Template talk:Infobox cast - Revision history

imported>Admin: /* Wikipedia Link */

2008-08-09T15:56:22Z

Wikipedia Link

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:56, 9 August 2008
(No difference)

imported>Admin: /* Wikipedia Link */

2008-08-09T15:56:22Z

Wikipedia Link

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:56, 9 August 2008
Line 68:		Line 68:
	Could we add a link to the wikipedia article for the cast member in the infobox? --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 13:49, 8 August 2008 (EDT)		Could we add a link to the wikipedia article for the cast member in the infobox? --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 13:49, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
	* I wouldn't mind that...but keep in mind that a lot of the pages already have a WP link in the External Links section. Would we also put a WP link for crew members? If so, some of them already have three external links in the infobox, and fourth would get clunky. It's not a bad idea, I just want to generate some discussion before we go about it willy nilly. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 11:35, 9 August 2008 (EDT)		* I wouldn't mind that...but keep in mind that a lot of the pages already have a WP link in the External Links section. Would we also put a WP link for crew members? If so, some of them already have three external links in the infobox, and fourth would get clunky. It's not a bad idea, I just want to generate some discussion before we go about it willy nilly. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 11:35, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
	** Cast/crew/characters are directly Heroes-related so really there shouldn't be a Wikipedia link at all. We should have the same information incorporated here (though not actually copied from there). If our article is smaller then it means we need to beef up the article rather than just linking to Wikipedia. Wikipedia links belong on articles like, for example, [[Heroin]] where the bulk of the information about the drug is not really pertinent to Heroes. On cast/crew/character articles, however, all of their information is pertinent. The articles should ideally have so much information that Wikipedia should link to '''our''' article rather than the other way around. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 11:42, 9 August 2008 (EDT))		** Cast/crew/characters are directly Heroes-related so really there shouldn't be a Wikipedia link at all. We should have the same information incorporated here (though not actually copied from there). If our article is smaller then it means we need to beef up the article rather than just linking to Wikipedia. Wikipedia links belong on articles like, for example, [[Heroin]] where the bulk of the information about the drug is not really pertinent to Heroes. On cast/crew/character articles, however, all of their information is pertinent. The articles should ideally have so much information that Wikipedia should link to '''our''' article rather than the other way around. In fact, our articles can actually be better than Wikipedia's because their policies discard valuable information directly from the cast/crew themselves. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 11:42, 9 August 2008 (EDT))

imported>Admin: /* Wikipedia Link */

2008-08-09T15:42:01Z

Wikipedia Link

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:42, 9 August 2008
Line 68:		Line 68:
	Could we add a link to the wikipedia article for the cast member in the infobox? --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 13:49, 8 August 2008 (EDT)		Could we add a link to the wikipedia article for the cast member in the infobox? --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 13:49, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
	* I wouldn't mind that...but keep in mind that a lot of the pages already have a WP link in the External Links section. Would we also put a WP link for crew members? If so, some of them already have three external links in the infobox, and fourth would get clunky. It's not a bad idea, I just want to generate some discussion before we go about it willy nilly. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 11:35, 9 August 2008 (EDT)		* I wouldn't mind that...but keep in mind that a lot of the pages already have a WP link in the External Links section. Would we also put a WP link for crew members? If so, some of them already have three external links in the infobox, and fourth would get clunky. It's not a bad idea, I just want to generate some discussion before we go about it willy nilly. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 11:35, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
			** Cast/crew/characters are directly Heroes-related so really there shouldn't be a Wikipedia link at all. We should have the same information incorporated here (though not actually copied from there). If our article is smaller then it means we need to beef up the article rather than just linking to Wikipedia. Wikipedia links belong on articles like, for example, [[Heroin]] where the bulk of the information about the drug is not really pertinent to Heroes. On cast/crew/character articles, however, all of their information is pertinent. The articles should ideally have so much information that Wikipedia should link to '''our''' article rather than the other way around. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 11:42, 9 August 2008 (EDT))

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* Wikipedia Link */

2008-08-09T15:35:33Z

Wikipedia Link

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:35, 9 August 2008
Line 67:		Line 67:
	==Wikipedia Link==		==Wikipedia Link==
	Could we add a link to the wikipedia article for the cast member in the infobox? --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 13:49, 8 August 2008 (EDT)		Could we add a link to the wikipedia article for the cast member in the infobox? --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 13:49, 8 August 2008 (EDT)
			* I wouldn't mind that...but keep in mind that a lot of the pages already have a WP link in the External Links section. Would we also put a WP link for crew members? If so, some of them already have three external links in the infobox, and fourth would get clunky. It's not a bad idea, I just want to generate some discussion before we go about it willy nilly. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 11:35, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

imported>Pinkkeith at 17:49, 8 August 2008

2008-08-08T17:49:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:49, 8 August 2008
Line 64:		Line 64:
	****** This summer when you were in limbo, I discovered the genius of that template. It took me awhile to understand it, but studying it really increased my knowledge of how the functions work. Belated congratulations on a nice job. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 01:35, 8 October 2007 (EDT)		****** This summer when you were in limbo, I discovered the genius of that template. It took me awhile to understand it, but studying it really increased my knowledge of how the functions work. Belated congratulations on a nice job. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 01:35, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
	******* Thanks. Incidentally, it's the template that taught me why PAGENAMEE exists (since you can't match a space, but you ''can'' match an underscore).--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 01:44, 8 October 2007 (EDT)		******* Thanks. Incidentally, it's the template that taught me why PAGENAMEE exists (since you can't match a space, but you ''can'' match an underscore).--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 01:44, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

			==Wikipedia Link==
			Could we add a link to the wikipedia article for the cast member in the infobox? --[[User:Pinkkeith\|Pinkkeith]] 13:49, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

imported>Hardvice at 05:44, 8 October 2007

2007-10-08T05:44:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:44, 8 October 2007
Line 63:		Line 63:
	*****That's what I'm thinking. It might be beneficial down the line, but right now it's a lot of work for not much gain. Plus, I really am kind of proud that I made my own fake DEFAULTSORT using parserfunctions. :) --[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 01:27, 8 October 2007 (EDT)		*****That's what I'm thinking. It might be beneficial down the line, but right now it's a lot of work for not much gain. Plus, I really am kind of proud that I made my own fake DEFAULTSORT using parserfunctions. :) --[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 01:27, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
	****** This summer when you were in limbo, I discovered the genius of that template. It took me awhile to understand it, but studying it really increased my knowledge of how the functions work. Belated congratulations on a nice job. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 01:35, 8 October 2007 (EDT)		****** This summer when you were in limbo, I discovered the genius of that template. It took me awhile to understand it, but studying it really increased my knowledge of how the functions work. Belated congratulations on a nice job. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 01:35, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
			******* Thanks. Incidentally, it's the template that taught me why PAGENAMEE exists (since you can't match a space, but you ''can'' match an underscore).--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 01:44, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart at 05:35, 8 October 2007

2007-10-08T05:35:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:35, 8 October 2007
Line 62:		Line 62:
	****I see the point in consistency with the character box (even though characters could have numerous categories (Linderman has 10!) and actors only have a select few). I guess I'm thinking that if we make the change, we'd have to make the change for all the actor pages (and crew pages, while we're at it). I'm remembering when I went through every character page and added a sort for every character that needed one. I suppose we don't need to go through every page, but could just do the handful which need it, like the ones that are stubs or need portraits. And it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a sort variable as an option. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 01:21, 8 October 2007 (EDT)		****I see the point in consistency with the character box (even though characters could have numerous categories (Linderman has 10!) and actors only have a select few). I guess I'm thinking that if we make the change, we'd have to make the change for all the actor pages (and crew pages, while we're at it). I'm remembering when I went through every character page and added a sort for every character that needed one. I suppose we don't need to go through every page, but could just do the handful which need it, like the ones that are stubs or need portraits. And it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a sort variable as an option. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 01:21, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
	*****That's what I'm thinking. It might be beneficial down the line, but right now it's a lot of work for not much gain. Plus, I really am kind of proud that I made my own fake DEFAULTSORT using parserfunctions. :) --[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 01:27, 8 October 2007 (EDT)		*****That's what I'm thinking. It might be beneficial down the line, but right now it's a lot of work for not much gain. Plus, I really am kind of proud that I made my own fake DEFAULTSORT using parserfunctions. :) --[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 01:27, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
			****** This summer when you were in limbo, I discovered the genius of that template. It took me awhile to understand it, but studying it really increased my knowledge of how the functions work. Belated congratulations on a nice job. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 01:35, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

imported>Hardvice at 05:30, 8 October 2007

2007-10-08T05:30:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:30, 8 October 2007
Line 57:		Line 57:
	*** With the characterbox, we added a sort variable to the template and allowed it to apply the defaultsort (<nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:{{{sort\|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}</nowiki>. This meant that other templates which added cats (like the navbar) automatically picked up the defaultsort. If we did the same thing here, things like the caststub and nocastimage templates wouldn't have to use convoluted logic (or their own sort variable) to be sorted properly. It's no big deal (and Ryan's right--it's probably more work than it is worth), but it bears mentioning since we're doing it for characters but not actors.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 01:15, 8 October 2007 (EDT)		*** With the characterbox, we added a sort variable to the template and allowed it to apply the defaultsort (<nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:{{{sort\|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}</nowiki>. This meant that other templates which added cats (like the navbar) automatically picked up the defaultsort. If we did the same thing here, things like the caststub and nocastimage templates wouldn't have to use convoluted logic (or their own sort variable) to be sorted properly. It's no big deal (and Ryan's right--it's probably more work than it is worth), but it bears mentioning since we're doing it for characters but not actors.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 01:15, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
	**** Hmm... interesting. So it wouldn't require going through a ton of articles, just one per template, right? (edit: oh, we're not using a sort variable on cast yet. Ok, I see.) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 01:20, 8 October 2007 (EDT))		**** Hmm... interesting. So it wouldn't require going through a ton of articles, just one per template, right? (edit: oh, we're not using a sort variable on cast yet. Ok, I see.) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 01:20, 8 October 2007 (EDT))
			***** You're itching to use that bot, aren't you? If it helps, you probably could. 90% of the cast has two names; the homemade defaultsort looks for the first space in PAGENAME, and then creates substrings, flipping the order of the two parts. It works for most people. Unfortunately, you get things like "Kyson Lee, James" and "Allan Stewart, Mark". But if you did add the variable with a bot, we could just clean up the odd ones by hand.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 01:30, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
	** I don't think going through close to 200 articles and adding a sort variable would be worth it for the one, two, or three categories that are on the cast pages. I'm not opposed to it, I just don't think it's worth it, personally. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 01:08, 8 October 2007 (EDT)		** I don't think going through close to 200 articles and adding a sort variable would be worth it for the one, two, or three categories that are on the cast pages. I'm not opposed to it, I just don't think it's worth it, personally. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 01:08, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
	*** I'd say that if we decide to use it then we could always leave the current categories as they are for now and just implement new categories using DEFAULTSORT. That way we only have to modify articles we're already adding a new category to. Granted doing it this way might make the upfront work easier, but may make adding new categories to articles trickier since we'd have to remember to add the DEFAULTSORT to each one the first time. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 01:12, 8 October 2007 (EDT))		*** I'd say that if we decide to use it then we could always leave the current categories as they are for now and just implement new categories using DEFAULTSORT. That way we only have to modify articles we're already adding a new category to. Granted doing it this way might make the upfront work easier, but may make adding new categories to articles trickier since we'd have to remember to add the DEFAULTSORT to each one the first time. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 01:12, 8 October 2007 (EDT))

imported>Hardvice at 05:27, 8 October 2007

2007-10-08T05:27:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:27, 8 October 2007
Line 60:		Line 60:
	*** I'd say that if we decide to use it then we could always leave the current categories as they are for now and just implement new categories using DEFAULTSORT. That way we only have to modify articles we're already adding a new category to. Granted doing it this way might make the upfront work easier, but may make adding new categories to articles trickier since we'd have to remember to add the DEFAULTSORT to each one the first time. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 01:12, 8 October 2007 (EDT))		*** I'd say that if we decide to use it then we could always leave the current categories as they are for now and just implement new categories using DEFAULTSORT. That way we only have to modify articles we're already adding a new category to. Granted doing it this way might make the upfront work easier, but may make adding new categories to articles trickier since we'd have to remember to add the DEFAULTSORT to each one the first time. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 01:12, 8 October 2007 (EDT))
	****I see the point in consistency with the character box (even though characters could have numerous categories (Linderman has 10!) and actors only have a select few). I guess I'm thinking that if we make the change, we'd have to make the change for all the actor pages (and crew pages, while we're at it). I'm remembering when I went through every character page and added a sort for every character that needed one. I suppose we don't need to go through every page, but could just do the handful which need it, like the ones that are stubs or need portraits. And it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a sort variable as an option. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 01:21, 8 October 2007 (EDT)		****I see the point in consistency with the character box (even though characters could have numerous categories (Linderman has 10!) and actors only have a select few). I guess I'm thinking that if we make the change, we'd have to make the change for all the actor pages (and crew pages, while we're at it). I'm remembering when I went through every character page and added a sort for every character that needed one. I suppose we don't need to go through every page, but could just do the handful which need it, like the ones that are stubs or need portraits. And it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a sort variable as an option. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 01:21, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
			*****That's what I'm thinking. It might be beneficial down the line, but right now it's a lot of work for not much gain. Plus, I really am kind of proud that I made my own fake DEFAULTSORT using parserfunctions. :) --[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 01:27, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart at 05:21, 8 October 2007

2007-10-08T05:21:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:21, 8 October 2007
Line 59:		Line 59:
	** I don't think going through close to 200 articles and adding a sort variable would be worth it for the one, two, or three categories that are on the cast pages. I'm not opposed to it, I just don't think it's worth it, personally. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 01:08, 8 October 2007 (EDT)		** I don't think going through close to 200 articles and adding a sort variable would be worth it for the one, two, or three categories that are on the cast pages. I'm not opposed to it, I just don't think it's worth it, personally. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 01:08, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
	*** I'd say that if we decide to use it then we could always leave the current categories as they are for now and just implement new categories using DEFAULTSORT. That way we only have to modify articles we're already adding a new category to. Granted doing it this way might make the upfront work easier, but may make adding new categories to articles trickier since we'd have to remember to add the DEFAULTSORT to each one the first time. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 01:12, 8 October 2007 (EDT))		*** I'd say that if we decide to use it then we could always leave the current categories as they are for now and just implement new categories using DEFAULTSORT. That way we only have to modify articles we're already adding a new category to. Granted doing it this way might make the upfront work easier, but may make adding new categories to articles trickier since we'd have to remember to add the DEFAULTSORT to each one the first time. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 01:12, 8 October 2007 (EDT))
			****I see the point in consistency with the character box (even though characters could have numerous categories (Linderman has 10!) and actors only have a select few). I guess I'm thinking that if we make the change, we'd have to make the change for all the actor pages (and crew pages, while we're at it). I'm remembering when I went through every character page and added a sort for every character that needed one. I suppose we don't need to go through every page, but could just do the handful which need it, like the ones that are stubs or need portraits. And it certainly wouldn't hurt to have a sort variable as an option. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 01:21, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:30, 8 October 2007
Line 57:		Line 57:
	*** With the characterbox, we added a sort variable to the template and allowed it to apply the defaultsort (<nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:{{{sort\|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}</nowiki>. This meant that other templates which added cats (like the navbar) automatically picked up the defaultsort. If we did the same thing here, things like the caststub and nocastimage templates wouldn't have to use convoluted logic (or their own sort variable) to be sorted properly. It's no big deal (and Ryan's right--it's probably more work than it is worth), but it bears mentioning since we're doing it for characters but not actors.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 01:15, 8 October 2007 (EDT)		*** With the characterbox, we added a sort variable to the template and allowed it to apply the defaultsort (<nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:{{{sort\|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}</nowiki>. This meant that other templates which added cats (like the navbar) automatically picked up the defaultsort. If we did the same thing here, things like the caststub and nocastimage templates wouldn't have to use convoluted logic (or their own sort variable) to be sorted properly. It's no big deal (and Ryan's right--it's probably more work than it is worth), but it bears mentioning since we're doing it for characters but not actors.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 01:15, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
	**** Hmm... interesting. So it wouldn't require going through a ton of articles, just one per template, right? (edit: oh, we're not using a sort variable on cast yet. Ok, I see.) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 01:20, 8 October 2007 (EDT))		**** Hmm... interesting. So it wouldn't require going through a ton of articles, just one per template, right? (edit: oh, we're not using a sort variable on cast yet. Ok, I see.) ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 01:20, 8 October 2007 (EDT))
			***** You're itching to use that bot, aren't you? If it helps, you probably could. 90% of the cast has two names; the homemade defaultsort looks for the first space in PAGENAME, and then creates substrings, flipping the order of the two parts. It works for most people. Unfortunately, you get things like "Kyson Lee, James" and "Allan Stewart, Mark". But if you did add the variable with a bot, we could just clean up the odd ones by hand.--[[User:Hardvice\|Hardvice]] <small>[[User talk:Hardvice\|(talk)]]</small> 01:30, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
	** I don't think going through close to 200 articles and adding a sort variable would be worth it for the one, two, or three categories that are on the cast pages. I'm not opposed to it, I just don't think it's worth it, personally. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 01:08, 8 October 2007 (EDT)		** I don't think going through close to 200 articles and adding a sort variable would be worth it for the one, two, or three categories that are on the cast pages. I'm not opposed to it, I just don't think it's worth it, personally. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 01:08, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
	*** I'd say that if we decide to use it then we could always leave the current categories as they are for now and just implement new categories using DEFAULTSORT. That way we only have to modify articles we're already adding a new category to. Granted doing it this way might make the upfront work easier, but may make adding new categories to articles trickier since we'd have to remember to add the DEFAULTSORT to each one the first time. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 01:12, 8 October 2007 (EDT))		*** I'd say that if we decide to use it then we could always leave the current categories as they are for now and just implement new categories using DEFAULTSORT. That way we only have to modify articles we're already adding a new category to. Granted doing it this way might make the upfront work easier, but may make adding new categories to articles trickier since we'd have to remember to add the DEFAULTSORT to each one the first time. ([[User:Admin\|Admin]] 01:12, 8 October 2007 (EDT))