Forum:"Mentions" field being deactivated

Some articles seem to have "mentions" fields in their infoboxes that are becoming somewhat unruly. Instead of having "list of mentions", could we incorporate them into list of appearances pages? I know we don't actually have list of mentions pages, but articles like Dalek clearly need to dump them somewhere.-- 19:31, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

Even for minor characters, where the list isn't very long, I think that's a good idea. For example, look at Kamelion. If you want to find out his first appearances, you have to follow a link to another page, but if you want to know which CC had a brief indirect reference to him, it's right there in the infobox?

I'm not sure whether it's better to create "list of mentions"pages or add them to "list of appearances" pages, but either one seems better than what we have now. --70.36.140.19 07:22, September 21, 2011 (UTC)

So your saying that anything with a list or appearances, shouldn't have mentions in the infobox, but on its page? I could go with that, yeah.-- 06:50, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm opposed to creating a "list of mentions" page. I already hate the "list of appearances" pages; don't want to compound that problem with a second, "list of mentions" page.  Frankly, I've never understood why we don't do appearances in a collapsable box on the character page itself.  You honestly shouldn't have to leave the character page to see a list of appearances.  11:44: Sat 01 Oct 2011