So prior to mid-March this year, many squadron articles featured lists of their pilot rosters for battles, which covered known pilots and/or callsigns in battles. Near the end of their inclusion they also listed the pilots' vehicles and astromechs, albeit many saw blank spaces in especially the astromech part. The lists were ultimately removed by Toprawa and Ralltir, who cited a group admin agreement, in favour of prosifying the information in the article text instead. Since then, non-admins like myself have voiced opinions over the Discord server over whether the lists should return, and I thought it'd be better to take the debate to the senate hall. So I shall run through why I support the re-inclusion of the pilot roster lists and limitations I believe there are in some instances.
Reasoning. Listing is generally discouraged in many cases, and some believe that pilot rosters is no different. However, I think pilot lists provide an easy to read summary of known participants of an event and the details of their designation and fate. When I first explored Wookieepedia almost four years ago, I read through the lists in Red Squadron, Blue Squadron and Green Squadron to have an overview of who was what in like the Battle of Scarif or Battle of Yavin and then look at the pilot articles after. It's easy navigation, in my opinion, especially when the membership of most squadrons in Star Wars tends to alter after each battle.
Some have argued that the pilot roster lists make the article text less valuable, and that they have similar value to the navboxes that have been TCed recently. For the first part, the text, when fully written up, should cover much more than the information provided in the list, and so will still be as useful. For the second part, navboxes are single categorised lists at the bottom of an article to do with what the article itself is a part of, whereas rosters work with what is part of the article's subject, most of the time at different points of the history.
Limitations. There are some instances where I think the presence of roster lists should be questioned:
- When there's three or less known pilots involved. Realistically, the information about pilots involved is going to be as easily displayed in the text if there's that little to work with. One example is this Red Squadron battle where only one participant is named.
- When the pilot formation remains the same across a chunk of history, like with Alphabet Squadron and Vanguard Squadron, the information would be better with the text in my opinion.
- If there's more information about the pilot formation than the actual event, then it'll simply be a small bit of text dwarfed by a big roster.
Inclusion. There's a couple things that I think should be considered here. For one, how much detail must the rosters include? Not many astromechs are named a lot of the time, and most squadrons are formed of one specific vehicle model, so it can be argued that those details aren't so necessary. Another option coined has been to make them collapsible, but the biggest counterargument to that is that it would hinder the visibility of lists presence in the first place.
Realistically, I think that the Wook should begin re-including relevant pilot rosters in squadron articles with precedents being used in instances where the typical inclusion would bring limitations. With all the points out the way, I welcome all input regarding this. Braha'tok enthusiast Hello there 15:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
- I know I've already expressed some opinions about this on discord, but for now I'd just like to emphasize that this isn't a replacement for prose, just a supplement. Also, unless we want to create something like "Category:Red Squadron members at the Battle of Yavin" (which I don't want to do) there isn't another way to quickly and easily view this information. VergenceScatter (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Those rosters were vitally useful in understanding the nature of those squadrons at various points in their history. Losing them was of no benefit to the encyclopedia. jSarek (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
- I actually used these rosters to find pilot names all the time, so would also be in favor of them returning. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm 100% in favour of bringing back these pilot rosters. I see no harm in showing tabulated pilot rosters alongside any prose, its just another way to present that kind of information in a simple manner, where its quick and easy for readers to digest. I'm not fussed whether the tables are collapsed or not (note: being collapsed does not affect SEO, even though the tables are hidden, the information still exists within the HTML source). What is important to me, is that there are separate tables per mission/battle on the unit pages, as this represents a point in time that individual members were active within the unit, their callsigns, their astromechs, the vehicles/equipment they used and their status (i.e. if they were KIA as a result). I would argue against enforcing a minimum number of pilots before being tabulated, even with 2 or 3 pilots, there's still some value in a table. Keep it simple. A while back, someone suggested these tables helped with navigation, however this was never really put to proper use as not everything was linked due to the current rules surrounding subjects being "linked only once" in the article body - is it worth making an exception here, so all subjects within tables are linked (within reason - i.e. first mention within each table)? Plume Tray (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think this would be a good idea, so long as we exercise restraint and keep in mind the scenarios mentioned in the Limitations section-Alphabet, Vanguard, and Titan Squadron don't need pilot roster tables. Nor do we really need to list astromechs or vehicles flown, especially since the latter may vary from sortie-to-sortie depending on the squadron. Fan26 (Talk) 15:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- If people really want the roster tables so bad, I'd be willing to entertain the idea, as long as they are 1) not collapsed by default and 2) thoroughly linked and referenced exactly like infoboxes are. Imperators II(Talk) 15:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I personally used these things too when I was still getting started in the Star Wars universe, and they helped me immensly when it came to navigation. Supreme Emperor Holocomm 23:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know why they were removed in the first place. It's vital information to know who is flying in each squadron. Heck, the removal of participant lists on battle pages (and putting them in the "strength" categories) makes it harder to know who was present at these battles outside of what we view on-screen. I also agree that since Alphabet, Vanguard and Titan Squadron don't change at all during their campaigns in the novels and game, they don't necessary require said list outside of a paragraph of these members. - Noash Retrac (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Per jSarek, Ayrehead, and Supreme Emperor, I learned a lot about different characters and squadrons by going down the list of an individual group's members when first getting into the EU as a kid. I'd be all for the return of pilot lists. infectedzombieguy
(Talk to me!) 03:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC) - I think having pilot lists after every battle is too superfluous and disrupts the structure of the article, but I can see how they can be useful. I think it would be better including the roster or lists in a separate section that includes the pilot and vehicle information along with the battle or something, rather than in the history section. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 12:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
