Category talk:Apocrypha

I added a disclaimer to the description of this category, but I'm still not entirely sure articles like "Goliath" or even "Eye of Odin" should be listed here unless we can make the link jump directly to the apocrypha section. We don't want people who may be newer to the Gargoyles universe being totally confused about why seemingly canon characters are in here. -- Demonskrye 10:44, 13 September 2007

That's a good idea. Can it be done? I mean, can the links be made to go directly to the Apocrypha sections of each article? Because including canon articles in the Apocrypha category just because they have an apocryphal section, is like putting them in the CiT category just because they have some CiT information. Perhaps the Apocrypha should have a sub-category "Canon articles with apocryphal information" or some less unwieldy name. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 13:08, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

That sounds sensible. But you're right that we should try to find a shorter name. "Category:Apocrypha addenda" or something? -- Supermorff 16:22, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Is "Apocrypha in canon articles" too long? It is somewhat clearer. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 21:23, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Labyrinth Clan also has Apocryphal information. -- Vaevictis Asmadi 21:31, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

I quite like that. Category:Apocrypha in canon articles is probably the best name we're going to come up with. By the way, I probably should have mentioned this before, but there is no way to get a link in a category to go to a section of an article. You could theoretically categorise a redirect that goes to that section, but that isn't a good idea for other reasons. -- Supermorff 22:03, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Belatedly returning to this discussion. Since we can't put in links that go straight to the Apocrypha section of an article, I think that canon characters, items, and other things should be removed from the Apocrpypha section. Right now, the only thing that differentiates Apocrypha from canon or CiT content is being in the Apocrypha section. It doesn't have it's own text color (which I don't think it should) or a special banner (which I do think it should). If we have canon articles with some apocryphal content in them in the Apocrypha section, it gets confusing. The Goliath article has CiT content as well, but it's not listed in the CiT category. I propose that we remove any canon articles from the Apocrypha section and in most cases remove the apocryphal content from the article. If we feel it is necessary to have an article where Goliath's escapades in TGC are covered in one place, I propose we create a Goliath - The Goliath Chronicles article (and the same deal for anyone else who needs one). We can use those to link to the characters in summaries of the TGC articles, if we ever do them. We can put a link somewhere on the Goliath page saying "For a history of Goliath in the apocryphal "Goliath Chronicles", see Goliath - The Goliath Chronicles. And the same deal in reverse for the TGC Goliath article. And while we're at it, we should make a banner for Apocrypha pages, since right now, someone could easily navigate to an Apocrypha page without knowing it and only have the little Category link to tell them what's going on. -- Demonskrye 15:37, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

I'm fine with this idea, but I would prefer to add the qualifier in parentheses, rather than after a dash. So Goliath (The Goliath Chronicles), rather than "Goliath - The Goliath Chronicles". Just my preference. -- Supermorff 13:38, 3 April 2008 (CDT)

Now that I think about it Goliath (Apocrypha) would probably be even better. Then we could have a section for Goliath's history in Goliath Chronicles and one for the Marvel Comics stuff. I think that's a better option than having separate articles for each. -- Demonskrye 15:29, 3 April 2008 (CDT)

Fine. -- Supermorff 07:25, 4 April 2008 (CDT)