Category talk:Related Articles Pages - Revision history

imported>SacValleyDweller: /* Season One/Season Two */

2008-01-26T05:58:53Z

Season One/Season Two

← Older revision	Revision as of 05:58, 26 January 2008
(No difference)

imported>SacValleyDweller: /* Season One/Season Two */

2008-01-26T05:58:53Z

Season One/Season Two

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:58, 26 January 2008
Line 25:		Line 25:
	What's with the deletion of the season one related article pages? --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 00:34, 26 January 2008 (EST)		What's with the deletion of the season one related article pages? --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 00:34, 26 January 2008 (EST)
	*They're redirected to the main page. There's no need to "archive" related pages, especially when many of the related articles are tenuously connected, at best. The related article pages can handle links from both seasons, so archiving a page that takes up maybe two screens at the most is really quite pointless. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 00:52, 26 January 2008 (EST)		*They're redirected to the main page. There's no need to "archive" related pages, especially when many of the related articles are tenuously connected, at best. The related article pages can handle links from both seasons, so archiving a page that takes up maybe two screens at the most is really quite pointless. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 00:52, 26 January 2008 (EST)
			**Gotchya. --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 00:58, 26 January 2008 (EST)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* Season One/Season Two */

2008-01-26T05:52:29Z

Season One/Season Two

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:52, 26 January 2008
Line 24:		Line 24:

	What's with the deletion of the season one related article pages? --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 00:34, 26 January 2008 (EST)		What's with the deletion of the season one related article pages? --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 00:34, 26 January 2008 (EST)
			*They're redirected to the main page. There's no need to "archive" related pages, especially when many of the related articles are tenuously connected, at best. The related article pages can handle links from both seasons, so archiving a page that takes up maybe two screens at the most is really quite pointless. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 00:52, 26 January 2008 (EST)

imported>SacValleyDweller: /* Season One/Season Two */ delete S! related articels?

2008-01-26T05:34:50Z

Season One/Season Two: delete S! related articels?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:34, 26 January 2008
Line 22:		Line 22:
	* Maybe have 16 characters, 12 places and 12 elements for each character or something - combining would a lot easier then, rather than arguing over which character / place / element is the most important. 2 cents. --[[User:DocM\|DocM]] 13:36, 15 November 2007 (EST)		* Maybe have 16 characters, 12 places and 12 elements for each character or something - combining would a lot easier then, rather than arguing over which character / place / element is the most important. 2 cents. --[[User:DocM\|DocM]] 13:36, 15 November 2007 (EST)
	**I don't think we even need to set a limit. I mean, we can use our judgment to make sure the portal looks balanced and even, but somebody like Noah is going to have a lot more places related to him than somebody like Micah. But yes, combining would be a much better solution, I think. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 14:17, 15 November 2007 (EST)		**I don't think we even need to set a limit. I mean, we can use our judgment to make sure the portal looks balanced and even, but somebody like Noah is going to have a lot more places related to him than somebody like Micah. But yes, combining would be a much better solution, I think. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 14:17, 15 November 2007 (EST)

			What's with the deletion of the season one related article pages? --{{User:SacValleyDweller/sig}} 00:34, 26 January 2008 (EST)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* Season One/Season Two */

2007-11-15T19:17:50Z

Season One/Season Two

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:17, 15 November 2007
Line 21:		Line 21:
	I'd really like to see the Season One and Season Two related articles pages combined into one page. The characters haven't changed, it's just a new season. The Season One pages aren't too long, so lengthiness shouldn't be a concern. Plus, some of the elements for some of the characters seem to be a bit of a stretch--I'd much rather make one strong page that gets a little longer, than have a weak and anemic page of so-so related articles. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 13:23, 15 November 2007 (EST)		I'd really like to see the Season One and Season Two related articles pages combined into one page. The characters haven't changed, it's just a new season. The Season One pages aren't too long, so lengthiness shouldn't be a concern. Plus, some of the elements for some of the characters seem to be a bit of a stretch--I'd much rather make one strong page that gets a little longer, than have a weak and anemic page of so-so related articles. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 13:23, 15 November 2007 (EST)
	* Maybe have 16 characters, 12 places and 12 elements for each character or something - combining would a lot easier then, rather than arguing over which character / place / element is the most important. 2 cents. --[[User:DocM\|DocM]] 13:36, 15 November 2007 (EST)		* Maybe have 16 characters, 12 places and 12 elements for each character or something - combining would a lot easier then, rather than arguing over which character / place / element is the most important. 2 cents. --[[User:DocM\|DocM]] 13:36, 15 November 2007 (EST)
			**I don't think we even need to set a limit. I mean, we can use our judgment to make sure the portal looks balanced and even, but somebody like Noah is going to have a lot more places related to him than somebody like Micah. But yes, combining would be a much better solution, I think. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 14:17, 15 November 2007 (EST)

imported>DocM: /* Season One/Season Two */

2007-11-15T18:36:21Z

Season One/Season Two

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:36, 15 November 2007
Line 20:		Line 20:

	I'd really like to see the Season One and Season Two related articles pages combined into one page. The characters haven't changed, it's just a new season. The Season One pages aren't too long, so lengthiness shouldn't be a concern. Plus, some of the elements for some of the characters seem to be a bit of a stretch--I'd much rather make one strong page that gets a little longer, than have a weak and anemic page of so-so related articles. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 13:23, 15 November 2007 (EST)		I'd really like to see the Season One and Season Two related articles pages combined into one page. The characters haven't changed, it's just a new season. The Season One pages aren't too long, so lengthiness shouldn't be a concern. Plus, some of the elements for some of the characters seem to be a bit of a stretch--I'd much rather make one strong page that gets a little longer, than have a weak and anemic page of so-so related articles. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 13:23, 15 November 2007 (EST)
			* Maybe have 16 characters, 12 places and 12 elements for each character or something - combining would a lot easier then, rather than arguing over which character / place / element is the most important. 2 cents. --[[User:DocM\|DocM]] 13:36, 15 November 2007 (EST)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: New section: Season One/Season Two

2007-11-15T18:23:23Z

New section: Season One/Season Two

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:23, 15 November 2007
Line 16:		Line 16:
	* Sorting by (subjective) order of importance is also asking for trouble, IMO.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)		* Sorting by (subjective) order of importance is also asking for trouble, IMO.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
	**I agree on both accounts. I especially think that the pages should be sorted alphabetically. Not only does that prevent back-and-forth with people disagreeing about which is more important ("''No, the wind chime was way more important to Claire than Brody's accident!''"), but it also saves a lot of maintenance. If Peter suddenly spends the next six episodes in the hospital, we would probably have to promote it on his page. But if it's alphabetical, there's only one spot for it to go, and we wouldn't have to move it. — [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>RyanGibsonStewart</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>talk</font>]]) 12:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)		**I agree on both accounts. I especially think that the pages should be sorted alphabetically. Not only does that prevent back-and-forth with people disagreeing about which is more important ("''No, the wind chime was way more important to Claire than Brody's accident!''"), but it also saves a lot of maintenance. If Peter suddenly spends the next six episodes in the hospital, we would probably have to promote it on his page. But if it's alphabetical, there's only one spot for it to go, and we wouldn't have to move it. — [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>RyanGibsonStewart</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>talk</font>]]) 12:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

			== Season One/Season Two ==

			I'd really like to see the Season One and Season Two related articles pages combined into one page. The characters haven't changed, it's just a new season. The Season One pages aren't too long, so lengthiness shouldn't be a concern. Plus, some of the elements for some of the characters seem to be a bit of a stretch--I'd much rather make one strong page that gets a little longer, than have a weak and anemic page of so-so related articles. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 13:23, 15 November 2007 (EST)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* Guidelines */

2007-04-10T16:59:23Z

Guidelines

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:59, 10 April 2007
Line 15:		Line 15:
	I really like the new format, but I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot by making the 8x6x6 thing a strict guideline. I think if a character has, say, 12 places worth linking to, then we should link to 12 places. And I certainly don't think we need to "puff up" a character with only 6 related characters to 8 just to fit the layout. It just feels forced and confining, and it's only going to lead to a lot of back-and-forth as people disagree about which 8 characters or 6 places or whatever are the "most important". It just seems like a really bad idea to make a page's content slave to its format. And with the cells centered, it won't matter so much if one section has five cells and the other has 12 split into two rows of six.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)		I really like the new format, but I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot by making the 8x6x6 thing a strict guideline. I think if a character has, say, 12 places worth linking to, then we should link to 12 places. And I certainly don't think we need to "puff up" a character with only 6 related characters to 8 just to fit the layout. It just feels forced and confining, and it's only going to lead to a lot of back-and-forth as people disagree about which 8 characters or 6 places or whatever are the "most important". It just seems like a really bad idea to make a page's content slave to its format. And with the cells centered, it won't matter so much if one section has five cells and the other has 12 split into two rows of six.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
	* Sorting by (subjective) order of importance is also asking for trouble, IMO.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)		* Sorting by (subjective) order of importance is also asking for trouble, IMO.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
			**I agree on both accounts. I especially think that the pages should be sorted alphabetically. Not only does that prevent back-and-forth with people disagreeing about which is more important ("''No, the wind chime was way more important to Claire than Brody's accident!''"), but it also saves a lot of maintenance. If Peter suddenly spends the next six episodes in the hospital, we would probably have to promote it on his page. But if it's alphabetical, there's only one spot for it to go, and we wouldn't have to move it. — [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>RyanGibsonStewart</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>talk</font>]]) 12:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

imported>Ohmyn0 at 04:05, 10 April 2007

2007-04-10T04:05:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:05, 10 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==''Current'' guidelines for '''Related Articles:''' pages==		==''Current'' guidelines for '''Related Articles:''' pages==
			* 8 Characters, with the subject being the first character listed, and the others by number of appearances.
	* 8 Characters
	* 6 Locales, [[Places]] listed first, [[locations]] second.		* 6 Locales, [[Places]] listed first, [[locations]] second, sorted by number of apperances.
	* 6 Elements, Graphic Novels listed last.		* 6 Elements, Graphic Novels listed last, sorted by number of references.

	~~All should be sorted by importance, relevance, and frequency of which the articles relate to each character.~~ These guidelines are tentative to change upon disscussion. ---- [[Image:Ohmyn0.jpg]][[Image:Ohmyn0talk.jpg]] 23:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)		These guidelines are tentative to change upon disscussion. ---- [[Image:Ohmyn0.jpg]][[Image:Ohmyn0talk.jpg]] 23:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

	==Individual categories?==		==Individual categories?==

imported>Hardvice at 03:38, 10 April 2007

2007-04-10T03:38:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:38, 10 April 2007
Line 14:		Line 14:
	==Guidelines==		==Guidelines==
	I really like the new format, but I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot by making the 8x6x6 thing a strict guideline. I think if a character has, say, 12 places worth linking to, then we should link to 12 places. And I certainly don't think we need to "puff up" a character with only 6 related characters to 8 just to fit the layout. It just feels forced and confining, and it's only going to lead to a lot of back-and-forth as people disagree about which 8 characters or 6 places or whatever are the "most important". It just seems like a really bad idea to make a page's content slave to its format. And with the cells centered, it won't matter so much if one section has five cells and the other has 12 split into two rows of six.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)		I really like the new format, but I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot by making the 8x6x6 thing a strict guideline. I think if a character has, say, 12 places worth linking to, then we should link to 12 places. And I certainly don't think we need to "puff up" a character with only 6 related characters to 8 just to fit the layout. It just feels forced and confining, and it's only going to lead to a lot of back-and-forth as people disagree about which 8 characters or 6 places or whatever are the "most important". It just seems like a really bad idea to make a page's content slave to its format. And with the cells centered, it won't matter so much if one section has five cells and the other has 12 split into two rows of six.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
			* Sorting by (subjective) order of importance is also asking for trouble, IMO.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:59, 10 April 2007
Line 15:		Line 15:
	I really like the new format, but I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot by making the 8x6x6 thing a strict guideline. I think if a character has, say, 12 places worth linking to, then we should link to 12 places. And I certainly don't think we need to "puff up" a character with only 6 related characters to 8 just to fit the layout. It just feels forced and confining, and it's only going to lead to a lot of back-and-forth as people disagree about which 8 characters or 6 places or whatever are the "most important". It just seems like a really bad idea to make a page's content slave to its format. And with the cells centered, it won't matter so much if one section has five cells and the other has 12 split into two rows of six.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)		I really like the new format, but I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot by making the 8x6x6 thing a strict guideline. I think if a character has, say, 12 places worth linking to, then we should link to 12 places. And I certainly don't think we need to "puff up" a character with only 6 related characters to 8 just to fit the layout. It just feels forced and confining, and it's only going to lead to a lot of back-and-forth as people disagree about which 8 characters or 6 places or whatever are the "most important". It just seems like a really bad idea to make a page's content slave to its format. And with the cells centered, it won't matter so much if one section has five cells and the other has 12 split into two rows of six.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
	* Sorting by (subjective) order of importance is also asking for trouble, IMO.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)		* Sorting by (subjective) order of importance is also asking for trouble, IMO.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 23:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
			**I agree on both accounts. I especially think that the pages should be sorted alphabetically. Not only does that prevent back-and-forth with people disagreeing about which is more important ("''No, the wind chime was way more important to Claire than Brody's accident!''"), but it also saves a lot of maintenance. If Peter suddenly spends the next six episodes in the hospital, we would probably have to promote it on his page. But if it's alphabetical, there's only one spot for it to go, and we wouldn't have to move it. — [[User:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>RyanGibsonStewart</font>]] ([[User talk:Ryangibsonstewart\|<font color=#0147FA>talk</font>]]) 12:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)