Jump to content

Talk:Mighty Med

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Characters list?

[edit]

Since I added the very long template, no attempts have been made to reduce the length of the characters section. I presume no improvements will be made, as I suppose there are too many important details. Considering this as a fact, I propose we make an article specifically intended for the characters list. What do you think? Callmemirela (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord, yes!! That section either needs to be cut, or more logically, split off. I'm going to add a split tag there. On second thought, let's leave to the {{Very long}} tag there. But there needs to be a discussion if that info is notable enough to support a separate split off article. If not, the list of non-main characters (esp. the superhero and villains list) should be trimmed to just a list of names, or cut entirely. --IJBall (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Character Splitting

[edit]

I've noticed that the "too long" tag has been there quite a while. I wanted to be WP:BOLD and take care of it, but I've never done this before, so I didn't want to cause any "trouble," and I want to see if this will be supported. If it is, what exactly is the process? Do we leave the main characters listed on the main article and then also have them along with everyone else listed on a separate article?

AussieLegend, Geraldo Perez, I know you guys have expertise in this field, so I am interested in your thoughts. Amaury (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the article with a proposed split tag. Let discussion run for a week so. Process for split is at WP:SPLIT and it is important that rules at WP:CWW are followed for proper attribution when a split is done. The current article is massively out of balance with character content that so I would have no objection to a split being done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Geraldo Perez: So it's been more than a week and I feel like we're good to go, but I wanted to hear your thoughts again first. After seeing how you did it with Lab Rats, I think I'm up for giving this one a try myself. Amaury (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to the split and it seems nobody else does either. Most important thing is compliance with WP:CWW and the edit summary on the copied content destination must say where it came from and the edit summary where the content came from and was deleted should say where it went to. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Geraldo Perez: Done. That should be good, I believe. Amaury (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Amaury: Looks good. I just did a little housekeeping to the talk pages, not strictly necessary but good to do. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata

[edit]

The infobox does not seem to display the website from Wikidata for some reason, so it still has to be specified explicitly there. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Overlinking"

[edit]

For the record, I don't consider this (reverted as "overlinking" here) to actually be "overlinking". It seems perfectly reasonable to me to link to actors in TV series article "Cast" sections, regardless of whether or not the actors are also linked to in the Infobox. In fact, they should probably be linked to in the former case in higher priority than being linked to in the Infobox. I have no idea if there's a specific "WP:TV guideline" about this, but I don't think we should be in the position of "forcing" readers to go to the Infobox over the 'Cast' section (or visa versa, for that matter) for links to the actor articles. Just my $0.02... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: I agree. I've mentioned that on Amaury's talk page earlier, but I didn't get an answer. I've also seen someone else do this in another article, though I don't remember who it was. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, the various MOS guidelines are useful and constructive, but they need to be followed generally and with consideration. Problems seem to arise when MOS guidelines are followed too strictly. WP:OVERLINK is definitely one that I put into this category: if followed generally (with consideration), it's good; but I've definitely seen people who insist upon following OVERLINK too strictly, and then it's not a good thing. For context, WP:Readers first is perhaps my most consequential guiding philosophy on editing (and yet, somehow, it's not even a "policy" or a "guideline"!), so if there's a conflict between MOS and WP:Readers first I generally defer to the latter over the former. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and plenty of other articles link in the 'Cast' sec. Unfortunately, that's using a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. What other articles do, especially if they're doing it wrong, doesn't set any precedence over other articles. Just my opinion, but there's no point in having guidelines if they're not going to be followed. Amaury (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaury: It says "if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Although not explicitly stated, that implies a link can be repeated in the article even if it's already linked in the infobox, and it's definitely useful for readers. Also, at the top of the page: "Use common sense in applying [this guideline]; it will have occasional exceptions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyuszika7H (talk • contribs) 20:37, February 7, 2016‎ (UTC)
Again, my simple take on this is Readers first – any guideline that isn't directly serving our readership can (and should be) ignored, as per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR, etc. While many of our guidelines make sense in many instances, when they don't serve the readership, then there's no point in following them. WP:OVERLINKING is one that needs to be followed with some common sense, and not be too strictly followed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mighty Med. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mighty_Med&oldid=1202418827"