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. Graestan(Talk) 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Right, Indexes. I just stumbled across one of them again and wondered: Why do we even need them? Yes, they basically sort new continuty by series, telling us about the input each series made on canon, but do we really need to know that? Template:1st works well for the individual works, as well as the subjects themselves, and even though our series articles generally don't have appearances lists to use that template, appearances sections of individual book and comic articles work just fine as well. And, while lists incorporated into actuals articles should be worked on and expanded, lists that stand by themselves should be gone, right? But as it is too busy on the TC already, I decided to aks question first: is there some other purpose to those indexes, which I'm not aware of? Are they actually being used by somebody, or are they just leftovers from the early days of Wookieepedia, when thousands of articles needed to be sorted of before being created? And shouldn't we just wipe them out if the latter is the case? MauserComlink 13:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Indexes are the product of JustinGann, a user frankly known more for the quantity rather than the quality of his edits (he spawned thousands of the "X was a planet" articles, for example). I don't think indexes are necessary in any way, but I do think it's important to remove the "Appearances" sections from articles on books, games, etc. Aside from plain looking bad, they are often confusing to readers and prone to original research and the like. If we want to retain the information found in these lists, I can see no better option than to move them to a separate page (such as the indexes), or perhaps a subpage. --Imperialles 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, do you propose that we create an additional page (or subpage) with appearances list for every Star Wars book, comic, game etc ever released? I hope it's a joke, because my responce would be NO WAY! MauserComlink 13:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- How is it any more ridiculous than maintaining a subsection on every single article? It should be noted that I don't actually want us to keep these lists at all, as they are a major pain to maintain and police. Why should we increase our workload further? --Imperialles 13:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but lists of appearances for both the fictional works abd the subjects themselves are critical to the quality of Wookieepedia. They make keeping track of subject's fictional history within GFFA much much easier. I doubt any of the admins would suppost such idea, as those lists are very useful and have been around since the very start. I was not wondering if we should keep them, I was wondering if we should keep some old indexes, of which few people actually know about. MauserComlink 13:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Err… they have not been around "since the very start." I will make a CT regarding Appearances lists shortly. As for indexes, they should probably be removed from the site, as they serve no real purpose other than repeating information. --Imperialles 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to clarify that I am only talking about the "Appearances" sections found in OOU articles on books, games, etc. You seemed confused. --Imperialles 14:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Err… they have not been around "since the very start." I will make a CT regarding Appearances lists shortly. As for indexes, they should probably be removed from the site, as they serve no real purpose other than repeating information. --Imperialles 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but lists of appearances for both the fictional works abd the subjects themselves are critical to the quality of Wookieepedia. They make keeping track of subject's fictional history within GFFA much much easier. I doubt any of the admins would suppost such idea, as those lists are very useful and have been around since the very start. I was not wondering if we should keep them, I was wondering if we should keep some old indexes, of which few people actually know about. MauserComlink 13:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- How is it any more ridiculous than maintaining a subsection on every single article? It should be noted that I don't actually want us to keep these lists at all, as they are a major pain to maintain and police. Why should we increase our workload further? --Imperialles 13:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, do you propose that we create an additional page (or subpage) with appearances list for every Star Wars book, comic, game etc ever released? I hope it's a joke, because my responce would be NO WAY! MauserComlink 13:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Woah, this is the first time I've ever seen indexes in fact. They are terrible. They should join lists in hell. They just repeat 1st appearances basically. If it is kept, then this information should be scroll boxed and introduced into the main articles imho, so New Jedi Order series index should go into The New Jedi Order. Even then, though… -- —Harrar (Cut the comm chatter) 13:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Originally, our OOU articles (books, games, etc.) had two sections: "Appearances" and "New continuity." If you thought just having appearances was bad enough, this second section basically duplicated part of the first, all in one article. I believe the goal of the indexes was to cut out this "New continuity" section, plus provide a central location to view a series' contribution to canon. I doubt anyone really views or contributes to them any more, though. —Xwing328(Talk) 16:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ahem. I have been attempting to tackle at least the Legacy index and I find indexes useful for keeping track of new continuity within a series as it is created, i.e. they have a purpose. As an issue is released, there should be an update to the index as well as the articles related to the issue. Not always is this the case, but I and others try to do so where we can. Any articles that haven't been created yet can still act as redlinks to be created by users that say might have the ability to scan and image for it. I should note that I haven't seen any cases where someone inserted questionable material into the indexes, as long as the issue number, book, or episode number is applied to the side. I agree however that they might need a bit of cleanup, and a table might help with that. Btw, I wouldn't be singling out users for your own displeasure Imp. Justin did what he did when it wasn't seen as a travesty to have all these pages, but since you're in a deletionist fit right now, I consider you try to cool down and let the rest of us discuss the matter. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Riff, Imp is entitled to his opinion, and it is true that Justin's contributions, at least since our standards have been improved, have been frequently sloppy and unnneeded even. Anyway, let's keep this civil and get back on topic. Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ahem. I have been attempting to tackle at least the Legacy index and I find indexes useful for keeping track of new continuity within a series as it is created, i.e. they have a purpose. As an issue is released, there should be an update to the index as well as the articles related to the issue. Not always is this the case, but I and others try to do so where we can. Any articles that haven't been created yet can still act as redlinks to be created by users that say might have the ability to scan and image for it. I should note that I haven't seen any cases where someone inserted questionable material into the indexes, as long as the issue number, book, or episode number is applied to the side. I agree however that they might need a bit of cleanup, and a table might help with that. Btw, I wouldn't be singling out users for your own displeasure Imp. Justin did what he did when it wasn't seen as a travesty to have all these pages, but since you're in a deletionist fit right now, I consider you try to cool down and let the rest of us discuss the matter. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)