Shane, please explain your reasoning for this template before we implement it. We had a conversation earlier on whether to use something like this and concluded that it wouldn't be terribly useful. --Peter Farago 14:31, 19 March 2006 (CST)
Shane, I appreciate all of the categories and templates you've been making, but lately it's become almost....overzealous. And this should not be called "Star Data" it should be called "Cast Data" or something. I tend to try to base these things on what Memory Alpha does. --The Merovingian
Here are my reasons....
This template would be used for creating pages for cast members. So if someone where to come new on to the show, they could have a Cast template created in a quick sec. I noticed as in James Callis's everything was wacked out and before I was going to edit it I was going to create this template so I could just paste the data back into it's location. If you were to look at it (at least the previos version) you would see that it was very unorginzed and looked like nothing of Edward James Olmos page, which was much cleaner than Old Version of James page.
@ Peter: This is nothing like the "Writers" or "Directors" where there is very little bio on the web about them. These are Cast Members. Even on the Wikipedia pages they have tons more information on them an us having not that information says we are just going to "Link everyone to an external" site and they can take the grunt work from doing anything. They should be recoinzed and have pages on this Wikipedia because they are taking part in the Battestar Expereince. Plus, if you even taken a look at the Main Page design that I been working on, everything would follow a format. Making it univerisal is how to make one site, even a wiki site, navagationialy sound. Even if there was no new design of the Main Page, wouldn't you rather have something that is easy navagatable when reading? Catagories and this are two different things. Navagatoing by Catagories is the worest way to look for something. I don't know any other wiki that does it this way. Most of them are based right on the page of the Article.
@Merovingian: Yes. It could be "Cast Data". You are the only one who seems to question the need for templates. I base most of mine of Wikipedia, if you read my userpage. Would you hate to have to re-type the same thing over and over for welcoming new members?
--Shane (C - E) 15:12, 19 March 2006 (CST)
- Shane, in what godly universe does this constitute a discussion? You have acted unilaterally and mass-added this template to numerous articles without allowing proper time for discussion. You do not own this wiki, it is a collaboration. While I find your ideas promising, it is disrespectful to the other members of this community to implement them without proper discussion. --Peter Farago 21:39, 19 March 2006 (CST)
- In addition to this Peter, A) Wikipedia doesn't really do that B) Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki, doesn't do this, and I thought we tended to use them as a reference more often than not. --The Merovingian (C - E) 21:49, 19 March 2006 (CST)
We don't need the image credit field...
Image credits should go on the description page of the image in question. Therefore I am going to remove it. Does anyone second? -- Joe Beaudoin 16:01, 21 March 2006 (CST)
- Second. No need for the redundant crediting. --Steelviper 16:06, 21 March 2006 (CST)