Forum:CT:Appearances template update

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Appearances template update

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Use section headers. Unfortunately, it does not appear to be technically possible at the time. See "Other suggestions" section for details. —Xwing328(Talk) 00:37, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

So the {{App}} template has been in use for some time now, and I think it could still use a bit of work. The biggest part of this discussion/vote is rather simple: make the various Appearances categories ===section headers=== or leave them as is? Personally, I think having the [edit] links per section was very handy before, and now, editing the entire appearances becomes rather cumbersome. It should be a simple template change - no bots or extra effort needed. *Correction: This may not be technically possible (see comments section, especially if you're more technically savvy)* Obviously, this would make the Table of Contents longer, as the sections being used (Characters, Locations, etc.) would be back in the TOC like they used to be.

  • Pros:
    1. Individual section [edit] links will make editing much more convenient.
    2. The longer TOC may help with some of the formatting issues we have experienced, by bumping the Appearances tables down a bit lower, hopefully below any infoboxes.
  • Cons:
    1. Some people used to complain that TOCs were too long with Appearances sections listed.
    2. TOC links that are clicked, like the links in the Appearances table, won't appear to do anything if the Appearances are hidden.

As usual, please don't add extra sections to the voting. —Xwing328(Talk) 05:22, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Voting

Use section headers

  1. —Xwing328(Talk) 05:22, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
  2. I would still like to be able to edit subsections again. MauserComlink 05:30, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
  3. Definitely. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 00:14, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
  4. Single comic issue articles with only a publisher's summary are crying out for at least a longer TOC. NayayenOld Republic military symbol(talk) 00:22, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
  5. I agree with Mauser on this one. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 03:30, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
  6. Per Mauser, though of course this vote means nothing if a solution to the issue below can't be found. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 18:35, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
  7. Per Jonathan. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 11:25, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
  8. Per Jonathan. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 00:13, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
  9. Per Mauser. ToRsO bOy 19:11, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Keep as is

  1. Imperialles 12:44, November 13, 2009 (UTC)
  2. The TOCs will be too long. --Xd1358 Talk 16:16, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
    • But we've managed to deal with it for years before. MauserComlink 16:18, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but articles like ROTJ will have huge TOCs. I like the idea to edit subsections, but I'm not changing my vote. --Xd1358 Talk 17:29, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

The inevitable "don't care" section

Other suggestions

If you have any better ideas for this template, or just displaying appearances in general, please write something. It's still not as good as I would like. If somebody is better with JavaScript and can compile some code to make the section links work better with hiding/showing the Appearances, that would be awesome. —Xwing328(Talk) 05:22, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

  • Is this proposal even possible? On File:OrenthArial.svg, in which the "Summary" header and {{Information}} template are included via transclusion of {{AurebeshArial}}, clicking the section [edit] link causes you to edit the transcluded template, not the file page. I admit not knowing much about the technical side of templates, but common sense tells me that embedding section headers in the transcluded {{App}} template will cause the same effect—clicking the [edit] links will bring up the template code and not the actual appearance list from the article. Can anyone confirm or deny this? —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 18:53, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
    • Shoot, I think you're right. Can't believe I missed this. Well, I will at least leave this open for a little while longer in case somebody comes up with a solution. —Xwing328(Talk) 00:11, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made elsewhere.