| abstract | - Recently, I've done some expansion on a few of the short stories that are in Hyperspace. In regards to items that show up very frequently in a Star Wars story (i.e. comlink, macrobinoculars), should I update that page with an appearance as well? For instance, a comlink probably shows up in a very significant number of books, comics, short stories, etc. Is the goal to have an Appearance on the Comlink page for every actual appearance? Or is it better to restrict it to significant appearances? The Comlink is just an example, as this could apply to many different items that are common in the GFFA. RJ 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
* I'd say following the Lightsaber method would be most ideal. I'm not sure a list of works without comlinks would be necessary though. Uxviii 01:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
* Lightsabers and comlinks are two VERY different things. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
* Also, where would the line be drawn between list all appearances and too many to list? For something like the Force, it's not practical, but for others, I think we should try to be as comprehensive as possible - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 15:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
* List every single appearance. If it ends up being only a few that don't appear, then we can easily switch the list if needed. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
* I didn't feel like starting a whole new thread for this, and it might need to be brought up in CT if they're are any objections, but I believe we need to have a standard format for appearance lists. Recently, some users have been going around completely changing these for no apparent reason, other than personal preference. I suggest we 1) alphabetize them and 2) keep standard headers. This is what I think we should make a standard:
==Appearances== ===Characters=== ===Creatures=== ===Droid models=== ===Events=== ===Locations=== ===Organizations and titles=== ===Sapient species=== ===Technology=== ===Vehicles and vessels=== ===Miscellanea===
Technology could possibly be changed to Weapons and technology, and Characters to Individuals. They would then be alphabetized under their new headings. Comments? If nobody objects, I might set Whistler to fixing these headings...not quite sure if he can do that though. 22:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
* You forgot the "weapons" category, and I'd rather have vehicles and vessels split up, as with the Databank. Also, are these lists called "Appearances" or "Databank"? I've seen quite a few with the latter, though I've always assumed it was the former - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 23:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
* If you read my comment, no I did not forget weapons. Weapons ARE a form of technology; however, I suggested it could be "weapons and technology" instead of just "technology." Also, these lists are supposed to be "Appearances," not "Databank." Finally, splitting up vehicles and vessels is too much. In many cases, it would be too hard to draw the line between a vehicle and a vessel. 23:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
* Looks good to me. Thanks for finally bringing this issue up, Xwing328! I think we can also do away with the "new continuity" sections of articles, and simply merge them with "appearances", since the "first appearance" template takes care of that. Adamwankenobi 00:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
* I suppose we could merge the two. We also have indices for some things now, like Legacy series index. 01:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
* RE: Weapons and tech, I don't agree with merging them. After all, droids are a form of technology, but we still have a separate section for them. And the distinction between ships and vehicles is quite simple; as per the Databank, anything that operates in space is a starship, anything that doesn't is a vehicle - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 10:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
* What if we had Technology as the main header, and Droid models and Weapons under that? Also, in regards to vehicles/vessels, I can see people trying to split it up to the extreme, going for land vehicles, sea vehicles, flying vehicles, space vessels, etc. 18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
* Meh, I don't think we really need to split them further. I guess combining weapons and tech is fine, though. I've been adding to these lists on several pages, and mostly, categories like "creatures", "events", "weapons" "technology" and "vehicles/vessels" don't get filled as much as the others, so I don't think there's any call to split them - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 22:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
* Thought I'd better bring this back up just so we can standardize the thing. Here's what I've been using:
==Appearances== ===Creatures=== ===Droid models=== ===Events=== ===Individuals=== ===Locations=== ===Organizations and titles=== ===Sapient species=== ===Vehicles and vessels=== ===Weapons and technology=== ===Miscellanea===
Sound fair enough? IMO, we don't need any further subheadings - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 19:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
* I kinda think we should keep individuals at the top. -- Ozzel 00:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
* I do prefer this, but is it worth implementing site-wide, when nearly all our articles have "Characters" at the top? 03:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
* Yep, because a lot of the lists on this site are incomplete or need cleanups, and certain others are using redundant headings - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 08:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
* What about Mandalorians? They're pretty abundant these days. .... 08:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
* True, dat. So we need a second list with every header prefaced by "Mando'a, naturally"... - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 08:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
* I still prefer having the most important appearances - the characters (as "Characters") - at the top. (And what about this?) But I'm fine with the rest. - Borsk Fey'lya 08:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
* "Individuals" works better as an in-universe title; just as we have "Individuals" as our categories, as opposed to "Characters". Also, since the lists themselves are alphabetical, I don't see why one heading should go above the others simply because it's more "important". Surely all appearances are important? As to the Dramatis Personnae, that could be added separately from the Appearances section, as with film Cast lists - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 12:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
* Characters and Individuals both are acceptable since this will be under the Behind the scenes section. At least that's what the MoS and layout guide suggests. -Fnlayson 16:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
* In that case, then, I'm okay with using "Character", which would then place it at the top of alphabetical lists - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
* Either way, if "Miscellanea" can go at the bottom, why couldn't "Individuals" go at the top? -- Ozzel 17:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
* Fair enough. Could we add this layout to a MoS page, to make sure it's standardized? - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
* Yes. Both the MoS and layout guide as needed. -Fnlayson 16:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
* How's this look? Wookieepedia:Manual_of_Style#OOU_articles_on_reference_works 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
* Looks good, but do we really need to prefix every header in the "New continuity" list with "New"? It's redundant, since the main header states the entire list is new continuity - \\Captain Kwenn// — Ahoy! 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
* I'd say yes. One reason: imagine you're looking through the lists. You'd see two "Character" sections and think hmm...that's redundant, why don't we just combine these two lists. Then after multiple edits...oh, those were supposed to be separate. I know, kinda bad example, but new people have done that before. I think the "New" helps. 23:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
* Can't we just do away with "new continuity" sections? They're pretty redundant when you can just put {{1st}} tags under the appearances or even make an index.—Unsigned comment by Ozzel (talk • contribs).
* The best thing might be to create a {{new}} template for the appearances sections for all new continuity. Havac 05:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
* I don't think we need a new template. The and and others should work. 05:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
|
