Forum:CT:Organizing Fact Files

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Organizing Fact Files

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 on splitting Fact Files into a separate section, include as much detail as possible on Fact File entry. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This CT is designed to discuss the way our articles organize issues of The Official Star Wars Fact File within Source lists. Some quick background, the European-sold Fact Files were published on a somewhat weekly basis from Dec 27, 2001 through 2005, for 140 issues before the series ended. Due to the nature in which the Fact Files were released, they were designed to be collected and broken up by individual subject; so, as a result separate issues were combined and intermingled, pretty much destroying any semblance of organization by publication date.

Currently, it is Wookieepedia's practice for users to do their best to organize Fact File issues among Source lists that contain many other published items. The problem is, while some Fact File issues can be roughly nailed down to a year between 2002 and 2005 as to when they were released, it seems that no one really knows when any issue was specifically published. So, this creates some serious difficulty and confusion for trying to organize these Source lists, which, according to Wookieepedia's Layout Guide, are meant to be organized by real-world publication date. Indeed, more or less we're just guessing where they should be placed, while others just put them at the end of the Source list with little alternative, similar to Databank entries. There's no rhyme or reason to how we're organizing these Fact Files and, for articles that have many sources, often published so close to one another, organization becomes near impossible.

Rather, I thought about what it would mean to use a Source list subsection to better organize Fact Files within articles. This would be similar to how some articles handle Non-canon appearances. For example, the Fact File subsection would look something like this:

Sources

The Official Star Wars Fact File

Instead of putting this thing right to vote, I thought we could discuss this. Like it? Dislike it? Think it can be improved somehow? Let yourself be heard. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I'm already using this format for Project Wormhead; I'm also using this format for Databank sources, except those are sorted alphabetically. Naturally, I'm in favor. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 18:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer not to do a subsection. Having spent some time trying to figure out where to put them in the past, I agree that the lack of issue release dates makes it difficult, but I'd rather keep them in the main list. If we can't order each issue, then either put them all at the end as you mentioned, or maybe just put them all by the date the series started. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Because when individual issues are stored together as intended by the series, it is difficult to know what was in eac one, on some Wookieepedia pages we have noted the specific article it is within. For instance, this example from Destruction of Despayre: The Official Star Wars Fact File 74 "[[{{{child|}}}]]" (Pages CRE1-CRE4, Creation of the First Death Star) This is useful because often an item will get mentioned in the context of a larger article on a different subject. As such, I argue this notation should be included in the final solution. --Eyrezer 19:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I absolutely agree with Eyrezer. I was hoping something like this could be incorporated in. The Destruction of Despayre example is a good way to do it, if something even couldn't be added to the Fact Files template. This should be added to all FF issues in Source lists regardless of how they are organized. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, good idea. The template can easily be adapted to do it. Green Tentacle (Talk) 20:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Things also get mentioned in the context of other entries in all kinds of reference works -- NEGTC entries, EGTW&T entries, web supplements on other characters. I don't really think we need to point out "The title actually isn't the character's name" or such when dealing with reference sources. I mean, the destruction of Despayre in Fact File 74? Let's see, what could it be in . . . Shaak Ti? MT-AT? Lowbacca? Bounty hunters, that's probably it! It's really not that complicated, and I don't think this really helps anyone, while it only creates more precedent for "We need templates to point out the location of any information that's the slightest bit less than blindingly obvious!" What's next? "The Paradise Snare (Appears on pages 1-5, 7, 22, 89-105, mentioned on pages 6, 77, 155-156)"? As to the main point, I'm against creating a subsection just for this. I was able to place Fact Files by finding the release date of the first and doing the math at one a week, which is good enough for our purposes. Havac 18:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Right, except the math doesn't add up. They weren't released on a strictly weekly basis, so it's impossible to place them correctly. I'm guessing your placement isn't necessarily correct. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I know it wasn't exact -- but it's good enough for our purposes. It's a better solution than a different section. Havac 18:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
    • And in response to another one of Havac's signature inappropriately crude forum rantings, it's not as cut and dry as you might think. Sometimes a Fact File has sections on Imperial Star Destroyers, shield generator domes, and turbolasers, for example. You don't necessarily know where the Star Destroyer Avenger might fit into any of those topics. It's quite different from a singular entity as a novel like The Paradise Snare. Instead, it's like a magazine, and, much like our Insider template, it would be helpful to distinguish by individual article. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
      • You don't necessarily know, no, but you also don't necessarily know where Corran Horn shows up in the Galactic Campaign Guide. Sometimes information isn't glaringly apparent -- but I don't think it's at the point where we need subheadings to our templates to lead people around by the nose. Really, how are multiple entries in a magazine or book any more complex to navigate and find something in than multiple chapters in a book? Star by Star has a lot of pages, and isn't divided by obvious topics to give you very good clues where to look. It'd be harder to find one random mention in there than in a single Fact File issue. I don't think it's a move we need. Sorry that criticizing your idea makes me crude. Havac 18:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
        • There's constructive criticism in a civil tone (see: the first comments on this forum), and then there's rude sarcasm that doesn't get anyone anywhere. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Your confusion of my statement with the latter is your problem, unfortunately. Havac 21:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Let's please not get the thread off-topic with such statements. If there's an issue between you two over this thread, it's preferable that it be resolved over IRC/e-mail rather than steering the thread off-topic. Discussing differences of opinion is fine, but it's gone a bit beyond that IMO. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I was thinking more about where you do not know which FF issue info is in. So, for instance, asking Jaymach to find some info from FF 18 is of no use as the articles themselves give no indication of which issue they are from. I'm just suggesting that article is likely more useful information than issue. --Eyrezer 17:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, in response to Havac, the problem with just using numbers is that they weren't meant to be archived by individual issue, but by topic. As I recall, this is the same argument that was used for sourcing comics by arc, not issue: the intended final storage format doesn't distinguish between issues. - Lord Hydronium 22:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Chiming in, I'd say I agree with Havac for the most part. I dislike specifying where exactly things appear (it's unnecessary, like referencing a single source article or referencing by page number), but I guess it's okay as along it's not a required thing. If you want to do that occasionally, go ahead, but I wouldn't recommend making it a policy of sorts. Chack Jadson (Talk) 00:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
        • At times when Star Wars authors are wishing we had page numbers in our citations, we shouldn't be finding ways to make our citations LESS useful in locating information. jSarek 08:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
          • I completely agree. As someone who has spent quite a bit of time trying to track down references in the FF with great difficulty, it seems such a sensible idea. These are different from novels, which can often just be searched with the Ctrl+F function. I've added a few entries to Arvel Crynyd, if you'd like to see how this could work. --Eyrezer 16:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
            • jSarek: That's a valid point, one I didn't consider enough earlier. The page number thing that I brought up is a whole other issue though. Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm closing this thread in 3 days if no action is taken on it, either to move it to a vote, or continue the discussion. It's stagnant thus far. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 21:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not that I'm against adding more information or anything, but for projects that have lots of Fact File information, digging up all this will take some serious work, especially since I'm unaware of complete issues of Fact Files placed on *cough cough cough*. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 18:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Implementation

It looks like the second vote, at least, has consensus. I've prepared a replacement template, which is here. If we just paste it over the top, there will be a lot of ({{{2}}}, {{{3}}}) at the end of the current template usages. Is there a way to make that not show up unless the info is added to the template. Do we want that, or would having the ({{{2}}}, {{{3}}}) provide an impetus to fix up the templates? --Eyrezer 19:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Voting

Section

A vote on whether to put Fact Files in a separate subsection

Allow a separate subsection where appropriate

  1. Lord Hydronium 03:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. While I support this option if necessary, I must stress that this should be used as a last resort only. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Graestan(Talk) 03:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 20:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Always keep in main source list

  1. --Eyrezer 02:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Thefourdotelipsis 03:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Darth Culator (Talk) 03:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Mauser 18:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 05:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. Not necessary to separate them out. Havac 07:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  8. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 01:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation format

Option 1

Option 2

  1. --Eyrezer 02:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. IFYLOFD (And now, young Skywalker, you will die.) 02:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Thefourdotelipsis 03:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Lord Hydronium 03:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Graestan(Talk) 03:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. Darth Culator (Talk) 03:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. Of course. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  8. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  9. Mauser 18:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  10. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support making citations as useful as possible. jSarek 07:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  12. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 05:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  13. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 01:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)