Forum:CT:Revisiting the prev, next and conc fields

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Revisiting the prev, next and conc fields
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 support all proposals. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 21:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, this is a continuation of Forum:SH:Revisiting the prev, next and conc fields, and I'm breaking up the proposed wording for the Wookieepedia:Layout Guide/In-universe#Infobox into multiple votes.

Vote 1: Initial Definition

(The italicized text will be removed if Vote #3 passes, but will remain if not to preserve the original reasoning from the previous CT.)

The "prev", "conc", and "next" fields for event, battle, and other conflict infoboxes are subject to the following restrictions:

  • The "prev" and "next" fields are to be used only for immediate previous or subsequent chronological events that are relevant to the article's subject and are mentioned in the article's text.
  • The "conc" field is to be used with events that are concurrent to the article's subject, with the exception of the parent campaign or conflict of the subject, which should be listed in the "conflict" field instead that are relevant to the article's subject and are mentioned in the article's text.
    • When an article's subject is concurrent to another event with multiple sub-events, only the high-level event should be listed in the infobox. (example: Nihil conflict should list the Drengir crisis in its conc field, rather than listing all of the individual battles of the Drengir crisis)
  • All listings should be researched and correctly referenced, with a logic citation explaining the reasoning if the relation cannot be directly cited to a specific source.

Support

  1. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 14:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  2. CometSmudge (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  3. Editoronthewiki (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  4. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  5. Commander Code-8 Hello There! 11:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  6. — Commander Bhatoa (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  7. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 12:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  8. Back by popular demand, eh. I'd like to ask folks not to simply copy-paste edits from the past back into these fields but to do the research properly this time, to make sure these are as accurate as possible. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 11:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  9. Mor9347 (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  10. Janomoogo (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Vote 2: The Second Occupation Amendment

  • Multi-year battles, campaigns, or similar events, such as the second occupation of Geonosis, should only be listed in the fields if they are directly relevant to the article's subject, unless the subject itself is a multi-year battle or campaign.

Support

  1. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 14:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  2. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 15:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  3. CometSmudge (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  4. Editoronthewiki (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  5. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  6. Commander Code-8 Hello There! 11:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  7. — Commander Bhatoa (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  8. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 12:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  9. Fan26 (Talk) 05:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  10. Mor9347 (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  11. Janomoogo (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Vote 3: Relevance, Your Honor!

This vote add the following items and will remove this wording from Vote 1's policy items: "that are relevant to the article's subject and are mentioned in the article's text"

  • Events with no relevance to the article's subject may optionally be listed in the infobox, but do not have to be mentioned in the body.
  • Conversely, events that can be reasonably proven to be related to the subject should be detailed in the body as well as the infobox.
  • If no more-immediate optional event is present in the "prev" or "next" field, the most immediate relevant event should be listed instead.

Support

  1. Per my reasoning in the CT. This will benefit our readers first and foremost, while still enforcing reasonable restrictions that should prevent undue burdens on nominators. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 14:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  2. CometSmudge (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  3. Editoronthewiki (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  4. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  5. Commander Code-8 Hello There! 11:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  6. — Commander Bhatoa (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  7. ThrawnChiss7 Mitth symbol Assembly Cupola 12:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  8. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 11:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  9. Mor9347 (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  10. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. This is only going to create inconsistency where some pages might list some and others not. Honestly I'd prefer to just keep things simple where we list only the relevant events because listing dozens of irrelevant events simply because they take place concurrent with other events doesn't seem to solve much for me (looking at you Battle of Ryloth for example) Lewisr (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Discuss