Forum:CT:Databank position on Sources lists

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Databank position on Sources lists

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 change to Layout Guide. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:48, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

During our recent CT about adding Encyclopedia articles to Sources lists, the issue was raised that, currently, our Layout Guide treats the Databank as a resource that could potentially be updated at any time, with this language:
- Since Databank and Encyclopedia entries are subject to modification at any time, they should be listed alphabetically, not by publication date, at the end of the Sources section. Databank entries should precede Encyclopedia entries, and they are to be organized by official entry name (without titles or ranks for characters, and by surname if applicable), e.g.:
  - 501st Legion in the Databank (original site is defunct)
  - clone troopers in the Databank (original site is defunct)
  - Rex, Clone Captain in the Databank (original site is defunct)
  - Skywalker, Anakin in the Databank (original site is defunct)
  - Vader, Darth in the Databank (original site is defunct)
  - clone troopers in the Encyclopedia (original site is defunct)
  - Clone Captain Rex in the Encyclopedia (original site is defunct)
  - Anakin Skywalker in the Encyclopedia (original site is defunct)
  - Darth Vader in the Encyclopedia (original site is defunct)

However, with the revamp of the StarWars.com website on September 13, 2011, the Databank is no more, and is no longer subject to such updating. Therefore, I hereby propose that we amend the Layout Guide so:
- Databank entries should be listed as if their publication date was September 12, 2011 (the last day the Databank was online). However, since Encyclopedia entries are subject to modification at any time, they should be listed alphabetically, not by publication date, at the end of the Sources section.
- Databank and Encyclopedia entries are to be organized by official entry name (without titles or ranks for characters, and by surname if applicable), e.g.:
  - 501st Legion in the Databank (original site is defunct)
  - clone troopers in the Databank (original site is defunct)
  - Rex, Clone Captain in the Databank (original site is defunct)
  - Skywalker, Anakin in the Databank (original site is defunct)
  - Vader, Darth in the Databank (original site is defunct)
  - clone troopers in the Encyclopedia (original site is defunct)
  - Clone Captain Rex in the Encyclopedia (original site is defunct)
  - Anakin Skywalker in the Encyclopedia (original site is defunct)
  - Darth Vader in the Encyclopedia (original site is defunct)

This will obviously affect tons of articles, but it's only best practice in my opinion. The Databank is now like any other published source and should be treated that way, while the Encyclopedia is the only source we have to worry about updates for. Please discuss any alternate options below before modifying the CT. Thanks! ~Savage 21:50, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Support

Per above. ~Savage 21:50, December 14, 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense. Master Jonathan — ^{Jedi Council Chambers} _{Thursday, December 15, 2011, 06:42 UTC}
I was just thinking about this issue yesterday. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 07:58, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
Seems logical. Fortunately, not too many other things have come out since the Databank went down, so updating will be relatively minor. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:12, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 01:58, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
Per above. Coruscantfan ^(Talk) 03:07, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
1358 ^(Talk) 12:07, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
Tinwe^(comlink) 13:58, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
--Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 17:10, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
Logical. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 18:14, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 18:29, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
CC7567 ^(talk) 07:36, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
MasterFred^(Whatever) 14:52, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
Craven 20:42, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 02:38, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
NaruHina ^Talk 07:07, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
--Eyrezer 09:48, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 13:03, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
Can we bot this? Menkooroo 18:31, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
Seems fine although I like to see CC's point cleared up. Clone Commander Lee ^Talk 20:58, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
May it be done. Perhaps we should consider looking at other sites where their last update was so and so, and thus should be placed according to that last update? -- Riffsyphon1024 23:18, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
The new SW.com 9_9 Go away and stay away. JangFett ^(Talk) 23:42, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

I think it would be worth incorporating a clause that if the Databank entry's original publication is known, then that should be used for placement instead of September 12. mastiff phalone in the Databank (original site is defunct), for example, was published with the airing of "Jedi Crash," which was released on January 16, 2009. We wouldn't be able to do that for all of them, but it would be nice to use it where known. CC7567 ^(talk) 22:03, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
- I thought about that, but I ultimately decided it would be too complicated to determine their publication dates. The Internet Archive can give some guidance on this, so it's possible, but for now, I think it might be better to just lump them all together as we have been doing. But I'm open to other ideas, of course. :) ~Savage 22:19, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
  - I think it would be worth pursuing, if only because the September 12 placement is more of a last-resort placement than anything else. Where possible, we should try to be as accurate as we can in ordering sources, and we do have internet archives of at least some of the old archives on StarWars.com, which had the original publication dates for most of the Databank entries. We can always fall back on September 12 when it's really not possible to access the old archives, but we should try to make an effort where we can. CC7567 ^(talk) 02:21, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
- Conceptually speaking, the entire Databank was kept up-to-date until the day it went offline. If a particular entry was not updated for some weeks/months/years before that date, it's (theoretically) because it didn't need any updates—our presumption should be that the Databank maintainers were on top of things, and that all entries met their approval as of Sep 12, 2011. That would therefore be the correct date to use for all Databank entries.
  What you propose would be the same, conceptually speaking, as obtaining notes concerning when Stephen Sansweet or Pablo Hidalgo wrote individual entries for The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia, and using those dates in citations rather than the publication date of the books. I would argue that even if we did have such information available, the correct date to use is the publication date of the full work: all entries were subject to revision—whether they were in fact revised or not—up until that date. For the Databank, the publication date of the full work is essentially Sep 12, 2011. Asithol 14:01, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
  - Would that be the date of the original publication of the DB entry, or the most recent version in the Internet Archive? The problem I see with this idea is that we are basically reliant on the Internet Archive, but (unless I'm mistaken) the versions it keeps snapshots are taken pretty much at random and not when the DB entry was modified or updated. If that's the case, and we decided to order by original publication date of the DB entry, we should have been doing so all along. Does that make sense? ~Savage 15:17, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
    - It depends on the entry, essentially. This archive, for example, shows that the DB entries for Ahsoka and Captain Rex were published between May 3 and May 6, while this one on June 30, 2008 (by reverting between the July 29 one and this one) shows that an update was made on that day to Skywalker's DB entry concerning the 501st and Captain Rex. Depending on whether a subject (say, Captain Rex) was mentioned from the start in a DB entry (e.g. his own) or an update to an entry (Skywalker's, in this case), that would depend on how the DB entry gets listed placement-wise in the article; if it's the first case, the DB entry would get listed by publication date, and in the second case, the DB entry would get listed by update date. The Internet Archive isn't perfect, and we wouldn't be able to apply this placement to all DB entries, but it's helpful in some cases. If this is too complicated, I'm fine with falling back on the September 12 date, but since each DB entry is unique, I feel that they should get treated separately and get listed by their publication dates (original publication or update to the entry), where possible, instead of treating the DB as a single entity and lumping all entries together on September 12. CC7567 ^(talk) 18:56, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
      - I think update date makes more sense, since it keeps with the spirit of our current policy of including them at the end of the list because they might be updated again. But at this stage in the CT, how to propose this? Maybe add an extra voting option so people have the ability to vote for either September 13 across the board, or update date, or do nothing (and keep the current system)? I'm just worried that it may be too late in the CT for something like this, but let me know what you think, since I like the update date idea. ~Savage 15:44, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
        At this point, it's probably best to let this CT run its course and start a new one after this one is closed. That said, I have a weak preference for leaving them as proposed here; what happens if the Internet Archive shows that the relevant information was added to Entry A between March 12 and March 14, but can only say that the information was added to Entry B between March 9 and March 17? Which gets listed first? Master Jonathan — ^{Jedi Council Chambers} _{Wednesday, December 21, 2011, 18:08 UTC}
        That's the thing that keeps coming back and hitting me in the head—the limits of archive.org. Do we have another archive site out there that might have archived the Databank as well? CC7567 ^(talk) 18:42, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
        The only two archive sites that I'm aware of are archive.org and WebCite, and the latter is an on-demand service meant for preemptive archiving. So the answer would be "probably not". Master Jonathan — ^{Jedi Council Chambers} _{Wednesday, December 21, 2011, 20:53 UTC}
        
        May I ask the purpose of the rule for the Databank entry's placement? If it is to give editors a simple method to order Sources, "use Sept 12" is a simple rule, and "follow the edit history on some external site" is not. If it is to indicate the order in which information became available to us in the real world, then CC7567's proposal of using either the original date or update date depending on the entry covers this, while the "always use last update date" proposal does not. This latter proposal, as Savage Bob says, follows the spirit of the Encyclopedia entries, but I'm not sure following the spirit of an evolving database system is relevant when citing a static one. A static database is more akin to a published work than a maintained electronic resource. Asithol 22:59, December 22, 2011 (UTC)