Talk:Appearences Section

I designed this page as a prototype for an idea I had on how character pages should be done. Instead of all the titles showing up throughout the text, I placed them in their own section below. I believe this makes for a neater and more organized page. I'm open to suggestions, comments and criticism of course, but I like it and if we get a general consensus on this, I can start converting everyone. So what do you think? The original page is unchanged for comparison to the [[Maggie the cat (prototype)]] page. Thanks. --Matt 08:42, 27 December 2007 (CST)

Interesting idea. The history section in this article is neater, but now we cannot tell where the information in a particular section came from. If I wanted to know when Talon revealed his feelings for Maggie, this page doesn't actually have that information. And if we are not putting citations in the body text, where do we link to specific responses at Ask Greg (if and when it is appropriate to do so)?

I do like the Appearances section. It would be nice and useful to have all appearances listed in one place (although episode titles should not be italicized). But in my opinion, by removing the episode citations from the body text, we've lost more than we've gained.

We could... just thinking now... we could use the new section as a sort of References section as they have at Wikipedia. That is, we include small links ¹ throughout the body text, which users can click on to be directed down the page to the references section, and the number indicates the appropriate episode.

This is a simplification of the system used at Wikipedia, because MediaWiki reference tags don't seem to work on GargWiki (I've tried before). If we wanted, for example, to be able to link back up the page to the citations, then we'd need to make it more complicated, perhaps by using templates.

In fact, this is the system described here at Wikipedia, which was the first footnote system they used and which has been obsolete for a very long time. More recent, but equally obsolete methods can be found here and here.

This might be more trouble than it's worth. -- Supermorff 11:16, 27 December 2007 (CST)

I totally understand your point about in which episode stuff happens, but in my mind, the history sections are such a jumbled narrative anyway (with C-i-T info to boot) that often the episode notation after a paragraph doesn't really reflect what was in that episode anyway, which means it was false information. For instance, in the current Maggie the Cat page, we have a mention in the first paragraph about her coming to New York to be an actor and all that. The first episode reference we see is Metamorphosis, but this information was not revealed in that episode. So, to me adding an appearences section is more informative, if not more factual. Not to mention it reveals more information than the original format shows such as which episodes she appeared in, but did not have lines and which episodes mentioned her. Another example is that last paragraph. It is only a couple sentences, but it mentions things that occur over several episodes (or issues in this case). If we were to cite all those stories after that paragraph nobody would know what happened in what story either. If we could figure out a working footnote system, I suppose that'd work, but it might be better for those footnotes to take you directly to the episode page itself rather than further down the page you are on. Or so it makes sense in my mind. --Matt 11:32, 27 December 2007 (CST)

Yeah... yeah, that could work. Instead of scrapping the citations throughout the body text, we just change the format. So instead of ("Metamorphosis") we have ¹ or something similar to that. We can include these smaller citations in more appropriate places, even more often. And we can keep the Appearances section as you've done here.

I don't think it's a problem that the first citation after the first paragraph is for "Metamorphosis" - CIT information, by definition, is not referenced in any episode anyway. All the other, canon info from the first paragraph is from "Metamorphosis". It would be nice to have a Ask Greg citation for that CIT info. -- Supermorff 11:42, 27 December 2007 (CST)

Yes, I like this idea A LOT. With that system we'd have either yellow footnote numbers linking to episodes or blue footnote numbers linking to Ask Greg stuff. I could go ahead and start putting the footnotes in [[Maggie the cat (prototype)]]. This would make a big project even bigger, but I think it is well worth it in the end. --Matt 11:45, 27 December 2007 (CST)

We could go a step further, and create templates so that we don't have to type out the whole <sup... whatever each time. We could include it all at Template:Ep or something, so all you'd have to do is {{ep|Metamorphosis|1}}, for example. It would be simpler if they weren't numbered (and we used an asterisk * or something), but we could do it either way. -- Supermorff 11:53, 27 December 2007 (CST)

I'd appreciate some simplicity like that a lot before starting on this project (assuming at least a few more people like the idea). I don't know much about Wiki-coding though, so I'll leave this in your hands or someone else's. In the meantime, I added the episodic footnotes to the prototype page. --Matt 12:00, 27 December 2007 (CST)

Hmmm.... this looks incredibly complicated. If we switch to this system, I for one will never use it because it is far to sophisticated for me to code when I write pages. Also, as noted, the page itself no longer says which information comes from what source. Not every computer or browser can mouse-over links to tell their destination. As for putting references on paragraphs of mixed information... firstly, I don't think it is necessary to give references for every single piece of information, since it can be assumed that our sources are limited to the show, the comic, and Greg Weisman for all in-Gargverse information. Are we going to cite every single piece of real-world information as well? Secondly, when I do cite in mixed paragraphs, I put the citations directly after the sentence they relate to, within the period. Whereas paragraphs that are wholly from one episode, I cite at the end of the paragraph. I think our current citing system works fine. If we change characters, we would have to change every single page on the wiki. And then we have this code all over the place that only wiki-markup experts can use.

I like the Appearances section, however. That is a good idea. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 12:10, 27 December 2007 (CST)

Yeah, I understand your nervousness about the citing. Honestly, if the majority decide it is a mess or isn't neccesary, I'd be happy to leave it out. And I second your motion that it isn't entirely neccesary to cite all this canon stuff anyway. But I'll let majority rule there. Another question comes up when we address lead characters like Goliath and Elisa. Are we going to create huge lists of episodes in their Appearences sections or just say something like "All except..."? It is an issue I hadn't thought through yet. --Matt 12:17, 27 December 2007 (CST)

Vote On New Format

I'll set it to a vote and when I get a general sense of which way the consensus goes I'll start making changes. The way I see it there are three choices:

• 1. Leave the pages as they are with episode citations throughout the History as in: Maggie the Cat.

• 2. Take the citations out completely and add the Appearences section to each page as in: [[Maggie the Cat (prototype2)]].

• 3. Take the episode citations out and replace them with numbered footnotes linking to the correct episode AND create an Appearences section as in [[Maggie the cat (prototype)]].

I'm voting for Number 2 at this point. I don't feel citations are neccesary in the history at all and it makes things kinda difficult. I like the simplicity of just a Appearences section. -- Matt 17:20, 27 December 2007 (CST)

I'm reasonably happy with the status quo (option 1) at the moment, but if we are changing it I would prefer option 3 over option 2. Option 2 lacks information that both others contain. -- Supermorff 13:05, 28 December 2007 (CST)

Yeah, but lots of pages don't cite at all, like Princess Katharine. There is no consistency and some pages have some citing, but not adequately. -- Matt 13:12, 28 December 2007 (CST)

Give me five minutes, and the Princess Katharine page will be cited all through (present system). -- Supermorff 13:14, 28 December 2007 (CST)

How long was that? -- Supermorff 13:18, 28 December 2007 (CST)

LOL, my point was not that it couldn't be cited or couldn't be cited quickly, my point is that for years it has not been cited at all and it never seemed to matter. However, if you think it is important that we cite, I think we may as well do it with cite numbers (option 3). I think the Appearences section is well liked so I think unless I get a lot of objections, it's gonna come down to option 2 or 3. Option 2 is easier, but option 3 is more informative. Vaevictis raised a possible concern, however. Will some computers have problems with the cite number system? And is there an easier way to make the citing code to create a page like option 3? -- Matt 13:46, 28 December 2007 (CST)

I like option 3, but that might be more work than it's worth for some editors. I would advise against option 2 because then the reader has no idea what the sources are for which statements. Speaking of which, it'd be nice if the people who put in CIT stuff would at least put a link to Ask Greg saying where it comes from. Sometimes I wonder if some of the CIT stuff isn't just bogus...

As for referencing stuff, I think it's easier if we just use <ref>Source</ref>, makes numbering easier too.--Moeen 13:51, 28 December 2007 (CST)

If Option 3 is what we end up voting (and it looks like we are all gonna compromise with it), then yes it'll make editing a bit more work, but that is alright. It's about the final result, right? -- Matt 13:53, 28 December 2007 (CST)

Sure, though I think there's a way to make Option 3 a little easier, which is use <ref>Source</ref> instead of modified superscripts. Then in the appearances, just add {{reflist}}. The wiki will automatically number them and list them. You may even want to just want to call the "Appearances" section a "References" section.--Moeen 16:30, 28 December 2007 (CST)

I tried that. It isn't working... You can go ahead and modify [[Maggie the cat (prototype)]] to show me what you mean if you'd like. Maybe I don't understand or did it wrong... But honestly, I'm leaning towards my new idea now (see below). --Matt 16:38, 28 December 2007 (CST)

Oh I see. It seems Gargwiki is using an older version of MediaWiki so doesn't have that capability. Let me see if I can import the necessary templates. Anyone else is free to try doing the same.--Moeen 16:48, 28 December 2007 (CST)

You can do that? If so, that would be great. I could never work out how. -- Supermorff 21:07, 28 December 2007 (CST)

As I mentioned here I actually can't update it myself. One of the system admins has to either install the proper files, or upgrade the wiki altogether. I'm in favor of the latter, but I have no idea who the system admins are or how to contact them. Anyone here know?--Moeen 15:33, 4 January 2008 (CST)

There are seven users who have Bureaucrat priveleges in addition to sysop privelegs (which everybody has). You can use Special:Listusers to search by group and get a complete list, but you'd probably need to talk to Greg B, Matt, or Jeb. -- Supermorff 13:18, 5 January 2008 (CST)

New Idea

Alright, i've been looking over other Wikis, notably the Star Trek Wiki and I think I have an idea that is a good compromise. It is pretty simple, we keep each entry as it is with the titles cited throughout the history but also add an Appearences section. Thats it. This is very easy to do because one only needs to add the new section and the history and citing can be left as it is. It won't cause any problems with some computers not being able to use the numbered citing correctly or not. And it'll provide information about what happened where but the Appearences section will look nice for stylistic reasons (IMHO) and will add a little more information (notice several episodes are listed in Appearences that are not in the history citations). I think that resolves everyone's concerns about this new system, we get our cake and eat it too. Sound good? -- Matt 14:54, 28 December 2007 (CST)

I love this plan. I'm excited to be a part of it. -- Peter Venkman (Ghostbuster)... I mean Supermorff 21:07, 28 December 2007 (CST)

Another Thing

Well, it sounds to me like we are gonna end up going with the title citing throughout history and an Appearences section, which is really just adding the new section to the existing pages since all these pages should be cited. I'll give everyone another day or two to voice any concerns/complaints/suuggestions, etc. before I get started, but I have not heard any nos to this idea yet. I do have one concern and am asking for advice. For certain characters, like Goliath who appear in most episodes I plan to create an Appearences section but just have a link something like "All Canon Stories except: The Silver Falcon, etc. However, there is one character I'm very concerned about: Angela. Since she only appears in about half of canon stories, I'm not sure how to form her Appearences section. I don't want this huge long column of episodes starting with "Avalon". Is there a way I can break it up into several columns or does someone have a better suggestion for how to handle characters that have appeared in 15+ stories? I'd appreciate any ideas. Thanks. -- Matt 08:59, 29 December 2007 (CST)

If there's a string of episode appearances, you could say "every episode between A and B". That is, Angela appeared in every episode from "Avalon Part Two" to "Heritage", etc. Or, for Angela in particular, you could say Angela appeared in every episode since "Avalon Part Two", except for... whatever. "Kingdom", "Pendragon", "Vendettas". Is that it?

I'll look into making columns, and get back to you at a later date. -- Supermorff 12:48, 29 December 2007 (CST)

I've looked up columns. You can't use them except in tables, but it's fairly basic markup. I've added them to the David Xanatos article, so have a look and see if it works. You can add more columns if you like, and with a bit more work you can space them out a bit more (they'e slightly cramped just now). -- Supermorff 10:40, 31 December 2007 (CST)

Beginning Addition

Well, I have not heard anymore from anyone about this in the last two days, so I'm gonna get started. I'll go through each canon character and add the Appearences Section. I'll also add any episode citations if they are missing. I'm sure I'll make mistakes or forget things (for instance, when I first made the prototype page I forgot that Maggie had a brief, non-speaking cameo in "The Reckoning", that is the kind of stuff I'll forgot), so please double check me and add or modify things as I go, this is the Wiki afterall. As for any more extensive referencing and citing codes, I'm gonna not worry about them now since we are not even sure if/how they would work. If at a later date we want to add a more complex system (see conversations above), we can discuss it and figure something out. So for now, we'll stick with basic episode citations throughout the history section with the addition (and the additional appearences if any) in the new Appearences Section. Here we go... -- Matt 21:17, 30 December 2007 (CST)

Flashback References

Am I the only one who is not really liking the (Flashback) thing. I like the (First Appearance) and (Mentioned Only), but this flashback thing doesn't make sense to me. If they were in the episode, they were in the episode, if they were not, they were not. I mean, with all the issues we've had on the Wiki concerning past, present and future, how do we even define what is and isn't a flashback? Is Goliath's appearance in Awakening Part One a flashback? How do we define "the present" in each episode? This flashback thing really does not make sense. This is a reference section. It should reference if a character appeared in an episode. If they appeared and had speaking parts, it is a true appearance, if they appeared and had no lines that should be noted. If they were only mentioned and not seen, that should be noted. First appearances should be noted because some characters were mentioned in several episodes before their first actual appearance like Titania or King Arthur. This flashback thing is confusing, in-consistent and unneccesary in my opinion and I feel we should take it out. -- Matt 21:08, 4 January 2008 (CST)

I'm neutral. It doesn't confuse me though. The flashbacks pertain to anything that happened previous to the present story-whether or not that takes place in 995 or 1996. I find it informative. If it really bothers you though, I won't object if you get rid of it.--PGFish 21:45, 4 January 2008 (CST)

Yeah, but who says what is previous? And where does this end? If we have a story like "Strangers" do we list Fang as (Flash-forward) or do we list Tazmanian Tiger as (Flashback)? If we go with this system, one of those has to be done to be consistent. I came up with the Appearances Section as reference section, not to explain in story details. What happens if we get to Timedancer and we start getting a flood of Brooklyn appearances, who is to say what is a flashback or not? It is too confusing and weird, we should drop it. The history section of the article, complete with episodic citation, should let people know what happened to that character in what order. The Appearances section isn't made for that purpose. If it was on Princess Katharine's page we'd list "Long Way To Morning" BEFORE "Awakening Part One" in the Appearences Section, and that us silly.

The only side notes we need in the section, as far as I can tell are First Appearance, Mentioned Only, No Lines, Illusion, and Death of Character. -- Matt 22:31, 4 January 2008 (CST)

Yeah you have a point. It's probably a good idea to get rid of them. It's not really up to me though. As for katharine, maybe we could indicate (as young katharine) and (as old katharine) since there's such a huge age gap-just an idea.

And I have a totally off topic question but maybe you could help. I can't edit anything above the "History" line on the pages. I can only edit by clicking on [EDIT], the tab at the top doesn't work. It could just be my broswer.--PGFish 22:53, 4 January 2008 (CST)

I have also been confused by the (Flashback) notes. I agree that we should get rid of them. That said, in some cases a flashback is really just a mention, as in "The Rock" - Eremon didn't actually appear, he was just mentioned by Shari... Come to think of it, are we really certain that Shari's stories were completely accurate, and should we be considering them accurate when we put info into the wiki...? I may bring this up again at the community portal talk page.

And I'm sorry, PGFish, but I have no clue why the edit tab would not be working for you. Have you tried using a different browser, maybe on a different computer? -- Supermorff 13:14, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Right. The way I see it, the History and Characteristics Sections are "In-Universe" meaning they exist with information that happened in the Gargoyles Universe. The Appearances and Production Background Sections are "Out-Universe" meaning they are reference tools relating to the Gargoyles series itself. Since Appearances is am Out-Universe reference tool, certain In-Universe details are irrelevant. If Eremon appears in flashback, or in narrative or even in FALSE narrative if Shari is lying or just has her facts wrong or whatever, the point is, in "The Rock", Eremon appeared. Period. I think if we don't nip this in the bud, we'll have all sorts of problems when Dark Ages, Timedancer and 2198 are made. If a flashback in 2198 is still in the future of the the main Gargoyles series is it a flashback? Who knows. The point is, the Appearances section is not the place for that information. If someone appeared, he/she appeared. Period. Unless someone in the next day or so disagrees with us here, I'm gonna start going through the sections and removing references to flashback. -- Matt 13:44, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Ah, I see. That's sensible. If we see an image of a character, that is an appearance. Cool. -- Supermorff 14:30, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Yeah. The way I see it, listing a flashback in Appearances is as silly as Elisa saying to Goliath, "Remember when I fought with Demona in High Noon?" That doesn't make sense. With the main stories all over the place, we can't even judge what is or isn't a flash-forward or flashback. -- Matt 15:03, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Agreed. I think as long as they "appear", as in, are seen in some form, then we can just list that as an appearance. The nature of the appearance doesn't need to be mentioned.--Moeen 15:46, 5 January 2008 (CST)

Well, I just went through all the canon characters and removed any flashback references in their Appearances Sections. In the process I really realized how inconsistent the whole idea was. For instance in the Norman Ambassador's appearance in "Vows" was listed normally, but Prince Malcolm's appearance in the same episode and timeframe was listed as a flashback. And that was not nearly the only conflict. I really think removing it makes more sense and I'm glad it seems no one had any problems with it. To be honest, I'm starting to think we should remove (Death of Character) for many of the same reasons. There are some characters, like Gillecomgain, who have full-fledged appearances AFTER their deaths since we have some stories happening in different times. The History Section should make it clear when a character died, right? Why does an "In-Universe" thing need any mention in this "Out-Universe" section? I still definitly see the purpose of (First Appearance, Mentioned Only, Voiceover Only, Illusion, No lines), but Death of Character could go, I think. So? -- Matt 18:54, 6 January 2008 (CST)

I'm happy either way. Sometimes a death could even be pictured twice, so would you mention it twice? Does seem a bit complicated. You can remove it if you like. -- Supermorff 07:40, 7 January 2008 (CST)

I went ahead and removed the mentions. It really is information that is and should be in the history sections. And honestly, I'm not even sure how honest it is. Scota and Emir both had (Death of Character) references, but we never saw either die really. Greg has told us that the Emir is dead and Shari told us Scota died, but can we really believe either of them?! The notes on Appearances should only be in reference to things that can't be listed in the History sections, and certainly a death or probable death would be listed there, so it is redundant. I think the Appearances Sections look pretty good now. -- Matt 08:30, 7 January 2008 (CST)

Direct And Indirect References

I'd like to touch on a growing concern of mine. Lately I've noticed that even an indirect reference to a character is warranting a notation of "Mentioned Only" by many users. One example of this is on Demona's page. She is currently listed as "Mentioned Only" in both Rock & Roll and The Lost though her name was not directly written in either issue only as "a demon" and "one known exception". I don't have a problem with listing her as being mentioned, but I feel something needs to be said to clarify that it was not a direct reference. Something I've noticed on pages like King Arthur is that he has notes such as (Mentioned Only As The Sleeping King). I think this is totally fine, and I propose that we do the same to Demona's page and others with this issue. Basically, I want to make it a rule that if a name isn't explicitly said, but only hinted at, that the note should reflect that and say (Mentioned Only As "whatever"). Thoughts? -- Matt 06:23, 6 May 2008 (CDT)

Sounds good. But I'm not sure about (Mentioned Only As One Known Exception). Bit weird, frankly. If an alias is used, e.g. The Demon, then say (Mentioned Only As [Alias]). Otherwise we could say (Indirect Mention Only). This would work also, for example, when mentioned as part of a group as well. On the Delilah page it says (Clones Mentioned Only), but we could replace that with (Indirect Mention Only). Maybe. Not sure. What do you think? -- Supermorff 06:40, 6 May 2008 (CDT)

I don't have a problem with (Indirect Mention Only) MAYBE. But I still think it needs to be specific. If Goliath says "My Angel of the Night!" We know who he is talking about and Demona's page can be modified to say either (Indirect Mention Only) or (Mentioned Only As Angel of the Night). Frankly, I prefer the latter since it is more specific about exactly how this character was referred to. And as for your Delilah example, I don't believe that should exist. The Appearences Sections are going to get out of control if we start mentioning a group and that counts as all members of said group. In The Gathering Part One, Lexington says "...our clan on Avalon." Given that, ALL members of the Avalon Clan should get a notation of being mentioned in that episode. I think that is a bad idea. This is a Section for CHARACTER references, not references for entire groups that character may be a part of. So, unless Delilah is directly mentioned by name or indirectly mentioned specifically I don't think that counts as an appearence at all (unless of course she actually appeared or whatever). So thats my thoughts. -- Matt 06:52, 6 May 2008 (CDT)

Okay, fine, but Angel of the Night is an alias. So I never suggested that it should be (Indirect Mention Only) in that case. Just saying. And, yeah, you raise a good point about the group mentions. -- Supermorff 07:11, 6 May 2008 (CDT)

Aliases and New Identities

Now that we've combined most or all of the "same person" entries (e.g. Talon/Derek Maza, Jon Canmore/John Castaway), I've noticed a new annoying issue pop up. I'm not a fan of all this "As Talon" or "As Both Jon Canmore and John Castaway" modifiers. These appearances are for this character. That is all that matters. What name they are calling themselves, what they are wearing, what accent they are speaking with, what their age is, etc. Don't matter. An appearance is an appearance. If they were mentioned by a title that is divided enought to warrant its own page (e.g. Sleeping King) then listing (Mentioned As Sleeping King Only) is fine. I really don't think we need to know in what guise the character was in in modifiers in the Appearances Section. I mean, where do we draw the line here? On Morgan Morgan's page should the Appearances Section read:

• Bash (Appeared As Sherlock Holmes Only)

Should Demona's page read:

• Sanctuary (As both Demona and Dominque Destine)

All of this is pointless data and makes the pages look very disorganized and messy, particularly for Talon and Castaway. This, of course, is my opinion, And I'd like others to weigh in here, but I feel these modifiers should go. Again, the only modifiers I think we need are: Mentioned Only, First Apppearance, No Lines, Illusion, Voiceover Only, Indirect Reference Only, and (rarely) Mentioned Only As whatever. Remember, this is an "out-universe" section. We don't need these "in-universe" notes cluttering up things. The History Section, with its citations, should contain all this information. -- Matt 23:16, 30 May 2008 (CDT)

That's a very good point. In the case of Talon I certainly agree with you... on the other hand, John Castaway presents a teensy bit of a problem. In his first appearances, we technically weren't supposed to know that Canmore and Castaway were the same person - it's only really become canon since "Estranged". Is that worth mentioning? I'm not sure, but it might be worth discussing.

I've just noticed something else you said. Why do we need First Appearances? We list appearances in the order of their airing/publication, not in-universe chronology (and I have NO desire to change that), so isn't the first appearance that we mention always going to be the character's First Appearance? -- Supermorff 11:02, 31 May 2008 (CDT)

Good lord, we were never not supposed to realize Jon and John were the same guy. It was more obvious than Chancellor Palpatine being Darth Sidious. Hell, it never occurred to me that he couldn't be the same guy until I got online in 1997 and people were asking Greg about it. I had lunch with him back in December and we discussed it, and even Greg himself said it wasn't supposed to be a mystery and fans watching would easily pick up on it. I knew it was him the moment he first greeted Vinnie, so, for me, it's always been Canon. Not CiT. -- GregX 11:31, 31 May 2008 (CDT)

Well, in any case, the link between Castaway and Jon Canmore is canon now, obvious or not. When Nightwatch (episode) was released and we didn't know for sure, they could've had two seperate pages and when we got confirmation we could've combined the pages. The point is we know for a fact that they are the same guy, so it no longer matters. Down the road we can take similiar instances on a case by case basis, though I don't see there being much of a problem.

As for the "First Appearance" notation, I agree that it is probably the most useless of all the acceptable notations, but I still think it is a good clarifier in cases such as Merlin and Oberon where there are episodes listed before their first appearance. -- Matt 11:37, 31 May 2008 (CDT)

Cool, then yes I agree. Nix the 'Appears As -whatever-' comments, keep the others for a while longer.

I didn't think anything could be more obvious than Palpatine being Sidious (stupid movies). Maybe it's about even. -- Supermorff 11:45, 31 May 2008 (CDT)

Down here

1. Like this!

Hey, I'm cool with it. -- Greg Bishansky