Forum:TC:Indexes

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Indexes

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Indexes ([[Talk:Category:Indexes|talk]] - history - links - logs)

A bold proposal: kill all Indexes. Basically, they are OOU lists of new continuity sorted by series, but do really need that? Yes, they tell us about the input each series made on canon, but is there a necessity to know that? Template:1st works well for the individual media, and appearances sections of individual book and comic articles do the same just fine. And, while lists incorporated into actual articles should be worked on and expanded, lists that stand by themselves should be gone, right? If some user or a group of users needs put to put together a list of things they focus on, they do it on the userpage or a Wookieeproject subpage, not in main namespace. And I see no reason why we should keep those lists in the main namespace at all. MauserComlink 18:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete

  1. MauserComlink 18:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. With extreme prejudice. Also see related discussion at Forum:SH:Indexes. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 05:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Imperialles 10:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. See below. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 12:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 00:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. Just redundant. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  7. Chack Jadson (Talk) 06:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  8. Per Tope. Grunny (Talk) 04:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  9. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 13:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  10. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 22:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  11. CC7567 (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  12. Graestan(Talk) 22:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep

  1. --Eyrezer 00:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. "You are a bold one." STRONG KEEP for reasons presented in the Senate Hall. Again I retain that they serve a purpose, even as they might be OOU, however to the ire of some, this wiki was not initially meant to be purely IU information. If that was the case, we would have to delete every article about a novel, film, or comic book series. Secondly, at least regarding the Legacy series index, the information presented would not be appropriate for the article on Star Wars: Legacy, since that is written in a form to introduce the primary characters and provide backstory, but not on all of them as is the case on the index. The whole point of the index is to be just that, an index. Instead of searching around between all the issues of a series, and I mean this is especially true for series, the index exists as a place where the information is presented alphabetically per subject. It is meant for additional ease in locating said new continuity. Furthermore, any redlinks on the page can be managed until they are filled. To close, I should note that I have been in the process of cleaning up that Legacy index with a table (with links to the issues and a picture for quick reference) rather than the simple list that was initially there. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. I wmust say that there is little for me to add since Riff really summed up my feelings quite well. Cylka-talk- 07:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. I was going to vote delete, but I decided (after some thought) that the pages have some merit and could be useful. ZEM talk to me! 04:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss

  1. Best option here IMO. The information itself is—though some people want to get rid of it—currently acceptable to keep within the series articles, until there's either a better option where to keep it or we decide to completely get rid of it. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 10:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Erm, merge into which articles exactly? And also, haven't you already seen what those vote-splitting options coud lead to? I think you shouldn't have added the third option without leaving your opinion at the discussion section below first. MauserComlink 11:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
      • What I meant is that all appearances that aren't yet in the relating series articles will be merged into these articles, for example Empire series index gets merged into Star Wars: Empire. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 11:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You mean the individual issues, not the series as a whole, right? Because our only series FA (Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi) has no appearances list. Again, this sort of discussion belongs in the section for the dicsussion, and the third vote-splitting option is highly unnecessary, IMO. MauserComlink 12:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I stand corrected. I was in the belief that the indexes contain appearance lists which would be lost without merging. However, they contain lists of "New continuity", something that the consensus is against. This makes it totally different, because I don't see any sense in keeping something that we don't want. Sorry for any inconvenience. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 12:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)