Forum:CT:Credits template - MoS

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Credits template - MoS
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 Support. —spookywillowwtalk 18:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Forwarding from the relevant Senate Hall on the same topic, proposing changes as outlined in this draft. The proposed would tweak the current bullet point in WP:LG/IU and add a new subsection to the "Formatting" main section of the WP:MOS, as proposed in the SH, to carry the rest of the stuff because it's more relevant there.

Essentially, following the last CT on the matter, it addresses several of the issues brought: the {{Cr}} template remains available for archival use, it remains usable in any form of quote, whether dialogue or quote template, or whenever using direct quotes in prose as denoted by usage of ", as well as in publisher's summaries. This ensures that truly 1:1 usages of it stay intact in every case.

However, as discussed at length on Discord and other places, it firms up that the template shouldn't be used in infobox fields as a shortcut, nor should it be abbreviated in the infobox field as "cr." instead of using the template, either—this was in existing policy, albeit not worded the best, so has been tweaked. It also takes template usage of "true prose"—for lack of better words, using "true prose" to refer to when an editor is summarizing information and writing in any fashion that isn't using direct quotes. For example, if the credit symbol isn't used in a game and a vendor says "The cost is 500." then something like "They charged him 500 credits for the blaster." would be used, not {{Cr}} for little to no reason.

Its usage hasn't been status precedent for at least since I've been here, and the true usages affected number maybe c. 200. But, it has the benefits of not unnecessarily using a symbol in the cases it's not used in the IU work in such a fashion (and if it is used in such a fashion; falls under the quotable exception). Not everyone knows what the symbol is, either and the other argument brought up in Discord is that some editors just find it visually ugly to look at in prose, which is a view I hold; we don't use many prose templates as it is; why this one? Doesn't make sense. —spookywillowwtalk 04:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Support

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 04:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  2. Lewisr (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  3. CometSmudge (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  4. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 09:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  5. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 10:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  6. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 10:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  7. 01miki10 Open comlink 11:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  8. Fan26 (Talk) 19:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  9. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  10. Imperators II(Talk) 10:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss