User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1317169-20121202170842/@comment-88790-20130123063326

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-1317169-20121202170842/@comment-88790-20130123063326 I apologise about the link questions, I was getting the MoS mixed up with the Layout guide. But thank you, I merely wanted to know why, not just because it was against Wikipedia's policy (whose own policy wasn't very enlightening on the why).

See here, the section headers on wikiamobile have a little V on the right and are within a boxed outline to indicate they're openable.

Again, thank you for clarifying CzechOut, on the table front.

A table is an option, though I don't think we should be using a table only collapse the information. Does the length of an article matter?

To re-summarise what I think needs to be in this section of Connections/Continuity/References as we seem to have strayed somewhat with discussions of the wikiamobile and other things:


 * Subheadings/Categories under which the connections are broken down. As CzechOut has made me aware of the linking issues I'm willing to compromise on that front. No links in the sub-headings, but I would ideally like to be able to link back to those headings/categories.
 * No lists of references. They need to be sentences to allow us to frame the info. I don't want the list of references to become like MemoryAlpha or Wookipedia.

If I had to define where I stood in the matter of the Continuity and/vs References I am more of a supporter of the References.

Continuity is something else. As I've said References can exist in isolation, they're closer in terms of theme and style to the Plot section.

But Continuity is something we still have to make a judgement on.

Going back to CzechOut's most recent reply "We're attempting to find an easy-to-understand, easy-to-uphold definition for these two sections.".

I am fairly confident that I could do this for References, but am less certain for Continuity.