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 to ONLY use eras tags on "non-timeless" articles, such as characters, ships, etc. and restrict eras tags usage based on known appearances alone, and not presumed era appearances. Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 18:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Kindly ignore the ravings of an young, innocent boy. Soresumakashi 11:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've been looking around for this, but I can't seem to find it. Do we have an policy on the usage of era tags {{Eras|whatever}}? There seems to be quite a lot of variation on what types of articles they should be used for. I see that often locations, structures and creatures don't have tags. I personally believe that they should be used for all articles (yes, even planets, as long as it's an appearance). Okay, I think I just changed my mind about deduced eras (the one about if a guy is 60 in the rebellion era, do we list him as being in ROTE). Now I'm just going off-topic... Soresumakashi 08:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- The layout guide mentions it, saying it "Is usually included in non-timeless articles such as characters, organizations, vehicles, weapons." But I don't know if this is really all that enforced. I've always thought that most articles (characters, buildings, etc) should have it, but not articles like planets or species. Aqua Unasi 20:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but technically, planets and species are not timeless. Alderaan and Carida are two planets who are not timeless - they were destroyed. The Yevetha were completely wiped out by the Yuuzhan Vong. How does that fit in? - JMAS Hey, it's me! 21:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Look at this a different way. We don't know if they existed or not. Star Wars is science fiction and therefore we don't know if a character didn't just get sucked through a timewarp and jumped from the old era to the legacy era. Assuming they even existed in any era unless specificly stated, is just that, an assumption. NaruHina Talk 23:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think we need a more solid and enforced policy. I agree with JMAS, technically, nothing is timeless. I think it would just be easiest if all articles used the tags for appearances, but not assumptions. It saves some memory space, and gives all users a quick reference to time period. Thoughts? Soresumakashi 06:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've been putting a few on myself recently and I have to say I agree (with my invisible friend), that all the articles should have era tags, but only for definite appearances as Naru said - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 19:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe we could take a vote on this issue sometime. Soresumakashi 06:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- You can move to the Consensus Track by changing the {{Shtop}} at the top of the page to {{Cttop}}. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 12:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Do I need authorization to start a CT? Not quite sure what to do with it after moving it anyway. Maybe someone else could help me do this? Soresumakashi 02:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Let me just confirm. The CT would be to alter policy to have Era tags for all IU articles based on the actually appearances from the item Appearances list, not just the "presumed" appearance in that era. Correct? - JMAS Hey, it's me! 19:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that's right. Soresumakashi 22:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Let me just confirm. The CT would be to alter policy to have Era tags for all IU articles based on the actually appearances from the item Appearances list, not just the "presumed" appearance in that era. Correct? - JMAS Hey, it's me! 19:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Do I need authorization to start a CT? Not quite sure what to do with it after moving it anyway. Maybe someone else could help me do this? Soresumakashi 02:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- You can move to the Consensus Track by changing the {{Shtop}} at the top of the page to {{Cttop}}. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 12:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe we could take a vote on this issue sometime. Soresumakashi 06:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've been putting a few on myself recently and I have to say I agree (with my invisible friend), that all the articles should have era tags, but only for definite appearances as Naru said - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 19:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Contents
Proposal[]
NOTE: This is my first time doing this. If I've done something wrong, feel free to change it. Format copied off Aqua Unasi. Uhhh... No hard feelings, right?
Okay, it's come to my attention that the usage of era tags is greatly varied. The current policy is to use them for all 'non-timeless' articles (eg. characters, organizations, vehicles and weapons). However, non-timeless is not very specific. It's open to many interpretations. For example, should we use them for structures and cities? They are obviously not timeless, yet the general consensus is—no. Take a look at Category:Cities and you'll find that 9/10 of them don't have era tags. This topic could even stretch as far as their usage in planet articles. Planets are not timeless, as Alderaan showed us. My point is—nothing is timeless. So should they have era tags?
Then there's the ongoing debate about whether we should list presumed appearances (ie. if someone is 60 in the rebellion era, do we count him as being in the Rise of the Empire era as well?) So, I propose a change in policy. I have provided a range of possible options. Feel free to add more.
When to use them[]
Option 1—Keep the current policy as-is. (Use them for all 'non-timeless' articles.)
Option 2—Require all articles to have era tags.
(Add other options here)
Voting[]
Option 1[]
- Planets and species should not have era tags. Alderaan is the exception, not the rule. Toprawa and Ralltiir 15:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 18:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure how the other option would be enforced. Especially with option 1 looking to possibly be on course for consensus below. I'm not adverse to adding eras to these "timeless" articles but I think a different approach is needed. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- *gasp* You stole my format! ;) Aqua Unasi 21:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- DarthDragon164Dragon's Lair 22:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 22:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- But for planets like Alderaan and extinct species, include era tags. DC 01:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Option 2 here conflicts with either option below. In a universe full of gigantic constructs like worldcraft and Death Stars and extragalactic planet seeds, we can't assume we know when a planet was created. If we decide to base era tag usage on explicit appearances only, we'll be falsely indicating that a planet was created in some later era. If we base them on presumed age, we'll be assuming something has always existed when it may be a recent creation. Planet and species era tags will be unavoidably misleading in one direction or the other. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 03:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Greyman(Talk) 12:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Mauser 08:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Graestan(Talk) 01:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Per Ataru. Drewton (Drewton's Holocron) 01:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Per Tope. IFYLOFD (There is no death. There is the Force.) 22:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Per Culator. jSarek 00:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- --Borsk Fey'lya Talk 08:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- —Xwing328(Talk) 15:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Kyp (It's a trap) 01:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Option 2[]
- Soresumakashi 11:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- JMAS Hey, it's me! 14:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Unit 8311 15:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 15:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Alderaan is far from an exception in a superweapon-happy universe, and in any case there are certainly plenty of species that have gone extinct. I see no reason to make an exception for planets and species from the general rule of era-tag use. Havac 17:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- DC 18:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how this differs from listing appearances for species and planets. If we can nail down appearances, we can nail down every era in which it canonically appeared. Wildyoda 21:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hold it. Era tags are inherently OOU. Putting them on species/planet articles doesn't change the fact they're timeless, it just mentions what publish eras it's in. JorrelFraajic 14:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Comments[]
Regardless of whether we decide to change the policy or not, I still feel the need to enforce it more. It's way too inconsistent at the moment. Soresumakashi 11:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- If what you're after is to make it an acceptable practice to use era tags for planets or species that have been destroyed or become extinct in a certain era, I think it would be more appropriate to make a CT dealing with that specifically, rather than trying to enforce a universal sweep of all timeless articles. The idea behind this was that planets and species have existed, and will continue to exist IU, for longer a time than we have era tags to accompany their existences. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- But this would only happen if we presumed that they continued to exist, right? One of the main reasons I want this is because it gives you a quick way to see all the eras where the subject of the article existed. - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 16:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be presumptuous to operate under the canonically established fact that planets and species exist for eons. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but are you sure it's a canonically established fact that planets and species exist for eons? Because (as shown by Alderaan) they don't - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 17:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. I'm going to use the Human species and the Hoth asteroid field (for all intents and purposes a planet) as the first two examples that come to mind. The Hoth asteroid field, and the planets within the Hoth system for that matter, are quite literally "eons" old. The Human species has (taken from our article) "a recorded and civilized history reaching back far beyond the beginning of space travels, before 200,000 BBY,[1] the origin and early history of Humans was lost to their scientists in the depths of millennia." Planets and species don't just spring up willy-nilly. They develop over hundreds of millions of years. When one ceases to exist, such as Alderaan, this is a rare exception. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- But it does happen. I don't know if this is what your saying but it seems to me that you basically think that if a new book was brought out in a new era, and that book didn't have Humans in, we should should presume they're still around? That seems quite presumptuous to me, sorry if that's not what you mean - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 18:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Another reason why option 2 would be preferable is to provide a quick, easy reference to known appearances for articles which we currently consider to be timeless. The only other way to do this at the moment is to go down to the appearances section, then individually click on the links to discover the eras. Very time-consuming. While all you admins and stuff may know it all off by heart, others may not be able to do it so quickly. Soresumakashi 05:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Toprawa, the fact that most species and planets stick around does not somehow erase the fact that a fair number of species and planets do not stick around. So I don't see any justification for not using era tags based on the fact that most but not all of them will have a lot of era tags. It's like arguing that we don't need jails because most people aren't criminals. The exceptions to the rule create the need for a response based on the fact that exceptions exist at all. If all planets were infinite in duration, your argument would have merit. Since not all are, I don't see the merit. Everything else has era tags. I don't see why we should be making an exception for planets and species. Havac 03:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Another reason why option 2 would be preferable is to provide a quick, easy reference to known appearances for articles which we currently consider to be timeless. The only other way to do this at the moment is to go down to the appearances section, then individually click on the links to discover the eras. Very time-consuming. While all you admins and stuff may know it all off by heart, others may not be able to do it so quickly. Soresumakashi 05:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- But it does happen. I don't know if this is what your saying but it seems to me that you basically think that if a new book was brought out in a new era, and that book didn't have Humans in, we should should presume they're still around? That seems quite presumptuous to me, sorry if that's not what you mean - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 18:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. I'm going to use the Human species and the Hoth asteroid field (for all intents and purposes a planet) as the first two examples that come to mind. The Hoth asteroid field, and the planets within the Hoth system for that matter, are quite literally "eons" old. The Human species has (taken from our article) "a recorded and civilized history reaching back far beyond the beginning of space travels, before 200,000 BBY,[1] the origin and early history of Humans was lost to their scientists in the depths of millennia." Planets and species don't just spring up willy-nilly. They develop over hundreds of millions of years. When one ceases to exist, such as Alderaan, this is a rare exception. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but are you sure it's a canonically established fact that planets and species exist for eons? Because (as shown by Alderaan) they don't - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 17:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be presumptuous to operate under the canonically established fact that planets and species exist for eons. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- But this would only happen if we presumed that they continued to exist, right? One of the main reasons I want this is because it gives you a quick way to see all the eras where the subject of the article existed. - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 16:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Most of your objections seem to be for the planet section. At the very least, I still suggest using them for species, sentients, structures and other artificial constructs. Soresumakashi 08:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Presumed appearances[]
Option 1—List known appearances only.
Option 2—List known appearances and presumed ones.
(Add other options here)
Voting[]
Option 1[]
- Soresumakashi 11:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- JMAS Hey, it's me! 14:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Unit 8311 15:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I guess this is just reinforcing what we already do anyway. Anything else would just be speculation. Toprawa and Ralltiir 15:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 15:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- With all apologies to Havac, I get it, and this makes sense to avoid the OR line. Atarumaster88 (Talk page) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Though it's kind of overkill. Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Grand Moff Tranner (Comlink) 22:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Greyman(Talk) 12:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Din's Fire 997 07:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Mauser 08:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- Graestan(Talk) 01:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the eras are entirely Out of Universe. For example, the term "Legacy era" has no in-universe meaning. Therefore, this does not introduce an element of OOU-ness. -LtNOWIS 19:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- NOWIS's argument has swayed me. Since the era tags in and of themselves are OOU, listing them OOU is the only way to tackle this. Now, of course, my previous statements stand in the case we get concrete and accurate IU eras. JorrelFraajic 15:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just a note that I would consider Havac's example below about Pallaeon to be common sense, not original research, and would therefore still be eligible under this option. Wildyoda 21:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- LtNOWIS has swayed me, too. jSarek 00:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- —Xwing328(Talk) 15:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- --Borsk Fey'lya Talk 22:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm against labelling human-looking characters as humans too. -- I need a name (Complain here) 11:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Kyp (It's a trap) 01:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Option 2[]
- I believe that presumed appearances show get tags too. Time Travel has only appeared five or six times in Star Wars, and three or four of those are ambgiuously canonically, so it is safe to say that 99.9% of the time, a person that appears in the New Republic era and the Legacy era also was alive in the NJO era. DarthDragon164Dragon's Lair 22:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think people are taking a fear of OR to unreasonable levels here. Pellaeon says he's 92 in Revelation. So we, being rational beings, do the math and say, "Oh, he was born in 52 BBY." Is it possible that he jumped through a hyperspace wormhole and was actually born in 362 BBY before leaping through time to 54 BBY as a young toddler? Yes. Is it the height of idiocy to refuse to put a 52 BBY birth date in his infobox because of it? An emphatic yes. We put "human" as people's species all the time because we see an image where they . . . look like humans. It's not explicitly stated. Some people might be tempted to call it OR. That person might be an Epicanthix, after all. But you know what? It's fiction, and if we want to "know" anything whatsoever, we have to make some bare-minimum assumptions, like, "If it looks, walks, and talks like a human, it's probably a human barring Abelian retcon," or "This person probably didn't jump through a hyperspace wormhole and time-travel." In Jedi Outcast, we don't see Luke get to the Cairn Installation. But we can put in his article "Skywalker flew to the Cairn Installation" because it's a damn sight more likely than teleporting, walking, or driving a Buick there. At some point, we have to be rational human beings and make a certain level of assumption that things behave logically or else we're left with nothing. So the whole "time-travel" argument is complete and utter bullshit of the first order. And I don't see any strong argument for it otherwise. What's going to count as an appearance? Is a flashback going to count as an appearance in that past era? I'd sure hope so. What about a mention of backstory dated to a past era? Is that going to count as establishing that person in that era? And if not, how is it substantially different than a flashback? This distinction is so moronically tenuous that I can't see it making any sense at all. If we have information that a person was in an era -- which, if we refuse to give ourselves lobotomies, includes presence in bracketing eras, etc -- then we mark them in that era. Simple. Straightforward. None of this out-of-universe what-gets-shown-in-what-book nonsense. Havac 03:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- For eras we can categorically state they appeared in, regardless of canon. Ergo, if someone appears in the Old Republic Era and then shows up in the New Republic era, we put the intervening eras in the infobox/template. Ergo, if we know someone was 40 in the Rebellion era, we can trace back their DOB and add earlier eras. Ergo, if someone appears as an adult early in one era - since we know the lifespans of many, many species this oughtn't be a problem anyway - then we put the previous era in the infobox. Or something like that. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 12:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Per Havac and Acky, although I'd go a step further and require explicit dates to include the previous era - for example, no "looks like an old man, so he's been around since ___" - since that requires more than simple math and slight extrapolation. Also, :D at the Buick reference, Hav. JorrelFraajic 21:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- DC 18:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Option 1 is ridiculous. Drewton (Drewton's Holocron) 19:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Comments[]
Looks like I've defected to the other side after NaruHina said this: Look at this a different way. We don't know if they existed or not. Star Wars is science fiction and therefore we don't know if a character didn't just get sucked through a timewarp and jumped from the old era to the legacy era. Assuming they even existed in any era unless specificly stated, is just that, an assumption. Soresumakashi 11:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to just strike this section entirely unless someone is going to explain just what the hell we're voting about. What are we defining a "presumed appearance" as? Havac 17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Question: With Option 1, if a character is alive in the New Republic era, and the Legacy era, would a tag of the New Jedi Order era be allowed? Aqua Unasi 21:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that is precisely what option 1 is meant to prevent. Think of it as an option to make the era tags completely out-of-universe, reflecting only which publishing eras contain the works the character appears in. Though this raises the question of what to do with characters who only appear in flashbacks or as part of in-universe or out-of-universe histories, like Xim. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- But isn't this site supposed to be IU whenever possible? And era tags are an instance when it is possible to be IU. DarthDragon164Dragon's Lair 20:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I believe that is precisely what option 1 is meant to prevent. Think of it as an option to make the era tags completely out-of-universe, reflecting only which publishing eras contain the works the character appears in. Though this raises the question of what to do with characters who only appear in flashbacks or as part of in-universe or out-of-universe histories, like Xim. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)