Talk:Firefly (TV series)/Format

This talk page is provided for discussion of formatting (and usage notes) for the article Firefly. Please be sure to sign your comments. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Links to format subpages
I was wondering at how an interested editor would be pointed to the format subpage. Would there be a general guideline that such pages are at /Format? Do you expect each show to write its own page? I would like to consider an alternative, which is a variant. It is not well thought out -- I want to throw it out there as a kind of brain-storm, without debating internally too much. I would like to seperate the instructions into two parts: This would allow shows to more easily use a common format, with the cost of two formatting links rather than one. An advantage is that we could probably wrap up the guidelines for several shows (I am thinking of something like 20-30) in one page, and only vary the characters. The strongest advantage I see is that such a way would actively encourage sharing rather than cut'n'paste of instructions which actively discourages sharing (it requires different editors to copy tweaks to guidelines). On the whole, I must say I really like the instructions (both content-wise and style-wise). Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) /Characters -- containing a &lt;nowiki&gt; of characters for easy cut'n'paste
 * 2) Two links from the page to /Characters to Wikiquote:Formats/Specific format.


 * The Firefly proposal is really a kind of test case for a more detailed alternative to a "template" buried in Templates. (I don't like the use of "template" here, because MediaWiki calls the macros with curly braces "templates". But it's leftover terminology, just like "categories".) We might consider it a live version of a proposal for modifying the Template system. I think that, ultimately, MosheZadka's idea is the way to go — have one link to a single detailed TV-show (and film?) standard (the successor to the current "template" on WQ:Tmpl), and a second link to a subpage with show-specific information (probably only for TV shows). This is a logical response to my argument at Wikiquote talk:Templates that the current template system ought to be broken into type-specific templates, leaving each one's talk page for discussions on the specific type (and the main article's talk page for general discussion). I didn't add a link yet to the Firefly article itself because it seems inappropriate to have a link from an article to a user subpage. I'm really anxious to get feedback on the format page so it can be moved into place as soon as practical. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Another feedback: I would move the "Characters" header to be either the first or the last header. Not only would it make it more detachable, it also makes it more findable ("End" or "Home" in most browsers). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I moved the character list to the bottom. I had it where it was based on separating the editing stuff and the content stuff, but your suggestion, MosheZadka, made me realize that after someone has familiarized themselves with the content of the page, they're likely to come to it only for the sample character text. Top would be best for that, but the page is mostly for newbies and requires some introductory text, so bottom is second-best. (That may change down the road if we split the common TV stuff from the show-specific stuff.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Moved to Firefly/Format
I've gone ahead and moved the experimental page into place at Firefly (TV series)/Format because we're already getting significant edits to the article that can use this information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Characters as characters
Firefly (in the dinosaur Wash scene) has the same thing MST3K has:


 * Character: [as Some Other Character]: I pretend to be someone else.

Wonderfalls has such a scene too (from the "Buffalo" DVD-only episode). When I can think of three examples, that means it would be useful to put it in the official format. I am not entirely sure where or how, though. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization suggested
I was wondering if it wouldn't be smart to move "shortcuts" section to the top? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)