Thread:Shabook/@comment-10473115-20160327104119/@comment-10473115-20160328232247

Shabook wrote: As I said before, since the template was reinstated to portray the title a few months ago is coded now, the Title field is totally unnecessary. Autolinking from Title field is a bad idea but possible. It's added just for the cases like this as you said. Linking manually works but as you can see, I don't like. However, that's a topic of another discussion and I haven't reverted edits to add links. Loki page isn't any different than others and my opinions of course are same about every article. Besides, Loki's Title field was linked from before you edited it again. I don't understand why you feel that Title field becomes useless if links have been made manually. They work just the same.

I think that character's superhero/supervillain codename is their title if it's the same as their real name but you're wrong in your assumption that I have any more weight in this discussion because I'm an admin. We don't have any policies about this so it's just two editors with differing opinions.

AnnabellRice wrote: month's of bug circumvention activities need to be corrected, etc., with multiple suggestions of different solutions on how best to handle that I don't think that there's any other way to correct it than incrementally doing it manually. Template bugs should always be fixed on actual template. We had a same problem when references didn't worked inside infoboxes, Peteparker removed the time stamp from First appearance to get them working and then editors started to add Template:Cid to that field. Unfortunately that break some autocategorization and power grid references until I was able to fix it. That could be eliminated by better documentation and help pages how to fill templates and enforcing those rules but that's easier said than done. I haven't seen much interest to that. I also feel that having a same link above and below the character image is redundant and have been removing them. But we lack also any kind of policy about linking so we just edit them back and forth.

I'm confused, why our community wants page templates to do so much, even linking for them. Autocategorization is almost impossible to get working flawlessly on the degree of our templates. Just look at the list of characters who are in living and deceased category. Of course we could program some new exceptions to the template but after that new problems arise. And all that with tons of willing editors to do categorizing and none with a proper coding skills.

You're right that the staff needs to be on the same page about correct use of the fields if we can reach a consensus about it as a community, even a rough one. I started a thread, how to determine it and would like to welcome you both there also. I feel that we are lacking a very basic fundamental rules as how community works which restrain us. In this particular case, if circumventing template bug, which is fixed, is still going on, I think that highlighted announcement would have been appropriate. However, as I now see that I (or we if I interpreted your reply correctly) disagree with at least with Shabook on this, we should first reach a consensus about the matter. My proposition is to add Title field to Character template's default syntax so that is easier to add, link from that if needed and keep real names away from aliases fields.