Forum talk:Temporary forums/Lists of Appearances

Infobox appearances
The outcome of this thread appears to be that invalid appearances are now allowed on lists of appearances, on account of them being real-world pages. I'm wondering if this would also apply to the "|appearances = " sections in infoboxes (e.g. Harry Potter (character) with "|appearances = " (or, alternatively, "|appearances =  "). Cookieboy 2005  ☎  21:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * (I also see a slight potential issue with LEGO Dimensions in particular being included, considering it could bring into question the lack of pages for wholly non-DWU subjects from the game, since they'd technically be seen as an "appearance") Cookieboy 2005 ☎  22:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Including invalid stories in the infobox seems like a logical extension of this thread so yes, I don't see why not. For consistency with prefixes elsewhere on the wiki, use NOTVALID. I don't feel that I know enough about the situation around LEGO Dimensions to comment on this. Perhaps this ould be a topic for its own thread? Bongo50   ☎  22:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just noting there's already been a complaint. Najawin ☎  16:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I personally don't love the new format, but people are bound not to like change and I don't think seeing the name of Gareth Roberts is a legitimate enough complaint for us to worry about. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  16:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

If you read the replies, it's a more general dislike for the format. Najawin ☎  16:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The original Tweet has been deleted so maybe I'm missing some crucial context, but as far as I can see, Jenny's entire argument against the new format is the fact that Gareth Roberts' name is now displayed. Again, maybe I'm missing something, but I really don't see how this can be an argument against the format as a whole. Bongo50   ☎  17:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that Gareth's name was only displayed so prominently because the stories were being listed in release order rather than by medium as their default sort, which has since been corrected. Ninth Doctor/Appearances is in a state of extreme flux; it's far too early to be taking reviews of that page.


 * In contrast, I've already heard something nice about Donna Noble - list of appearances: someone used it to notice that since two weeks passed The Unicorn and the Wasp and Silence in the Library, the Doctor Who website released a one-off short story to fill the gap. – n8 (☎) 17:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not her entire argument, she does seem to genuinely dislike the additional information. But I figured I'd just pass along it when I saw it. Najawin ☎  17:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Not to belabour the point, but from her followup reply, it does seem her dislike of the additional information is due solely to the presence of Gareth Roberts' name. – n8 (☎) 17:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is correct. Part of? Surely. Solely? No. Najawin ☎  17:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The only other complaint I can glean is that she doesn't like that it has "author names and extra stuff". Given that we had a forum in which this was all decided upon, I don't think one person on Twitter's vague complaint warrants much discussion. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  17:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Nor do I! I was simply passing it on because it's a change that actually impacts a fair number of pages visually and we should see reader feedback for those. I didn't intend to start this sort of discussion over it. >.> Najawin ☎  18:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * No. Jenny just generally hate stuff by default if it has had anything to do with Gareth Roberts. I mean, rightly so to hate Roberts, because he is a t**t, but that is not grounds to hate the thing. She says that every SJA written by him are bad solely because they are written by him, which is bollocks. So many of those stories are so good.


 * Voila. Najawin ☎  19:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Well that poll isn't going to a reliable metric of user sentiment, since the entire point of the table is to be able to sort by release date, which you can't do in a screenshot. She didn't even link to the page in question. – n8 (☎) 19:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC) [edited 14:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)]


 * Oh, and the screenshot of the table has been sorted by author, rather than presented in its default sort. With that in mind, I'm surprised that the list isn't leading by more than one vote! – n8 (☎) 19:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

/Shrug/ Just saying that it wasn't just Groberts. Najawin ☎  19:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, I just saw that I forgot to add my signature above. Guess I forgot while I was on the go. Danniesen ☎  20:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Formatting best practices
I've put together a fair number of these tables now, and I have a few comments on the style I've been using. Obviously most of these aren't enforced by policy or anything, so you're free to do it differently if you want to join in, but I figured I'd spell it all out in one place just so we can stay consistent if possible! – n8 (☎) 21:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC) [edited 18:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)]
 * When converting a list into a table, keep the stories in the same order that they were originally in: grouped by medium, then by series.
 * Merge cells when possible. For instance, instead of typing  sixteen times, use
 * Use to format author names. The template documentation is helpful. There are some exceptions:
 * If a story has multiple authors, instead set "data-sort-value" to the first author.
 * If there are more than three, you can abbreviate as appropriate, such as
 * The date sort works fine if the story has a single release date. Otherwise, things get more complicated.
 * If the story has multiple dates, instead set "data-sort-value" to the day of the first release.
 * If the character only appears in a single part of a multi-part story, consider listing the date of that part rather than the story as a whole. In that case, specify the part number:
 * "data-sort-value" is also helpful if the exact release date isn't known.
 * If the month is known, set the day to "0":
 * If not even the month is known, set the date to "0 Jan":
 * If the character only appears in a single part of a multi-part story, consider listing the date of that part rather than the story as a whole. In that case, specify the part number:
 * "data-sort-value" is also helpful if the exact release date isn't known.
 * If the month is known, set the day to "0":
 * If not even the month is known, set the date to "0 Jan":
 * If the month is known, set the day to "0":
 * If not even the month is known, set the date to "0 Jan":
 * If not even the month is known, set the date to "0 Jan":


 * One further point of clarification, since it came up on War in Heaven/Appearances: on the Martha Jones - list of appearances demo page which was approved as precedent in this forum discussion, repeated terms in the series column are unlinked. For instance, "Doctor Who series 3 (Doctor Who)" links to Doctor Who because that's the first appearance of that link on the page, but as a result "Doctor Who series 4" doesn't. This is the format that was approved in the forums and which has been implemented on most of the tabulated lists of appearances, e.g. Ninth Doctor/Appearances and Ian Chesterton/Appearances. For consistency's sake I suggest we use it everywhere.


 * Similarly, regarding years in release dates, I've been trying to only link each year's first appearance in the table according to its default sort and its chronological sort. Every date and month gets a link, though. In the date column, it seems preferable to err on the side of more links. – n8 (☎) 18:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I strenuously disagree about the unlinking thing. Given the sortability of the tables, any one instance might end up becoming the "first" depending on how we set up the table; the singular linked instance might find itself hurled three quarters down the page. Not only is this untidy in the extreme, but these pages can be very long indeed; if a reader actually wants to click the link, they shouldn't have to play hide-and-seek with the single functional link up and down the dizzyingly long tables that highly-recurring characters and species will get. The only reason I did not raise the point in prior Forum discussion was that I hadn't noticed it, but unless there is some strong technical argument why this shouldn't be done, I must we insist that we link every instance of a given term on these tables. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 18:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Ambiguous Appearances
A suggestion I got from a friend is that, with these new tables, we could implement a second table for ambiguous appearances, such as something like Guardians of the Edge from The Power of the Doctor going on but in a separate section due to the ambiguity surrounding if Paul McGann's Guardian was truly Eight or not. I can see another benefit from this, as readers may want to find which television stories Eight has been in and getting confused as to why the Wiki has taken the decision that McGann's Guardian, despite looking like Eight, isn't "technically" him. To a Not We, the inclusion of such instances would be good, I assume. 17:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I second this.

Novelisations in infoboxes
As outlined at User talk:CzechOut/Archive 27 and User talk:Borisashton/Archive 1, novelisations are currently excluded from being noted as appearances in character and concept infoboxes if they also appeared in the original story. With the decision above to allow invalid appearances in infoboxes, as well as the recent novelisation names thread which elimated another aspect of the unequal treatment of novelisations from the same discussion, I believe we should throw out this restriction. It's also worth noting that this rule is being flouted on many pages (particularly the NuTargets and the photo novelisations) and I have long-since given up correcting these articles because I always discovered these changes reversed sooner or later. Indeed, it's a testament to the obscurity of this rule that I had to scour a couple of user archives to find a reference to it. Borisashton ☎  01:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I had no idea it had been discussed about the exclusion of novelisations, I just thought it was a weird thing some editors did. I've been adding them to every page that lacks them! Considering we don't omit adaptions in other mediums from infobox appearances section, I see no reason to do so with novelisations. 03:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, agreed. If this was ever even formal policy, it's clearly obsolete in a world where we include things like invalid parodies and narrative trailers in LOAs. Feel free to add them back in wherever necessary. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 12:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)