|
|
|
|
#1
05-30-2012, 01:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Agreed. Can we PLEASE make a consensus...
|
|
#2
05-30-2012, 04:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Thus is the movie page was broken down into groups of weapons it was: =Pistol= ==M1911A1== ==Browning Hi Power== =Rifle= ==AR-15== ==AK-47== etc. Now we sometimes have pages which have the ENTIRE page divided into categories, aka, the ones which denote GERMAN versus RUSSIAN armies, for example. If we did GERMAN ARMY then we would do: =German Weapons= ==Pistols== ===Luger P08=== ===Walther P38=== =Russian Weapons= ==Rifles== ===Mosin Nagant M91/30=== ===M38 Carbine=== Or that's what I remember us doing. As for actors, since there was not a higher level of category, I was going by what I saw the originators do back in 2007, i.e. default to the double hashmark for Film, Television, etc. Personally I think it looks better to have the line than just to have it boldened. Also it separates the title from the tables (which have taken over most of the pages ... which is a good thing). But with subcategories, I think members began being inconsistent with their hashmarks, because of how they were on OTHER pages. But these older ordering of hash marks came from the times when we did NOT have tables and we were nesting information. So I always did it: Joe Schmoo used the following guns in the following: ==Film== INSERT TABLE HERE ==Television== INSERT TABLE HERE Now I believe weapons should be the same. The AK-47 has appearing in the following: ==FILM== INSERT TABLE HERE ==Television== INSERT TABLE HERE the reason why is that with constantly changing widths of pages (determined by the MONITOR of the viewer) the underlines of the double hash marks helps visually separate the tables and categories. Again, this slowly morphed because we started creating more and more tables. I never liked the Triple hash mark for an entire category. That is less visible as a major section title, IMHO. Last edited by MoviePropMaster2008; 05-31-2012 at 01:53 AM.
|
|
#3
05-30-2012, 04:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
THANK YOU PropMaster!!! SOOOO nice to have this laid out. I really dont have a strong opinion one way or the other but I DO really care for consistency...
The only addition I would make is for pages like the AK-47 which are subdivided into multiple categories (AK-47, AKS-47, AKM, etc.). There are a ton of pages like this (M16, M1911, Beretta 92FS, etc.). How does the following look: =AK-47= ==Specifications== ==Film== ==Television== =AKS-47= ==Specifications== ==Film== ==Television== etc. etc. Currently I have been using: =AK-47= ==Speicifcations== ===Film=== ===Television=== But I like what you are saying about using 2 "=" instead of 3. What are your thoughts on the pages for multiple guns? SO glad to finally be getting a consensus.
|
|
#4
05-30-2012, 08:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Now this is a point that I've never really discussed with others. I like having the specifications, but I just embolden the Specs title and don't let it be a category title (so that it shows up in the TOC). I don't think people will look to the TOC and care where the SPECs are as long as they are always at the beginning of each gun section (where needed). Now here is where I would like input. How important ARE specs to the page viewer? Sure it should be there somewhere, but does it NEED a category all it's own?
|
|
#5
05-30-2012, 08:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would say yes, it should have a category of its own. It is its own little bit of information about the gun. To me, it warrants its own section. Personally I think part of the problem is that we are lumping SO many guns together on the same page.
Continuing with the AK-47 example, The AK-101, AK-102, AK-103 etc seem to warrant their own page (THIS IS MY OPINION!). I know we are NOT Wikipedia, but this IS how Wikipedia does it. Same goes for the M-16 page.. I TOTALLY get why the M16, M16A1, M16A2... are on the same page, but seems like some of the other models should get their own page. This page is getting HUGE! The 1911 page is another good example. The reason I bring this up here, is that it fits in with the discussion about the Table of Contents. I mean the Table of Contents alone for the M16 page is longer then a number of entire gun pages. Is there room for a discussion of splitting these pages up a bit? I'm not saying that EVERY model of 1911 needs its own page... Thoughts? -Z
|
|
#6
05-30-2012, 09:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would say it is probably better to not actually have the specification be a category, for the reason that the way gun pages go they say "The XXX appears in:" then the TOC, so it always seems odd to me as it appears that specifications is listed as something the gun appears in. This is a pretty small niggle though, a much bigger issue is pages where specs are as a level 2 heading and the media are as a level 3, as it makes no sense the film is a subsection of specifications. I think that ideally the order of a gun page should be a short little blurb about the gun, then the specifications not in a TOC listed section, then the appearing in line with the TOC underneath. Only question about this is if you want to keep "specifications" as a title above the specs, is there a way of doing it so that the text font size is larger without using headings as otherwise i don't think it looks right. Is there a way to exclude a heading from appearing on the TOC?
|
|
#7
05-30-2012, 10:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
