Forum:New general parameter for Appearances section

There are a bunch of things that appear in various media(things like classifications, chemicals, languages, etc.) that don't really fit into the current categories we have for appearances, and result in things not getting linked too the media they first appeared in. I propose that, similar to Wookiepedia, we add a "miscellaneous" category to put these things in. It would make things easier and more cohesive, and also help clear out the Orphaned pages category, since a good chunk of the pages are only there because there's currently no good way to link then to the media they came from.--D9328 (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2018 (EDT)d9328
 * Care to elaborate and give an example? I don't quite get what you're proposing. — subtank   03:31, 31 March 2018 (EDT)


 * So we currently have 8 categories for the Appearance section: Characters, Species, Organizations, Locations, Events, Vehicles, Weapons, and Equipment and Technology. The current problem is that some things, like protocols, languages, materials, chemicals, and augmentations, do not really fit into any of these categories as they are. The Sangheili language appears in Halo CE, but where in the Appearance section is it supposed to go? Glassing is a very important concept, but in which category does it fit? My proposal is to add a ninth category, Miscellanea, to put those things under. If this isn't clear enough, Wookiepedia already does this, so a quick visit there ought to clear things up. Hope that's clear enough.--D9328 (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2018 (EDT)d9328


 * Ah. When you mentioned categories, I thought of actual categories pages.
 * We've already accommodated this for a while. The Appearance section used here are configurable via the Featurelist template. You'll note that "Miscellaneous" is listed as an optional Level-3 heading. Editors are always welcome to add in more headings (up to 10 Level-3 headings as currently supported in the template) that suits the article's content.— subtank   11:17, 31 March 2018 (EDT)


 * Perhaps it shouldn't be optional. It would seem like these sorts of things would pop up in every piece of media, and I would imagine that the reason most people don't include said category is because since it's nonstandard, it's not widely applied, and therefore they don't know about it.--D9328 (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2018 (EDT)d9328


 * Being "optional" does not mean that it's non-standard or that it's discouraged. It simply means... well... it's an option. You can choose to use it or not to. In fact, everything in that template is optional and not a mandatory standard, as stated in the usage notes of the template. If they (the people) don't know about it, they area always welcome to ask as to how to do it (just like what you're doing right now). Like I said previously, editors are welcome to add more headings or even change the heading titles to suit the article they're adding the template to. If you want to make it the new standard practice, by all means, go ahead and insert/change them in. No one will stop or chastise you for doing so if it improves the article. — subtank   02:41, 1 April 2018 (EDT)