I'm noticing that some Canon-in-Training articles about things from the future (2198 and before) and also a few Canon articles with future information, are not always consistent in the tense used to discuss the future. Future events are sometimes in past tense, sometimes in present tense, and sometimes in future tense.
Is this a problem? And if anybody else thinks it is a problem, how should it be solved? I have been inclined to change articles to future tense, but this can be an awkward way of phrasing whole paragraphs. I'm hesitant to change any more pages without asking others about this. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 18:12, 20 September 2007 (CDT)
- If it's a problem, I don't think it's a big problem. If you're really concerned, leave it as is, although I think you've done a stellar job so far. My biggest concern is what happens if and when Timedancer or Gargoyles 2198 are produced, because then other time periods will essentially be "the present". -- Supermorff 07:48, 21 September 2007 (CDT)
Category is Inconsistent
(yes, I restored the deleted discussion, because the problem being discussed was never resolved and is still there)
Some of the articles here are all in bold, some are not in bold, and some are partly in bold and partly in regular type. Is this deliberate? I had thought bold text was used mainly to distinguish canon-in-training information in mostly canon articles. - Vaevictis Asmadi
- I've noticed that too. I can only assume that it is not deliberate, but because there is no guideline or consensus for canon-in-training articles. Shall we establish one? -- Supermorff 04:00, 5 March 2007 (CST)
- Yes, I think we should. Obviously partly bold and partly not makes no sense since C-i-T articles are wholly CiT with no canon parts. So entries should either be entirely marked or entirely unmarked. On the onehand, blue text may be slightly harder to read. On the other hand, unmarked text could easily lead somebody to mistake the article for canon if they don't look down at the categories. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 18:23, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
- Most entries contain both canon and CiT information. Therein lies the problem. --Matt 20:48, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
- Well, that's the point of the CiT template, so that we can distinguish between what's canon (regular font) and what's canon-in-training (font from template). The template just needs to be modified to make the font more distinguishable. I propose that we use purple to distinguish the CiT parts of the articles. It's close to blue, but different and can't be confused with links. What do you think? --Moeen 01:26, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
- I, and others, have been slowly removing CiT markup from CiT articles. This means that articles in the CiT category would be all in regular font.
- If we think this would be too confusing to a newcomer, then I suggest a new template, perhaps in the form of a box at the top of the page that warns users: "This is a canon-in-training article. Details are subject to change." Or similar.
- Purple sounds fine. If you can find a shade of purple (specifically its hex code) that you think is suitable, then you can mention it on Template talk:CIT. For now I plan to go back to cornflower blue when the template has been implemented, but we can change the colour at any later date quite simply. -- Supermorff 10:25, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
- I prefer the blue color already chosen over purple. I'm not sure what I think the formatting should be for wholly CiT articles, but I don't want to make them half one thing and half another, even if they contain canon scraps like Goliath's name or whatever. I think they should be marked in some more obvious way than a category: either a banner template at the top or the text formatting. Actually, creating banner templates for both CiT and Apocrypha articles would be a good idea, to better mark both. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 11:59, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
- Well, I was thinking something more along the lines of a box, instead of a line of text. Something slightly more prominent for the all-CiT and all-Apocrypha pages. A line of text would also work, though. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 13:18, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- The Disambiguation template is a box. -- Supermorff 14:15, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
- Ah, so it is, you're right. Maybe it has changed? Though in the case of CiT and Apocryphal articles I agree putting it at the top would be better than the bottom. My new idea is this: we could make the text (or even the box? is that too prominent?) the same blue color as the CiT text, to make them more connected. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 18:27, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, that idea could work. You're right that putting the cornflower blue as the background of the box is too prominent, but have a look at my user page, where I drew up an example of what the thing might look like. -- Supermorff 05:49, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
- Looks good. You might want to make the font size a bit larger though to make it more readable. Using the same font size as the regular text should be enough. --Moeen 11:57, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
- Ooh, good thinking. I hadn't even realised. Better? -- Supermorff 12:34, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
- Yup, looks great! :-) --Moeen 22:04, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, looks good! I would say that the box should only be as wide as the line of text, because otherwise it seems to look odd. But I like it. Do you think the Apocrypha articles should have a similar-looking box? Orange could be a good color for the text. It isn't the color of any kind of link or broken link, but it is still a "caution" symbol. Though it would be pretty bright. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 22:24, 15 September 2007 (CDT)
- I've centered the line of text within the box, which should hopefully stop it looking odd, and I've removed the canon-in-training link because ... well, I don't like it. And since every one of these articles is in the canon-in-training category (or one of its subcategories), I also don't believe the link is necessary either. Somebody else can restore it if they want, though, because it's now at Template:CIT article.
- I don't think Apocrypha articles need a banner heading, at least not right now. Even though information on those pages is not canon, it's also never going to change. But we can discuss that more in the future, once this is dealt with, and probably in the talk page for the Apocrypha category. -- Supermorff 05:48, 16 September 2007 (CDT)
- I like the banner that you made. We still haven't decided about the bold format in the article text. I'd prefer un-bolding the article text if there is going to be a banner, but I don't know if the banners themselves have been decided on yet. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 17:28, 16 September 2007 (CDT)
- I agree. For wholly CIT articles, we use the banner and not bold text (or CIT markup). Otherwise there's not much point in having the banners at all. -- Supermorff 17:48, 16 September 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I'm not a big Wiki genius, so someone explain to me this: When the "London Clan" CiT template was first shown, the CiT parts were written in blue. I thought this was fine. Now everyone is updating all the entries to say [[CiT|... and yet the entries still look exactly the same to me. Why are they still in white? What exactly is changing? --Matt 16:35, 5 September 2007 (CST)
- Because the color was removed from the CiT Template during the change-over to prevent the Wiki from looking inconsistent and weird. I think Supermorff or whoever created the Template temporarily changed it. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 18:08, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
- I assume that once every single page in the entire wiki is coded with the new template, the color will be added back in, so it appears on all pages at once. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 18:09, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
- Bingo. That is exactly what I intended. If you would prefer me to add the colour now, I can do so. -- Supermorff 10:25, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
- My complements on the template! It's working beautifully and the mixed canon/canon in training pages are now much clearer. Awesome job! -- Demonskrye 10:26, 13 September 2007
- Thank you very much! Glad you're happy with it! -- Supermorff 12:43, 13 September 2007 (CDT)