About: Avatar Wiki:War Room/Imagelink consistency

Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: Avatar Wiki:War Room/Imagelink consistency Sponge Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : 134.155.108.49:8890 associated with source dataset(s)

__NOWYSIWYG__ Well, this is a rather easy question I think, though we do need to made a decision to promote consistency. As some may know, we have a {{imagelink<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>}} template on this wiki. That template is sometimes placed at the bottom of a page to inform the viewer of how many images we have about the page they're viewing. Now, therein lies my question: we sometimes use it, more specifically, we've used it 98 times. Sometimes it's on pages that have no infobox, making the template the only way for viewers to click though to the corresponding image category. However, 43 times, we've also used it on pages that have an infobox and thus a link within the infobox linking to the image category in question.

Attributes	Values
rdfs:label	Avatar Wiki:War Room/Imagelink consistency
rdfs:comment	__NOWYSIWYG__ Well, this is a rather easy question I think, though we do need to made a decision to promote consistency. As some may know, we have a {{imagelink<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>}} template on this wiki. That template is sometimes placed at the bottom of a page to inform the viewer of how many images we have about the page they're viewing. Now, therein lies my question: we sometimes use it, more specifically, we've used it 98 times. Sometimes it's on pages that have no infobox, making the template the only way for viewers to click though to the corresponding image category. However, 43 times, we've also used it on pages that have an infobox and thus a link within the infobox linking to the image category in question.
dbkwik:avatar/prop...iPageUsesTemplate	dbkwik:resource/GAKiAE0oHlIknFYdTGY0_Q== dbkwik:resource/K13CHN0f3-Y92MtFUcbkAQ== dbkwik:resource/vh5CELhUKYhchE01MHyOMw== dbkwik:resource/fWKEqp40wT7j2baZgpTnew==
abstract	__NOWYSIWYG__ Well, this is a rather easy question I think, though we do need to made a decision to promote consistency. As some may know, we have a {{imagelink<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>}} template on this wiki. That template is sometimes placed at the bottom of a page to inform the viewer of how many images we have about the page they're viewing. Now, therein lies my question: we sometimes use it, more specifically, we've used it 98 times. Sometimes it's on pages that have no infobox, making the template the only way for viewers to click though to the corresponding image category. However, 43 times, we've also used it on pages that have an infobox and thus a link within the infobox linking to the image category in question. The question is thus simple: do we remove the image link box on those pages that have an infobox and thus already a link to the image category, or do we add it to those pages with an infobox but are still lacking the image template? Which harmony will we go for here? Arguments I can see in favor of adding the template: many people often overlook the little link at the bottom of the infobox, thus not finding the corresponding image category. Furthermore, especially on a long page, it can be beneficial to place an extra link to the images at the bottom as to guide people there (however, it's not standard at this moment to do that, since one longer page has it and the next doesn't). Arguments I can see in favor of removing the template: it's unnecessary due to the link in the infobox and on the smaller pages, it may not look good. A middle ground could be the decision that we add the imagelink template whenever the page allows for it, meaning that we leave it off on short pages and add it on middle to long ones. Anyway, so what will it be? Opinions? 20:06, June 12, 2015 (UTC) Many a times, I will be looking for avatar pictures and will scroll to the bottom of the page to find the link. I do not believe it should be removed, as it is a great convenience! 20:09, June 12, 2015 (UTC)

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3217, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Standard Edition
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2012 OpenLink Software