing eras is silly anyway. Per Hydro: it's obvious. -- Ozzel 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think that IU eras should start being used. Some of them have conjectural titles ("Post-Indecta period," "Post-Rianitus period," and "Post-Pius Dea period"), and a few seem to overlap with one another (such as the Manderon Period partially overlapping with the Sidereal Period, not to mention the Golden Age of the Sith taking place at the same time). Frankly, I think that would look messy. If the OOU eras are to be removed, I think we should just stick with the icons at the top of the articles. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 00:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, I think using IU eras would get really confusing. Yes, for all of us who use Wookieepedia daily and have an in depth understanding of the Star Wars Universe would be fine, but I think that it would just confuse many other readers. I also think it's helpful to just look and see which era the character belongs to, it may help you find more information about other characters from that era or help one find in print resources from that era as well. --Zadi (Yack Track) 12:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of bullets

This one's less important, and it's more an issue of aesthetics. Basically, we remove bullets from infoboxes and use <br> instead. It's just a lot neater and cleaner looking. And of course, this only applies to character infoboxes.

Support

  1. Thefourdotelipsis 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. I think these look a lot cleaner --Eyrezer 23:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Again, needlessly complicated (for the templates at least) and the bullets do come in handy. I suppose it's a case of "red vs. blue" or "vertical vs. horizontal blinds."--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. I actually like the bullets. I find 'em to be cleaner as they indicate listings better than just a <br>. Less keystrokes to make a bullet, too. >>; Trak Nar Ramble on 06:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. To me, I find that they help with visual organization. Again, that's just my opinion. Greyman@wikia(Talk) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Unit 8311 16:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Certainly not. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 16:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. Per all the above. —Xwing328(Talk) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Bullets organize the information easily. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  8. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  9. This, for once, is where I feel bullets do serve a purpose. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. RedemptionRedemptionusersymbol(Talk) 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  11. Bullets make the list easier to follow. Green Tentacle (Talk) 23:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. When you get into long lists, and long items on the lists, the need becomes somewhat more necessary. Graestan(Talk) 04:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  13. --Borsk Fey'lya Talk 09:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  14. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 14:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  15. Having spent a few minutes playing with both, I've decided the bullets are the better way to go. Slightly more aesthetic in my opinion, and also help delimit separate entries when those entries are more than one line long. jSarek 07:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  16. As Trak Nar said - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 13:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  17. Per Sarek. See Kaiburr crystal for an example of double-lining. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 00:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  18. Per Tope and Graestan. At least the bullets are small :) Gonk (Gonk!) 17:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  19. "The bullet in the gun pointed at your head" KEJ 14:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  20. --Zadi (Yack Track) 12:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  21. Bullets are good for you. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  22. Kyp 02:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments