Forum:CT:Mentioned only

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Mentioned only

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 keep Layout Guide as it currently is. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed by Eyrezer:

This consensus track is to something of an add on to this vote on how the {{Mo}} tag is to used. Currently our Layout Guide makes mention of the "Mentioned only" template in the Appearances section only. However, I personally also use it in the Sources section, for instance when something is name dropped in a "non-fiction" source but no information is provided beyond the name. I think this is a very useful piece of information to have in the sources list, and I do not think adds any ambiguity. As such, I propose a small addition to the Layout Guide.

Currently under sources it has: Includes even the smallest mentions.
I propose changing to : Includes even the smallest mentions. These should be marked with the {{Mo}} tag.

Vote

For addition to Layout Guide

  1. --Eyrezer 05:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep Layout Guide as it currently is

  1. All sources are technically "mentioned only". I'd be more in favor of creating a "minor appearance" template or something that's functionally similar for sources. Semantic, sure, but an important distinction, especially for newbies. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per Ataru, except for the "minor appearance" thing. All sources are MOs. Thefourdotelipsis 00:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. IFYLOFD (And now, young Skywalker, you will die.) 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. I maintain that that's the fundamental difference between an Appearance and a Source. You can't "appear" in a Source, so the Mo is unnecessarily redundant. Toprawa and Ralltiir 02:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. I concur with Toprawa. Also, I don't believe the scope of information contained in a source should be quantified. Any information from a source is still information from that source. The difference would be whether or not information from the source is used and cited in the article or not. Sources and appearances, in my opinion, should retain their very separate systems as they are necessarily and fundamentally different. Graestan(Talk) 03:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. Per myself down below, and 4dot, Tope and Grae. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 14:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. While I understand that you want to distinguish between a source that has an entire entry on a topic, and one that is just making a passing remark, I feel like this would make things more confusing rather than less, mostly along the lines of what Toprawa said. Also along the lines of Toprawa, I just don't think it is an important distinction. Wildyoda 17:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  8. Per Wildyoda, and Grae, and Tope, and Fourdot, and Ataru's first sentence. Which I suppose technically means per Acky too. Havac 07:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

While I'm setting up a vote from the outset, please discuss it further. I saw someone say that all sources are mentions only (as opposed to appearances) so the template is redundant. While I don't think that is the case, perhaps a (Minor mention only) would do the trick if the {{Mo}} template is deemed unsatisfactory. --Eyrezer 05:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  • It's all bit hazy - what exactly counts as "smallest mention"? People will have different opinions and I can't see it working smoothly without some more specific guidelines. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    • In response to Ataru, above: I'm not really for distinguishing in the sources between major and minor appearances, and here's why:
      1. You can get three sentences of article information out of a short blip from WEG, and then only a sentence from an Essential Guide that simply summarizes novel appearances with minimal additional information.
      2. Any information or mention seems important to me. Graestan(Talk) 23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Eyrezer, can you clarify for us what exactly is a "non-fiction" story that would be Source list material? Also, I agree with Acky that any kind of "Minor mention only" tag will be completely up to individual interpretation and will have no standardization whatsoever. I don't think we need to differentiate between a mention only and a minor mention only. I fear that's just splitting hairs. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The wording of non-fiction is straight from our Layout Guide. I just put it in " " because sometimes they are hardly non-fiction in the strict sense of the word.
  • To be honest, I'm not that keen on a minor appearance template—a lot of work for no real gain. Just tossed it out there as a possible idea. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 02:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've found an example that I think illustrates the issue, for me at least. Meekah Hozard, Leader of the Blood Tachs is a new Wizards article. The actual article is here. If you read down to the Meekah Hozard by era, the Yuuzhan Vong, Separatists, Empire and Rebellion era all mentioned.Yet from the context of the article, there is no useful information whatsoever. When adding Meekah Hozard, Leader of the Blood Tachs to each of these, I would choose to add the {{Mo}} tag. --Eyrezer 03:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Or likewise, with WizardsoftheCoast Super Star on Wizards.com (backup link) (original site is defunct), I would choose to have the {{Mo}} tag paired with this source for articles on Jan Dodonna, Corran Horn, and Tycho Celchu. They are all mentioned, hence the requirement to have this as an entry in their sourcelists, but it is so minimal that I feel a tag is appropriate. (For the record, only one currently has that entry.) --Eyrezer 03:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Citing two examples doesn't really show us when and how this would be standardized. Ars Dangor's got what probably most people would consider a "minor mention" in the Dark Empire Sourcebook, yet from that I wrote about a paragraph and a half; if someone else was writing his article, saw the {{Mo}} tag, they might've ignored it because they assumed it to be nothing new. I don't really see who this would help. If you want to get the message across that there's no new info in something you can either use <!-- hidden text --> or just say as much in the BtS, which usually covers a subject's sources/appearances to some extent if it's FA quality. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 14:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)