Forum:CT:When to use the Twoconflicting sources template

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:When to use the Twoconflicting sources template

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 use the template when it makes sense to, don't make up more rules for the template. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is my first attempt at a CT, so bear with me please.

In light of a discrepancy I had with an objector over the use of the {{twoconflicting}} template, I was advised that the creation of a consensus track may be prudent. While I may not personally like the template for purely aesthetic reasons, I do understand that there are valid instances where it should be implemented. My situation involved the Gobee article, and currently involves the Battle of Iziz article up for FAN. Both of these appear in two TOTJ sources (Tales of the Jedi: Ulic Qel-Droma and the Beast Wars of Onderon & Tales of the Jedi (audio)), where the same general story is told but the events transpire differently in some spots.

I personally feel that the template should be used when significant portions of the story disagree, as well as explaining the discrepancy in the BtS. Some editors feel that the template isn’t necessary, and mentions in BtS sections will suffice. To avoid future/potential conflicts between nominators and objectors, I pose this question to the community. This is not a very complicated issue, so I would like to just skip to the debate/vote part of this.—Tommy9281Dark Side Master TotG (Peace is a lie) 03:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Voting

Use the template when the same events unfold differently in multiple sources AND mention in the BtS

  1. —Tommy9281Dark Side Master TotG (Peace is a lie) 03:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Don’t use the template & instead make mention of the differences in the BtS

Use the template when it makes sense to, don't make up more rules for the template

  1. In this particular case, sure, leave it up there. I had no idea just how different the audio drama was, and I think it's somewhat unnecessary to make a CT about one objection when all I needed was an explanation to that effect. The reason that objection was still there is that it was left dead in the water for months, with no response from the nominator whatsoever. That's how it goes with the FAN; Inqs can't be expected to monitor the minutiae of the nominations they are reviewing when it's actually more up to the nominator to keep everyone informed using the nominations page. I don't want some technical rule that people can point to in the future when common sense and communication have prevailed quite nicely in the past. Graestan(Talk) 03:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • This was only created because Ackbar said it might be a good idea. I you feel this is unnecessary, I have no problems with it being closed/deleted. And, real life was the reason for the lack of activity on the nom.—Tommy9281Dark Side Master TotG (Peace is a lie) 03:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. Per Graestan. Chack Jadson (Talk) 03:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  3. An option for limiting the number of rules? I'm on it. :P - Lord Hydronium 05:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  4. This just involves a bit of common sense. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 05:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  5. Generally I don't think it should be used for audio adaptations, at least in most cases. Most changes were likely introduced because some aspects of the comic wouldn't work in an audio medium. But, I would have to agree with the users above. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  6. Per LH. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  7. Just too broad anyway. It still takes common sense to figure out at what point you have "significant portions" differing enough to bother with a template, so even making a rule will not make it cut and dry for every single article. Extra rule not necessary. Wildyoda 21:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  8. Opposing based on the concept that when someone is sitting in a restaurant, something can happen in that individual's line-of-sight, while something else, simultaneously could be happening to that individual that is unseen save for the waiter/waitress. Two sources are not always conflicting because they have a differing point-of-view or discuss multiple things which could, in fact, be happening simultaneously. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 22:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  9. IFYLOFD (Come with me if you want to live.) 03:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  10. Per above. --Michaeldsuarez Infinite Empire (Activate Holocron) 18:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  11. —Xwing328(Talk) 02:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments