(Talk: Miles O'Brien mistake?) |
DarkHorizon (talk | contribs) (moved discussion to correct place (bottom of page for new comments, please), reply.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| − | ---- |
||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Shouldn't there be more links to featured articles on this page? I'm sure there are many more than the ones linked to this page. [[User:Zsingaya|zsingaya]] 21:26, 17 Jan 2005 (CET) |
Shouldn't there be more links to featured articles on this page? I'm sure there are many more than the ones linked to this page. [[User:Zsingaya|zsingaya]] 21:26, 17 Jan 2005 (CET) |
||
: Categories within message templates do not work correctly. To add a page to the Category list it has to be edited, simply adding the category link to the template makes only the link appear, but doesn't add it. -- [[User:Kobi|Kobi]] 21:40, 17 Jan 2005 (CET) |
: Categories within message templates do not work correctly. To add a page to the Category list it has to be edited, simply adding the category link to the template makes only the link appear, but doesn't add it. -- [[User:Kobi|Kobi]] 21:40, 17 Jan 2005 (CET) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 16: | ||
::Correct, a category link can be formatted that way. Also correct, using this form of "automatic categorization", we wouldn't be able to use the sorting rules we normally use. All this could be solved by adding the category link manually, but one goal of this suggestion was to make the "message&linklist" system we have as easy as possible, which wouldn't be the case if we had to add a category manually. The question is, what's more important - just having to add one template to one page, or having a "better" sorting on the resulting category page. I personally think it's the former in this case... -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 12:12, 2005 Jan 17 (CET) |
::Correct, a category link can be formatted that way. Also correct, using this form of "automatic categorization", we wouldn't be able to use the sorting rules we normally use. All this could be solved by adding the category link manually, but one goal of this suggestion was to make the "message&linklist" system we have as easy as possible, which wouldn't be the case if we had to add a category manually. The question is, what's more important - just having to add one template to one page, or having a "better" sorting on the resulting category page. I personally think it's the former in this case... -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 12:12, 2005 Jan 17 (CET) |
||
Seems as if we can... -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 16:00, 2005 Jan 18 (CET) |
Seems as if we can... -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 16:00, 2005 Jan 18 (CET) |
||
| + | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| + | :It isn't. This is simply because talk pages were the original location for the <nowiki>{</nowiki>{featured}} to go. This style choice was later changed so that the message was to be placed at the bottom of the article proper. Since that page was one of our earliest FAs, that errant tag remained. The same was the case of [[Talk:Shran]], until I removed the same tag. -- [[User:DarkHorizon|Michael Warren]] | [[User talk:DarkHorizon|''Talk'']] 17:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 17:23, 1 May 2005
Shouldn't there be more links to featured articles on this page? I'm sure there are many more than the ones linked to this page. zsingaya 21:26, 17 Jan 2005 (CET)
- Categories within message templates do not work correctly. To add a page to the Category list it has to be edited, simply adding the category link to the template makes only the link appear, but doesn't add it. -- Kobi 21:40, 17 Jan 2005 (CET)
- See also subsection 2.1 (at the moment) of Memory_Alpha_talk:Category_tree. This category is still being discussed there, the discussion will be moved here later. -- Cid Highwind 22:18, 2005 Jan 17 (CET)
- From now on, just look below... ;) -- Cid Highwind 16:35, 2005 Jan 18 (CET)
Category:Memory Alpha featured articles
We can use categories to help with the regular maintenance task of listing specific articles somewhere ("attention needed", "featured article" etc.) by creating a category and adding it to the relevant template. To test if this is a viable option, I would like to create Category:Memory Alpha featured articles to list featured articles - the page Memory Alpha:Featured Articles basically is an unannotated list. Any opinions/objections? -- Cid Highwind 14:26, 2005 Jan 2 (CET)
- The problem with this is, that you would need to edit all the existing pages. When we created de:Kategorie:Stub by putting it into the message template, not one page appeared in there. They all needed to be edited at least one time. -- Kobi 14:33, 2 Jan 2005 (CET)
- I read about that problem on Wikipedia, but I think we would only have to do this once, to get started. Right? -- Cid Highwind 15:04, 2005 Jan 2 (CET)
- Unless (though I may be mistaking) we add [[Category:Memory Alpha featured articles]] to {{msg:featured}}. That should work, shouldn't it? -- Redge | Talk 14:01, 14 Jan 2005 (CET)
- Well, this is what I suggested... ;) The problem Kobi mentioned is the fact that pages containing that template don't get updated automatically - we would have to make a "fake" edit to each one of the articles. This is just a minor issue, and would have to be done only once, though. -- Cid Highwind 14:11, 2005 Jan 14 (CET)
- I SUPPORT THIS PROCEDURE -- Captain Mike K. Bartel
- Well, this is what I suggested... ;) The problem Kobi mentioned is the fact that pages containing that template don't get updated automatically - we would have to make a "fake" edit to each one of the articles. This is just a minor issue, and would have to be done only once, though. -- Cid Highwind 14:11, 2005 Jan 14 (CET)
- Unless (though I may be mistaking) we add [[Category:Memory Alpha featured articles]] to {{msg:featured}}. That should work, shouldn't it? -- Redge | Talk 14:01, 14 Jan 2005 (CET)
- I read about that problem on Wikipedia, but I think we would only have to do this once, to get started. Right? -- Cid Highwind 15:04, 2005 Jan 2 (CET)
OK, I created the category page and added the category link to the template - please don't edit all "featured" articles to include them at the moment... QUESTION: Obviously, the article Template:Featured gets included in this list. Can we live with this, or should we abort? :) -- Cid Highwind 22:12, 2005 Jan 16 (CET)
- Looks like it would work okay, but I think it would be just as easy to add the category link to each article. It would take time, but would be worth the effort. I also have a question about alphabetizing; it's my understanding that the category link can be formatted so it will be sorted differently on the category page; placing [[Category:Memory Alpha featured articles|Crusher, Beverly]] on Beverly Crusher would make that article appear under "C" rather than "B." If we simply add the category link to the template, wouldn't it alphabetize all articles by the first letter, leaving characters alphabetized by first name and all Starfleet ships under "U"? Or does this not really make a difference? -- SmokeDetector47 08:10, 2005 Jan 17 (CET)
- Correct, a category link can be formatted that way. Also correct, using this form of "automatic categorization", we wouldn't be able to use the sorting rules we normally use. All this could be solved by adding the category link manually, but one goal of this suggestion was to make the "message&linklist" system we have as easy as possible, which wouldn't be the case if we had to add a category manually. The question is, what's more important - just having to add one template to one page, or having a "better" sorting on the resulting category page. I personally think it's the former in this case... -- Cid Highwind 12:12, 2005 Jan 17 (CET)
Seems as if we can... -- Cid Highwind 16:00, 2005 Jan 18 (CET)
Talk: Miles O'Brien?
Surely this is a mistake, right? The article on Miles O'Brien is a great one but I don't see how the discussion on him can be a featured article.--Scimitar 01:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- It isn't. This is simply because talk pages were the original location for the {{featured}} to go. This style choice was later changed so that the message was to be placed at the bottom of the article proper. Since that page was one of our earliest FAs, that errant tag remained. The same was the case of Talk:Shran, until I removed the same tag. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:23, 1 May 2005 (UTC)