Halopedia talk:Layout guide

Regarding "List of Appearances" section

I think it's best to list them according to their media category rather than according to their first appearance. Such order makes much more sense given that we now have indicators such as (First appearance) and (First mentioned). This is because when the Layout Guide was first presented, we didn't have such indicators. — subtank 19:23, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

I've always been annoyed when I see an article with a list showing the item's first appearance being halfway down the list. It doesn't make sense to me to have The Fall of Reach being listed below other things such as Halo 4 when it has a first appearance tag. In my opinion, it's more professional to list media items in order of release date. For anyone who doesn't know what were talking about, these are the two current formats used on Halopedia.

Release date format

• Halo: The Fall of Reach (First appearance)
• Halo 2
• Halo 3
• Halo 4

Media category

• Halo 2
• Halo 3
• Halo 4
• Halo: The Fall of Reach (First appearance)

Which one looks the best?-- Col. Spartacus ^{Talk Page} _{Contributions} 19:38, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

I'd have to agree that sorting it by release chronology looks the best, plus it just makes sense for it to be at the top. Grizzlei ♥ ツ

I prefer the media category format as it looks more organised. The release date format looks messy once the list gets larger and longer. For example, compare UNSC Frigate's List of appearances section which utilises the release date format and Scarab's List of appearances section which utilises the media category format.— subtank 20:08, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

I can't really see how it looks messy. Neither of the formats look messy to me. The thing that annoys me is seeing the First Strike halfway down the list with the First appearance tag. Oh well, if we change to a media format, I can get over it.-- Col. Spartacus ^{Talk Page} _{Contributions} 20:15, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

It looks messy for the reason being that it jumps from one media type to another media type.— subtank 20:23, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

Ugh, I hate changing opinions. :P Given a lot of things in the universe have a respectable appearance list, couldn't we just use a scroll box and use a small font, then section them off into "GAMES", "LITERATURE/COMICS," and "OTHER" using both media separation and chronological release? For example:

GAMES Halo: Combat Evolved Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary Halo 2 Halo 3 Halo: Reach Halo 4

LITERATURE Halo: The Fall of Reach (First appearance) Halo: The Flood Halo: First Strike Halo Graphic Novel Breaking Quarantine Halo: Ghosts of Onyx Halo: Uprising Halo: Evolutions - Essential Tales of the Halo Universe The Mona Lisa (Mentioned only) Palace Hotel Human Weakness Halo: Helljumper Halo: Fall of Reach Boot Camp Covenant Invasion Halo: Glasslands (Mentioned only)

OTHER Halo Legends Origins Homecoming Odd One Out (Non-canon appearance) The Package Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn

Perhaps without the scroll box? The appearances template received negative feedbacks because of that. :P — subtank 20:23, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

I just updated it above and it doesn't look all too bad. Grizzlei ♥ ツ

Actually, I really like sorting the appearances like that. Only, perhaps just for pages with more than 7-10 items on the list?-- KEEP IT CLEAN ^{Comm Line} _{Transmissions} 20:43, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

What were the negative complaints of the scroll box on? I don't think it looks bad that way. Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 20:37, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

Well, "negative complaints" and "negative feedback" is somewhat too strong. It's more of a redundant feature. As Jugus commented, the template "isn't all that necessary since the titles need to be fully written anyways." — subtank 20:45, 11 May 2012 (EDT)

I don't really see the problem with listing appearances in order of release date. Does the media type really even matter that much here? Appearance lists are chiefly about listing the subject's appearances rather than cataloging different types of media. As for having different sections for different media types, it looks nice but I can't help but feel it's a needlessly complicated way to present something that's ultimately very simple. Chronological order works the best for me.--Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 08:49, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

Guess you're right. :) — subtank 11:13, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

Well said, Jugus.-- KEEP IT CLEAN ^{Comm Line} _{Transmissions} 11:17, 13 May 2012 (EDT)

Another one of those updates

Per above. Just a tiny update. The standards for layout of specific articles will be updated accordingly once this update is implemented.— subtank 16:44, 26 September 2013 (EDT)

On game features in appearance lists

Since we're on the subject of defining what our appearance lists should include, I've noticed a mild issue with the listing of game features, e.g. Spartan Ops or terminals. Namely, with our current format it's impossible to determine whether a subject only appears in a given feature, or the rest of the game also.

For example, Faber only appears in the Halo 4 terminals, and his appearance list looks like this:

• Halo 4
  • Terminals

Meanwhile, the Ur-Didact appears in both the game proper and in the terminals, and his appearance list is identical because the list's format doesn't allow us to make a distinction between appearances in the feature only and appearances in both the feature and the rest of the game. Could we use something like the appearance type identifiers (e.g. First appearance, Mentioned only) to indicate when a subject only appears in a given feature? Or should we list every major aspect of the game (Campaign, Multiplayer, Terminals, and game modes like Spartan Ops) as their own bullet points? This would also allow us to categorize the appearances more specifically but at the same time, it would also inflate the list—perhaps too much. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 12:45, 19 March 2014 (EDT)

Appearance lists and reference documents

I recently realized there doesn't really seem to be a good reason for us omitting reference documents (e.g. the Encyclopedia and the visual guides) from our appearance lists. For one, Wookieepedia, often considered a gold standard for fan wikis since they mostly have their standards figured out, lists them. I see the logic in this, keeping in mind the entire point of the list which is to provide information on works in which the subject appears. Also, to illustrate one issue generated by our current standard, we have a number of subjects that were first mentioned in the Encyclopedia. Yet, because we omit the book from appearance lists, another piece of media will end up with the "first mention" tag on the list instead. Yeah, you could say it's the first mention in media outside reference documents, but I still think it's an arbitrary and unnecessary omission. The only counterargument I can think of is that the Encyclopedia would end up on most of our pages' appearance lists, but that's hardly a problem. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 12:45, 19 March 2014 (EDT)