Appearances section - suggestionEdit

Discussion Edit

NOTE: Moved from "Reference" to "Appearances". -- Cid Highwind 13:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I read complaints about the length of some of our "References" sections lately. Using CSS to create a scrollbox doesn't seem to be the preferred option, so I tried something else. See below a fake References section that has a hidden list. Once you click on "Click here...", the list becomes visible. What do you think? -- Cid Highwind 13:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Could as well be used for "Appearances" instead - the terminology still doesn't seem to be really consistent between articles. -- Cid Highwind 20:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well... As Bp found out, this just works for one section per page, at the moment. We only should have one section per page, but that doesn't mean it has to break if there's more than one. I'll work on that, but meanwhile, this started another discussion on IRC on what to even call these sections. We seemed to agree (in accordance with our Guide to layout), that important citations should be inline, and there should be one list covering all "appearances" (which should include "being mentioned"). Is there a better word for that then the existing "Appearances", or should we continue to use that? -- Cid Highwind 21:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I used "appearances" in the script, so I like the idea of calling them that. For the script to work right, we need a standard format for the list. Here are some ideas for guidelines:
  • All episodes of a series should be grouped together
  • Films or series with only one episode in the list should be single line ('''[[Star Trek: First Contact]]''' or [[DS9]]: "[[Q-Less]]")
  • Notes must be in a list item (or they will break up the tree)
--Bp 16:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work on the script, Bp, thanks for that. I think this should really replace the ugly scrollboxes that just mess up both design and functionality of pages here. -- Cid Highwind 20:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) The script could actually work for any complex tree on the site, even depths greater than 1. Of course, then I would have to change the word "appearances" to "items" or something. --Bp 23:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the grouping of all episodes of a series. In the previous staggered list it showed the reader, in most cases, the chronologial appearance (or usage) of a particular class model. By removing that, it seems were are removing an element from the article that some readers, myself included, cannot necessarily find useful. What this format serves is a bland list of all appearances, versus a more detailed list of appearances. As I recall, there was a discussion on this when we started the original condensed version we have now, that opted to keep it the way we had it, I'm really not seeing a similar choice in changing it to this. --Alan del Beccio 02:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just saw this comment today after I changed a few more. Anyway, I thought that group by order was confusing to use and maintain, without much benefit. If you see a large group DS9, you might think that is all there is, then later among some VOY there is a lone DS9. Just very strange. For the ones with many intertwining episodes, there will be no benefit to the tree because there will be several *DS9 (2), *VOY (2), *DS9: (1), etc. For the rare time when production order appearance is important, it is easier for he person to just click the two appearances he wants to compare. On the other hand, finding an episode's place in the order when inserting is much harder. Not only for that person, but all the people who would be compelled to check it because there is no way to tell from looking at the list if it is correct. There is more value in knowing that there were 19 DS9 appearances and 9 VOY appearances immediately, than knowing that one VOY appearance came before one DS9 appearance. If we leave it in production order, then the readers have to add up the numbers. Not that 2+1+2+3+1 is difficult, its just that there would be no immediate information in that case, because the episode links are still hidden and the counts are not obvious. --Bp 15:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Appearances and References Edit

From above: CidHighwind: "We seemed to agree (in accordance with our Guide to layout), that important citations should be inline, and there should be one list covering all "appearances" (which should include "being mentioned"). Is there a better word for that then the existing "Appearances", or should we continue to use that?"

Alright, well I have come across 3 pages like this and handled them in three different ways
  • Jefferies tube - Made one tree with "Appearances" and "Mentions" as the top level.
  • Spot - Combined the trees and added "(mentioned)" to the references
  • Keiko O'Brien - Kept the sections separate, each with their own tree
So I guess you like the Spot version then, Cid? --Bp 02:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see a need for a "References" section, as those really should be incorporated into the article, leaving just a list for "Appearances". Their existance now, to my knowledge and use, is for those who wish to expand the article. --Alan del Beccio 02:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
If that's the way it is, then the trees should be kept separate, like Keiko O'Brien, until the information is used in the article. Maybe the title of the section should be something like "Other references" then. Also, should mentions count as appearances and be included in the Appearances section? I think that's what Cid was saying above. Also, the Spot article doesn't have any inline citations at the moment, maybe those "mentions"/references should be moved into the text. --Bp 03:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that a references section as a guide for article expansion only works if it is complete - means that someone would need to go through all "appearances" and in each case decide if an appearance is also a possible "reference" and then add it to the second list. Since we have no real quality control, I don't see that happening anytime soon. Also, if a reference list is only used for article writing, not for article reading, it should be placed on the discussion page, not in the article itself. -- Cid Highwind 08:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Examples Edit

Guy Vardaman appearances as Darien Wallace Edit

Pakled appearances Edit

Q appearancesEdit