Forum:Development
Template:Forumheader/Wiki talk
Character articles...They need to talk about what the character does in episodes. The lack of this and the apparent lack of willing to add this to articles is one of the reasons sgtcook quit. The fact is too improve we need to improve the articles. Do you find star wars articles just mentioning their personality of a brief summary of thier life? So what if some major characters would need more articles to fully explain all, fact is we need to up our game to become a high-standard wiki that Simpsons fans will want to read daily to find out about their favourite characters role in the show and what they did to help one of Homers schemes or how they played a major role in an episode. Kingcjc 14:52, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
- With the main characters, we shouldn't do that. The articles would become too massive to control really. With one time characters, it is fine as they appear once. Basically, what you are saying is that instead of having the episode information on the episode pages, add that to the character articles, duplicating it and making a massive mess. There is no need to document every little thing they do. That is pointless. The article would become too long and no one will read it as it is too long. The Solar Dragon 18:39, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
- Surely though we should mention little bits, such as Homer once tried suicide, or Bart became a jockey. Also, other wikis manage it. Kingcjc 21:50, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
- Also if they wanted character information, they wouldnt read every single episode article... Kingcjc 16:41, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
- And I didn't say all on one article... Kingcjc 16:42, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Kingcjc here.. managing articles will be fine, just split into subpages.. Wikipedia does what Kingcjc is saying, just look at it! As quoted.. "simpsons needs to improve as much as the england defence...." --Lewis Cawte (Talk - w:User:Lcawte/Contact|Contact) 16:46, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Total agreement with the forum and the quote above. Joey - Talk Contribs 16:53, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Basicly, we need to stop focusing on page numbers and stuff like that. People are more likely to read about main characters, which are usually wikipedia but in a different order and with reference tags, than Newsreader #5, yet characters like the latter are focused on more. People are more likely to read about main building like the Church than a store that was seen for half a second, yet until 2 days ago, the Church page was basicly wikipedias. Yes, I did this in the past, but we need to move forward, adapt and make this wiki more than a site that is considered half-good compared to SNPP or other sites. Making characters in-universe was a good start and we need to continue that. Kingcjc 16:57, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Kingcjc here.. managing articles will be fine, just split into subpages.. Wikipedia does what Kingcjc is saying, just look at it! As quoted.. "simpsons needs to improve as much as the england defence...." --Lewis Cawte (Talk - w:User:Lcawte/Contact|Contact) 16:46, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Surely though we should mention little bits, such as Homer once tried suicide, or Bart became a jockey. Also, other wikis manage it. Kingcjc 21:50, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
OK then. I guess we will give this a shot. We may need to develop some sort of tab system that is unlike the episode ones in the fact that it doesn't have a coloured background so that it doesn't look too different to other character pages. I don't know, maybe just a sort of navigation thing then. The Solar Dragon 17:32, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
- Prehaps something like History, achievements, biography or something like that. Kingcjc 17:46, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
- I've just added a few more characters. This seems like a great idea but a big job too! Effluvium talk contributions email 18:04, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
- I've just worked on the Bart page with the new Tab sytem and to be honest, I'm not that fussed on them. I mean, the pages were OK to begin with. But if everybody else likes it, then I guess it'll stay. Effluvium talk contributions email 15:19, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
