Forum:CT:Infobox exclusivity for alternate calendar dates

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Infobox exclusivity for alternate calendar dates
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 Adopt the proposed changes. Imperators II(Talk) 11:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Some Legends articles for in-universe years are returning to our nomination pages and some dicussion has come up about whether the four various alternate dating systems are necessary to include in the article body. There were mixed opinions on Discord so I figured I'd start a CT to determine the way to go.

Looking at the other exceptions listed here I think the reasoning used to determine which pieces of information are not required in the body can apply here. The "prev," "conc," and "next" fields of event infoboxes are exempt due to a potential lack of relevance to the articles. There's not a ton of relevance to knowing how much time had passed between the signing of the Treaty of Coruscant and the Imperial era. There are some years where alternate dates are relevant, such as 3653 BBY, when the Treaty of Coruscant was signed, so like event chronology alternate dating systems should still be acknowledged in article bodies when they are relevant.

Another exemption is demonyms in location articles, which was implemented in a mofference on the basis that including them led to some awkward wording. As we can see in 90,000 BBY, adding the years in the body awkwardly takes up a lot of space in the article, and readers are most likely going to skip over that information without retaining it anyway. This is not to say that the information isn't useful, but I don't think it needs to be written out in article prose.

The proposal is to add the following second bullet point to the infobox section of the Layout Guide:

  • All infobox material must be detailed in the article proper, with the following exceptions:

Support

  1. Commander Code-8 Hello There! 05:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. Also relevant to Canon — YakovChaimTzvi ChissAscendancyCanonSymbol (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Definitely. VergenceScatter (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. An exemption doesn't mean it CAN'T be in the body, just that it doesn't HAVE to be. Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. LucaRoR CIS roundel (Talk) 08:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. Imperators II(Talk) 09:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. Lewisr (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  8. OOM 224 16:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  9. Per Manoof Fan26 (Talk) 01:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  10. JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 02:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  11. Tommy-Macaroni 09:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  12. Zed42 (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  13. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

  • Since you say that "alternate dating systems should still be acknowledged in article bodies when they are relevant", why does your proposed policy wording does not reflect this? Imperators II(Talk) 08:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Because none of the other examples in that section of the layout guide do it either and I wanted to be consistent. Commander Code-8 Hello There! 09:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    • The existing wording implies that the exceptions are not required in the article body, not that they CAN'T be in the body. Maybe that's a separate tweak if it needs to be clarified? Manoof (he/him/his) (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I think it would be good to add clarify that indeed. 1358 (Talk) 08:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
        • So it could be something like "Approximate dates in alternate dating systems for year articles, which are not necessarily relevant to the article" like the event part of the LG says, or "Approximate dates in alternate dating systems for year articles, except in cases where an alternate calendar is used by a source or is relevant to the article" Commander Code-8 Hello There! 10:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
          • FWIW they're exact dates, not approximate dates. Imperators II(Talk) 10:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
            • Approximate dates is what they're labelled in the year infoboxes, whether that should be changed might be a separate discussion Commander Code-8 Hello There! 11:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)