Template talk:Halloween (franchise): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Where to link?: new section |
→Where to link?: Statement of position |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Another editor wants to change the linking of "Other characters" from the body of the template to the side, where it says "Characters". Personally, I do not agree with this change. For one, it moves it to a place in the template that is less visible, and not as obvious to readers that it is a link to a list of characters ''other'' than the main characters. It also is not as aesthetically pleasing, because you have one random link over to the left, where all of the other page links are in the body. There is no guideline or policy that says we must link there, as it's a personal preference thing. I say, unless there is consensus for the preference, then it should not be changed. Anyone else? [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 14:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC) |
Another editor wants to change the linking of "Other characters" from the body of the template to the side, where it says "Characters". Personally, I do not agree with this change. For one, it moves it to a place in the template that is less visible, and not as obvious to readers that it is a link to a list of characters ''other'' than the main characters. It also is not as aesthetically pleasing, because you have one random link over to the left, where all of the other page links are in the body. There is no guideline or policy that says we must link there, as it's a personal preference thing. I say, unless there is consensus for the preference, then it should not be changed. Anyone else? [[User:Bignole|<small>'''<span style="background:Maroon;color:Gold"> BIGNOLE </span>'''</small>]] [[User talk:Bignole|<small>(Contact me)</small>]] 14:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
:I am the editor who initially wished to make the change to this navbox. Please ignore my statements in my edit summaries which indicate that [[User:Bignole|Bignole]] has not been willing to discuss this change; there was a miscommunication between us which was entirely the result of an oversight on my part. I agree with Bignole's comment above that the change I have recommended is not required by guidelines. I do believe it to be a better option than the current situation, however, primarily for three reasons: |
|||
#The list includes all characters, both those who have their own articles as well as those who do not. To call the link "Other characters" suggests that those who are individually named on the template are not listed on the character list. |
|||
#There is ample precedent for linking to character lists in the side of the navbox and linking to individual character articles in that section. Examples include [[:Template:Naruto]], [[:Template:Bleach]], and [[:Template:Toy Story]]. |
|||
#Navboxes are supposed to include as little unlinked text as possible. On the [[Wikipedia:Navigation templates|navigation templates]] essay, it states that "Unlinked text should be avoided." While this page about how to format navboxes is only an essay and not a guideline, I do believe the concept of limiting unlinked text on navboxes to have merit. By moving the link to the side of the navbox, the unlinked text "Characters" is no longer required. |
|||
:In summary, I do believe the side would be a better location for the character list link, however I only submit this as a suggestion and will not make this change unless consensus is in favour of it. [[User:Neelix|Neelix]] ([[User talk:Neelix|talk]]) 17:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:48, 20 March 2010
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Where to link?
Another editor wants to change the linking of "Other characters" from the body of the template to the side, where it says "Characters". Personally, I do not agree with this change. For one, it moves it to a place in the template that is less visible, and not as obvious to readers that it is a link to a list of characters other than the main characters. It also is not as aesthetically pleasing, because you have one random link over to the left, where all of the other page links are in the body. There is no guideline or policy that says we must link there, as it's a personal preference thing. I say, unless there is consensus for the preference, then it should not be changed. Anyone else? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am the editor who initially wished to make the change to this navbox. Please ignore my statements in my edit summaries which indicate that Bignole has not been willing to discuss this change; there was a miscommunication between us which was entirely the result of an oversight on my part. I agree with Bignole's comment above that the change I have recommended is not required by guidelines. I do believe it to be a better option than the current situation, however, primarily for three reasons:
- The list includes all characters, both those who have their own articles as well as those who do not. To call the link "Other characters" suggests that those who are individually named on the template are not listed on the character list.
- There is ample precedent for linking to character lists in the side of the navbox and linking to individual character articles in that section. Examples include Template:Naruto, Template:Bleach, and Template:Toy Story.
- Navboxes are supposed to include as little unlinked text as possible. On the navigation templates essay, it states that "Unlinked text should be avoided." While this page about how to format navboxes is only an essay and not a guideline, I do believe the concept of limiting unlinked text on navboxes to have merit. By moving the link to the side of the navbox, the unlinked text "Characters" is no longer required.
- In summary, I do believe the side would be a better location for the character list link, however I only submit this as a suggestion and will not make this change unless consensus is in favour of it. Neelix (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)