Forum:CT:Era on Character Profile Box

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Era on Character Profile Box

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 No consensus. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:57, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

It's been an irritant to me (and many others, I'm sure) since it's inception, and it still sticks out like a sore thumb right now.

What am I talking about? Why, the Era row on the Profile. The problem with it is, as I see, two fold.

  1. It duplicates information we depict elsewhere much more easily (the tags at the top of the article) and, far more importantly....
  2. We are mixing OOU and IU information which makes our character (and other) boxes needlessly confusing.

What can be done?

Well, it could be simply removed, but how about this alternative:

We replace the eras we are using with the IU eras. Thanks to the Essential Atlas, we pretty much have IU era names for all eras from Pre-Republic era to the Skywalker epoch.

To give an example of what this change would mean I've put a before-and-after-infobox at the side.

IMO, the IU era names are far more meaningful, particularly since "Old Republic era" covers...24,000 years!


The only downside I can really see is that the transition involves a lot of work and cannot be done by bots, but IMO this is a change we should have done long ago.

And just to be clear - the publishing eras would remain at the top of the article.


Despite the heading, consider this to apply to all profile boxes (characters, vehicles, worlds, etc). QuentinGeorge 04:22, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

For

  1. - QuentinGeorge 04:22, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
    Keep OOU out of articles except BtS. This is really a no-brainer. Thanks for putting forth what dozens have told me irked them in the past, QG. Graestan(Talk) 04:32, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • I suppose I'd rather just see the OOU stuff go, for now. This is a means to an end and I'd rather go with the simplest means. Graestan(Talk) 04:48, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  2. OH GOD YES. Thefourdotelipsis 04:37, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  3. This has been bugging me for a while. I was actually thinking of making this CT. Read my mind, Quentin. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 08:20, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
    CT-1987 14:16, May 1, 2010 (UTC)--I like this because it looks like it would give a new reader a more specific timeline to go off of. (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Fewer than 50 mainspace edits -- Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (We seed the stars) 14:28, May 1, 2010 (UTC))
    Absolutely. I was thinking about proposing this just yesterday, anyway. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 18:17, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  4. If the Atlas has given us IU time periods, we should use them, just so long as they don't end up overlapping. Then I believe the infoboxes would be entirely IU. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:21, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  5. I'd be in favor of changing to IU eras in the infobox if they cover all time periods and don't overlap too badly; otherwise, for removing the infobox field altogether. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:17, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Overlap would be confusing, but I'm not overly concerned if we don't have a name for every era. Just list the ones we do know and fill in the others if they're revealed later. Kill the OOU ones either way. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:53, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Against

  1. We don't appear to have enough IU eras to replace the OOU ones. This issue should probably be revisited in a CT to remove eras altogether. --Imperialles 05:29, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Chack Jadson (Talk) 00:23, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Per Toprawa & Master Jonathan.—Tommy 9281 00:27, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
    While yes, the current Eras is OOU, I have to say that some kind of formatting in articles has to indicate some sort of IU time period in which it takes place, and I frankly don't see any better alternatives. Simply put, I don't see why eras should be removed—yes, it's OOU, but it's working fine in spite of that. I also don't see enough information to merge the gap between the IU eras, which is why my vote is here. CC7567 (talk) 18:46, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  4. -- 1358 (Talk) 05:24, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Remove the OOU eras, but don't add the IU eras

  1. I am definitely opposed to using the OOU eras in the infobox—they're OOU, and we generally don't allow other OOU things in infoboxes, such as the phrasing of things as "unidentified" or "unknown." However, I am also opposed to using IU eras, because of the general overlap and confusion of them all as per Tope and Master Jonathan below. So why not just get rid of the OOU eras and be done with it? Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (We seed the stars) 18:18, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Per Jon, and we already have the same information in the {{Eras}} template anyway. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 18:24, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  3. This seems like the best option. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 18:46, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Per Jon and Pranay. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 19:08, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  5. I was hoping IU eras would be better defined in canon (for example in the Atlas or Chronology), but this would be my second choice. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 09:49, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
  6. NAYAYEN:TALK 15:59, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
  7. It might be best to just do this incrementally. If we can really codify what the IU eras are—although I wholly support using them and excluding them when no era applies—then I will throw my support completely behind it. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 21:07, May 7, 2010 (UTC)
  8. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 11:16, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Graestan(Talk) 16:00, May 8, 2010 (UTC)
  10. CC7567 (talk) 17:38, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Per jon. —fodigg BlackRebelStarbird (talk) | 18:15, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

  • If we are to do this, we need to come up with a set list of IU eras to use. There's so much overlap between them, and listing them all would be redundant. --Imperialles 04:29, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I'll need to see a pretty comprehensive and organized layout of exactly which eras we'll be using before considering supporting this. There are more IU time periods than I care to even think about trying to learn and understand, and many do evidently overlap and blur the lines of distinction. The benefit of the OOU eras is that they're few in number and clearly marked as to where and when they begin, so there's little or no confusion. Maybe at worst we should just consider removing them from the infoboxes in lieu of replacing them with what is right now an even more disorganized system. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:46, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • Per Tope. Given the inherent confusion in dealing with overlapping IU time periods, I'd prefer just deleting the field outright. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 05:27, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Why are Characters so uniquely special to deserve this? We use the eras field for other infoboxes as well (Starships, Structures, Organizations, off the top of my head). If you change one, you might as well change all of them. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:34, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • I assumed this would be sweeping. I agree. Make it all IU articles. Graestan(Talk) 04:34, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • That was actually my intention. I'd forgotten about the others. QuentinGeorge 04:35, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • The other thing that people are going to complain about is that we would no longer be providing a source for the era icons. I argue that we do pretty much provide sources for those throughout the article, albeit indirectly, but CFS should really apply here. For consistency's sake, however, we should have been having IU eras in the infoboxes for ages and ages and ages. I recall this getting shot down a while back, though. Thefourdotelipsis 04:37, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • I like the idea of going to IU eras (or at the very least getting rid of the OOU ones in the infobox), I just don't know about the practicality; whether we have a full set of eras to cover all dates, and whether the eras we have are canonically accurate (take Sidereal Period, for example). I think a sourced timeline of the eras would be absolutely necessary if we go this way. - Lord Hydronium 04:48, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • I've compiled what I could find here User:QuentinGeorge/List_of_IU_eras. Apart from one conjectural "fill in the gaps" period, all the rest are covered. (Assuming the Skywalker epoch is "ongoing".) QuentinGeorge 07:43, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks like, if this passes, I have more bot edits to add to my arsenal of decapitalizing "sector," defaultsorting, and whatever the hell else I do at nights when essentially going through the motions of hitting "Random Page." Trak Nar Ramble on 08:51, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • It'd probably be easier to go through the "What links here" for the OOU era articles (with the main namespace filter) and do it like that. Pretty much all article links to the OOU eras are from the infobox. NAYAYEN:TALK 09:04, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • I have a quick question for QuentinGeorge—I just took a glance at the list of IU eras you made on your subpage, and I found that you put Skywalker epoch as 4 ABY onward, as opposed to 42 BBY and onward. Is this intentional, in order to prevent era overlaps? That's really the only problem I have with using IU eras: the great mass of them all would lead inevitably to confusion and overlaps. In honesty, I'd rather just have the OOU eras go. Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (We seed the stars) 14:07, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • I've been working on dates for a while now, and I've been digging into this in anticipation of proposing this myself. I can say for certain that I have sources for dates for all but the Sidereal Period, as according to everything I've seen is not an "era" but talking about an astronomical sidereal. The Skywalker Epoch does begin with the birth of Anakin Skywalker, although it is a little used date that comes from hard-to-get source material. I'll go through and double check these dates within 48 hours for the ease of everyone voting. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 18:17, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • I've not got the Tales of the Jedi companion myself, what does it actually say? I just don't think it would mention Anakin, but I might be wrong. QuentinGeorge 23:25, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • The TotJ Companion gives no dates or reference points for when the Skywalker epoch began, no mention of Anakin either. What's more, there is no indication that it's an IU era. As I understand it, the TotJ Companion is written from an OOU perspective (save for the occasional paragraph by Ood Bnar) as evidenced by the mention of OOU media (the TotJ comics, the movies, etc). Anyway, "Skywalker epoch" is used only twice in the book. The first is in a section about what planets a GM can use in his/her adventure, so that's OOU. The second time is in comparing the level of hyperspace technology between the OT and TotJ eras. In either case, it just seems to be a shorthand used by the author to refer to the general movie/post-RotJ era. There's no indication that "some historians" in-universe have ever used the name, as our article on the epoch seems to indicate.Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 01:35, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
    • Regardless, in the case of overlaps - all applicable eras would go in the box. We do that now anyway. QuentinGeorge 23:26, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Would anyone mind if we started a third voting option to simply get rid of the OOU era usage? Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (We seed the stars) 17:07, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
    • That would be fine with me. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 02:36, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't see the point of removing it outright. It's not hurting anything to have it there, I think we should just leave it as is.—Tommy 9281 02:46, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay. Apparently somewhere along the line, I misinterpreted exactly what this CT intends to do. Do we intend to remove the {{Eras}} template, remove the "eras" field from the infobox, or do either some combination of the two or something else entirely? I don't think I'm understanding the problem here. If someone could clarify this for me, that would be helpful. CC7567 (talk) 18:58, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
    • The CT was made just to replace the "eras" field in the infobox with IU eras instead of the current OOU eras that we use. Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (We seed the stars) 19:00, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clarifying that. As a note, I'm striking my vote for now in order to give this more thought. CC7567 (talk) 19:03, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
        • The reason I vote the way I do (keep as is) is because if we remove this field, then there will be no source to the era icons at the top of the page. Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:57, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
          • In my mind, the list of appearances/sources themselves are the source of the era icons at the top. Grunny (talk) 22:55, May 16, 2010 (UTC)