Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Canon characters"
m |
Phoenician (talk | contribs) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | ==Formatting of subsections== | ||
+ | By the way, the order and formatting of subsections in canon articles is inconsistent. For example Future Tense is formatted and placed differently in [[Thailog]] and [[Demona]]. -- [[User:Vaevictis Asmadi|Vaevictis Asmadi]] 21:37, 13 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | :Well spotted. Do you have a preference? I think I'd go for the Demona version personally. -- [[User:Supermorff|Supermorff]] 21:57, 13 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Contradiction?== | ||
I think there's a contradiction somewhere between this statement | I think there's a contradiction somewhere between this statement | ||
"Articles in this category may contain non-canonical information, and be included also in the "Apocrypha" category or the "Canon-in-training" category." | "Articles in this category may contain non-canonical information, and be included also in the "Apocrypha" category or the "Canon-in-training" category." | ||
and the statement in the Characters by canonicity which says | and the statement in the Characters by canonicity which says | ||
− | "This category lists characters according to their canonical status in the Gargoyles universe. Every character should appear in exactly one of the following subcategories." | + | "This category lists characters according to their canonical status in the Gargoyles universe. Every character should appear in exactly one of the following subcategories." - Vaevictis Asmadi |
+ | |||
+ | :Here's an example to clarify: Goliath is a "Canon character". However, the page on Goliath also contains information about his role in ''The Goliath Chronicles''. Therefore, he is also in the category "Apocrypha", but ''not'' in the category "Apocrypha characters". Does that make sense? | ||
+ | :A character must be strictly defined as exactly one of the following: "Canon character", "Canon-in-training character" or an "Apocrypha character". But since Canon characters may appear outside of canon, and thus their articles may contain non-canonical information, they may also be included in the "Canon-in-training" or "Apocrypha" categories (or both). | ||
+ | :Of course, if you think that's a dumb idea, feel free to remove one of the statements. -- [[User:Supermorff|Supermorff]] 03:53, 5 March 2007 (CST) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Ooh now I get it. :) - Vaevictis Asmadi | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Series Subcategories== | ||
+ | Would anyone else see the value of having subcategories for characters by series? Meaning that, at the moment, we'd have three subcategories for canonical characters: ''Gargoyles'', ''Bad Guys'', and ''Dark Ages''. ''Gargoyles'' would cover any character from an episode from the first two seasons and any issue from (so far) Clan-Building, Here in Manhattan, and Quest. Naturally, there will be some characters that are in multiple series, but I do think there would be some use in knowing that (especially given – fingers crossed – the odds of seeing another spin-off get greenlit). We would keep canon characters listed in the main category as well (much like how, Hudson is in the Gargoyles category but also in the Wyvern Clan and Manhattan Clan subcategories). --[[User:Phoenician|Pheon]] ([[User talk:Phoenician|talk]]) 10:17, 12 March 2024 (PDT) |
Latest revision as of 09:17, 12 March 2024
Formatting of subsections
By the way, the order and formatting of subsections in canon articles is inconsistent. For example Future Tense is formatted and placed differently in Thailog and Demona. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 21:37, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
- Well spotted. Do you have a preference? I think I'd go for the Demona version personally. -- Supermorff 21:57, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
Contradiction?
I think there's a contradiction somewhere between this statement "Articles in this category may contain non-canonical information, and be included also in the "Apocrypha" category or the "Canon-in-training" category." and the statement in the Characters by canonicity which says "This category lists characters according to their canonical status in the Gargoyles universe. Every character should appear in exactly one of the following subcategories." - Vaevictis Asmadi
- Here's an example to clarify: Goliath is a "Canon character". However, the page on Goliath also contains information about his role in The Goliath Chronicles. Therefore, he is also in the category "Apocrypha", but not in the category "Apocrypha characters". Does that make sense?
- A character must be strictly defined as exactly one of the following: "Canon character", "Canon-in-training character" or an "Apocrypha character". But since Canon characters may appear outside of canon, and thus their articles may contain non-canonical information, they may also be included in the "Canon-in-training" or "Apocrypha" categories (or both).
- Of course, if you think that's a dumb idea, feel free to remove one of the statements. -- Supermorff 03:53, 5 March 2007 (CST)
Ooh now I get it. :) - Vaevictis Asmadi
Series Subcategories
Would anyone else see the value of having subcategories for characters by series? Meaning that, at the moment, we'd have three subcategories for canonical characters: Gargoyles, Bad Guys, and Dark Ages. Gargoyles would cover any character from an episode from the first two seasons and any issue from (so far) Clan-Building, Here in Manhattan, and Quest. Naturally, there will be some characters that are in multiple series, but I do think there would be some use in knowing that (especially given – fingers crossed – the odds of seeing another spin-off get greenlit). We would keep canon characters listed in the main category as well (much like how, Hudson is in the Gargoyles category but also in the Wyvern Clan and Manhattan Clan subcategories). --Pheon (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2024 (PDT)