Forum:CT:Era symbols

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Era symbols


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 to use the era symbols.

  • Apparently everyone's begun adding these era Template:Erasstar|symbols all over the place without any sort of consensus on the matter, so, since this basically would affect every single character article on Wookieepedia if it were to be fully implemented, I think it at least deserves a discussion before it gets too out of hand. (rest of message) —MarcK [talk] 13:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Votes

Support

  1. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Sikon [Talk] 16:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Lord Hydronium 19:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Kuralyov 19:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Breathesgelatin 21:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Conditional Support. Support, but with the understanding that it only applies to articles with finite subjects, as mentioned below. RMF 23:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. --Eyrezer 00:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Rhysode 04:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. TopAce 18:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC) I support it, because 1) if I remember correctly, www.starwars.com has it, too 2) I can see no harm these symbols could do to us.
  10. The Erl of the CT:Era symbols talk What I do 03:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Conditional Support. Shadowtrooper talk 20:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. DarthMaul431 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. MarcK [talk] 13:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Adamwankenobi 13:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Silly Dan (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Lonnyd 23:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Thanos6 06:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Dude984 21:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Personally, I think it's very distracting, and in the end not very helpful since all of the applicable information can be found in the character's infobox. In its current state it especially crowds up the upper-right corner too much, and it also interrupts the line just below the page title (as shown here). If we are going to keep it, it should be made smaller and perhaps Photoshopped to be less distracting. —MarcK [talk] 13:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I really rather like them. I've had a few of my friends ask me before if there was any way to categorize all the articles under their respective time placements and, while this does not quite do that, it does go some way to doing so. Additionally, if we want to make them smaller, we can do so without photoshopping them at all and simply editing the template slightly. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to actually oppose this, but it does seem a little useless. The categories and the infobox already point out the relevant era info adequately. --Azizlight 13:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm abstaining from voting, but I find them to be a little redundant, plus it also messes up the FA star (if present). StarNeptuneTalk to me! 13:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I like them. I don't find them obtrusive, since they're small, monochrome, and out of the way of the page layout. As for redundancy, I don't see that as a problem. After all, the infobox has gender, species, and other such facts that are already in the article; it's just convenient to have them laid out like that. Same with the symbols; you can see the era info at a glance. As for the FA star, there's tl|erasstar for that. - Lord Hydronium 19:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer it if those whose era is unknown be kept blank rather than have a ? added. Also, will this eventually be used on events or vehicles/vessels as well?
  • I voted against: but if we do go for this, we should restrict it to characters, vehicles, governments, battles, and other items with a finite lifetime. We should keep it off planets, alien species, and the like, since most planets existed in some form through all eras, so the symbols would either be redundant or confusing. —Silly Dan (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • After some thought, I voted against. It does seem a bit redundant. But if it is implemented, I agree fully with Dan. Lonnyd 23:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I voted for it. I think they are neat and tidy and they fit well in that position. I would limit it only to characters though. --Eyrezer 00:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • We already list the era of the person/place/thing in infoboxes, so I really see very little point. -- SFH 18:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Most oppositions seem to be of the "doesn't matter" or "irritating" variety, so I would argue 1) If it doesn't matter, why not do it? It's mildly handy and a nice touch. 2) It doesn't bother me.--The Erl of the CT:Era symbols talk What I do 03:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • If these things go through (which is looking to be the case), could we all agree that they need to be smaller? —MarcK [talk] 10:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Smaller than they are already? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think they're that big. As it is, they're about the height of the title text, which I think balances nicely. - Lord Hydronium 11:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The problem, as I stated before, is that they interrupt the line below the title, making the whole title look very awkward in my opinion. —MarcK [talk] 11:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I'd support their use, so long as they can be fixed to not get in the way of title text and stuff like that. Shadowtrooper talk 20:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Another point: any newcomer that looks at these symbols won't have any clue what they mean; hell, I don't even know what some of them mean. And, as I and SFH mentioned, it's a redundant and inferior source of information when compared to the era section of the character infobox. —MarcK [talk] 06:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I noticed that the featured star links to the Featured Article page. Can the symbol templates be modified so that they link to their respective era articles? - Lord Hydronium 09:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but at the expense of sacrificing customizability (currently, if you upload an image called "Era-XXX.png", it will immediately work without any changes to the template). - Sikon [Talk] 11:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
      • But often is that going to be necessary? The only place where new eras appear is post-ROTJ, and Legacy has that tied up for the forseeable future. - Lord Hydronium 11:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm supporting this (not just because I started idea) but because I like it, it looks nice and can be useful for quick glance references. As for newcomers being confused with these: 1. The Main Page clearly explains what the symbols stand for and at what time they take place. 2. The OS Databank uses them as well and they don't seem to have any problems. As for the stars, I remember a while back that there was discussion as to if we should change the stars as they seemed a bit plain. How about we have a second go at designing and creating a replacement for the star that could be inserted the same way eras symbols are? DarthMaul431 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • ...I actually like that idea. If we could change the star to a box of the same size as the era symbols that would certainly solve that problem; the current image was really just a placeholder until we could think of something more Star Wars-related. So...what should it be exactly? —MarcK [talk] 07:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Well before we got into the era symbols I though maybe instead of the star we could use the symbol of the rebellion but since that is being used I thought that since this is the Wookieepedia, we should have a Wookiee symbol. Not a regular picture though, maybe an illustrated image of a Wookiee's head or something. DarthMaul431 22:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
        • The search box has a Wookiee... :) - Sikon [Talk] 22:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • How about one of these (I prefer the one with Chewie). Should we open a new concensus track for these?

[1] [2] [3] [4] DarthMaul431 23:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.