Changes: Forum:CT:Placement of Cyborg and similar links in Appearances

Revision as of 03:46, 22 November 2021

Forums > Consensus track > CT:Placement of Cyborg and similar links in Appearances

I recently started this Senate Hall thread concerning the placement of certain links in the Appearances section. My proposal is based on my own idea and advice received there.

The problem is that it is currently unclear as to where "cyborg" and similar subjects should be listed in the Appearances sections of media articles. It has been common practice to list "cyborg" in particular under sentient species, but this is inaccurate as cyborgs are not a sentient species. I propose adding the following to the Layout Guide section regarding Appearances to clarify the placement of "cyborg" and similar links:

Cyborg, Force-sensitive, and similar links relating to the classification of certain individuals shall be listed under the "Miscellaneous" header of Appearances.

Support

SilverSunbird (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think a CT was necessarily needed here, but I guess it doesn't hurt Lewisr (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Immi Thrax (she/her) (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

I'm not convinced this needs to be policy. It would belong more in the template's own documentation. MasterFred(talk) 00:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
With Fred here. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 02:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I also do not feel that this needs to be codified in this way. Feels like instruction creep to me. VergenceScatter (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

What exactly is going on here? The proposal, which talks about the contents of the Appearances section of OOU media pages, must be proposing that some wording be added to the Appearances section of the IU Layout Guide (a section which doesn't have anything to do with in-universe concepts like cyborgs or Force-sensitives) — because the OOU Layout Guide doesn't even have an "Appearances" section! For the record, and I do believe this would actually be the most appropriate solution here, not every community decision vote has to result in a policy wording change. Imperators II^(Talk) 08:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- I thought a CT might be useful given the fact that no one seemed to know where this link should go. If it was the wrong decision, well, then it was the wrong decision, and if the admins see fit to end it, that's okay. SilverSunbird (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 #I'm not convinced this needs to be policy. It would belong more in the template's own documentation. [[User:Master Fredcerique|<span style="color: #45CF10">'''MasterFred'''</span>]][[File:Commerce Guild.svg|20px]][[User talk:Master Fredcerique|<span style="color: #0674F3">('''talk''')</span>]] 00:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 #With Fred here. [[User:JediMasterMacaroni|<font style="font-family:copperplate; color:#ff4d00;">'''JediMasterMacaroni'''</font>]][[User talk:JediMasterMacaroni|<sup><font style="color:#ff4d00;">(Talk)</font></sup>]] 02:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
+#I also do not feel that this needs to be codified in this way. Feels like instruction creep to me. [[User:VergenceScatter|VergenceScatter]] ([[User talk:VergenceScatter|talk]]) 03:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 ==Discussion==