FANDOM


  • After some discussion here, admins and content mods are asked to vote on moving Minor Appearances to the bottom of issue summaries to Notes section, much like we delegate Continuity and Chronology notes.

    Appearances types that would be moved to this section would be: Mentions, Invokations, Named characters, characters that appear in Recaps, photos, statues, "On Screen Only" appearances, generic animal races, "Implied" locations (ie: A story set in New York City only also gives a listing to New York State, the USA, Planet Earth, Earth-616. Everything "above" New York City would be listed here in other words), and any other appearance that would be considered "minor" (Meaning, they do not add to a given person/place/thing's chronology), as well as characters who are delegated to a Character Index.

    Reasoning: To shorten the primary appearance section to contain only the most important appearances in each of the standard categories, but still chronicle, and categorize minor appearances. This rationale would put us more in line with other wikis on the Fandom platform who have adopted similar page organizations.

    ===Minor Appearances===
    The following characters/races/locations/items/vehicles make minor appearances in this story: '''Mentions:'''
    * {{Minor|[[Peter Parker (Earth-616)|Spider-Man]]}}
    * {{Minor|[[Thor Odinson (Earth-616)|Thor]]}}
    * {{Minor|[[Thanos (Earth-616)|Thanos]]}}
    '''Photos:'''
    * {{Minor|[[Fantastic Four (Earth-616)|Fantastic Four]]}}
    ** {{Minor|[[Reed Richards (Earth-616)|Mister Fantastic]]}}
    ** {{Minor|[[Susan Storm (Earth-616)|Invisible Woman]]}}
    ** {{Minor|[[Jonathan Storm (Earth-616)|Human Torch]]}}
    ** {{Minor|[[Benjamin Grimm (Earth-616)|Thing]]}}
    '''Races and Species:'''
    * {{a|[[Humans]]}}
    * {{a|[[Cows]]}}
    * {{a|[[Horses]]}}
    '''Locations:'''
    * {{a|[[Earth-616]]}}
    ** {{a|[[Earth]]}}
    *** {{a|[[United States of America]]}}

    Suggested Esthetic: {{Minor}} tag would be used and user would enter in specific headings (Mentions:, Photos etc) using the same formatting as the primary appearance section. This allows flexibility as well as eliminates the use of unsightly and redundant tagging.

    Voting will remain open for an indeterminate period to open discussion on the issue.

    Voting (For, Against, Abstaining)

      Loading editor
    • Firstly, I think this is an issue to be discussed without some abitrary deadline since a) the discussion this stemmed from was, while connected, unrelated and b)this is probably going to need some discussion on the precise details of what everyone wants that we can all come to an agreement on. It will probably take a while.

      That being said, I am ok with moving Minor Appearances down to the bottom of the page, however I disagee with most of what you want moved and even how you want it moved. Firstly, to me, this should only be things that we would categorize as minor or mentions. So generic animal races, implied locations (MrKermit linked to the previous consensus on that and again I doubt people's opinions changed) and the Character Index would depend on importance to story. Secondly, these should stay with the tag system currently used and notunder separate headings I'd have to check but we've probably had that discussion before and the tags stayed so again, I'm not sure that would change but I could be wrong. This is especially true for mentioned which has it's own separate category.

      Tldr: I'm ok with the concept, details need to be discussed before vote, especially a two week deadline

        Loading editor
    • I see your point on the deadline. My suggestions are a general guideline. Obviously, there are going to be exceptions and minutia that will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. We should be focusing on setting a general guideline first before we start splitting hairs on specific details. I suppose to be clear, I want to see if people are interested in implementing this as a general idea. Once we agree to explore the concept we can measure its feasibility on these exceptions.

      On the character index: I've taken a look at the list that we've already generated and the majority of the entries there are one-off characters that don't contribute a whole lot to a given story. There are exceptions there of course, but I'd say that they are the minority and should be handled on a case-by-case basis. The way I figure it, if someone thinks someone in the Character Index deserves to be bumped up to Other or even Supporting Character, there would be a reasonable explanation for it. I don't think we should be basing this decision on the few relatively smaller exceptions to the greater majority.

      As for tagging. Tags are sorted into two categories: Appearances and minor appearances. All of the tags that I'm suggesting down to the bottom of the page would be using tags that categorize the appearance as minor, regardless of what the tag is. Instead of having a stream of Mention tags, which looks awful, having a 'Mentioned at the bottom looks better.

      Races: I suppose I should be a little more clear on my position on races. I should stress that races that should be slotted on the bottom would be obvious ones (like Humans) or real world races (Cows, Wolves, whatever) unless they are a central part of the plot. Really, Races at the top of the appearance page should be reserved for races unique to the fiction.

        Loading editor
    • While I'm still unsure and might vote against instead than for something I'm not sure about (for now), there are point I have to list as being from "interesting" to "

      Nausiated wrote: As for tagging. Tags are sorted into two categories: Appearances and minor appearances. All of the tags that I'm suggesting down to the bottom of the page would be using tags that categorize the appearance as minor, regardless of what the tag is. Instead of having a stream of Mention tags, which looks awful, having a 'Mentioned at the bottom looks better.

      Races: I suppose I should be a little more clear on my position on races. I should stress that races that should be slotted on the bottom would be obvious ones (like Humans) or real world races (Cows, Wolves, whatever) unless they are a central part of the plot. Really, Races at the top of the appearance page should be reserved for races unique to the fiction.

      Separating mentions from other "other/minor" appearance: That was why I created (I don't recall the proposition being validated, so that part should maybe be included in the proposal(s)) "Deities and Invocations" in Conan and similar stories because it was a mess (and the religious matters have an importance in those stories).

      While softly not agreeing on removing "races unique to the fiction", I'm an all in for both your views: Races central to the plot AND races unique to the fiction.

        Loading editor
    • Eh. As it stands, the "Other Characters" section tends to be where all the minor appearances, cameos, and mentions settle. I'm all for finally codifying whether or not those automatically go to the bottom of their respective sections, but that functionally serves the same purpose as what you propose.

        Loading editor
    • I feel like this is merely the same tired chronological order vs. order of importance argument we've had over and over and over, despite more than one very clear community consensus on the matter.

      Anyway, I'm opposed to splitting the appearances section into multiple different locations of the comic article, opposed to creating specialized subsections for every variant of green text, and strongly opposed to basing any of these potential decisions regarding what should go where not upon coding classifications but rather instead upon some subjective determination like what one person feels is obvious.

      (This is a spinoff from another thread, so I won't muddy things by discussing races and species, since that's apparently not what's being voted on here.)

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote: Eh. As it stands, the "Other Characters" section tends to be where all the minor appearances, cameos, and mentions settle. I'm all for finally codifying whether or not those automatically go to the bottom of their respective sections, but that functionally serves the same purpose as what you propose.

      But we have also other sections after Other Characters so separating minor appearances to own section would look quite different than just rearranging those within their current section.


      I agree with Copeinator that the voting is little premature and we could benefit from more discussion. I fear that there's so many new things in the proposal that it's little difficult to form an opinion and most important thing (to me) gets hidden, separating minor appearances in the listing as we do in the categorization. That would really improve readability of long lists. For anyone interested, we have discussed a little about this as an off-topic subject in Thread:1261145.

      There is an error in the proposal as Mentions are a separate category apart from Minor Appearances. If we decide to replace some repetitive tagging with section headers, we would need a new template for those mentions. But that would be no problem.

      I think that it would be beneficial to split the proposal to smaller pieces and see if we can find a consensus to some of them without voting.

      1. Should we separate Minor Appearances and Mentions to new appearance section?
      2. What else should be listed there? Appearances without a page to link, redundant nested locations, humans in species section, generic animal species(if we decide to list them at all)?
      3. Where this section should be placed on the page?
      4. Can we replace repetitive tagging with section headers?
        Loading editor
    • Mrkermit wrote:

      LoveWaffle wrote: Eh. As it stands, the "Other Characters" section tends to be where all the minor appearances, cameos, and mentions settle. I'm all for finally codifying whether or not those automatically go to the bottom of their respective sections, but that functionally serves the same purpose as what you propose.

      But we have also other sections after Other Characters so separating minor appearances to own section would look quite different than just rearranging those within their current section.

      And we can just put the locations, items, etc. that are only make a minor appearance or are mentioned at the bottom of their respective sections. Again, it functionally serves the same purpose as what's proposed without having to create a second appearances category just for the small stuff.

        Loading editor
    • Quote from the opening post: "Reasoning: To shorten the primary appearance section to contain only the most important appearances in each of the standard categories".
      That's only possible by separating appearances.

        Loading editor
    • Mrkermit wrote: Quote from the opening post: "Reasoning: To shorten the primary appearance section to contain only the most important appearances in each of the standard categories".
      That's only possible by separating appearances.

      And it creates a lot more clutter. Is it really necessary to create a second appearances section exclusively for minutiae just to save the appearances section (as it exists) a few lines of text?

        Loading editor
    • You're right but many times there is much more than "few lines" to be moved.

        Loading editor
    • Mrkermit wrote: You're right but many times there is much more than "few lines" to be moved.

      That's a particularly egregious example, but I would question if it's representative of the average page.

        Loading editor
    • As an alternate to creating separate lists or shortening them, I had suggested moving the solicit synopsis (Or a short summary if one doesn't exist) to be above the appearances. I asked Harasar and he threw together these (Solicit above Appearances) and Synopsis above Appearances to show what this would look like. Personally I am good with the first, but hate the second and the first one would be preferable over splitting the appearance list as proposed.

        Loading editor
    • I think that splitting the appearances section and moving mentions and minor appearances into some other part of the page would only make the page even more cluttered. Especially for comic issues with several different stories. Wouldn't each story need its own sub-section in the notes?

      If the problem is with the size of page, then maybe the simplest solution would be to limit the height of appearance section and add scrolling when needed. For example - User:Harasar/Sandbox/Avengers Vol 1 675/test3

        Loading editor
    • Copeinator123 wrote: As an alternate to creating separate lists ...

      Quotation would be better off in the beginning of the synopsis section and solicitation should be replaced with more encyclopediac writing. Otherwise it's good and should be implemented but I fail to see how it's related to the improving the readability of appearance lists. I mean that it's not really an alternative to what's proposed?
        Loading editor
    • From what I've pieced together from this and the thread that started this is that Nausiated would like to see us switch over to include everything above the appearances list so its not 'Below the fold' like other big wikis. ([1]wookiepedia is a great example of what I think he wants, since have appearances list even longer than ours but it's at the bottom of the page) people (me included) would like the appearance list to stay near the top (intact if possible). I'm just trying to find solutions to this problem. I don't think shortening the list matters too much to Nausiated (though I apologise of my assumption is wrong) if the information was pushed further down for him. I suggest only Solicit synopsis or summary, since it's not going to change the page tremendously and everyone is likely to be happier than current suggestions

        Loading editor
    • Thanks for the explanation and I guess that's a known fact that Nausiated wants to emphasize the plot synopsis and I'm for the readability of articles. Anyways, I made a page from that Avengers issue trying to use suggested format as I have understood it. I also moved Solicit synopsis to the beginning and Quotation to Plot synopsis. It's interesting to compare ORIGINAL to PROPOSED. Although there's things which I don't like, I still prefer PROPOSED for improved clarity and readability even with more article sections. I would call it order instead of clutter. Especially rearranging solicit synopsis and quotation are good for the page.

      Harasar wrote: If the problem is with the size of page, then maybe the simplest solution would be to limit the height of appearance section and add scrolling when needed. For example - User:Harasar/Sandbox/Avengers Vol 1 675/test3

      Thanks for providing the example. That's interesting idea but I feel that main appearances are the most important data we have on a page so I wouldn't want reduce the font size. I also feel like scrollable or collabsible sections should always be last resort for important information but maybe it would still be better than what we have now.

      LoveWaffle wrote: And we can just put the locations, items, etc. that are only make a minor appearance or are mentioned at the bottom of their respective sections.

      That would be a very good compromise if we couldn't agree on splitting appearances.
        Loading editor
    • I disagree with the proposed changes. While I understand the desire to simply things, I believe the suggested approach is counterproductive.

        Loading editor
    • Harasar said:

      If the problem is with the size of page, then maybe the simplest solution would be to limit the height of appearance section and add scrolling when needed. For example - User:Harasar/Sandbox/Avengers Vol 1 675/test3

      I'd actually be agreeable to this change and keeping the appearance section intact if everyone agrees with Harasar's proposal. I've taken a look at the mobile version of the site (both through a mobile browser and the Fandom app) and this doesn't interfere with the presentation. As long as the scrolling function doesn't go past the infobox, this actually appeals to me.

      Sometimes the simplest solution is the best and I think Harasar is on the right track with this.

        Loading editor
    • Harasar's suggestion and this one can be easily added to the code. Everything stays up top but, no matter how long it gets it doesn't overwhelm the rest of the page.

        Loading editor
    • I'm still not in favor of any of these changes, but wanted to point out that reducing the font size below 10pt is rough on those of us without perfect vision.

        Loading editor
    • I've got -9.5 vision in both eyes, aka legally blind. if a website has text that's too small that's what OS accessibility functions are for. Why is font size a deal breaker here? Other than, pardon the pun, lack of vision. Or being contrarian? Or being unable to think outside of the box?

      Tossing out the idea based on the font size is fickle. It's a good idea and the font size is a variable we can change. There is no reason why we can't use a larger font size. Harasar used 10 point font to test it out for crying out loud.

      As someone who regularly uses the coding, even in the most basic sense, you should know this.

      Why is your immediate thought "absolutely not" instead of "is it possible to make the font bigger?"

      Theere are enough of us who agree that something should be done, and Harasar comes up with a happy medium and you can't even provide constructive criticism? Harasar is actually trying new things out and giving some ideas on how to address the issue, how is your utter rejection actually contributing to finding a solution?

        Loading editor
    • You seem overly hostile towards opposing opinions lately.

      I didn't toss out the idea based on font size, in fact I didn't even imply that nor suggest Harasar's tests aren't appreciated, I merely said it's something else to consider in spite of my aforementioned opposition.

        Loading editor
    • Just to summaries where we all stand I think we stand since I think you are overestimating the current response to your proposals, if anyone is listed incorrectly please change as appropriate:

      • You and MrKermit are pushing these changes
      • Adour, Annabell , Nurdboy and Kalkent are against
      • I (and seemingly Harsar) are not trying to change much but find something people will be happy with. But I personally prefer the way things are but minor changes are always ok.
      • Lovewaffle is against moving the appearances section.
      • Undoniel has only mentioned race appearances.

      On the scrolling thing, I'm ok with the concept, I don't like the font size or scroll bar, especially next to the infobox. Though I'm not sure how it would ever look ok to me.

        Loading editor
    • Count me as being against also, echoing what Annabell has said.

        Loading editor
    • Hey everyone!

      Just read the OP and skimmed the thread. I think there's potential merit on both sides of the discussion, but I have one question: "Why now?"

      (i.e. Is there a compelling, time-sensitive reason why a change needs to occur at this time?)

        Loading editor
    • At least I don't know any special reason for a timetable. This is a discussion continuing over long time about what to list as an appearance and their categorization. But of course every improvement to the wiki should be done as soon as possible because we're "on live".

        Loading editor
    • Mrkermit wrote: [...] every improvement [...]

      And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it. I personally don't see any of this as an improvement as I don't want things to become preferential due to inordinate complication. At present there's a fairly simplistic balance with the chronological listing of protagonists, support, antagonists, and anything/everything else, which can be succinctly described to users in just a sentence or two; meanwhile, the grace in the current coding is that, as long as someone uses the correct tag, everything is automatically categorized properly, thereby mitigating human error while simultaneously avoiding subjective determinations -- such as aesthetics, ambivalence, or significance -- as much as possible.

        Loading editor
    • How about such variant - User:Harasar/Sandbox/Comic_Template/test1/Avengers_Vol_1_675. I've made the appearance section collapsible (I've also added option to collapse/expand the infobox, but it doesn't seems to be useful as it doesn't affect the page's size all that much). It is not as intrusive as scrolling, but can be used to easily skip the appearance section.

      I can also add a new field to template to collapse/expand the list by default (something like
      |collapse = yes
      ).

      The section would be expanded by default for all comics, but when needed, for issues with really big appearance section, this field would be used to make the list collapsed by default.


      As another variant, we can add a TOC (table of contents) at the beginning of page so that people could easier navigate the page.

        Loading editor
    • In my ~6 years here, I've never heard anyone complain about the comic template. As has already been stated, we already have a subsection for minor appearances. And I've seen pages that have sub-subheadings and it does not look good IMO.

      Jamie wrote: Hey everyone!

      Just read the OP and skimmed the thread. I think there's potential merit on both sides of the discussion, but I have one question: "Why now?"

      (i.e. Is there a compelling, time-sensitive reason why a change needs to occur at this time?)

      Because certain members of the AdMod team just arbitrarily decide things don't work for them and think that their personal preferences should extend to everyone else, regardless if it makes sense or not.

      Harasar wrote: How about such variant - User:Harasar/Sandbox/Comic_Template/test1/Avengers_Vol_1_675. I've made the appearance section collapsible (I've also added option to collapse/expand the infobox, but it doesn't seems to be useful as it doesn't affect the page's size all that much). It is not as intrusive as scrolling, but can be used to easily skip the appearance section.

      This is interesting. Can each subheading be made collapsible?

        Loading editor
    • Psicraft
      Psicraft removed this reply because:
      'cause I didn't read that this was in the admin area at the top of the page.
      17:52, March 29, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • Nurdboy42 wrote: In my ~6 years here, I've never heard anyone complain about the comic template. As has already been stated, we already have a subsection for minor appearances. And I've seen pages that have sub-subheadings and it does not look good IMO.

      There have been many edits to the template in six years so maybe you just haven't noticed the complaints. And we don't have a section for minor appearances as we're having a conversation about it right now. I guess that you meant something different like Other characters but those are really not the same. Also I'm not sure what you mean by sub-subheadings but I've made an example page so could you tell what header level you're referring.

      Because certain members of the AdMod team just arbitrarily decide things don't work for them and think that their personal preferences should extend to everyone else, regardless if it makes sense or not.
      I'm sorry to disagree with you but I've always thought that my opinions make sense. I've tried to give good and clear arguments for them. If you could tell which are the most arbitrary so I could reconsider those matters.

      Harasar wrote: I've made the appearance section collapsible ... As another variant, we can add a TOC (table of contents) at the beginning of page

      Really good ideas. I think that appearance list should be always expanded by default but that collapse button is really unintrusive so I would be for including it to the template. I also think that TOC should be on every article page (how I even could have forgotten about it) as it helps reader to navigate.

        Loading editor
    • Mrkermit wrote: There have been many edits to the template in six years so maybe you just haven't noticed the complaints. And we don't have a section for minor appearances as we're having a conversation about it right now. I guess that you meant something different like Other characters but those are really not the same. Also I'm not sure what you mean by sub-subheadings but I've made an example page so could you tell what header level you're referring.

      • 1) To my knowledge we've never changed the template in response to regular user or reader complaint. Show me these complaints, if they exist.
      • 2) Yes, I mean Other Characters. We've been sticking minor appearances there for a while now and I see no reason why we shouldn't continue to do so.
      • 3) Here is an example of splitting the appearances up with headings and such. In my opinion, which is what this thread is asking for, it does not look good. As for your example, beyond placing the solicit blurb at the top, I'm not a fan.
      I'm sorry to disagree with you but I've always thought that my opinions make sense. I've tried to give good and clear arguments for them. If you could tell which are the most arbitrary so I could reconsider those matters.

      I wasn't talking about you, I was referring to OP, and his habit of proposing "fixes" to "problems" that only bother him.

        Loading editor
    • Nurdboy42 wrote: This is interesting. Can each subheading be made collapsible?

      Not really. These subheadings are simple text, they are not controlled by template. Comics Template uses entire appearance section as parameter, so it can only affect it as a full, not its parts. In order to change subheadings, you'll need to change them directly on every page the Comics Template is used on, i.e. edit every comics one by one.

        Loading editor
    • It was my understanding that a clear majority of the community did not want to make aesthetic changes to the comic articles' format at this time.

      If that's not the case, then it appears we're going to have to conduct a confirmation vote on this thread, as people unilaterally attempting to implement personal preferences contrary to community consensus is an ongoing issue that has been causing a great deal of friction and as such really needs to stop.

        Loading editor
    • Now we need to have a vote? When I recommended we vote on the issue, people said it wasn't enough time to discuss it. Then the conversation died a month ago without a resolution (as usual). But Copeinator summed up everyone's position last month:

      Copeinator123 wrote: Just to summaries where we all stand I think we stand since I think you are overestimating the current response to your proposals, if anyone is listed incorrectly please change as appropriate:

      • You [Nausiated] and MrKermit are pushing these changes
      • Adour, Annabell , Nurdboy and Kalkent are against
      • I (and seemingly Harsar) are not trying to change much but find something people will be happy with. But I personally prefer the way things are but minor changes are always ok.
      • Lovewaffle is against moving the appearances section.
      • Undoniel has only mentioned race appearances.

      On the scrolling thing, I'm ok with the concept, I don't like the font size or scroll bar, especially next to the infobox. Though I'm not sure how it would ever look ok to me.

      But here's the thing: Regardless of the changes being made, these are pages that have been untouched for a decade or more and being completed. Much needed work.

      I'd also point out the how arbitrary you are being about changes being implimented for personal preference. Continuity Notes and Chronology Notes were implimented unilaterally and nobody had any issues.

      In fact, unless four specific Admins have an issue things just go about at their own pace.

      Frankly, as far as I am concerned, the whole communicty concensus thing is broken. It's a joke. Jamie needs to have a more active role in decision making since none of us can agree on anything.

        Loading editor
    • You only say "without a resolution" because you disagree with the majority opinion. It's the same song at a different dance.

        Loading editor
    • So the solution to an aspect of the community that seems broken is to trample on it without even sparing the courtesy of a heads-up that you're going to go and implement a change you want?

      I personally don't mind the scrollable appearances list, but I don't appreciate the way this proceeded. As for the comparison with Continuity Notes and Chronology Notes, as far as I'm aware, they were not brought up in a discussion, dismissed, and then implemented either way. There's a nuance between these two cases.

        Loading editor
    • Nausiated wrote: [...]

      Frankly, as far as I am concerned, the whole communicty concensus thing is broken. It's a joke. Jamie needs to have a more active role in decision making since none of us can agree on anything.

      You're not wrong about this part. A good portion of challenges are my fault. I've definitely observed a breakdown of community cohesion in recent years. I recognize and acknowledge my role in how operations have been negatively affected.

      As I see it, my lack of direct community leadership has had (at least) two effects:

      • An increased focus on democratizing operations (generally, a good thing)
      • An increased challenge dealing with trivial matters (generally, a bad thing)

      During the "Jamie Administration," it wasn't really a democracy. As such, we were able to make changes very quickly. Sometimes (aka many, many times) the decisions I made were wrong. It caused the team frustration with inefficiencies and ultimately wasted hundreds of hours to rework things again.

      If I can be frank, as well, I don't see why this needs to change here and now. As I said in my previous post: Is there a compelling, time-sensitive reason why a change needs to occur at this time?

      There are SO MANY things to do. So many pages to left to edit. So many images to upload. So many errors to correct. So many features to enhance. So many readers to convert to editors.

      I understand that we all do this for fun and a sense of accomplishment. We all enjoy different aspects of the work. Each of us has one (or more) tasks we despise (myself included). Some tasks aren't fun at all, but are vital to running a successful community. I think I understand this particular point better than ANYONE. Some of the things I've had to do to get us here most of you don't even know about and will never have to experience.

      My humble request to EVERYONE is this: If we can't come to a consensus on something, move on. There's plenty of other things to do. Unless there's a compelling, time-sensitive reason why a particular change needs to occur, we all need to accept that there will always be things we can't change. There have been dozens of things beyond my control, even as a Bureaucrat. It wasn't always easy, but eventually I got over them and moved on.

        Loading editor
    • AnnabellRice wrote: You only say "without a resolution" because you disagree with the majority opinion. It's the same song at a different dance.

      It's not a majority opinion when two people are willing to discuss a compromise and three others haven't really chimed in. If it was resolved you wouldn't be asking us to vote on it.

      ADour Said:

      I personally don't mind the scrollable appearances list

      So now we've got ADour who also doesn't have an issue with this idea.

      I think it's pretty straight forward here: Myself and MrKermit want this. Cope and Harasar are willing to compromise. ADour doesn't mind. That is five people in favor of some kind of change. Or at the very least don't find this a pressing enough issue to care about.

      Not only that, Harasar actually works on the coding to create a comrpomise, and frankly is what made a lot of other people warm up to the idea.

      Unless you have a better idea other than the scroll bar, I don't think we need to belabor this anymore. I'm going to use the code to put in the scroll bar. If you don't like doing it, nobody is going to force you to do it.

      As Jamie put it, there are more important things to be done, I'm going to take his advice and get back to work.

        Loading editor
    • I think you've completely misunderstood. People aren't objecting to the scrollbar, they're objecting to one specific person always going off half cocked. There are many open to the idea and more opposed to proceeding to change things without a clear plan how best to do so. For example, if we're going to implement this type of change, then it should be done at the template level, not on each individual comic, etc.

        Loading editor
    • Nausiated wrote: Frankly, as far as I am concerned, the whole communicty concensus thing is broken. It's a joke. Jamie needs to have a more active role in decision making since none of us can agree on anything.

      Jamie wrote: My humble request to EVERYONE is this: If we can't come to a consensus on something, move on. There's plenty of other things to do. Unless there's a compelling, time-sensitive reason why a particular change needs to occur, we all need to accept that there will always be things we can't change.

      Nausiated wrote: Unless you have a better idea other than the scroll bar, I don't think we need to belabor this anymore. I'm going to use the code to put in the scroll bar. If you don't like doing it, nobody is going to force you to do it.

      As Jamie put it, there are more important things to be done, I'm going to take his advice and get back to work.

      I select the above three quotes to highlight the big issue I have with how this suddenly changed to this being a thing we are forcing (only on some pages by the sound of it, which I would be against, either all or none for consistency sake). You first said you want Jamie to have a more active role, he responds by saying there is no need to rush and if things don't reach a consensus to just move on and there are things we can't change. And you somehow took from that to mean you should go ahead and make the changes when that is the opposite of what Jamie suggested. And if there really are more important things to be doing, just dropping this and accepting things staying as that was the majority choice would have been the more polite and humble response.

      And to reiterate my point, I was ok with the concept, but I am not a fan of the current implementation if there is no other way to make it look better, then I will swiftly take Adours place in the against this change column.

        Loading editor
    • As a side note, I apologize if I seem truculent and blunt here, I don't even want to be in this position, but a previous time you decided to go your own way cost us one of our top contributors and put a great deal of strain on the rest of us as a result, because we did not take it seriously enough and react quickly, so it needs to stop and if that means I have to be the one to address it as soon as people start complaining, then so be it.

        Loading editor
    • As another way to highlight and distinguish important appearances from minor appearances and mentions, we can use different link colors. Something like this:

        Loading editor
    • Harasar wrote: As another way to highlight and distinguish important appearances from minor appearances and mentions, we can use different link colors. Something like this:

      Which is already the point of greentext being... well, green.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote:

      Harasar wrote: As another way to highlight and distinguish important appearances from minor appearances and mentions, we can use different link colors. Something like this:

      Which is already the point of greentext being... well, green.

      Yes, but then every tag is of the same color, it doesn't help to distinguish various types of appearances. By using different colors, we can easily highlight the most important parts, without moving or hiding the less important information.

        Loading editor
    • LoveWaffle wrote: Which is already the point of greentext being... well, green.

      The green text could be kept while the link text color was customized, and because it would theoretically be done in the template coding itself, as long as someone used the correct tag, then everything would automatically be recolored properly, thereby mitigating human error while simultaneously avoiding subjective determinations.

        Loading editor
    • Could you make a test comic template with that implentation so we can see what a full appearances would look like? I like that idea just need to see what it looks like implemented

        Loading editor
    • Copeinator123 wrote: Could you make a test comic template with that implentation so we can see what a full appearances would look like? I like that idea just need to see what it looks like implemented

      Example - User:Harasar/Sandbox/Ziggy Pig-Silly Seal Comics Vol 2 1

      AnnabellRice wrote:

      LoveWaffle wrote: Which is already the point of greentext being... well, green.

      The green text could be kept while the link text color was customized, and because it would theoretically be done in the template coding itself, as long as someone used the correct tag, then everything would automatically be recolored properly, thereby mitigating human error while simultaneously avoiding subjective determinations.

      Personally, I think it would be better to change tag's color as well, green tags distract attention. And naturally, if we would implement it, it would be done in templates, not manually.

        Loading editor
    • If the initial problem was that minor appearances took too much space, I don't think changing their color would solve that issue since they're still occupying the same space as before. Additionally, if we were to take this approach, I would suggest changing the hue of the color and not the brightness, since the lighter color makes it harder to read.


      Nausiated wrote:

      ADour Said:

      I personally don't mind the scrollable appearances list

      So now we've got ADour who also doesn't have an issue with this idea.

      I think you paid attention to the wrong take-away from my comment. In case it's necessary, I will reiterate that while I have no problem with the scrollable appearances list, I don't think it was a good approach to implimentate the change without informing us and eyeballing what would the consensus be, especially since the scrollable list wasn't the main point of discussion.

        Loading editor
    • I don't see any difference between the mentions and minors in that recolored example, plus some major appearances like cameos aren't the same color as other major appearances while some minor appearances like photo inexplicably are...

        Loading editor
    • Harasar wrote:

      AnnabellRice wrote:

      LoveWaffle wrote: Which is already the point of greentext being... well, green.

      The green text could be kept while the link text color was customized, and because it would theoretically be done in the template coding itself, as long as someone used the correct tag, then everything would automatically be recolored properly, thereby mitigating human error while simultaneously avoiding subjective determinations.

      Personally, I think it would be better to change tag's color as well, green tags distract attention. And naturally, if we would implement it, it would be done in templates, not manually.

      Again, that's the point of the green tag being green. It's supposed to catch your eye so you know this isn't a normal appearance.

      Other issues that arise from trying to fix what is ultimately a relatively small problem we've spent far too much time on in a way that, as ADour points out, doesn't even address the initial concern:

      • What happens if {{Mentioned| is placed on a redlink? Should it show up as a redlink, or turn into a pale pink? From the mock-up, it seems like it shows up as the same faded periwinkle as a functioning link. That's not helpful to editors who won't know they might've made a mistake.
      • What if it isn't placed on a link, and the {{mentioned}} tag is added afterwards? Is there a way to account for that?
      • What if I place other greentext tags after the link? Would they change colors, too?
      • I'm not certain there's any font color that won't be either hard to read or draw attention to itself just for being different from the standard blue and black.
        Loading editor
    • ADour wrote: If the initial problem was that minor appearances took too much space, I don't think changing their color would solve that issue since they're still occupying the same space as before. Additionally, if we were to take this approach, I would suggest changing the hue of the color and not the brightness, since the lighter color makes it harder to read.


      Yes, the main idea in the OP message is to shorten appearance section, by moving less important information elsewhere. But it seems that majority are against dividing appearance section into several parts. However, by using different colors we still can partially reach the original goal - i.e. differentiate between important appearances and not important, while at the same time keeping overall design of the section intact.

      I choose pale-blue color specifically for it being less noticeable.

      AnnabellRice wrote: I don't see any difference between the mentions and minors in that recolored example, plus some major appearances like cameos aren't the same color as other major appearances while some minor appearances like photo inexplicably are...

      Yes, I've used the same color for mentions and minor, since both of them are "less important" appearances. We can use different colors for them, if needed.

      I've changed colors for cameos, because I've assumed that they are also counted as minor appearances.

      Anyway, it is just a test, where I've changed colors manually. If we adapt this system, we can naturally discuss more about which templates to change.

      LoveWaffle wrote: Again, that's the point of the green tag being green. It's supposed to catch your eye so you know this isn't a normal appearance.

      Other issues that arise from trying to fix what is ultimately a relatively small problem we've spent far too much time on in a way that, as ADour points out, doesn't even address the initial concern:

      • What happens if {{Mentioned| is placed on a redlink? Should it show up as a redlink, or turn into a pale pink? From the mock-up, it seems like it shows up as the same faded periwinkle as a functioning link. That's not helpful to editors who won't know they might've made a mistake.
      • What if it isn't placed on a link, and the {{mentioned}} tag is added afterwards? Is there a way to account for that?
      • What if I place other greentext tags after the link? Would they change colors, too?
      • I'm not certain there's any font color that won't be either hard to read or draw attention to itself just for being different from the standard blue and black.
      • Yeah, but when almost every link have a green tag, it's not really helps to differentiate them.
      • As far as I remember there is an override for redlinks that could force them to always be red, despite any attempts to change their color.
      • If tag is placed after the text, it wouldn't affect the text in any way.
      • No, they wouldn't change color.
      • I choose pale-blue color specifically for it being less noticeable.
        Loading editor
    • The green tags don't need to be differentiated, and the faded periwinkle is almost unreadable. Again, I don't think you can pick a font color that is a) unique, b) legible, and c) doesn't stand out. Pick two.

      But that's kind of a moot point when the formatting is so easy to break.

        Loading editor
    • I think that distinguishing more important appearances would improve the articles but changing text color wouldn't be good for the readability. I would prefer LoveWaffle's idea to arrange all "minor" appearances after "major" ones. There have also been other good ideas to improve the situation and most could also be easily implemented to the templates.

      1. Rearranging "minor" appearances after "major" appearances.
      2. Copeinator's proposition to print solicit synopsis or an issue blurb at the top of the page. For me this would be the most important improvement but I would also prefer more encyclopedic writing over commercial solicitation.
      3. Moving quotation to the beginning of synopsis section.
      4. Harasar's idea to implement TOC. I think that the best place would be after solicitation (or blurb) before the appearances.
      5. Another Harasar's idea to make appearance sections collapsible. I'm for it, if it defaults to non-collapsed.
      6. Changing green text color to something less obtrusive.
        Loading editor
    • Mrkermit wrote: I think that distinguishing more important appearances would improve the articles but changing text color wouldn't be good for the readability.

      I completly agree.

        Loading editor
    • So where are we falling on this? Are we tabling the issue based on old consensus, or are we re-affirming our votes on updating the appearances section?

        Loading editor
    • Mrkermit wrote:

      Harasar's idea to implement TOC. I think that the best place would be after solicitation (or blurb) before the appearances.

      Actually, I've tested TOCs and they look quite ugly on comics pages, especially when there are several stories. For example:

        Loading editor
    • Spencerz wrote: So where are we falling on this? Are we tabling the issue based on old consensus, or are we re-affirming our votes on updating the appearances section?

      Right now the problem is we have several different suggestions, and I'm not even sure where anyone falls on any of them. If don't want to just table to whole issue, We may have to break down each of them individually to figure out whether they would be a change people are ok with, don't want or completely indifferent.

        Loading editor
    • I'm against any major redesigns to the comic template aside from maybe scrollable lists.

        Loading editor
    • Nurdboy42 wrote: I'm against any major redesigns to the comic aside from maybe scrollable lists.

      Same, but I don't even want the scrollable list, we are fine as it is right now, the community isn't having any issues with it either.

        Loading editor
    • So okay, you guys have all missed the whole point of my OP. I was making a recommendation to shorten the appearance section. Most people don't want to do that and are fine with everything the way it is. Harasar provided a compromise of reorganizing the whole page (the scroll bar). People are for it, or are willing to accept it as a compromise.

      Why reinvent the wheel when a simpler solution is already been created by Harasar?

      My main issue has always been about the appearance section overwhelming everything else.

      I am willing to accept things as they are and I will never bring this subject again if we implement the scrollbar. If the scrollbar is there I could care less how long the appearance list is and what's there and what's not there.

        Loading editor
    • Then conduct a community consensus vote on that specific scrollbar proposal, and be willing to accept the poll results, no matter which way they might pan out.

        Loading editor
    • AnnabellRice wrote: As a side note, I apologize if I seem truculent and blunt here, I don't even want to be in this position, but a previous time you decided to go your own way cost us one of our top contributors and put a great deal of strain on the rest of us as a result, because we did not take it seriously enough and react quickly, so it needs to stop and if that means I have to be the one to address it as soon as people start complaining, then so be it.

      Well I appreciate the apology. To be frank, the subject died a month ago. I reacted by doing it anyway to elicit a response, because that appears to be the only way to get people to actively talk about things again that fall on the way side.

      As far as losing a contributor. This is the first I'm hearing of this. This is not the place to discuss it, but as far as I'm concerned if you were keeping that to yourselves, then you can't expect me to understand why your getting aggressive. That's a major failure in communication. But again, that's a discussion for somewhere else.

        Loading editor
    • AnnabellRice wrote: Then conduct a community consensus vote on that specific scrollbar proposal, and be willing to accept the poll results, no matter which way they might pan out.

      The flow of conversation went into talking about the scrollbar as an alternative option. I thought that's what we were doing.

        Loading editor
    • For what it's worth, I didn't keep it to myself, and it was my understanding that in the interest of full disclosure, it and everything else said during that discussion, was to be brought to your attention, so if that never happened, it definitely explains part of the disconnect we're struggling with.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+