Category talk:Related Articles Pages

Current guidelines for Related Articles: pages

• 8 Characters, with the subject being the first character listed, and the others by number of appearances.
• 6 Locales, Places listed first, locations second, sorted by number of apperances.
• 6 Elements, Graphic Novels listed last, sorted by number of references.

These guidelines are tentative to change upon disscussion. ---- 23:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Individual categories?

Wouldn't it be easier to just created categories for each group, rather than a separate article for each that needs to be updated. Categories update automatically. Coffeeicecream 09:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT) Update: see Category:Related_articles-Claire for an example. Granted it doesn't have graphics; was that the idea? Coffeeicecream 09:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

• I actually had an idea similar to this, but it was decided against. Thus, I think we should just keep this category. Heroe!(talk) 10:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
• Partly, the idea was to have the graphics, but mostly, it's just not the way we use categories. Categories categorize articles into groups; it's just a taxonomy grouping articles of the same type. The related articles tie together articles which are thematically but not taxonomically related. "Hiro's sword" and "Space-time manipulation" aren't related because they're the same kind of article, so they don't belong in a category. They're related because they are both connected to Hiro. These related articles pages are basically just giant series bars; they serve a very different function than categories.--Hardvice (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
  • IAWTC. The category seems somewhat ... unfitting ... to me. The portals just seem more suited to handle this kind of grouping, not a new category. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Guidelines

I really like the new format, but I think we're shooting ourselves in the foot by making the 8x6x6 thing a strict guideline. I think if a character has, say, 12 places worth linking to, then we should link to 12 places. And I certainly don't think we need to "puff up" a character with only 6 related characters to 8 just to fit the layout. It just feels forced and confining, and it's only going to lead to a lot of back-and-forth as people disagree about which 8 characters or 6 places or whatever are the "most important". It just seems like a really bad idea to make a page's content slave to its format. And with the cells centered, it won't matter so much if one section has five cells and the other has 12 split into two rows of six.--Hardvice (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

• Sorting by (subjective) order of importance is also asking for trouble, IMO.--Hardvice (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I agree on both accounts. I especially think that the pages should be sorted alphabetically. Not only does that prevent back-and-forth with people disagreeing about which is more important ("No, the wind chime was way more important to Claire than Brody's accident!"), but it also saves a lot of maintenance. If Peter suddenly spends the next six episodes in the hospital, we would probably have to promote it on his page. But if it's alphabetical, there's only one spot for it to go, and we wouldn't have to move it. — RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Season One/Season Two

I'd really like to see the Season One and Season Two related articles pages combined into one page. The characters haven't changed, it's just a new season. The Season One pages aren't too long, so lengthiness shouldn't be a concern. Plus, some of the elements for some of the characters seem to be a bit of a stretch--I'd much rather make one strong page that gets a little longer, than have a weak and anemic page of so-so related articles. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2007 (EST)