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 Change naming policy as suggested. 1358 (Talk) 00:27, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
Currently, Wookieepedia:Naming policy#Years and plain numbers reads as follows:
On Wikipedia, the use of number-only page names should only be used for Years in review entries. However, Wookieepedia deviates from this convention because years are always followed by either "BBY" or "ABY". Therefore, plain numbers (like 1138) can be used for any purpose, with a small exception of numbers between 1970 and 2015, which are reserved for the real-world year articles.
Since 2016 and 2017 have now been created, this needs updating. I propose to change "2015" to "2020", so that it reads:
On Wikipedia, the use of number-only page names should only be used for Years in review entries. However, Wookieepedia deviates from this convention because years are always followed by either "BBY" or "ABY". Therefore, plain numbers (like 1138) can be used for any purpose, with a small exception of numbers between 1970 and 2020, which are reserved for the real-world year articles (when new articles outside this range are created, the range may be extended in five-year increments as needed without need for full CT discussion).
Support
- Master Jonathan — Jedi Council Chambers Sunday, November 13, 2011, 01:23 UTC
- Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:26, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Support, along with additional need for extensions as we see fit. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:38, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- JangFett (Talk) 01:54, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Yep. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 01:57, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Since it was me that got this thing started, support. :P --Cal Jedi
(Personal Comm Channel) 04:01, November 13, 2011 (UTC) - CC7567 (talk) 04:09, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Definitely. Corellian Premier
All along the watchtower 04:21, November 13, 2011 (UTC) - JMAS
Hey, it's me! 04:36, November 13, 2011 (UTC) - Bella'Mia 04:51, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me.--Exiled Jedi
(Greetings) 05:04, November 13, 2011 (UTC) - Wording is not ideal, but it works. --Imperialles 07:16, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- 1358 (Talk) 07:24, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 08:04, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Good catch on this one. Menkooroo 09:23, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Here now, what's all this then? DD97Which bear is best? 20:41, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Support, with the caveat that we do another CT to axe everything before the word "plain" as unnecessary, at some point in the future. ~Savage 02:09, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
- And the voting round ends...for now. MasterFred(Whatever) 23:21, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Clone Commander Lee Talk 15:36, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
- Per Bob –Tm_T (Talk) 06:10, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose
Discussion
- It might be worth just adding a brief note allowing for the end year to be adjusted in the future as developing needs require, rather than going year by year in multiple CTs. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:36, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Good idea. I've added a note to allow that and quickly laid out parameters on when and how so there's no argument in the future. I'm taking your comment down here and Riff's comment above as consent to that change, so I won't bother with talk page notices. Is that OK? Master Jonathan — Jedi Council Chambers Sunday, November 13, 2011, 01:49 UTC
- Works for me. Thanks. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:52, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Did a slight punctuation tweak, MJ, to put the period after the parentheses. S'it OK? Menkooroo 09:23, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- MJ's version was acceptable, but so is this. Parentheses aren't exclusive to sentence-within-sentence scenarios. If this is the form we are going with (and it really does not matter), the sentence also needs to be de-capitalized. Which I have done. Woo. --Imperialles 09:51, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, my mistake. Sorry for presuming and thanks for the save. Menkooroo 10:05, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, on that grammar note, the current wording ("this range may be extended in five-year increments as needed when new articles outside the range are created without need for full CT discussion") technically states that the "articles outside the range" are what will not need full CT discussion, rather than saying that adding further 5-year increments will not need further CT discussion. As such, would anyone mind if I rearranged the last sentence to say: "when new articles outside this range are created, the range may be extended in five-year increments as needed without need for full CT discussion."? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 15:45, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- I thought I was done dealing with picky English teachers six and a half years ago. :P Yeah, go ahead. :) Master Jonathan — Jedi Council Chambers Sunday, November 13, 2011, 18:03 UTC
- Haha okay, done. :) Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:33, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- I thought I was done dealing with picky English teachers six and a half years ago. :P Yeah, go ahead. :) Master Jonathan — Jedi Council Chambers Sunday, November 13, 2011, 18:03 UTC
- Actually, on that grammar note, the current wording ("this range may be extended in five-year increments as needed when new articles outside the range are created without need for full CT discussion") technically states that the "articles outside the range" are what will not need full CT discussion, rather than saying that adding further 5-year increments will not need further CT discussion. As such, would anyone mind if I rearranged the last sentence to say: "when new articles outside this range are created, the range may be extended in five-year increments as needed without need for full CT discussion."? Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 15:45, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, my mistake. Sorry for presuming and thanks for the save. Menkooroo 10:05, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- MJ's version was acceptable, but so is this. Parentheses aren't exclusive to sentence-within-sentence scenarios. If this is the form we are going with (and it really does not matter), the sentence also needs to be de-capitalized. Which I have done. Woo. --Imperialles 09:51, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Did a slight punctuation tweak, MJ, to put the period after the parentheses. S'it OK? Menkooroo 09:23, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Works for me. Thanks. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:52, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
- Good idea. I've added a note to allow that and quickly laid out parameters on when and how so there's no argument in the future. I'm taking your comment down here and Riff's comment above as consent to that change, so I won't bother with talk page notices. Is that OK? Master Jonathan — Jedi Council Chambers Sunday, November 13, 2011, 01:49 UTC
- Couldn't we just axe everything before the word "plain"? In my mind, the comparison to Wikipedia is unnecessary. ~Savage 00:01, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, that's left over from 2006. Now that you mention it, I agree it should be removed, but because of how many people have already voted, it's probably not a good idea to try to do so in this CT; we can remove it later. It's not really hurting anything the way it is. Master Jonathan — Jedi Council Chambers Monday, November 14, 2011, 00:56 UTC
- Fair enough. We should remove it later, though. ~Savage 02:09, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. We should remove it later, though. ~Savage
- Eh, that's left over from 2006. Now that you mention it, I agree it should be removed, but because of how many people have already voted, it's probably not a good idea to try to do so in this CT; we can remove it later. It's not really hurting anything the way it is. Master Jonathan — Jedi Council Chambers Monday, November 14, 2011, 00:56 UTC
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.