Forum:CT:The Great ReSectioning

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:The Great ReSectioning
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 Layout Guide changes, no consensus on new section. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 23:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

So, following up Forum:SH:The Great ReSectioning: The Idea, here it is, the Great ReSectioning.

My proposal is to add the following new section to the IU Layout Guide, to be titled by Vote 2.1 and its placement determined by Vote 3:

The <name> section is a bulleted list of officially licensed Star Wars material that mentions or features the article's subject, but that is presented primarily as an in-universe publication, document or other media. The section <result of sort vote>, and <result of placement vote>. Examples include:
This section does not include works that are presented from an out-of-universe perspective but include excerpts from in-universe publications, such as The Essential Guide to Warfare's inclusion of works such as Mitth'raw'nuruodo Reconsidered: A Patriot's Perspective; such material should be listed instead in the Sources section.
<result of template vote>

Additionally:

  • The following minor adjustments to the Appearances section of the Layout Guide: User:Cade Calrayn/LG; changes are highlighted in bold but here's a diff link if that's more readable.
  • Remove the following line from the Sources section: "Note, however, that while the Sources list includes items that are published as real-world canon reference material, many of these sources are nonetheless written as though by an "in-universe" author, such as historian Voren Na'al."
  • Moving (and splitting) the following lines in the Template usages subsection of the Sources section up to the bulleted list, after "Source templates work in conjunction with Appearance list templates":
    • The {{Mo}} tag may not be used in the Sources list, as all Sources list items are "mentioned only" by default. The {{Imo}} tag may be used, however.
    • Items in the Sources <and name if vote #6 passes> list should never use the {{1st}} tag, which should only be used in the Appearances list.

For a list of media affected by this change, please check out the following; these are of course subject to change and discussion on which section specific items should go in is always up for discussion. Also, if you see something missing at this point in time, don't panic, I'm still sorting through the Masterlist to find all that qualify, and things will be in flux for a bit as we go through more cases.

Vote 0: Layout Guide tweaks

Splitting this off into its own vote - this is for the changes detailed here, except for the line about the new section, and the line changes in the Sources section from above.

Support

  1. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 04:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  2. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  3. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 13:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  4. Imperators II(Talk) 13:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  5. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  6. — Commandant Bhatoa (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  7. —spookywillowwtalk 15:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  8. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 18:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  9. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  10. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 11:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  11. CometSmudge (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  12. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Vote 1: Use New Section

This is the main vote; if it passes, it will introduce the following text/changes listed above to the Layout Guide, with the <> snippets determined by the additional votes below.

Support

  1. So, yeah, it's a lot, and it'll take some getting used to, but I think this is a necessary step to take for our collective sanity's sake; we've been debating "is this a source or appearance" about these listings for years and going in circles. It goes without saying that the transition to the new section will be undertaken by the Source Engine, so so to my knowledge the only work the rest of you will need to do is to relearn your sectioning muscle memory and maybe adjust some BTS sections that use the word "appeared". Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 20:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  2. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 20:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  3. Fuck yeah Imperators II(Talk) 20:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  4. —spookywillowwtalk 20:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  5. Per imp and eventually Fan. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 22:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  6. — Commander Bhatoa (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  7. I'm not getting much of the opposition here. Cade propose a way to be more precise, and half of us are like "yeah, not seeing it". Also, you're all going to make Imp sad, and you should fell bad about it! :D NanoLuukeCloning Facility 11:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  8. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  9. Tough call for me honestly but Dani's below points convinced me. Wok142 (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I don't see the point in creating an entirely new section for a small number of works that happen to share the quirk of being presented from an IU perspective. By and large, they all appear to be sources with this quirk, and anything arguable can easily be voted on where they should be placed if necessary. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  2. Rsand 30 (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  3. It seems like we're just going to end up treating this identically to the way we treat sources, so why not just put all of these works into sources? CometSmudge (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  4. I'm afraid I just don't see the point either, sorry folks. These books will just be treated as sources and are viewed by sourcebooks by basically everyone in production and fandom spaces, I don't see the need to create a third subsection to detail them when they can just fit under sources. Furthermore, I just think it would look cluttered to have three subsections for appearances, in-universe sources, and sources right at the bottom of every page, particularly when so many pages would have only one or two entries in each field Editoronthewiki (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  5. Per Editor (and with genuine, heartfelt apologies to Dani). Most of these have always been treated as Sources, largely speaking, and the ones that we put under Appearances are, in my experience, usually easily identified as such (e.g. the ancient HoloNet News web content is almost always, as far as I know, categorised as an "Appearance"). The SH uses the example of IU histories in The Essential Guide to Warfare for IU excerpts in OOU publications as being clearly a Source as they're presented in material traditionally considered a Source and not an Appearance. I think overall, most of these really are just stuff we'd traditionally call a Source that happens to be made up entirely of IU media. In all honesty, I think that anything that doesn't neatly fit into one or the other at first glance can probably be easily categorised based on precedent with a little debate and handled on a case-by-case basis. I get the frustrations with the years of ambiguity over this general debate, but I honestly do not feel that a whole new section is the best way to handle this. Again, very sorry to Dani, but I think this is not necessary. Fan26 (Talk) 04:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
    • This makes me per you so fucking funny lmao. Ty. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 11:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  6. While the difference between IU and OOU sources is certainly something I've considered in the past and that comes up alot in our discussions, I think it's more of a philosophical or thematic one then a functional one. I don't think this is a distinction that the majority of our readers would make or find useful, with most wanting these sections to function as reading lists. Splitting that into chronologically ordered stories to read and then a separate list of non-story material serves this, but I don't see how a further split really adds anything to that function. Even from an editing perspective, we'll treat IU and OOU sources functionally the same in terms of 1st and similar tags so ultimately I'd say stick with the clearer more intuitive two-section split. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  7. No argument I've seen convinces me of the necessity of a whole new section. Just treat them all firmly as sources to end the debate. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  8. I agree with the above observations and statements. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 23:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  9. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  10. Went back and forth a lot on this, and I do recognize there's been ambiguity about how to treat some of those works, but ultimately my thoughts are similar to Ayre's. I could see something like this being part of a larger Sources overhaul (for example, separating things like web articles from reference books to give readers a clearer list) but that's a whole other thing. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

  • I thought this would be a more popular idea so I didn't bother making an argument, which is my mistake. I think shoving stuff like Rey's Survival Guide, The Last Jedi: Rose Tico: Resistance Fighter, and Sabine My Rebel Sketchbook in sources does a disservice to our readers. If someone is a fan of Rey, Rose, or Sabine, they're going to want to consume narrative material featuring those characters which is where our Appearance section comes in handy. I do not think the average reader will pay attention to the claustrophobic mess that is the Source section. So these journals, literally words from a character's minds put to paper and aspects of their very character, will get lost. They are narrative material in my mind, they just tell their story in a different manner. Same with news reels and IU history books. But slotting them in our Appearance section is difficult as dating media like these gets... messy. So that's why I support a new section for these unique mediums. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 18:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Vote 2: Allow Plurality for Formatting Votes

Technicality vote again, but this vote says that we accept the results of votes 3-6 to be a formatting poll, and will accept the option in each that recieves the most votes as the successful option.

Support

  1. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 20:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  2. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 20:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  3. Imperators II(Talk) 20:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  4. —spookywillowwtalk 20:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  5. per me in the previous vote. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 22:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  6. — Commander Bhatoa (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  7. CometSmudge (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  8. Fan26 (Talk) 04:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  9. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  10. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  11. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  12. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 11:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  13. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  14. Wok142 (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  15. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Vote 3: Actually Choosing the Name

This determines the result of the <name> value in the proposed text above.

Option 1: In-universe documents

  1. As clean as it'd be to just do "Documents", I can see why that might get confusing. Won't stop my shorthand naming of it in discussions and the Source Engine though. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 20:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  2. I do know folk could look it up, but I feel it'd be a disservice to most casual readers to label the section as "diegetic" because it genuinely is a pretty niche word. People that work in certain technical or linguistic industries are probably much more familiar with it, but I personally had to look it up and asked a few other friends who didn't know what it meant either.—spookywillowwtalk 20:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  3. No thanks, I am not into Scientology. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  4. Yeah, this is the simplest name, per Spooky. "Diegetic Media" is too confusing a name for something that is pretty easily summed up with "in universe documents" and frankly, if we're going to implement this, I would prefer the point of this separate section be immediately apparent in its name. Fan26 (Talk) 03:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  5. I think a lot of readers would need to google diegetic which defeats the point of a header which is meant to provide immediate navigational and contextual information. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  6. Xd1358 (Talk) 17:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  7. As much as I'd like "diegetic" here, if we do include the section, best to make it immediately clear to readers what the idea is. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 2: Documents

Option 3: Diegetic media

  1. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 20:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  2. Imperators II(Talk) 20:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  3. Its time for people to learn. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 21:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  4. | "Diegetic media" is the concise and technically accurate terminology. If an individual has the luxury of accessing Wookieepedia, they can access the Google Dictionary (or literally any online dictionary) and learn the terminology for themselves. As aforementioned, people have, can and will learn. As also raised before, the phrase "In-universe documents" is a dubious name, which does not convey the required nuance like the term "diegetic media" does — Commander Bhatoa (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  5. "In-universe documents" is a vague and inaccurate name. There are many in-universe documents that are not diegetic, and there are diegetic works that are not documents. Readers can google what diegetic means and instantly understand the purpose of the section. They can't look up what "in-universe documents" means and easily get a relevant result from a search engine. People will be confused either way, so at least we can reduce that confusion by using accurate terminology. Plus, we're an encyclopedia, we should always be prioritizing accuracy. CometSmudge (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  6. We use lots of other uncommon terminology (I had to look up demonym when I first saw that); this just sounds cleaner. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  7. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 18:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  8. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 23:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  9. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  10. Wasn't expecting this to get much support, but... YEAH! NanoLuukeCloning Facility 11:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  11. I also had to search up demonym back in the day haha Wok142 (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Vote 4: Placement

should be placed between the Appearances and Sources sections of an article, as its own standalone second-level header.

OR

should be a subsection of the <result of vote 4.1> section

Option 1: Standalone section

  1. I know this represents a rather radical change (we've never had a new IU section like this before) but it's cleaner and more consistent to treat it as a standalone section; if we make it a subsection, you'll end up with weird cases where there's nothing in the parent section except for the Documents subsection and that just looks wrong, IMO. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 20:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  2. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 20:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  3. Imperators II(Talk) 20:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  4. —spookywillowwtalk 20:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  5. per cade. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 22:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  6. — Commander Bhatoa (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  7. Feels like the best way to handle this if we do implement it Fan26 (Talk) 04:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  8. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  9. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  10. Still not sure if this is needed, but if this passes, it definitely needs to be it's own section, not a subsection. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 18:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  11. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 23:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  12. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 11:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  13. Wok142 (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  14. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 2: Subsection

  1. If it must exist, then list it similarly to non-canonical works in that they are a type of work under the already existing A/S duo that covers virtually all SW works. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  2. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Vote 4.1

This vote is only necessary if option 2 above passes, and will determine which section is specified in the text for the above vote.

Option 1: Appearances

  1. If we have to, I'd prefer Appearances, as it visually looks better going Appearances->Documents->Sources. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 20:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  2. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 20:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  3. Imperators II(Talk) 20:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  4. —spookywillowwtalk 20:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  5. — Commander Bhatoa (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  6. Wok142 (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 2: Sources

  1. On the grounds 1st cant be used. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 22:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  2. Per NBDani. Despite the popular vote favoring a new section, the votes here continue to treat them like Sources. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  3. Per DaniFan26 (Talk) 04:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  4. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  5. Because they /are/ sources. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  6. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 23:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  7. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  8. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Vote 5: Sorting

should be sorted chronologically by real-world release date

OR

should be sorted chronologically by in-universe timeframe, as defined in the Appearances section rules above.

Option 1: Release date

  1. Not all of these have discernible timeframes, and this is cleanest and most organized. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 20:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  2. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 20:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  3. Imperators II(Talk) 20:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  4. —spookywillowwtalk 20:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  5. LETS BE RADICAL AND DO THIS WITH APPEARANCES TOO. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 22:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
    • dani do you know how much time I spent on the timeline logic... don't make me fight you Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 00:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  6. Per my previous vote. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  7. — Commander Bhatoa (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  8. Fan26 (Talk) 04:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  9. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  10. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  11. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 23:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  12. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  13. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 11:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  14. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 2: IU timeframe

Vote 6: Templates

The <name> section adheres to the same template usage rules as the Sources section as detailed below; as these items are "mentioned only" by default, the {{1st}} and {{Mo}} should not be applied to items in this section. The {{1st}} template

OR

The <name> section adheres to the same template usage rules as the Appearances section as detailed above.

Option 1: Treat like Sources

  1. They're not true Appearances, thus we shouldn't list them as such. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 20:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  2. OOM 224 (he/him/they) 20:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  3. Imperators II(Talk) 20:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  4. —spookywillowwtalk 20:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  5. Per my vote preceding my previous vote. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  6. — Commander Bhatoa (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  7. As I've said, historically most of these were pretty easily treated as Sources anyway Fan26 (Talk) 04:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  8. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  9. Referenced that I believed this would be the winning choice in another vote, so I should probably vote on it. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 11:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  10. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  11. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 23:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  12. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  13. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 11:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  14. Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Option 2: Treat like Appearances

Discussion