Talk: Dramatis Personae

Appearance Templates

Since we are using the ((Mo)) (would insert but the website crashes every time I try to) template for the first reference to a character, should I go through all the DPs and swap full appearance for the first appearance template or create a "full appearance" template in the same style? It looks kind of strange to have the "mentioned only) in the smaller font and the "full appearance" in normal. Marl Karx (talk) 16:36, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your question, Marl. You only use the Mo template when a character is talked about (i.e. mentioned) but the character itself is off stage. If the first appearance is a full one, i.e. the character is present, than there is no need for a Mo ref at all. If what you mean is that you want to replace the old Mo with the new Mo elsewhere, sure, go ahead :)

The differences between the look of Mo and full appearance makes a visual distinction between the minor and the major appearances of the characters so I quite like it :)

As you are about at the moment - have you had a look yet at the DL and FoL worksheets? Didn't you want to earmark some characters, chapters etc...?

Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 21:31, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the second part of a character mentioned only, after the citation for their mention there is a (full appearance) in normal text, ex.:

• Anomander Rake, Lord of Moon's Spawn, Son of Darkness, Knight of Darkness (Mentioned only) (full appearance)

It looks strange, at least on the computer I usually edit from, as the mention is in a smaller/compacted text and the full appearance is standard. There is a template, 1st, which creates a (First appearance) in the same text style as the mention, so I was wondering about going through and changing the (full appearance) to a (First appearance) or creating a template that would have the (full appearance) in the same style. As for the DL and FoL worksheets, I've loaned my copy of Dancer's Lament to a friend at the moment, and I don't yet own Fall of Light. I'll have it back before the moratorium ends, I'll add a couple characters I can work on right now. Marl Karx (talk) 21:53, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

I should really follow through on things I start. Let us say that full appearances are assumed, hence there is no need to note this. Where a character is mentioned a special note, in this case the template {{Mo}}, is used. So far, so good. Sometimes characters are mentioned first and then later make a full appearance, in this case then remove the mentioned only note as it contradicts the later statement of "full appearance".

I'm interested in the problems you are having with inserting templates. (I take it you are using the default skin (see Help:Layout).) Leave some more details (e.g. browser you use, what you click on that causes the crash) on my talk page if you want some help troubleshooting it. --Jade Raventalk 07:19, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Jade Raven, many of the DPs that are currently fully referenced use the dual system of 'mentioned only' plus 'full appearance' where applicable. Given the amount of work that various editors have put into that, I don't think it would be fair to just erase them. As references should always accompany both entries, they can not be classed as a contradiction. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 15:51, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Since I had been working based on what I saw on the GM ExtDP, I had assumed that a character mentioned in, for example, chapter 3, then appearing in chapter 6, would have a (Mo) referenced to 3 and a (full appearance) referenced to 6. As for the (Mo) glitch, it only happens on my talk page as far as I know, and only on the portable computer I usually work from. I can insert it perfectly fine in the DP and on my other computer, but here the browser stops responding. And I'm not clicking to insert, I just type the {s and Mo out myself. After typing the "M" and if I'm lucky the o after the first two brackets it stops responding. Again, it works perfectly on the DPs, no hesitation. As for browser I'm running Internet Explorer (I know, I should probably use Chrome) on my portable computer and Microsoft Edge on the other. It might work to insert it here on Monobook, but I just found out I can't yesterday and I haven't had much time to try. Marl Karx (talk) Edit: typing out the Endspoiler template also crashed it but clicking it from the "more" section worked fine. I don't know why it's an issue just on this page, I can type the Endpsoiler on other pages fine, and it worked just a couple weeks ago when I added the Spoiler template to the DL and FL section. Marl Karx (talk) 16:25, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Try typing both opening and closing bracket first, then insert name of link. Might just be trouble with the auto-prompt functionEgwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 16:29, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

That works, thanks! I guess sometimes the simplest solutions are the most effective. I'm going to start sliding the conversation back to the left here before we're halfway across the page. Marl Karx (talk) 16:35, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Slides to the left.... hmmm... waltz rhythm maybe? Glad I could help. I recognised the symptoms as I get the same problem on some pages. The auto-prompt can be really annoying sometimes. When I am trying to change the advent calendar image for example, it displays right over where I am typing. Still, the overall plus points far outweigh those few hick-ups!Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 16:49, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Only just realised that with the revamp the meaning of the words in the intro to the DPs has changed. The intro as it currently reads does contradict what we have actually been doing. I'll change the working to reflect the content. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 18:47, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Good thing you noticed, it's a lot easier to change the DP template than to change every DP. Back to the original question though, should I go through and swap out (full appearances) for (First appearance) or create a template for a (full appearance) of the same font? The conversation went off on a tangent for a bit. Also, I noticed you changed the K'rul page to have a "show spoiler" button, if it would be helpful I could try to put that button on some other articles, ex. Cotillion. Marl Karx (talk) 22:19, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

It's times like these that I'm reminded that I'm the only one around here that seems to spend a bit of time on other wikis. The established standard for talk pages is increment an indent by one until it gets too unwieldy (3-5 I'd say) and then start it back at zero and increment out again. --Jade Raventalk 23:58, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

The amount of work that has been put in was the only thing that made me hesitate about deleting them across all the DPs—I still want to do it though. It doesn't really add anything to the wiki. There is a bit of significance as to whether a character is just mentioned in a book or actually shows up and maybe has a bit of dialogue, but to say that they are mentioned and then say that they make a full appearance makes a mockery of this. It is purely an unnecessary vestige of the process of systematically going through a book and noting and referencing a character as you come across them. Later finding a full appearance invalidates the former work done on the mention, but there is a reluctance to discard it because of the effort it took. I understand the feeling of wanting to keep it, but it doesn't mean the decision is a good one. Referencing just for its own sake does not strike me as particularly wise. --Jade Raventalk 00:38, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

I highly recommend that no-one uses Internet Explorer for any reason. --Jade Raventalk 00:38, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

It could help if more information needs to be added later, simply including the first appearance might neglect information about that character exposed before, and it makes it easy to know what chapter the character first appears in instead of having to flip through and make sure they are not mentioned before an appearance. It would also be useful if we ever wanted to catalog, chronologically, the order in which characters' names appear in the books. As it is sort of part of the process of creating a DP to mark the first mention, I don't see why to waste time removing the name afterwards. It doesn't seem vital to include but it seems like a waste of time to go back through and delete when it could be used otherwise and it will probably be created anyways initially to mark appearances. I don't see the point of removing them later when, even if they appear useless, they don't do any harm to the wiki and add to the details. The two uses I thought of were just off the top of my head, I'm sure knowing the initial chapter a character's name appears in could be helpful in other ways. Marl Karx (talk) 01:54, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The information is of extremely marginal utility and is not worth the bloat that it brings to the DPs. Moreover, I want to return to the simple contradiction of the statements: "mentioned only" and "full appearance" directly contradict each other. "Mentioned only" implies that a full appearance does not occur. How also to indicate the other entries, I assume every single entry that is currently unmarked will have "full appearance" added to it. I have thought this though. I would be quite happy to do the work of removing the unnecessary references. --Jade Raventalk 03:58, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

If we're talking about useless bloat then I feel like adding (full appearance) to every single entry that is not mentioned only is a monumental waste of time. I disagree that such a contradiction exists as the (mentioned only) to me implies that up until the full appearance they are only mentioned and from the appearance onward they are active, or that in the cited chapter for the "Mo" they are only mentioned and in the cited chapter for the "full appearance" they have a complete appearance. However, this could be easily fixed by changing the Mo template to simply say "mentioned", which if I am correct would alter all the DPs and eliminate the contradiction the "only" seems to cause, and creating a new function for "mentioned only" to add to characters who are only mentioned, which would take far less time as there appear to be less of these. Also, why add "full appearance" to every character when we could simple alter the DP template at the top to mentioned that characters not marked as mentioned only/characters with only a citation appear fully from the first point their name is used? That would save so much time. As long as the "mentioned only" and "full appearance" don't take the character into a second line, I don't see how it bloats the DPs, the page will still be of the same length. Marl Karx (talk) 05:13, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

Dropping the "only" would seem to be a solution, but then every single character is technically mentioned and thus it applies to every entry and becomes useless as an identifier. I highly value consistency and logical organisation and presentation of information and would rather personally add a "full appearance" to every entry than add a caveat to the template at the top. Of course the most logical thing is to not to have full appearance notes at all as the simplest assumption is that every appearance is a full appearance unless otherwise noted. The more instructions that are required, the greater the design failure is. Bloat does not necessarily mean large, it just means larger than it needs to be. --Jade Raventalk 11:05, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

If we keep going down this route, then I have to ask why we are bothering to footnote anything in the DP at all. Who cares that Whiskeyjack first showed up in Chapter 2 before continuing to appear in the rest of the book? Part of the problem is that the definition of the Extended DP seems to have suddenly changed. At first we had the DP on the main book page as an artifact of the book (like a map or acknowledgement). It was the official character list provided by the publisher/author to inform the reader who appeared in the book. In my mind, the extended DP was a deep cut side project to expand the list for completionists and include extra-nerdy details like chapter of first reference and/or appearance. It's only if we've now swapped one for the other that the presentation of the old ExtDP can seem like bloat. A decision needs to be made on role of these pages before anyone wastes more time on them.--ArchieVist (talk) 17:27, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with what AV is saying. The mission statement for the EDPs was quite markedly different from that of the book DPs - they were on opposite ends of a spectrum. Since removal, I use book/kindle to look up who was listed under what category in the original book DP. Every user differs in what info they come to find on the Wiki and I would prefer us to cater for the broadest user base possible. I really can not see there being a contradiction between the two types of appearances. The very reason for choosing those two expressions is that they are self-explanatory. I would prefer to stick with 'mentioned only' template and 'full appearance' in their current form.Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 19:03, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

Egwene I would like you to imagine that not everyone checks and reads the references. Thus if you read: "Anomander Rake (Mentioned only) ref: Gardens of the Moon, Chapter 1 (full appearance) ref: Gardens of the Moon, Chapter 2" it does sort of make sense, but if you read it as: "Anomander Rake (Mentioned only) (full appearance)", it makes a lot less sense. --Jade Raventalk 22:53, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

Would it be possible, although likely highly complicated, to hide all of the (Mentioned only) and (full appearance) text, and then have a button at the top of the DP that would display it for those who wished to see? This would allow us to use the information, and people who wish to see the info could see it without it filling the page to excess. It would probably be a lot of work, but it would create a perfect middle ground between too much information displayed and not having the information at hand when we need it. If there is some simple text that could be inserted to each side of the (Mentioned only) - (full appearance) to hide them, all linked to a central button, I could go through the DP pages and insert it. Again, it would take a little while though. Marl Karx (talk) 23:09, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

I've copied the button from the K'rul page used to hide pseudonyms and applied it to the Anomander Rake DP bullet. Original:

• Anomander Rake, Lord of Moon's Spawn, Son of Darkness, Knight of Darkness (Mentioned only) (full appearance)

Modified: Click to show more information

• Anomander Rake, Lord of Moon's Spawn, Son of Darkness, Knight of Darkness
  (Mentioned only)(full appearance)

I don't know much about how this works so I don't know how to create 1 button for multiple hidden items or how to have the (Mentioned only) and such on the same line, I just directly copied from the K'rul page and changed some words. Marl Karx (talk) 23:24, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

That would be possible, but I would rather we left things as they are now than do that. --Jade Raventalk 23:52, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

Background on chapterboxes

I long time ago I realised that the main book pages were heading towards a truly extraordinary length. There was way too much info on them. However the information was useful so I decided to break it out into several sub-pages. For the purpose of keeping everything linked together I created the chapterboxes. Now every chapter, prologue and epilogue gets its own page. I also wanted to get the dramatis personae onto its own page as well, as it was complicating the contents section and took a big chunk of scroll time to get past. The meat of the book pages is supposed to be the plot summaries.

The problem came when I was lax in removing the old DPs as I copied them over to their own pages (hope I'm remembering this bit correctly). Soon others (Egwene and Aimzzz I think) made the DP pages into Extended DPs which I thought was actually a great idea, but now the originals were different so I held off deleting them. But really, what purpose do the replica DPs of the books serve when there is a far more extensive listing available? (That's an honest question by the way.) A few weeks ago I finally decided to just bypass consultation and I carried out a purge of the book replica DPs and attempted to rewrite history to make it appear that they had never existed (a futile task on a wiki). This was a rash move, but then is not the first rule of wikis: "be bold in editing" and why the three-revert-rule exists? Now we are discussing it after the fact. Let us all lay out our various arguments to our satisfaction and then if there is still not consensus we can vote on it. --Jade Raventalk 23:49, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

The EDPs were my idea because I wanted a complete listing of all characters appearing within each book. I considered removing the original DPs at that point, however, thinking it through I came to the conclusion that the original DPs still served a function as they record who is listed under which header and with whom, information that can only be extracted from the EDP with a great deal of analysis but not at a glance. Probably more importantly, I also considered that the main book page is spoiler friendly whereas the DP is not. New readers were still able to make use of the original DP whilst browsing whereas now they really should avoid the DP until they have finished the book. As for the footnotes... I totally assume that the majority of refs do not get read, ever. There main purpose is that they 'can' be read', i.e. if anyone wants to verify the accuracy of the Wiki entries, they can do so. Refs are a must for the Wiki if we want to be a classed as more than a collection of rumours. The referencing of the DPs is an ongoing project and currently some may not have the actual refs attached yet. The end product however, will have a ref number attached to each MO and FA bracket thus pretty strongly indicating to the user that they are two separate occurrences. I would say that the distinction should only be made if the differing appearance are not within the same chapter and that those characters who do not get a MO bracket only need the ref number not a FA bracket as well. Regardless of what we decide, any policy would be explained in the intro in any case and thus readers should know what they are looking at. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 09:25, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

Some invalid assumptions about Book DPs

In some parts of this discussion, there seem to be at least two underlying assumptions about the DPs, as actually found in the books that are not valid:

1. That all important characters are actually listed in a book’s DP.

For example, however, the DP of “The Bonehunters”, as printed in the book, does not list ‘Cotillion’, ‘Shadowthrone’ or ‘Ganoes Paran’ (to name just three), who, in fact, not only appear in tBH, but who also have major roles (both in content and in extent) in it. If readers go solely by the book’s DP, they could easily conclude that they do not even appear. Also, the first actual appearance of ‘Ruthan Gudd’ and the last actual appearance of ‘Dujek Onearm’ in the Malazan books could also easily be overlooked, because they are not mentioned in tBH DP as printed in the book either. Even if readers know that these last two do appear in the book, without the BH ‘Ext’ DP, they would not know even the chapters in which to look for them.

2. That information given in a book’s DP is, by definition, to be trusted.

One has only to check the ERRATA (to be found at the end of the ‘Ext’ DP of “The Crippled God”) to see how far astray readers can be led by depending solely on a book’s printed DP.

Pcwrcw (talk) 01:10, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what gave you that impression, Pcwrcw, but I don't think anyone here makes those assumptions. We all know that the DPs contain what seems at times an almost random selection of characters and that there are inaccuracies - sometimes these might turn out to be ostensibly deliberate - see K'rul's gender change. The original DPs were just that - a record of the original DPs as found in the books - something that was clearly stated in their intros so no reader could confuse it with being some kind of edited 'quality control improved' version. In the EDPs we can compile the complete list and address inaccuracies. Having both on the Wiki makes comparing them a lot easier. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 20:35, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

From Pcwrcw (talk): Egwene, I'm sorry, I have clearly expressed myself badly--I was concerned that some remarks made in the above discussion seem to indicate that EDP's could/should be eliminated, as such, as they only added 'bloat' to the wiki and were not of use/interest to a sufficiently large number of readers. I did not intend to argue against the book DP's, as such (although on re-reading my comments, I can see that I may have given exactly that impression), just that they, alone, do not provide all the information that could ever be of use/interest to readers. I, like you, would have preferred for the original book DPs to have remained with the Mainpages of the books - where, one would have thought - they belong. For one thing, a lot of readers don't have actual copies of a book easily to hand (e.g., it was a library copy they read, they've lent their copy to someone else [which seems to happen a lot, actually], they and their books are not in the same physical place, etc,, etc.). I most certainly did not intend to question anything that you (or ArchieVist, for that matter) had to say. I'm very sorry if I gave that impression. I'm definitely with you, in this matter.Pcwrcw (talk) 21:35, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

I think ArchieVist was just saying what is the point of referencing the DPs and did not seem super serious about it. I'm kind of arguing that we shouldn't be putting two references in some of the DP entries. --Jade Raventalk 23:40, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Pcwrcw. I see now how you meant it. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 06:40, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that we revert the current Dramatis Personae to Extended Dramatis Personae and create new Original Dramatis Personae pages for the individual books thus keeping the main book pages uncluttered. The infoboxes could encompass a link to both. For the original DPs I propose that one person creates the initial one based on one cited copy they have in front of them. Then anyone who has an edition that varies creates a sub-header 'Variation(s) found in copy type x published by z' and lists those variations beneath (i.e. variations only not repeat entire DP). We could thus give readers the choice between the two types of DPs and at the same time create a record of how the DPs changed between editions.

Regarding the two-type refs... I propose that original DPs do not need to be referenced other than that the editions are stated on which they are based. For the EDPs, we keep the double refs for those characters where Mo and Fa are not within the same chapter. There are only a handful of characters in each DP in any case who are/will be referenced in that way. For those characters whose first appearance is a full one, they would only have the standard ref with no additional Mo or Fa bracket. Characters who are mentioned only, get only the Mo bracket. All of this would be explained in the DP intros.

I don't think there is any danger of us going beyond capacity by creating those extra pages and refs. Our 4k+ page count is meagre compared to Wookieepedia's 132k+. Looking at long pages - they currently have over 400 pages that are longer than our longest one. Their longest page is 750,081 bytes (!) compared to 56,445 bytes for our current longest page.

Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 07:16, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Counter-proposal [[Malazan Wiki:Dramatis Personae/test]] --Jade Raventalk 08:03, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

That is a very elegant solution, Jade Raven. I would prefer a switch of the tabs though so that the original DP comes up as the default one to make it Newbie friendly. Will it work with mobile view as well? I clicked on mobile view but what comes up currently looks identical to default skin. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 15:01, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

In mobile view (mercury skin) the tabs wont appear, the two sets of data will be shown one after the other (check a cover gallery to see it). Mercury automatically switches to oasis when on a project page (Malazan Wiki:), template page, etc. --Jade Raventalk 21:20, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Could we combine both of your proposals? I love the tab to switch between the book DP and ExtDP, but I still feel like there should be some way to view the ExtDP with both brackets for characters who are mentioned then later appear as Egwene suggested. I can think of three quick ideas for that: we could have the second tab be the DP without double references and a third tab with them, have them on the second tab, or I could go through and add the K'rul style hiding idea to DPs so that a button could expose the dual refs. Those are just three from the top of my head, there are undoubtedly many more options. Or, we could simply create word documents or some other such file with the full current ExtDPs in case we need to know the chapter a character is first mentioned in. In fact, I believe I will save full copies of all the current ExtDPs today before we make any major format changes. That will also allow me to experiment with some changes offline then quickly test how they look online. Marl Karx (talk) 15:55, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, Marl Karx, since this is a complicated issue with as yet undetermined ramifications, those of us (including you and me) who have been active on Malazan Wiki for only a short period of time (we're talking about just months here, right?), should limit ourselves to giving our opinions as to the various proposals made, or to make suggestions for changes if we have any, but to leave any actual implementation of whatever actions are decided upon by the group, to the far more experienced Malazan Wiki Administrators and Editors--who have been working on this Wiki for years. Also, perhaps you shouldn't be in such a rush to persistently campaign for the making of major changes to aspects of this Wiki, like the 'Ext'DPs, with which you have had, as of yet, only the single experience of the BB 'Ext' DP (which is labelled by you as still being 'a work in progress'). I have completed three 'Ext' DPs, and I consider myself as far from being any kind of an expert on them. Pcwrcw (talk) 19:43, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Nothing can be fully deleted from the wiki as far as I am aware, you can use edit histories to retrieve old information quite easily. --Jade Raventalk 21:20, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have added to my comment that yes, I am still in favour of adding the double reference. I simply can not see a good reason not to have them. It is additional information which will be of interest to some users, we are not pushed for space, the work is done by editors who are happy to do it... sure, without them the page may look tidier... but the aim of the Wiki is to answer questions and looking tidy should take second place to documenting the Malazan world in all its minute detail. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 17:48, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Egwene, I think that your proposal, with whatever modifications that you think are a good idea, is an excellent one and should be seriously considered for implementation. Pcwrcw (talk) 19:50, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

It is quite alright, Marl, Pcwrcw, for you guys to contribute your opinion here and suggest changes. Some of us have been here a long time so we may be a little bit more aware of some of the far corners of the Wiki but we are not fail proof experts. Plus, being new here, maybe you see opportunities for improvements that we don't because we are maybe more set in a rut. So fire away with any ideas. Believe me, the established team is thrilled to see you guys taking an active interest in what's going on - and don't worry - if either of you cause havoc by deleting half the Wiki... we shall send the Hounds of the Wiki round ;) Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 21:21, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I second this. If you are going to try something super-fancy though you should probably ask my advise as I can probably save you a lot of time. Also, it is actually possible for an admin to delete a whole page and make its edit history inaccessible to non-admins, but there are three of us admins and like in the Shi'Gal system, if one of us goes too far the others will be able to counter the damage. Although it may seem to be really easy to damage the wiki (and it is), it is actually even easier to heal the damage. --Jade Raventalk 21:39, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

That is a great analogy - maybe we ought to replace 'Administrator' with 'Shi'Gal assassin'? ;) Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 21:45, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Man, I had a whole paragraph typed then I lost it. The gist of my comments would have been that I never intended to edit any DPs without full support from all the Admins, by experimenting I meant changing offline and using the preview function online, and the B&B DP is basically finished, I had a question about Khun-Sen (he is featured in the Appendix and not the DP, should I use the symbol from the CG DP to mark that?) and after flipping through the book once more to check a couple things it should be done (unless I forgot something). If anyone has any changes they would like to see on it or clarifications made I can change it to reflect those. Marl Karx (talk) 21:51, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

I use textarea cache which can save stuff written in all sorts of places on the web, including this wiki, from being lost. --Jade Raventalk 23:51, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

You have my sympathy - I'll reply on your talk page to this. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 22:03, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been following this topic as closely as I should have. What if you reduced the clutter by following JR's proposal but kept Egwene's info by just using two reference superscripts for characters that get first mentioned in one chapter then fully appear in a later chapter? (You'd have to explain at the top).
In other words replace:

• Anomander Rake, First Son of Darkness (Mentioned only) (full appearance)
  

With:

• Anomander Rake, First Son of Darkness

--ArchieVist (talk) 00:58, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

AV: Two rounds of voting have already been completed on this matter. Egwene's plan, 'Option Two', won the majority vote. JR's plan, 'Option One', is no longer on the table. The deadline for any sort of voting was December 27. The voting rules were devised by JR and they were quite clear. I'm sorry that you missed the opportunity to have a vote--I'm sure that we all would have welcomed your input. At this point Egwene would be the person to present suggestions to. Pcwrcw (talk) 17:48, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

@Pcwrcw: For your information: voting for round two has not ended yet, which means that Jade Raven's proposal still is on the table.

General Comment (Directed at no one): IMO, ArchieVist's suggestion makes sense since it would be a better compromise. I've noted this in my vote, but I'll say this again: I am still leaning heavily -- now more than before -- in Jade Raven's favor, which means that I may end up switching my vote.

We can discuss all of this after Jade Raven's return (January 5).

Lord of Moon's Spawn talk 18:04, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

LoMS: Even if the second round of voting is still open, AV would still not be eligible to vote in it as he did not vote in the first round. We are following JR's voting rules on this (and that were accepted--at least no-one disagreed to them when JR specifically asked if anyone had any problem with them). Pcwrcw (talk) 18:27, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

True, but that's besides the point really. I was not making a case that he can or should be able to vote still; just that the second round has not closed yet.

Though, now that you've mentioned that, let me just say that he has given a reason why he wasn't able to vote. When Jade Raven returns we can talk about it and see whether an exception can or should be made, especially since he is arguably one of the most active editors here.

But we'll talk about this after January 5th.

Lord of Moon's Spawn talk 18:49, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

The one time I didn't check for revisions on this page... This process is not going as smoothly as I hoped. I did give a few notices that this was happening AV and I'm pretty sure you read them. I thought those who wanted more time would ask for it (Coltaine effectively did). The first round and the time for putting up new proposals is well past done now, however your compromise proposal is definitely something I could get behind, in theory.

I did just close the second round, but that was because I didn't see this new discussion, so I have reverted my edit and I still consider it open at the moment as there is still ongoing discussion.

One view that could be taken is that this vote, narrowly defined as it is, is only about the full appearance notes and that they could be removed while still having both references retained, without having to introduce a new option.

Ah, I'm not "gone" at the moment, but you could say I'm at a reduced capacity (I'm on a netbook and subject to an erratic schedule at the moment). --Jade Raventalk 21:32, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

For me, the people who normally edit DP's and ExDP's should have a say in this. If Archivist is one of the editors normally focusing on those things

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I feel he should have a say in it. (If he isn't, then I don't have a problem with you ending this vote.) Also, I agree with his proposal too. As he had stated above, it's a combination of yours and Egwene's.

Lord of Moon's Spawn talk 02:57, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

@JR/Pcwrcw: Am I somehow giving off the vibe that I feel disenfranchised by this process? I've only been partially following this debate and was ready to accept whatever the consensus was. Seeing the close vote the other day I had an idea for a compromise. Do with it what you will.--ArchieVist (talk) 03:41, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

Ok AV, these things can be hard to tell at times (I put the abstain option in for a reason ya know). I think keep this vote open for a few days while we talk out a few ideas. I've got something that I could add to the conversation that I don't have time for today. --Jade Raventalk 08:42, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

New heading

A few things I'd like everyone to consider:

We are an Encyclopedia. We are about providing information firstly, secondly and thirdly. Reasons to change the current EDP system should be based on a replacement providing better information not on things like looks or convenience of editing. So far, I have not read anything in the current discussion that I would consider a good point in favour of drastic changes to the referencing. Nobody has proposed an alternative because it is more informative.

As far as I can see, this whole discussion came about because the DPs were summarily scrapped and EDPs taken over as DPs. We reached consent to re-instate the original DPs which won't be referenced at all. EDPs should then go back to what they were meant to be - a source of extended information for the re-readers, the die-hard fans, those who keep the Wiki open as they read the books.

Doing a quick count, our longest EDP has somewhere in the region of four hundred listings of which only about thirty have the double refs. Hardly cause for concern. As far as I can see, those who feel that having two refs is confusing have managed to work out nevertheless what they stand for - it seems to me that a short-lived moment of confusion hardly merits taking away information that is of interest to others. Maybe using the word 'mentioned' instead of 'mentioned only' would get rid of most of those small confusions.

We are not running out of space. Our longest page is very short compared to long pages on other Wikis.

Any info we do not include today will be added by others eventually anyway - when chapter pages, character pages etc. are all pretty completed, people will turn to creating statistics, adding refs to individual words, writing long essays about the motivation of individual characters etc. Why are we trying to limit ourselves to a dual carriage way when there is space for a motorway and it is pretty predictable that traffic will outgrow the dual carriage way eventually in any case?

Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 20:06, December 30, 2016 (UTC)

This is mostly about logical consistency, not looks or editing convenience. Encyclopaedias first provide information, but then second, I would argue, organise and display it in a consistent manner.

Very well, I didn't want to mention this earlier because doing this would be a ridiculous amount of work, work that I would personally not be interested in doing much of, but here it goes. Every chapter gets its own dramatis personae (you would list it below the plot summary, it doesn't need a separate page). An additional possibility is that every character gets a section listing every chapter in every book they appear in (see the layout guide/appearances for an idea of this). I do not propose this facetiously: Wookieepedia actually does something very similar. That would be the logical place for information beyond the most relevant type of appearance listing per book. Alternative to this listing every chapter that the character appears in could be listed in the book DPs. That would be being logically consistent while still retaining the information we have. That is an alternative that would be more informative.

I don't see a connection between deleting the replica DPs from the book pages and deleting the the mentioned only tags in the DPs – where they contradict the full appearance tags, which would thus also mean the full appearance tags would automatically be unnecessary.

The confusion can be reasonably quickly overcome, but do we really want confusion as the baseline situation? "Mentioned" would apply to virtually every character in the DPs, "mentioned only" applies only to those characters that are mentioned whilst not making a full appearance in that book. Where "mentioned only" occurs alongside "full appearance" the "mentioned only" should be changed to just "mentioned" or maybe "first mentioned", but where it does not occur alongside a "full appearance" tag it should remain saying "mentioned only". Does this make sense?

We will never run out of space, that doesn't mean that something should never be deleted because it doesn't logically belong there. I deleted the page on the Malazan 13th army because all it said was that the army doesn't appear (or isn't even mentioned) in the books. If we were to include that information there would be a better place for it, maybe Malazan Military. Just because someone has put it on the wiki that doesn't mean it should really be there, you conceded as much in regards to GM prologue summary referencing.

In keeping with the analogy the vast majority of roads on this wiki are metal roads, better to work on sealing them first (the races page is in a shocking state for how much traffic it should get). --Jade Raventalk 06:26, December 31, 2016 (UTC)

To paraphrase a reply you gave elsewhere - anyone capable of reading the Malazan series should be able to work out what the current EDP referencing is about.

As for creating chapter DPs - great idea, I am sure one day someone will come along and do them but they are a completely different type of DP and no replacement for book DPs.

Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 15:22, December 31, 2016 (UTC)

Final arguments Voting Results of vote regarding full appearance notes

I think we are starting to go in circles now so it seems a good time to start wrapping up (Christmas pun intended). Only make one entry below, if you still have new stuff to discuss or want to further argue against the final arguments below then do so above. Changing or editing you final argument is fine. --Jade Raventalk 23:46, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Consensus wasn't achieved so now we vote to find the least bad option for the most people.

• To vote sign your name under one of the options available (those who wrote arguments already count as votes - move your name if you don't want your vote to go with that option any more).
• The option that gets the least amount of votes is eliminated and there is another round until only two options are left.
• If there is a deadlock at the end of a round each voter also gets one "disapproval" vote and the option with the most number of disapproval votes is eliminated.
• Only established editors votes will count (must have at least 50 edits at start of voting).
• As this is going to be over Christmas time lets have the first round run for 5 days.
• Subsequent rounds of voting beyond the first will only be open to those who voted in the first round.

If anyone disagrees with these rules let me know. --Jade Raventalk 09:20, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

The 5 days have elapsed and we have 6 votes with none of the 3 options getting an outright majority so with only 1 vote the third option is eliminated. Everyone can change their votes, but I expect only Marl Karx will. As only the 6 of us can vote now I think this will be quick. I have numerous ideas on how to deal with a tie, if it comes to that. --Jade Raventalk 02:01, December 27, 2016 (UTC)

---

Ok, I think I have a solution now. The 2nd round of the vote will close in 3 days, exactly 72 hours from my timestamp. Concurrently a second vote will take place also lasting 3 days. This vote will be whether to restart the original vote from the 1st round again with the opportunity of introducing new proposals (like ArchieVist's). Condition to win is a simple majority, a tie means no restart and the original vote stands. Does anyone object to this? --Jade Raventalk 22:17, January 3, 2017 (UTC)

That vote finished without resulting in a restart. --Jade Raventalk 07:27, January 8, 2017 (UTC)

Restart first round

1. Jade Raventalk 20:41, January 6, 2017 (UTC)

Don't restart first round

1. Pcwrcw (talk) 22:26, January 3, 2017 (UTC)
2. As far as I can see, AV's proposal was made as a mediating effort rather than him being passionate about it. Given his initial comments about the whole topic of EDP, I feel that there is no need to start the whole process again. Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 12:46, January 5, 2017 (UTC)

Neutral

1. JR, if you don't mind, I'm going to add my name here for the time being. I'm hoping the people who actually work on the ExDP's can give a sign of what they want. At the same time, since you've mentioned ArchVist's name, I would like to see whether he/she wants to restart it or not. If he/she does want to restart it, I will add my support for a restart too. Otherwise we'll just keep talking in circles. Lord of Moon's Spawn talk 23:04, January 3, 2017 (UTC)
2. I agree with LoMS, if ArchieVist wants to propose an idea I'll vote to restart, but if not I'm voting not to restart. Marl Karx (talk) 18:18, January 6, 2017 (UTC)

---

First option – Remove full appearance notes

Remove all "full appearance" notes from the dramatis personae pages. Consequent to this the "mentioned only" notes for those entries will also be removed. The reference to keep shall be the one that was used for the "full appearance" note.

• The default assumption for the Dramatis Personae pages is that a listed character appears in that book. In some cases the appearance only involves the mentioning of that character. In this case it seems appropriate to add a note indicating this ((Mentioned only), previously: "(referred to only)"). But having both a "mentioned only" note and a "full appearance" on the same entry (e.g. Anomander Rake (Mentioned only) (full appearance)) creates a contradiction of language. The word only, by definition, means that only that thing occurs. Thus writing straight after that the character makes a full appearance is a direct contradiction of what has just come before. Writing a note at the top of the page explaining what is really meant by this isn't a proper substitute to just saying what you actually mean, which would be something like: (First mentioned in chapter 1)^[1] (First full appearance in chapter 3)^[2].

During the process of systematically going through a book from the start and listing and referencing a character in the DP some are inevitably mentioned before they later make a proper appearance. Because of this process the editor may not realise that the character appears later or, for the sake of being systematic, references the mention anyway knowing it will later be superseded. An editor who started from the back of the book and worked through that way, or who selected a chapter at random and worked on that, would produce different results: a different set of characters would have "mentioned only" notes. Whichever character gets a "mentioned only" note is purely determined by the process, in order to be consistent every chapter in which a character is mentioned but does not make a full appearance should then be referenced and it would seem to logically follow that every full appearance per chapter of a character should also be referenced. If that was to be done (and I don't think it needs to be) then the proper place for it would be on the chapter pages (where I should say references would be rendered virtually pointless).

Referencing without thought will inevitably lead to the degradation of the overall quality of all referencing in aggregate and will undermine the underpinning of why it is done in the first place: to provide a mark of quality control and sense of reliability for this wiki. For an example of over-referencing see the summary of the GotM prologue. Nearly every sentence of the summary is referenced even though it is very obvious where the information came from. I stand with, or, er, rather sit with, common sense and the removal of the full appearance notes/tags. --Jade Raventalk 23:46, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Having worked on a few EDPs myself, I find JR's resolution to be the least fussy and efficient. Toctheyounger (talk) 17:06, December 24, 2016 (UTC)

• Support All three solution have good points, but I think sometimes the simplest soltion is the best. And the mentioned only, full apperance really confused me at the beginning. Coltaine93 (talk) 12:09, December 27, 2016 (UTC)

Second option

• (ref number only) for all characters whose first appearance is a full one.
• Additional bracket of (mentioned only)+(ref number) for those who are mentioned only
• The whole hog of (mentioned only)+(ref number) as well as (full appearance) + (ref number) for those who are mentioned only at first then appear fully in a later chapter.

• I believe that there is no such thing as over referencing in a work of reference especially when the references themselves are published in a separate section and thus do not interfere with the reading. It is up to individual users if they want to follow any reference trail. I see my job as making the options available to them. If for example an artist wants to locate the single mention in the entire series of someone's hair colour than having that one word individually referenced with page number is extremely helpful. I don't just edit the Wiki, I am also a user and look at referencing from the latter point of view. I am constantly using refs from the Wiki to locate and re-read sections from the books.

I feel that the 'mentioned only' followed by 'full appearance' sequence with two different ref numbers is totally self-explanatory: character X is 'mentioned only' in ref 1 location and makes a 'full appearance' in ref 2 location.

I prefer not to use the phrase 'first appearance' as yes, I could see that being contradictory to 'mentioned only'.

Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 11:12, December 20, 2016 (UTC)

PS: as mentioned elsewhere - the prologue summary mentioned in option one should not have any refs at all and I will remove them once it does not serve as an example anymore.

1. Support -- All three proposals have merit. Personally I find myself leaning toward Jade Raven's ([[Malazan Wiki:Dramatis Personae/test|pov]]), but at the same time I do see so many merits in using Egwene's (or for that matter, Marl Karx's) proposal, since I myself have benefited from it many a times when looking for certain details (quotes, descriptions etc.) when a character is first mentioned, or when he/she first appears: using the wiki to find those things quickly by scanning the ExDP, and not having to look it up page by page makes me certain that I'm not the only one to benefit from it. DRACONUStalk 17:15, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

2. Support -- Ditto Draconus's remarks above, starting from "...since I myself have benefited from it many times..." Pcwrcw (talk) 17:36, December 22, 2016 (UTC)
3. Support -- Since currently the votes are tied, I guess I'll be the tiebreaker. I think the bonus information will be helpful for future editing. Marl Karx (talk) 00:43, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Third option - Hide advanced ref. notes Eliminated

Hide the double references and make them available (normally hidden) through use of a button

• DP excerpt example (with small (full appearance)):

More details

• Anomander Rake, Lord of Moon's Spawn, Son of Darkness, Knight of Darkness
  (Mentioned only) (full appearance)
• Caladan Brood, the warlord, opposing the Malazan armies in the North Campaign
  (Mentioned only) (full appearance)
• Dujek Onearm, High Fist, Malazan Armies, Genabackis Campaign
  (Mentioned only) (full appearance)

1. The size, location, and text on the button could be easily modified, this is a proof of concept. I believe we should have both DPs on the same page divided into tabs as Jade's test page has, but I agree with Egwene that we should have the book DP show up first. As well, I would prefer to change (full appearance) to (full appearance) as it is in the example to match the (mentioned only). This combines the utility and information availability of full referencing with the lack of clutter when not fully referencing. It keeps the page short and clean but still retains the information should we ever need to use it. Marl Karx (talk) 16:49, December 20, 2016 (UTC)

Results

It seems everyone who wanted a say has now had it. The second option, the status quo, is upheld at 4 votes to 3. Full appearance notes, the most controversial thing discussed on this page, remain. There are still questions of what is the best way to display them and whether to have both types of DP available as tabs, but I do not expect those to be so controversial.

Tasks resulting: since the status quo prevailed not much needs to be done. Maybe some clarifying language added to the DP template and a paragraph explaining this system on the project page. --Jade Raventalk 20:50, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

Moving on...

Obviously, I am delighted with the result as I regard it as the currently best option for readers, but don't see this as meaning the pages are now set in stone. Maybe one day (when we have finished all of the article pages...ahm...) we might even add yet another DP page which might include all kinds of at a glance info about the characters - like who is dead by the end, how many different appearances each one had, or how many words they had to say... nerdy statistics in other words. Could be all refs would then migrate to that third page... who knows...

Regarding the tabs - no one commented against them so I think we should go ahead with them. As there were preferences stated for the book DP to be the top tab and no one insisted on EDP on top, I think we can go with that order. It will also mean that on mobile view the book DP is shown ahead of the extended DP, again a spoiler friendly solution. If everyone is happy with this then I'll start converting the current DP pages to tab pages over the next days.

With regards to the double refs - to avoid unnecessary confusion, the MO and FA brackets should be only be added at the same time as the corresponding refs.

Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 11:53, January 8, 2017 (UTC)

I have no strong objections to putting the book DPs first. I would do the job myself, but it might take me a few days to get around to it. Now the two references are definitely staying, but I really would like to see them renamed to something that actually makes sense. Don't let this hold up anyone in making the DPs as any such changes in names can be quickly done with my find and replace extension. --Jade Raventalk 19:23, January 8, 2017 (UTC)

As for possible re-wording of the two reference labels, how about something like "(Alluded to)" and "(Actual appearance)", instead of the existing "(Mentioned only)" and "(Full appearance)"--to just throw two ideas into the pot. I'm not making a proposal--I'd like to see what other ideas people may have. As you say, there is no hurry on deciding this. Pcwrcw (talk) 20:30, January 10, 2017 (UTC)

I'd favour (First mentioned) and (First appearance). --Jade Raventalk 01:24, January 11, 2017 (UTC)

I should be able to take care of the book DPs for all books excluding those in the B&K series, I possess the rest, however as I mentioned in a post on Egwene's talk page I have a few questions on formatting as different books handle DPs differently and I'm not sure whether to incorporate titles, ex. Captain, into the link or have them external. The FL DP will be interesting too as in the book names are not bolded and section headers appear smaller than usual, full caps, and italicized. Regardless, I'll take care of those since I've mostly finished the chapter summaries for NK and will probably take a 1-2 day break of general editing before moving on to the DL summaries. I would just like to say that I like the (First mentioned) and (First appearance) idea, as my question which seems to have started this immense discussion was whether or not the first appearance should be the same text style as the mentioned only. I assume we will be creating a (First appearance) if we are to use it in DPs? Marl Karx (talk) 01:49, January 11, 2017 (UTC)

Jade Raven - sounds good to me.

Marl - use the GotM DP as template and copy as much of the formatting of the original DP as you like i.e. italics etc. The main thing is that you copy all content as per one specific book edition and state your source at the top of the page. If anyone has copies that show something different, they can add a note with the details to the bottom of the page.

Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 21:41, January 11, 2017 (UTC)

Ha! I thought so, I had already created them years ago: {{1st}} and {{1stm}}. --Jade Raventalk 10:38, January 12, 2017 (UTC)

Updated the [[Malazan Wiki:Dramatis Personae/test|test page]] to see how the new tags work. If there are no objections I will roll out the changes to the real GM DP page tomorrow and then delete the test page. --Jade Raventalk 06:59, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

Enjoy the recycling ;) Egwene of the Malazan Empire (talk) 15:31, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

If you need someone to go through and change all of the double refs to a 1st and 1stm, I can probably do that. Marl Karx (talk) 16:09, January 13, 2017 (UTC)

I've just been through the 10 book series and done those. I'll leave the rest to you if you want to do it Marl. --Jade Raventalk 06:09, January 14, 2017 (UTC)

Notes and references

List of abbreviations • Paginations • How to reference an article