Forum:CT Archive/"First pictured" usage

As has been pointed out by Menkooroo, our usage of the 1stp ("") template is inconsistent. In some cases, it is used in the same way that is used relative to, saying that it was simply pictured before it was mentioned or appeared. In other cases, it is used like, meaning that it was not pictured until a later appearance/source. As this could lead to reader confusion, something needs to be done.

To solve this, I propose that usage of be mandated on all articles where the subject has been visually depicted, regardless of when this first visual depiction occurs relative to other appearances and sources. In other words, it would function separately and independently from the rest of the 1st family of templates. This ensures that the reader always knows when the first visual depiction occurred and is not left hanging when the template is omitted. Rather than apply two such templates to the same appearance or source in cases where is simultaneous with a  or, two new templates will be created:  at 1stmp, and  at 1stap. (I chose "appeared" instead of "appearance" because two verbs reads better than trying to mix a noun and a verb.)

Two changes to the Layout Guide would be made. In Layout_Guide, immediately under the sub-bullets regarding usage of 1stID, the following would be added:


 * For the subject's first visual depiction, use the 1stp template, e.g. for Cal Omas:
 * The Essential Reader's Companion
 * When the subject's first visual depiction is simultaneous with its first mention or first appearance, use 1stmp or 1stap respectively instead of the individual templates, e.g. for Ona Nobis:
 * Jedi Apprentice: The Deadly Hunter

In the succeeding section of the LG, Sources, the line:


 * Apply 1stm and 1stID as per "Appearances" section above. If subject first appeared in a vignette within source material, use 1st in conjunction with.

will be modified to:


 * Apply 1stm, 1stID, and 1stp as per "Appearances" section above. If subject first appeared in a vignette within source material, use 1st in conjunction with.

&mdash;MJ&mdash; Jedi Council Chambers 03:46, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

Issue 1
This is to approve or reject the main change discussed above.

Support

 * 1) As proposer. &mdash;MJ&mdash; Jedi Council Chambers 03:46, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

Issue 2
As stated above, I chose over  because two verbs reads better than mixing a noun and a verb. If adopted, this would leave an inconsistency with the existing 1st, which uses the noun. 1st is also already inconsistent with the rest of its template family, as this is the only one to my knowledge to use a noun, while the rest use a verb. Thus I propose changing 1st to for consistency. Since an inconsistency already exists, this issue is independent of Issue 1 and can pass even if Issue 1 fails. &mdash;MJ&mdash; Jedi Council Chambers 03:46, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As proposer. &mdash;MJ&mdash; Jedi Council Chambers 03:46, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

Issue 3
This will require a lot of work to bring our one-hundred-thousand-plus articles in line with the new policy. Since this cannot be done by a bot and human attention will be needed on each and every article, it is unreasonable to expect every status article to be fixed quickly. I am therefore proposing a six-month grace period for existing status articles to be fixed, after which they can be probed and stripped of status by the appropriate reviewing panel if they remain unfixed. This does not apply to current nominations, which can be objected to immediately (since they should have active attention on them). This issue is dependent on Issue 1 passing and is moot if it fails. &mdash;MJ&mdash;</b> Jedi Council Chambers</b> 03:46, November 8, 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) As proposer. &mdash;MJ&mdash;</b> Jedi Council Chambers</b> 03:46, November 8, 2013 (UTC)