Ten ForwardVotes (Reply | Watch)

Further to a discussion we The doctor, Captainmike and I had yesterday we have a few issues of standardization we feel need settling on and think a vote would be a good way to do that so:

Media reference arrangementsEdit

The first issue: How should reference lists on media pages (novels, comics, etc) be arranged, we agreed it should be horizontally but there was some contention of the format at that point so, should it be:

A) Using vertical lines with a space either side, as can be seen here, and like this: 1423 | 20th century | 2311 | Alphabet | Andorian ale | antenna | archaeology | Alveoli | Biosynthetic limb | blood | Book | Lek | Chronologist | Cloaking device | clock

B) Using semi-colons with a single space past each one, as can be seen here, and like this: 1423; 20th century; 2311; alphabet; andorian ale; antenna; archaeology; alveoli; biosynthetic limb; blood; book; lek; chronologist; cloaking device; clock



I support system A because I feel it is a lot clearly than B, each entry is more distinct, it looks less like a rambling list. --8of5 11:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I started out using semis because they make more sense in a literary nature (a pipe is not a "real" typing character)
The reason I objected to pipes is that they are code -- which makes me nervous about how software might interpret them if not spaced correctly.
That said, separating with a space on either side is more visually attractive. Unfortunately my favorite adaption, the bullet, is problematic to regularly type, although it is in the quicktype bar now so it is a possibility
They look all right, but I think rather more effortsum, even if that effort is just moving the mouse about clicking on a bar, it’s more so than just typing. --8of5 14:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
They don't even have to do that much. Just click on it once and then copy and paste it between each reference. --Dr. John Smith 14:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, had thought of that funnily enough. But it still isn't a standard keyboard character so does make things trickier than necessary. --8of5 14:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Doc, would you be satisfied with • instead of ; ? Despite my concerns over making things unnecessarily complex they do look quite neat and satisfy my own concerns about the rambling list look of ;'s. Other users, what do you think of the (in)convenience of •’s? --8of5 14:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do like the bullet better than the line/pipe, I just haven't used it because it isn't conveniently on my keyboard. (and since then it has been added to the quicktype bar.) May I suggest we go with those (but not chide anyone for using lines, simply flag it for future clean-up).--Emperorkalan 00:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Good plan Emperor. --8of5 15:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Should we use the Connections heading, an area to put external links and navigation boxes, such as now-and-next boxes and ship or crew lists, etc.


  • Yes --8of5 11:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes --Dr. John Smith 11:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes --Darth Batrus 13:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Provisionally
    • Against use in articles with "External Links" -- Captain MKB 14:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral --Seventy
  • No --Emperorkalan 00:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


I say yes, prior to connections said boxes were just rammed into the bottom of whichever section happened to be at the bottom of the page, irrespective of how relevant a box saying who the commanding officers of the USS Enterprise were are to what that characters hobbies and interests are, etc. The connections section provides one place where you can expect to find anything that connects and keeps all those connections in a neat chunk at the bottom of the page. --8of5 11:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for a subheading when there are no additional subsections in the article body (for this discussion I am omitting "Backround/Information" and "External links" as they are 'meta' -- i.e. outside the article body).
On both Wikipedia and MA, templates are routinely placed within the article body without their own subsection, and I find this to be the easiest way to do it.
The only real use for "==Connections==" is a case where there are numerous subsections in the article body, so the only time it really needs to exist is to avoid placing a browser template in an unrelated subsection like "==Alternate futures==" or "==Personal life on Defiant==" -- so I say remove it in all cases except for the one I describe. -- Captain MKB 13:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that to a degree. But not to the extent I think you mean. Yes for articles that are quite short and have no other sections, the ships which are nothing more than a sentence saying the class and source for example (example, then connections is unnecessary. But, whenever there is an external link I think that should be under connections, and when there is a box as well they should both be under connections with the external link as a subsection. As is currently the case here for example. In other words there is no external links or links heading unless it is a subsection of connections (which would be the default heading for any kind of link, internal or external) necessitated to differentiate from the internal links above it. --8of5 14:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see the need for creating a separate subsection at all. I mean, the entire article should contain internal connections, and that should be understood by the wiki user, that everything "above" "==External links==" contains internal links. This is like designating one subsection of your bowl to contain soup, and saying the rest should have broth -- why bother?. Like any other subsection, the only need for a connections section to be created is when we have connections that could be confused with another (more specific) section. I do think the Bortas article could be reverted, as we're just adding code that makes the page longer and doesn't really do anything but cut the page in half at an arbitrary point, because the template fits in fine with the article body. -- Captain MKB 14:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well apart from the kind of example I already agreed with you doesn’t require the heading, most other articles do have other subsections. The boxes are like a appendices or index, they are not part of the main body of the article like you seem to be arguing. If you read a page you read the text, you don’t then continue to read everything in one of those boxes, they're a thing on the end, a navigation aid, a list of connections. To continue your analogy, the template is not the broth, but the pudding, you eat your broth and soap (and any other courses/sections) together (or in order for a multi-course meal), and have the pudding after.

The example I gave has no other sections. But does have an external link, another type of connection, they should all be in one place, hence connections. --14:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's where I differ -- I insist on separating "external" from "internal", and "in-universe" from "real life" POVs. Creating a section to group an in-universe POV "internal link" section together with a real-life POV "external links" is wrong in this line of thought. Connections should not be created just to be a parent to another subsection, and real-life external links should not be a child subsection to a subsection that contains in-universe internal links. If this is seriously going to be seen as a consideration, we should make the whole article START with "==Connections==", because the entire article contain internal links. -- Captain MKB 14:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I understand your argument as you've made it to me before. My point is that the templates are not in-universe at all, they are real world site navigation aids. In the case of the Bortas article, the in-universe section ends at the end of the paragraph cited with the game Klingon. There is then a continuity note and the rest, the template and external link both provide connections for real world users of the site.
Yes everything that is wiki-linked is also a connection for real world users, but they are built into the text of the article, not a great big chunk at the bottom of it. --8of5 14:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
That's a valid point but I stand by my contention -- there's no need to group the browser templates downward into that grouping unless there is a subsection above them that does not jibe. I still do not think that browser templates have any need to be grouped with external links. I'll be waiting to hear what other users have to say. -- Captain MKB 14:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh? --WTRiker 23:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
What would you like explained Mr Riker? --8of5 02:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll second the "Huh?". I've been away for a bit so I probably missed whatever prompted this call for a vote (and thus I'll beg from all parties a little forbearance while getting up to speed). We have a link to an example of a page that both/all sides agree does NOT need a Connections section. Can someone provide examples where there is a dispute over need for or nature of the external-link section head? And examples of such sections with internal links? Such examples would help illustrate the arguments made above.--Emperorkalan 01:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: I think boxed template lists (ship classes, ship crews, etc.) should be placed at the end of articles (i.e., Connections, External links, See also or whatever they're called sections with external and/or internal links) should appear before/above such boxes. In cases in which the 'box section' gets pretty long (due to number, size, or both) (for example, Worf), they kind of get lost. I think they should be kept with the main, typed text.--Emperorkalan 03:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what your Addendum is arguing, I'll try and explain the more general idea a bit more though. There seems to be general agreement for the connections section on longer pages, with other subsections, to differentiate the boxes and such from which ever random section happens to be at the bottom of the page. The sticking point is whether it should be used on some/all smaller pages and whether external links should be included as a subsection of connections.

I argue Connections should be the all in one section for any navigational aids, internal or external, that includes boxes, see also lists and external links. After talking to Mike here and previously I agreed it would be better to push external links to the bottom of the section to keep all the internal stuff on top before sending users to look on another site. And because of that think that external links should be a subsection of connections if there are any other connections (boxes and such) but if there is only an external link it should just be under the catch-all Connections section

What I think Mike is arguing is that all connections aside from external links are more in-universe so should be kept in a distinctly separate section above external links if they need a section at all. I just don’t agree with that, the boxes and such are navigation aids, not part of the body of in-universe info so it's entirely appropriate to lump them together.

The Vor'cha class is currently set up how I'd do it. IKS Klothos (D7 class) seems to be how Mike would.

Hope that helps even if it was a bit long winded. --8of5 15:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, 8. It did help, but now that I understand the point of contention, my vote is for "neither". My addendum above states (awkwardly) my preference that all boxed items (such as "Klingon Starship classes" on the Vor'cha page) should be kept at the bottom of the page (or perhaps considered their own separate section). External links (to Wikipedia, MA, author web pages, annotations to novels, etc.) should be directly below the main body of text, not buried under a stack of boxes.--Emperorkalan 00:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm well how about in the connections section above a stack of boxes? But, that said, I agree with Mike external links should be right at the bottom, below the boxes, see also, etc. Why send people off site before directing them to other parts of this site? --8of5 00:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
As I've indicated, I disagree, but given that I'm in the minority and am hardly inclined to bust a gut over the point, I'll concede to the majority vote.--Emperorkalan 20:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Starship list formatEdit

And finally, how should the sometime very long lists of starships for each class be listed on their class page.

A) As has been the standard for a while, a vertical bulleted list, as can be seen here or here.

B) A partially bulleted list for ships with a known registration and horizontal list for those with only name known, as can be seen here or here.

C) A vertical bulleted list in columns, as can be seen here.

And if you vote for system A or C should they be listed primarily by 1) registration and then alphabetically, or 2) just alphabetically?


  • B--8of5 11:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • C (alphabetically) --Dr. John Smith 11:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • C (alphabetical) -- Darth Batrus 13:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • C (alphabetical or separated in logical manner, like by subclass or registries -- by user descretion/consensus, after all, each class has a different ratio of info available) -- Captain MKB 13:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
    • B as described below. -- Captain MKB 14:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral; alphabetically only. --Seventy
  • C;it takes up less space; Alphabetically
  • B --Autumn 18:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • C (with possible exceptions, see Discussion)--Emperorkalan 02:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


I support B because I think it's simply the neatest, most attractive, of the options. It doesn't have a big areas of white space, and long page, you get with the original system, and I think the columns just look a bit odd. --8of5 11:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Bok was right that the horizontal list was a little too much like alphabet soup, using half of one and half of the other just seems stylistically odd. -- Captain MKB 13:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Mike, you seem to have managed to vote for both alphabetical and registration arrangements...
Problem with columns is though, especially if you're going to divide by subclass or something, is they're either going to be uneven or jumble up the list when they're divided equally. Though admittedly by subclass is a rarity. That particular concern aside, it looks messier to me. --8of5 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If its messy we could add a table style with cell borders that is more pleasing to the eye, so I don't see that as much of an issue.
As to registry, it should be case-by-case by the way it varies.
I'm saying that, if we have a class of 50 ships that has only three or four registries known, I don't think the rules should say I 'need' to separate them -- even though the need might exist if say, we had twenty registered ships in a class of 50 ships
I'm still against going half-bulleted and half-horizontal -- that idea inherits all of the problems of both suggestions, and is not a solution in that respect. -- Captain MKB 14:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And what would your case be on the Vor'cha class? It's been flipped between alphabetical order or not a couple of times despite a fair ol' chunk of them having registrations. The half system is at least easy to make that kind of decision on because there is only one option clearly defined by the system. Your • idea could also be useful for the mixed system to make the horizontal portions more distinct. --8of5 14:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

any better? --8of5 14:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Truly that doesn't look so bad -- the pipe is a large character so it creates more visual confusion than the bullet. -- Captain MKB 14:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, it was even more the case next to all the capital I's on the Vor'cha page. Not so bed looking enough to sway your vote?... --8of5 14:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So swayed on this one, any exchange for consideration of my connections points above? :) -- Captain MKB 14:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, afraid not, though you have already swayed me to put the external links right at the bottom of the connections section a little while back :) --8of5 14:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that B looks better, but when I'm trying to find a ship looks aren't what concerns me -- ease of locating the link is. Long lists on A caused excessive scrolling (and lots of wasted white space). B was an advantage over that since it could keep everything on the same page, but the horizontal list was less clear and less convenient (and ships with registies had to be broken out because they'd make the horizontal list even more awkward). And since columns came into use, B doesn't have the advantage it used to, so I'll favor straight alphabetization, option C. However, there may be some cases of classes with very long lists where even with two columns excessive scrolling may occur. Are three columns an option? If not, then I suggest in those cases where C still results in excessive scrolling (definition of which to be determined later), we use B. Also, no matter what the results of this vote, may I suggest the use of columns in the 'registry known' section of any B-style format.--Emperorkalan 02:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to point out something I forgot to bring up before, most classes with long lists have categories to list them alphabetically. Hence it would be more useful when we have the option to arrange them in another way (by registration) on the class pages to do so, to offer the information in an additional different way to what the categories already provide. --8of5 15:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


Please make sure the end results of these votes are well-publicized to users (I liked the attention-grabbing header that took me here); I'm not that picky about which one we adopt, but I do want to make sure I am conforming to the new standard. -- Data Noh 11:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Splitting upEdit

Should two-part stories with the same title, which currently occupy a single page, be split into two? For instance having Remembrance of Things Past, Book I and Remembrance of Things Past, Book II, as opposed to Remembrance of Things Past.



I know this is not going to be a popular suggestion with at least two users here, but I propose that we split all duologies or part stories into their various parts, for instance having Remembrance of Things Past, Book I and Remembrance of Things Past, Book II. The basis for me suggesting this is because the system for merging parts together is because they have the same title, where if the two parts had different titles they would get two different pages, even though the releases with different titles still tell one story. So going by the current logic, then the media with different titles would be merged together. --Dr. John Smith 16:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect I am one of those two, and you are quite right in your expectations. My take on the current logic is that works being split into two is more a function of the practicalities of how they are published, they are one story. However, if separate names have been given for each of those two parts then there has clearly been an effort to make them distinct separate entities as opposed to only part 1 and 2 of a single title. --8of5 14:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand Doc's argument at all. First of all, I have to wonder why he uses a not-yet-published story as his example, when presumably it, like every other SCE/CoE eBook multiparter but one, will eventually be republished as a single work. Secondly, what is so confusing about having one article for one title, two articles for two different titles?? If the author is saying "This is just one part of one story that's been split in two" or "This is part of a three-book arc, but distinct enough to have its own title," then it seems reasonable to follow their lead. --Seventy 23:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Well that depends on an assumption that author's titles consistantly stand up to scrutiny -- many don't really couch a whole lot of meaning about the makeup of the stories into the format of the title -- so thats a non-issue.
What I do understand about the case being made is that many of our single-article duology stories are quite difficult to reference properly -- after all, this site is here to provide a specific series of references, but many times we make reference lists that bear no distinction to a reference that is in one part and not the other -- for example, if i was curious about a specific starship that appeared in Avatar -- I would like to be able to tell whether it is from Avatar Book 1 or Avatar Book 2. The current reference lists, indeed many of the articles, fail to make that distinction. -- Captain MKB 03:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, in that particular example, the best way to deal is to list USS Whatever in the Avatar article, and then the when clicking through to the USS Whatever article, that cites Avatar, Book Two. As for the complaint that the articles fail to make distinctions, wouldn't it make sense then to advocate improving the articles we have? --Seventy 12:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It is also often the case that the USS Whatever appears in, or is referenced in, both books of a duology. So adding Books 1 and 2 to the reference just adds 13 characters of useless information, as simply citing Avatar is inclusive of both books. --8of5 12:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the advantages of having duologies on a consolidated page outweigh the (potential) advatages of splitting them.--Emperorkalan 02:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Unless someone who has yet to vote or speak up here has something else to add I think it's time we called the results on these. All the votes have a majority on one side, some slimmer than others. But I think anyone who cares to input something will have done so by now and it's about time we actually acted upon the results and all comply with the community’s decisions. --8of5 15:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.