Board Thread:Wiki discussion/@comment-84037-20170106215439/@comment-18014300-20170612052134: Difference between revisions
imported>Sol Pacificus Created page with "<div class="quote"> Roger Murtaugh wrote: I feel that it'd be good to include appearances in other articles, yes. Also, it can be good to have an appearances section in both ..." |
imported>Sol Pacificus No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
I just realized that it doesn't seem we expressly said that we were doing Source sections as well, though I could've sworn I was told we would. Can we clarify this? | I just realized that it doesn't seem we expressly said that we were doing Source sections as well, though I could've sworn I was told we would. Can we clarify this? | ||
It might be kind of redundant come to think of it now, but then I just also realized that Sources are meant to mention which reference books or OOU material the subjects appear in, and do not serve the exact same function as references which are citations. | |||
Latest revision as of 07:34, 12 June 2017
Roger Murtaugh wrote: I feel that it'd be good to include appearances in other articles, yes.
Also, it can be good to have an appearances section in both the character information boxes and its own section lower on the page, as the lower section can includes mention, picture appearance and other such references that would usually not be included above.
I just realized that it doesn't seem we expressly said that we were doing Source sections as well, though I could've sworn I was told we would. Can we clarify this?
It might be kind of redundant come to think of it now, but then I just also realized that Sources are meant to mention which reference books or OOU material the subjects appear in, and do not serve the exact same function as references which are citations.