Talk:Sherlock Holmes

Best format?

Hi Peter - I note your addition. Would it be best, do you think, to reformat this to simply use the internal links and a description of the role, as you have done, rather than the r| template? I debated this mentally but used the r| from the memory of discussions past, that the r| template was to be used for catalogues, but simply a list of actors without specific references to their Holmes portrayals won't make sense except in the case of such easily-identified Holmeses as Brett and Rathbone. What say you? Aleta Curry 23:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the r-template is not a good choice for Catalogs since the definitions are written (and should be written) and rewritten with the related article lists in mind. It can look nice when you write it and change without you noticing it. And very often the definition will not contain what is needed in the context. If you format the list according to the purpose of the Catalog it can be much more informative.

I am not at all sure if my choice (title, year and director) is the best choice, and if sorting by actor is the best way. I only added what I thought of. Perhaps sorting by year, and listing title, director, Holmes and Watson would be better.

--Peter Schmitt 00:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll buy that. I think what's 'best' is only likely to become clear with a lot more users and a lot more content. We never settled, for example, if we were going to cross-reference, so e.g. here, 'list of greatest Sherlock Holmes actors in the universe' and 'list of greatest Sherlock Holmes productions' as part of the same catalogue. Or course that's not necessary at the moment. We'll just have to go along using trial-and-error.

Since I started with 'cataloge of SH actors' (the first thing that occurred to me) your sorting is as good as any. Let's use that one for now.

Aleta Curry 00:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

the trouble with catalogs

you have to *know* the bluidy things are there in order for them to be of any use! I really think there ought to be a line in the article saying, "Click on the Catalog tab and see what happens," or words to that effect. (I am not, as you may guess, a big lover of Catalogs, but it's too late to change things, I guess....) Hayford Peirce 00:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean, you have to know that the subpage exists, and have to click 'show subpages' or whatever it's called to access them? I suppose. It's less intuitive than, say, filmography - also hidden, but you'd look for it.

Would making catalogues on of the default subpages help the matter? I like the idea of having annotated lists, which is why I think they're useful. How best to use them is a different matter. Another issue we never...quite...settled....

Aleta Curry 05:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm all for lists, catalogs, etc., but only if they're somehow visible to the casual reader, so that at least he will know to CLICK somewhere and be taken to them. Not everyone is going to look at the top of the page of each article, spot the TABs, and then start clicking on them. I think that in some of the food articles, we actually have a red line at the top of the text saying, "Click on the Recipes TAB in order to see recipes about this item." We probably ought to do the same thing for Catalogs.... Hayford Peirce 17:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And I agree with Hayford. Until something is clearly shown the catalog feature will be an orphan child. Mary Ash 17:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It is the purpose of the subpages template to show related pages automatically. If we always add a "see also" link when there is a subpage or a related link then this defeats the purpose of the "Related articles" subpage and the subpages mechanism. The solution -- if there is something to solve -- should be an improvement of page layout and the design of the subpages template, not an attempt to make it superfluous. --Peter Schmitt 17:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)