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 keep existing policy. Graestan^(Talk) 04:16, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Currently, our inclusion of comics within appearance lists is extremely haphazard. Newer comics are generally added issue-by-issue, as they're coming out. Older comics, however, are generally listed only by arc, such that we might have an article that has appearances in Jedi Academy: Leviathan and Star Wars Invasion 1: Refugees, Part 1, Star Wars Invasion 2: Refugees, Part 2, and so on. There's no consistency. So, I propose we get consistent.

There are two angles to go with this. One is to systematize in favor of issues. So we go back, and take that Jedi Academy: Leviathan appearance, and we break it down into issues. The argument in favor of this is that it's more precise. The argument against it is that very few people have access to old stuff in issue form, so it will be difficult to verify for some stuff which issues things and people are actually appearing in. It will also be an assload of work to have to go back and check everything. Also, it could lead to some long, long appearance lists. Something like Quinlan Vos would be extremely unwieldy.

The other way is to systematize in favor of arcs. So, we condense those Invasion appearances into just Star Wars: Invasion: Refugees. The argument for this is that it's simple, it's clear, it takes up much less space, and it's the way the comics are presented for posterity anyway in the trades. It also matches the way comics tend to be cited; by arc, not by issue (unless it's a case where we've put only one issue in the Appearances list). The argument against is that it's not as precise. Havac 04:07, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

List comic appearances by arcEdit

1. I'm strongly in favor of listing by arc, since issues are written for the arc, for the trade, and subdividing them into the individual pieces of an arc as they come out makes no more sense than breaking up Emissary of the Void into the chunks it was serialized in. Havac 04:07, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
2. I like this option, as an arc is a coherent story, whereas individual comic issues often are not. My caveat is below. ~ SavageBob 06:01, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
3. Per Bob, and provided that the citations are by issue. Thefourdotelipsis 06:14, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

List comic appearances by issueEdit

1. Every comic issue is a distinct product, and should be listed separately. We don't just list "Thrawn Trilogy" when citing Thrawn's appearances, we cite each book separately, even though they're all part of one story. Comics should be the same way. And if all issues are required to be listed, no one has to wonder whether or not the policy is being followed correctly, like the current situation seems to lead to. jSarek 05:21, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
2. Imperialles 06:28, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
3. Judging from everyone's comments in the "keep current policy" section, most people are just voting against listing the arc when a character doesn't appear in each issue, as finding a specific appearance can become difficult. This option doesn't support that either. But per JSarek here: we do not list "arcs" in anything other than comics. Why don't we just clarify and standardize the entire system? Why should we be making exceptions for comics? Besides, those that are unaware of this policy may see the entire arc in the appearance list and be unsure whether that means every issue or just one. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is the truth)} 09:41, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
4. If an individual comic issue is deemed significant enough for its own article, then it should go down as an independent entity in the appearances list. If they're just considered "chapters" of a complete work, then either they shouldn't have articles or else there should be articles for all six parts of Emissary of the Void, or every chapter of HTTE or whatever. Either way we should apply our standards for what merits an independent article to what merits an independent entry in appearances lists. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 16:12, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
5. Per Soresu. —Master Jonathan^{(Jedi Council Chambers)} 16:33, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
6. -- 1358 ^(Talk) 05:36, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Keep current policyEdit

1. As usual, Havac is incorrect and/or unclear on something. We actually do have some mode of consistency, though most people don't follow it, because they're probably unaware of or too lazy to read the following sentence from the Layout Guide in regards to how to format the Appearances list: For comics, link to the individual issue, unless a subject appears in every issue of a story arc. It's that simple. If a subject only appears in one issue, only link to that issue. If they appear in all issues, you can save space and effort by condensing it into the story arc. It's more precise and above all else, consistent. If our older articles are inconsistent in this, it's because people haven't taken the time to update them. I vote here as my way of upholding the current consistent policy. Because I'm anti-laziness. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:21, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
   • Hey Tope, based on what you stated, wouldn't your vote be better suited to "do not standardize." I agree with you, that the line in the Layout Guide needs to be adhered to, but I'm going to refrain from voting until more clear/specific voting options are presented. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 04:27, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
     • Yeah, true. Grunny's new voting option is better for clarification's sake. Toprawa and Ralltiir 04:30, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
2. Keep current policy. We should be going for accuracy per current policy we already group them into the story arc only if they appear in every issue in the arc. Older comics should be done by issue, but they aren't due to laziness or not doing so at the time and it has never been fixed. Grunny (talk) 04:26, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
3. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 04:29, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
4. Per Grunny. CC7567 ^(talk) 04:37, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
5. Most of my articles are minor comic book characters who only make an appearance in an issue or two in one series, so keeping our current policy would be extremely beneficial for such articles. Do you know how tedious it is to search for a mention or an appearance of a minor character in every issue of a story arc/series simply because someone did not specify the issue they appeared/were mentioned in? I've come across this annoying problem many, many times, so I'm going to have to say to stick with our current policy. If a character does not appear in every issue of an arc, each issue they appear in needs to be listed. It's that simple. Xicer9^(Combadge) 04:49, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
6. Per Fourdot.—Tommy ⁹²⁸¹ 04:54, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
7. If I come across any articles while Random Paging that don't adhere to the current policy, I'll fix it. And then I'll decapitalize "sector," defaultsort, throw in the {{'s}} where needed, and whatever other bot edits I usually do. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 06:26, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
8. Cavalier One^{(Squadron channel)} 07:31, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
9. QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 12:08, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
10. Cylka^-talk- 12:09, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
11. Jonjedigrandmaster ^{(We seed the stars)} 21:02, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
12. —Xwing328^(Talk) 02:46, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
13. Listing appearances by arc is just plain inaccurate. For example, listing Marka Ragnos as appearing in The Golden Age of the Sith would not be correct because he does not appear in Issue #5 of that arc. It is easier and more accurate to list them specifically. Besides, if it ain't broke... Nayayen—TALK 13:06, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
14. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 20:12, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
15. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 04:49, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
16. Graestan^(Talk) 02:34, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
17. I like to be as specific as possible. A lot of things can happen in the space of an arc, and even in the space of an issue. Listing individual issues makes us better cited. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:59, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Do not standardizeEdit

DiscussionEdit

• The way that I've been doing it, as far as I can recall, is by arc (citing by issue, though, for non TPB'd stuff) unless there's some sort of qualifier to be put after a specific issue, like (Mentioned only) or (First appearance). Then I break them up. So, for Luke I would cite Dark Empire as an arc, but for Sedriss, I would break it up. It might not be purdy, but it's specific without being messy in the larger cases. So Quinlan would just have a whole lot of arcs cited, wheras someone like Volfe Wassisname would have individual issues. There is a method to the madness, at least on my end. Thefourdotelipsis 04:22, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • And my problem with this is that people who appear in three issues of a four-issue arc, or who appear in five issues of a six-issue arc and are mentioned in the sixth, or who are mentioned in one issue and then appear the next and are in a hologram and then appear again, are having their appearances lists rather unnecessarily drawn out. Also, most importantly, this distinction is unlike anything else we do'; we don't list The Thrawn Trilogy, The Black Fleet Crisis, and Fate of the Jedi in Luke Skywalker's appearances just because he's in all of the individual components, and we don't break The Essential Atlas down by sections if something doesn't appear in each one. So, again, why I'm in favor of condensation rather than the current messy, haphazard policy of special conditions. Why are we treating comics so unlike the way we treat anything else? Let's pick a unit by which we log them, and stick with it. Havac 04:38, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, while I wouldn't have a problem with arcs in the appearances lists, I would prefer that the individual issues be used for citations. Obviously this is made difficult in much, much earlier Dark Horse stuff, where the actual distinctions between where one issue starts and another one ends is largely unclear in the collected format, but as often as possible, I would cite issues. But I agree that in appearances lists, arcs in general would be more suitable and consistent with the rest of our approach to appearance lists. Thefourdotelipsis 04:47, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
• I didn't want to start a new voting option, because I'm mostly pro-arc citing, but I would like to add the caveat that until an arc is completely published, things should go by issue. So, if Dark Times: Adventures at Hologram Fun World is coming out piecemeal, we would list it per issue until such a time as the arc is completed, then we consolidate. ~ SavageBob 06:00, April 22, 2010 (UTC)