Forum:CT:Clearing up Appearances and Sources (multiple votes)

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Clearing up Appearances and Sources (multiple votes)

At the moment, there's a bit of a lack of clarity and continuity between how we handle Appearance and Source lists, and that includes just what is on those lists, where they go, and which templates are used. And how. I'd just like to get a few simple votes going, to clarify or alter what we see on the Layout Guide

Use of {{1st}} and {{1stm}}

This section is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This section 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 Update the Layout Guide to read "Apply {{1stm}} and {{1stID}}. If subject first appeared in a vignette within source material, use {{1st}} in conjunction with {{C|Vignette}}." —Xwing328(Talk) 22:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, we have people using {{1st}} on items in the "Source" list. This would seem to be at odds with our layout, as it says "First appearance" when it's not really an "Appearance" in the sense that we use the word. Essentially, "First appearance" should only be used when the media would go in the "Appearance" list. A notable exception to this rule would be for narrative vignettes in a source, in which I recommend that we use {{1st}} in conjunction with {{C|Vignette}}

Change to the Layout Guide:

Instead of "Apply {{1st}}, {{1stm}} and {{1stID}} as per "Appearances" section above." We would have "Apply {{1stm}} and {{1stID}}. If subject first appeared in a vignette within source material, use {{1st}} in conjunction with {{C|Vignette}}."

Support

  1. Thefourdotelipsis 06:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Lord Hydronium 06:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Chack Jadson (Talk) 11:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. I suppose —Xwing328(Talk) 18:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Havac 19:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Unit 8311 15:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Wildyoda 02:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Kuralyov 15:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. I used to put 1st in the sources, but with a difference between 1stm and 1st, I'm happy with this clarification. --Eyrezer 04:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 15:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. If a character/ship/event/etc. was first mentioned in a "source", then was used later in a story/comic/other "appearance", I think this is valuable information. —Silly Dan (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
    • We may be better off trying to find a neutral word for use with {{1st}} than not marking when a thing first showed up in a source. Havac 16:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, this might be due to my hamfisted wording, but both these things would still happening under the proposal. If an article has "First appearance" and "First Mention", that means that the "mention" came first. If something originated in a source, it would still have "First mention". If it originated in an appearance, it would still just have "First appearance" and nothing else, as we do now. And if something was first mentioned in a source, that remains the same. Feel free to change the wording if it's a little unclear (but not the intent if I've misunderstood these statements. :P) Thefourdotelipsis 07:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I see what you are doing there. Havac 19:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. If I'm understanding this correctly, then I agree with Dan. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 08:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per Dan. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 00:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Once again, if I understand what Dan's saying, that information will be included if this goes through. Thefourdotelipsis 01:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Using the {{1stm}} template, you mean? I'd been thinking of that as a template used for passing references (the sort of thing which would lead us to write "X was a planet"-type articles) in either the sources or appearances section. {{1stdesc}} also exists, which I thought was for first substantial descriptions in sources. —Silly Dan (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.

Roleplaying Adventures

This section is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This section 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 Update the Layout Guide to read "Bulleted list of films, novels, comics, cartoons, roleplaying adventures and computer games that the subject has appeared in." —Xwing328(Talk) 22:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is something that seems to be inconsistent across the site, and I think it's important that we sort it out. Roleplaying adventures, such as Tatooine Manhunt or Echoes of the Jedi are considered sources for some reason, even though they are essentially narratives with game elements, much like a video game. I propose that they be placed in appearance lists as a rule.

Change to the Layout Guide:

Instead of "Bulleted list of reference books, books from the Wizards of the Coast roleplaying game or the West End Games roleplaying game lines, Databank entries, pages on the WotC website, StarWars.com articles, LucasArts websites, game strategy guides, Insider articles, and any other official non-fiction sources."

We have "Bulleted list of reference books, including sourcebooks from West End Games and Wizards of the Coast, Databank entries, pages on the WotC website, StarWars.com articles, LucasArts websites, game strategy guides, Insider articles, and any other official non-fiction sources."

Further addition to "Bulleted list of films, novels, comics, cartoons, and computer games that the subject has appeared in"

Would now read "Bulleted list of films, novels, comics, cartoons, roleplaying adventures and computer games that the subject has appeared in."

Support

  1. Thefourdotelipsis 06:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Lord Hydronium 06:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Chack Jadson (Talk) 11:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. I am convinced this used to be the policy, but won't bother diving into the archives to find out. 8)—Silly Dan (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Havac 16:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Unit 8311 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. --Eyrezer 09:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 08:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Kuralyov 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 00:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  14. Even if this wasn't in place "rule-wise", I've always seen it in use. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 15:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

  • I think we should clarify that RPG supplements which are primarily adventures count as appearances, but RPG supplements which are primarily sourcebooks with adventures included are sources (e.g. if a character appears in "The Pirates of Prexiar", a sample adventure in Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game, Second Edition, Revised and Expanded, that's a source.) Does that make sense? —Silly Dan (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I know that most of the vignettes in sourcebooks have titles and their own articles at those titles, like A Grand Admiral Returns. Something like that could just be put at The Pirates of Prexiar and included in appearances. Havac 16:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I thought it was only the ones which have been republished online or in a magazine which get their own articles? —Silly Dan (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Hmmmm. Either way, there's nothing stopping us from doing it that way. Havac 20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is kind of going along with Dan's comment. I support this the way it sounds, but I would just like some clarification as to what RPG supplements we are talking about exactly. I've never read many of these books, i.e. Tatooine Manhunt, so I'm not sure exactly what's in them and what makes them different than, say, the short RPG supplements at the end of sourcebooks like the Galaxy Guides, which I am familiar with, which Dan seems to suggest we should still list under "Sources," something I agree with. Can you clarify this difference for me? Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Things like Tatooine Manhunt are all one story. They're not like, say, the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, where you have a lot of information and maybe a handful of story seeds. It's one very-well-fleshed out story, with a bit of supplemental information about the characters involved. It's like a pre-made RPG adventure with a distinct storyline, rather than a sourcebook having a lot of facts and saying, "OK, make some adventures out of this," or even "Here's a starting point to put these facts to use; go for it." Havac 20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.

Use of compendiums and omnibuses

This section is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This section 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. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not uncommon to see a source list with Episode I: Incredible Cross-Sections as well as Star Wars: Complete Cross-Sections, or Crisis on Cloud City as well as Classic Adventures: Volume Five. This is misleading, as the former of those two examples merely includes the latter. If this practice is to continue, we are in danger of listing things like book club exclusives that collect all three installments in a novel series, or the Dark Horse Omnibus series.

Don't get me wrong, I think that there is a time and place for those to be listed, but only if it 'new information is provided in the collected format. If we do otherwise, things are likely to get cluttered and messy, which is certainly unneeded in certain circumstances.


Addition to the Layout Guide:

"If an appearance or source is collected in an omnibus-style format, only list the "collection" item if new information is provided."

"If an appearance or source is collected in an omnibus-style format, list the "collection" item only if new information is provided." (reworded per confusion below)

Support

  1. Thefourdotelipsis 06:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Lord Hydronium 06:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Chack Jadson (Talk) 11:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. I guess. Havac 16:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. JMAS Hey, it's me! 18:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Makes things simpler. Unit 8311 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Wildyoda 02:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Yes please. -- Ozzel 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. --Borsk Fey'lya Talk 11:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Kuralyov 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. No, I strongly disagree with this and feared this would come about someday. So, we would leave out all the previous Inside the Worlds and just include Complete Locations? No. We shouldn't be compromising our comprehensiveness in any regards to an article. Include all appearances and sources. If someone needs to find out what has new information and what doesn't, they can click the links and their answers will be found. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Unless I misunderstand the proposal, this would do the exact opposite: a subject appearing in Inside the Worlds wouldn't have Complete Locations listed as a source unless the collected book gave new information. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
      • That is not how I interpreted the proposal at all. Complete Locations encompasses everything in the previous Inside books, so we would no longer be listing any of the Inside books since CL is the "collected" version. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I think you're interpreting it wrong. It's saying that you list the sources it appears in -- so, Inside the Worlds. If it comes out in a collection (Complete Locations) you only include that on the list, alongside ITW, if it includes new information on the topic. If it just reprints the pages from ITW, you just leave ITW on the list and leave CL off. If there's new information in CL, you leave ITW on and put CL on next to it. Havac 20:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Top, I think I get where the misinterpretation is coming from. It's phrased "If an appearance or source is collected in an omnibus-style format, only list the "collection" item if new information is provided," and I think you're reading that from the "only list the "collection" item" part. Perhaps this phrasing is clearer: "If an appearance or source is collected in an omnibus-style format, list the "collection" item only if new information is provided." - Lord Hydronium 18:10, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
      • Yes, I see where I was misreading that now. Thanks for the clarification. I change my oppose wording, then, to "mildly disagree." :P I'm not sure what it would hurt to just list the redundant source along with it - again, for the sake of a comprehensive list. Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Weak oppose per T&R. Doesn't hurt to list the additional source. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 20:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. --Eyrezer 01:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely not! Per Toprawa and Ralltiir. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 00:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. There's no harm in listing all sources. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. I don't like the idea of making it more confusing for a reader. And what's the problem with typing * ''[[Star Wars: Complete Locations]]''? JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 15:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Jorrel said it. KEJ 15:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Please note that if we do list collections, we have to list ALTAs with Marvels, "Classic Star Wars" issues and TPBs with newspaper strips, movie adaptation omnibuses with the individual books...but if that's helpful, sure. Thefourdotelipsis 08:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.

HoloNet News articles

This section is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This section 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. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is one that puzzles me: We list HoloNet News articles in the appearances section, but just how do you "appear" in them? I can't even find the rule that stipulates this in the Layout Guide, but the essential thing is this: These aren't narrative. They're IU source material, much like the New Essential Chronology.

Addition to the Layout Guide:

Instead of "Bulleted list of reference books, books from the Wizards of the Coast roleplaying game or the West End Games roleplaying game lines, Databank entries, pages on the WotC website, StarWars.com articles, LucasArts websites, game strategy guides, Insider articles, and any other official non-fiction sources."

We have "Bulleted list of reference books, books from the Wizards of the Coast roleplaying game or the West End Games roleplaying game lines, Databank entries, pages on the WotC website, StarWars.com articles (including HoloNet News articles), LucasArts websites, game strategy guides, Insider articles, and any other official non-fiction sources."

Support

  1. Thefourdotelipsis 06:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Lord Hydronium 06:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Chack Jadson (Talk) 11:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. The NEC is in-universe, too, but it doesn't count as an appearance. Havac 16:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Makes sense. We already do this with the HoloNet's "predecessor," the Galaxwide NewsNets from the Adventure Journals. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. I wasn't sure about this one initially, but the logic behind it is pretty sound. -- Ozzel 06:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. It's not a story. It has no plot, just as BBC news has no plot. It's an in-universe source of information. -LtNOWIS 09:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. I don't know why I've been sitting this thread out for so long, when I've always considered a lot of our existing sourcing practices ridiculous. jSarek 19:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. They are an in-universe story, just formatted as (fake) journalism rather than as a short story, film, RPG adventure, etc. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Explicitly IU works actually tend to be Sources more often. Essential Guides and WEG sourcebooks, for example; while Appearances are OOU sources like novels (well, technically any narrative text is IU in its own way, but not explicitly like the NEC or WEG or HoloNet News). - Lord Hydronium 22:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per Silly Dan. —Xwing328(Talk) 17:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per Dan. Unit 8311 15:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Strongly oppose. --Eyrezer 05:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. In-universe story = Appearance. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 20:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • So, The New Essential Chronology is an Appearance? Thefourdotelipsis 03:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Note the use of the word "story", which I would classify as different than a chronology, dossier, etc. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
        • HNN isn't a story either. Is being shown a newspaper article a story? It's a presentation of an IU document which incidentally relays elements of stories, but is not actually a narrative -- not a presentation of an IU story. If we see a copy of the Declaration of a New Republic, is that a story? If someone's mentioned in Luke Skywalker's recollection of a story in the EGTTF, does that mean we have to count that as appearing in a narrative? I sure hope not. It's like claiming a newspaper article on a robbery is the same thing as a crime novel. Havac 03:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 08:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. --Borsk Fey'lya Talk 11:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Ditto Ataru. Kuralyov 15:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 00:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. Per Ataru. Din's Fire 997 18:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  12. Logically it's a source, but it just feels like an appearance. Slightly wishy-washy oppose. Wildyoda 15:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  13. Nevah. KEJ 15:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Like you said it is IU, even if it appears like a source, but I don't why a person couldn't appear in a news story like a character appears in a novel. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm still not sure what the two arguments are, even after reading over them several times on different occasions, so I'm just going to abstain, and not let my ignorance choose one way or the other. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 15:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.