Forum:"Mentions" field being deactivated: Difference between revisions
(what to do with them now?) |
m (Robot: Automated text replacement (-\{\{[Ff]orumheader\|[Pp]anopticon\}\} +{{Forumheader|Tech notes}})) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Forumheader| | {{Forumheader|Tech notes}} | ||
<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | <!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> | ||
Some articles seem to have "mentions" fields in their infoboxes that are becoming somewhat unruly. Instead of having "list of mentions", could we incorporate them into list of appearances pages? I know we don't actually have list of mentions pages, but articles like [[Dalek]] clearly need to dump them somewhere.--{{User:Skittles the hog/sig}} 19:31, September 20, 2011 (UTC) | Some articles seem to have "mentions" fields in their infoboxes that are becoming somewhat unruly. Instead of having "list of mentions", could we incorporate them into list of appearances pages? I know we don't actually have list of mentions pages, but articles like [[Dalek]] clearly need to dump them somewhere.--{{User:Skittles the hog/sig}} 19:31, September 20, 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:55, 1 May 2012
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
Some articles seem to have "mentions" fields in their infoboxes that are becoming somewhat unruly. Instead of having "list of mentions", could we incorporate them into list of appearances pages? I know we don't actually have list of mentions pages, but articles like Dalek clearly need to dump them somewhere.--Skittles the hog - talk 19:31, September 20, 2011 (UTC)
Even for minor characters, where the list isn't very long, I think that's a good idea. For example, look at Kamelion. If you want to find out his first appearances, you have to follow a link to another page, but if you want to know which CC had a brief indirect reference to him, it's right there in the infobox?
I'm not sure whether it's better to create "list of mentions"pages or add them to "list of appearances" pages, but either one seems better than what we have now. --70.36.140.19 07:22, September 21, 2011 (UTC)
So your saying that anything with a list or appearances, shouldn't have mentions in the infobox, but on its page? I could go with that, yeah.--Skittles the hog - talk 06:50, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I'm opposed to creating a "list of mentions" page. I already hate the "list of appearances" pages; don't want to compound that problem with a second, "list of mentions" page. Frankly, I've never understood why we don't do appearances in a collapsable box on the character page itself. You honestly shouldn't have to leave the character page to see a list of appearances.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">11:44: Sat 01 Oct 2011
Mentions being removed
I'm removing the whole "mentions" variable for technical reasons. Wikia have recently substantially revised their mobile skin, which makes a nonsense if the mentions field, Makes it look like a part of appearances. Very confusing for our mobile guests. Not worth it since info isn't too vital, nor is it well-maintained.
The info will still be in the articles, but it will no longer display.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">04:59: Sat 17 Dec 2011
What, then, should be the present fate of Mentions sections?
- Leave them as they are, for only those pressing the "edit" button to see.
- Make a new section for them in the main text. If the Appearances section has been moved to its own page, put it there.
- Eliminate the section entirely. Virtually all such mentions are already in the description/history text.
-- Gousha talk to me 01:39, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
