Article or Section[]
I am trying to figure out if we want to have an article for some of the minor characters. Specifically the ones that have been named but never seen (Steve Foley, Walter Nelson, etc.).
I am seeing two options. First, we create an article for these characters although there will be no images and usually very little information. Second, we create a section for these characters in their most relevant article.
Pros and cons.
If every character gets their own article then it makes linking much easier and cleaner. However, it means that we will have a lot of articles that won't have very much in them.
If we make a section then the wiki is more tidy and the information is more compacted, read easier to peruse. However, linking becomes harder. I made a template to help in linking to sections of articles, but it doesn't have the quick help suggestions for the article or section. It also doesn't show if a section doesn't exist. I also tried creating an article for each character which held a redirect to their section. This made linking easy and compacted the information, however, it created an odd behaviour with the browser history as it required two back selections to return to the previous page. For some reason the redirect maintains a link to the overall called page and then links to the subsection.
Thoughts on this?
Mknopp (talk) 19:43, January 21, 2013 (UTC)
Isn't there a way to link directly to a subheading? for example, on the wikipedia List of Kim Possible characters, if I want to hotlink to Wade it would be List_of_Kim_Possible_characters#Wade which will take me right to his subheading. Can something similar not be done here?
Test link to Jessica's Prom date
Love Robin (talk) 23:47, January 21, 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, as I said above, I made a template to simplify the process of linking to a section. However, the down side to linking to a section is two fold. First, linking to a section doesn't utilize quick finish like a link. Also, when linking to a section the link doesn't recognize if the section exist or not. If the section is mistyped, the section doesn't exist, or the section name is changed then the link will not show up in red. it simply takes the reader to the primary article with no warning message. this can be very confusing for the user.
- Also, linking to sections does not allow for redirects in the instance that something needs to change.
What you described is a pretty common situation. There are some wikis that take the stance that if it's mentioned, it deserves its own page, no matter how minor the reference. Other wikis consolidate this kind of information. It seems that the wikis that go for the former are the ones that are looking to have a high page count, rather than have quality in their information. Consolidating information works for me. —RRabbit42 (leave a message) 04:26, January 22, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with consolidating the information.
- Now, how best to link to that information? I am honestly, very much in favor of making a redirect page for each of them.
- This will basically make linking between articles a ton easier, as the link would still be the name. It also makes any section name changes much easier to handle as the section link will exist in only one location, instead of possibly being scattered through dozens of articles.
- The con to this is the odd double back necessary to return to a previous article, and the funny redirect behavior that has the address in the bar for the directing article, but displays the final article.
- So, it seems that everyone so far is in favor of consolidating the information. That just leaves how to link to figure out.
- Thoughts?