Forum:SH:Credits template - developing some clauses

Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Credits template - developing some clauses
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. —spookywillowwtalk 01:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Bringing up a topic that recently made its way to CT: Template:Cr. I think with a bit more time to stew on a Senate Hall, we can probably hammer out some usage clauses that still keep the template, but reduce some usages of it that have, in precedent anyway, long fell out of practice. (On Discord anyway, the general mood was that once this idled out, we should bring it back up, as well.)

Mainly, there seemed to be a few points congealed upon:

  1. Definitely worth keeping the template, one reason being archival
  2. Limited usage in direct quotes, publisher's summaries (or other direct summaries) would be helpful
  3. Generally, there was some push for restricting its usage in article prose. It's disallowed in infoboxes, and so having it disallowed there but allowed in prose seems weird. One reason being that it has largely fallen out of precedent to use even in prose (it's down to a few hundred usages). Other reasons include that we're assuming every individual knows what the symbol is (sure, many do and superfans definitely, but using words will always be clearer), that we don't use templates in prose very often anymore in general or in other cases (such as Wi or Film) have actively voted against it.

I'd like to perhaps workshop some clauses that work with the above and see if they have a better shot. The CT mainly failed at non-con due to realizing halfway through that the clause removal proposed would've had the opposite intended effect (re-allowing them in infoboxes) rather than the intended effect of slightly restricting their usage in prose. So, better to let it idle out than take that step backward. But, I do think good enough usage clauses could formalize its usage in non-prose only areas (quotes, publisher's summaries, etc.), so would like to bring that back up.—spookywillowwtalk 22:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Per Imp's suggestion below, came up a brief draft of potential tweaks we could sort in.—spookywillowwtalk 19:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Just as a reminder: that the clause does not exist just to forbid the credits template in infoboxes, but to rule a specific formatting for the price field (so that we don't see things like "galactic credit", "cr." or something else), even if not exactly well written to begin with (only singular form, no link mention), or even voted to be included in the LG... NanoLuukeCloning Facility 05:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Would it make sense to have pretty much all of the abovementioned considerations reflected into a single section of the MoS perhaps? Imperators II(Talk) 11:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Left draft above; good thought. Though also left in an amended version of the existing LG/IU clause as well; seemed more infobox-specific than the MoS usually gets I guess? But could merge it into the MOS bit if needed.—spookywillowwtalk 19:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Per Imp OOM 224 (he/him/they) 21:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Imp's suggestion Lewisr (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)