Hello! I would just like to inform you there's currently a discussion being held over the future structure of character articles regarding the recent announcements of comics, books, and a video game. You can participate in the discussion here.
Hello, I would like to request your permission to adopt this wiki. The wiki really needs more admins, moderators, etc but with the wiki's only bureaucrat being inactive, there is no way for that to happen. Here is the adoption form I submitted.
Could you point the attention of contributors to the Manual of Style talk page? (I know you have powers, I've seen it before haha.) Me and Highspeednerd have made some suggestions, and would like to involve more contributors so everyone can get a say and maybe reach consensus.
So there's this wiseguy who vandalised Steve and Jonathan's pages. Nothing too serious, but if you want you can check what they did for yourself. Anyway, I "undid" all of their edits, so they're no longer on the Wiki. However, you might want to ban them.
I agree that templates, the main page and similar pages could be locked, but it's not a good solution for the article pages since most of them are far from "complete." What would we edit? Haha.
I'm thinking we could either reserve editing rights to registered users, as all the vandalism I've seen is from that group, or grant blocking rights and responsibilities to users up for the task (if that's possible).
It seems like editors are writing the entire history/biography of characters in the 'Background' section, rather than just their background. For this reason I think it would make more sense for the 'Background' sections to be renamed as 'Biography' or 'History'. Other wikias do this, eg Tardis Wikia, Wookiepedia. In my opinion 'Background' would make more sense as a sub-heading within History/Biography sections.
Would be interested to hear what you think about my suggestion.
Could we use something à la Lostpedia's episode references on STW? Instead of placing the episode in a footnote, they use their Crossref template to place the reference in the text, written in small text and paranthesis, like this: ("The Weirdo on Maple Street")
See "Jacob" (or any Lostpedia article) for examples.
I think it looks better and makes the reference more accessible to the reader. It's very simple to use when editing, and might encourage more editors to reference the episodes as well.
I added the crossref template here a while ago, and added it to the Eleven page. However, it was removed by FishTank. I didn't care enough to ask why, but you should check with him before you change anything.
Lostpedia's code is a bit older, and doesn't really represent some of the modern metrics about how people read articles. Usability testing shows that people actually don't like the inline references, because they find them intrusive and jarring away from the main thrust of the narrative. Part of it also has to do with the styling on mobile, where such links are not significantly different than the body text. They also tend to get confused with grammatically correct text. Such links and styling are handled more responsively on different platforms when they're made with the standard <ref> tags. So, respectfully, accessibility to the reader does not necessarily bear out.
For a middle-ground solution, we might consider reference groups. These are in action on Eleven. They use <ref group="Episodes" name="S01E01">[[The Vanishing of Will Byers]]</ref> and <references group="Episodes" /> and clearly identify that you're referencing a particular episode, but not which one without an additional click / tap. We could standardize or style this somewhat as well (such as making the footnote "Episode: 'The Vanishing of Will Byers'" ). Or, we could consider ReferencePopups (though I would prefer we wouldn't).
Okay, that all makes sense. Thank you again, FishTank, for such a comprehensive explanation! My reasoning for suggesting this basically boils down to "it looks cool and it's easy to spot," so it's no biggie to me.
As for the reference groups, I personally think they could be a little confusing. "Episodes 1" seems like it refers to the first episode, while in reality it just refers to the first reference in that group, right? Unless there was some way to make them correspond to the episode number (and season now that #2 is coming), I think sticking to the regular references is preferrable.