Forum:CT Archive/Era tags

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 ? 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)
 * Kindly ignore the ravings of an young, innocent boy. Soresumakashi 11:36, 22 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 [[Image:Anakinsolo.png|20px]] 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 at the top of the page to  . -  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)

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)

Option 1

 * 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)
 * 2) Absolutely. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 18:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Option 2

 * 1) Soresumakashi 11:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 14:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Unit 8311 15:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 15:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)

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)

Presumed appearances
Option 1—List known appearances only.

Option 2—List known appearances and presumed ones.

(Add other options here)

Option 1

 * 1) Soresumakashi 11:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  JMAS  Hey, it's me! 14:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Unit 8311 15:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) - Kingpin13Cantina Battle Ground 15:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) With all apologies to Havac, I get it, and this makes sense to avoid the OR line. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 18:22, 22 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)