Forum:CT:Repealing the Story arc vs. Issue decision

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Repealing the Story arc vs. Issue decision

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, with a majority leaning toward repeal of the policy. jSarek 02:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm here to start more trouble. As you may know, I was never a fan of the outcome in the Story arc vs. Issue vote, but I went with it. When it comes to comics in "Appearances" lists, I generally just don't touch them. But now, I'm proposing we repeal this vote. Why? Two things:

1) It doesn't work. I believe the original idea was to list the story arc when the character or subject appears in every issue, but no one does that. They list every issue instead.

2) More importantly, this vote was passed not too long before we started sourcing articles. One of the main points people seemed to be support the "single issue" thing for was that it could show you exactly which issues the subject appeared in so that if people wanted to look it up, they could. This is what sourcing does. Now, we could list story arcs under "Appearances" and still source individual issues for the "References" section. -- Ozzel 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Vote

Support (repeal)

  1. Ozzel 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely support a repeal, but I don't think we should source individual issues any more than we source movies by DVD chapter. It's unnecessary, especially when one considers that individual issues are tiny. Havac 20:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 20:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Adamwankenobi 12:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Borsk Fey'lya Talk 20:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. I've tacitly ignored this decision anyway. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 13:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Yes...please. Greyman(Paratus) 22:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Yep. Fnlayson 16:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. I must agree as well. By referencing the issue we achieve both in-depth accuracy and organization. Rouxvas Contact 05:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You appear to be voting in the wrong spot then. Current policy calls for listing the issues in the Appearances section. Repealing that would change to listing story arc only. -Fnlayson 20:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If I read correctly, above Ozzel stated that the story arcs could be listed under 'Appearances', while the individual issues could be identified under 'References'. This is what I meant. I apologize for any confusion. Rouxvas Contact 20:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Right, I missed your mention of referencing before. Sorry 'bout that.. -Fnlayson 21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm still opposed to referencing by issue because it requires any referencing of comic sources to be done only by those who have the issues on hand, as issue divisions are not preserved in any long-term form. That would still completely screw over anyone who did not buy the issues as they came out. Think about that in relation to, say, Marvel. TPBs, the form that comics are most available in long-term, do not preserve issue breaks. That not only shows that they're meaningless in terms of story or to the creators, but reduces referencing to a select group of users. I just don't think it's the right way to go. Havac 01:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Right then. Based on your logic, I see no need for them to even be listed. The story arc, in my opinion, is as specific as it needs to be. Rouxvas Contact 05:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Havac, it doesn't "completely screw over anyone who did not buy the issues as they came out" from a user-end standpoint. Speaking from experience, I've found references here for "Darth Awesome Issue 3" when all I owned was the "Darth Awesome TPB," and that's actually been more helpful than the alternative, because it gives me an idea of where in the TPB it appears. It would only screw people over if we required everyone to cite individual issues. Gonk (Gonk!) 13:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Vetinari(Appointment) 02:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. Breathes is right; this is imposing too many rules. I strongly feel that there's nothing wrong with listing every single issue, nor is there anything wrong with listing only the TPB. Keeping the "individual issues" rule will only discourage contributors who don't have each individual issue (and that will become more and more common, I think). However, since so many contributors have been listing individual issues, that tells me that they are not widely viewed the way Havac is describing them, as chapters in a serial. Yes, that's what they are, but remember: a lot of Wookieepedians are collectors, which means they made a point of getting the issues individually and therefore think in those terms. Good for them; on the other hand, we can't cater only to those types of contributors. So I think we should just let people source them with whatever degree of specificity they want to/are able to, and if someone else comes along and decides to get more specific, what's the harm? I guess what I'm saying is, we shouldn't have any rule at all on this, except perhaps that neither TPBs nor individual issues belong under "Sources." Gonk (Gonk!) 13:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. --Goodwood 02:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose (don't repeal)

  1. Unit 8311 20:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Redemption mentioned listing each issue if they weren't in every single one in the arc. Which would be the only way I would support repealing this decision, except that I don't think that will work either. There will be plenty that will remain incorrect doing it that way, so I say leave it like we decided the first time. Detailed information rather than laziness. Wildyoda 20:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. {{SUBST:User:Jasca Ducato/Sig}} 22:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Darth Culator (Talk) 22:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Chack Jadson 23:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Muuuuuurgh 05:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Sourcing doesn't solve the problem as you say in point #2, Ozzel. Just because something appears in an issue doesn't mean it will contribute enough (or any) information to warrant a <ref> tag. In addition, not listing individual issues simply because not all people have access to the issues is absurd. What if not all people have access to A New Hope? Will we refrain from listing that as well? —Xwing328(Talk) 03:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's very rare for issues to get so much as a second printing, whereas TPBs are the long-term method of presentation. Simple numbers say that very few people will have access to the issues long-term. It's a very different issue from not bothering to buy ANH, moreover, I think TPBs make the important point that issue divisions are inconsequential. If a short story were released in two chapters across two issues of a magazine, would we cite each chapter separately? I can tell you already -- we don't. Issues are no more than the chapters of a whole work released serially and combined into a whole once the serial release is done. Havac 00:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • What about those trade paperbacks that do separate the issues, such as Star Wars Droids: The Kalarba Adventures (TPB)? —Xwing328(Talk) 04:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Seriously, what's wrong with listing every single issue? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

This only applies to comic story arcs then? Not to book or TV series? Adamwankenobi 20:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, just comics. I think we all agree that episodes and novels should always be listed. -- Ozzel 20:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, some people might want to know which specific issue a character might appear. Unit 8311 20:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • If they were in the entire arc then they appeared in every issue of that arc. If they didn't, then we'll list them. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 20:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
        • That sounds okay to me. Unit 8311 20:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Why even do that? Do we source Jawas as appearing in Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope (First third)? What happens when someone with the TPB wants to source an article and doesn't know where the issue divides are? It's absurd. They are in the arc or they're not in the arc. Issues are a small subdivision of arcs that not everyone will have access to and aren't that important in the final equation. Note that we don't break up short stories that were serialized in magazines for sourcing purposes. Just because the comics are released by chapter doesn't mean that they should be sourced by chapter. It's unnecessarily breaking up the finished whole. If issue divisions aren't important enough for the creators to preserve them when creating the TPBs, then why should we list them? Havac 21:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I see your point Havac, but I also don't see any harm in individual issues being sourced (with REF tags) when someone wants to. What I would oppose is requiring everyone to cite individual issues. That doesn't seem to be the, er, "issue" here. Gonk (Gonk!) 16:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I am abstaining because I think this is a case of making unnecessary/overcomplicated rules. - breathesgelatinTalk 03:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe this indicates we need to concentrate on comic series indexes for listing items and people by issue. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not currently voting, but I would like to mention an alternative. What if we list the issues that character is in, but make it a single link to the story arc? I'll use Cade Skywalker for an example: Star Wars Legacy: 1-3, 5-12, 14-15, 17. This way you can see which issues he appears, but it keeps the list short. The only problem with this is if a character appears in a huge number of issues that are spaced apart. -- Reignfire 04:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)