FANDOM


 
Line 7: Line 7:
 
*Or do we want to maintain one page per book, but still documenting multiple versions on it?
 
*Or do we want to maintain one page per book, but still documenting multiple versions on it?
   
I would be fine with any of these, but I'd prefer the second or third points. I would make the argument that punctuation and other minor fixes can actually change the meaning of a text as much as revisions to the actual words. The idea of "content changes" are also slightly subjective, so it would reduce future conflicts about what constitutes a significant change if we avoided the issue altogether. If we went with #2, FishTank said that the SEO hit from creating these pages would be fairly minimal, and there are not too many for it to be impossible. Still, the SEO hit isn't zero, so #3 would avoid that duplication completely. You could make an argument for both #2 or #3 being better suited for efficient referencing. If there's only one page to reference (#3), that's no problem for new editors. But it might be valuable to be able to cite the specific versions via page titles (#2), without additional qualifiers.
+
I would be fine with any of these, but I'd prefer the second or third points. I would make the argument that punctuation and other minor fixes can actually change the meaning of a text as much as revisions to the actual words. The idea of "content changes" are also slightly subjective, so it would reduce future conflicts about what constitutes a significant change if we avoided the issue altogether.
  +
  +
If we went with #2, FishTank said that the SEO hit from creating these pages would be fairly minimal, and there are not too many for it to be impossible. Still, the SEO hit isn't zero, so #3 would avoid that duplication completely. You could make an argument for both #2 or #3 being better suited for efficient referencing. If there's only one page to reference (#3), that's no problem for new editors. But it might be valuable to be able to cite the specific versions via page titles (#2), without additional qualifiers.
   
 
We'd also have to decide how to handle infoboxes. I'm not really keen on re-creating a ton of game-specific book infoboxes, considering {{tl|Book}} exists and works quite well. I'd suggest that we simply continue to use {{tl|Book}} on these individual pages, with all of the games' stats appearing in the collapsibles for comparison.
 
We'd also have to decide how to handle infoboxes. I'm not really keen on re-creating a ton of game-specific book infoboxes, considering {{tl|Book}} exists and works quite well. I'd suggest that we simply continue to use {{tl|Book}} on these individual pages, with all of the games' stats appearing in the collapsibles for comparison.

Latest revision as of 20:02, October 3, 2019

The consensus we seem to be leaning toward is to indeed create individual book articles for at least some books in the series. Since we are all more or less agreed that our current state is imperfect—as 73.Anon.52 pointed out, many new editors are a little confused about how to treat small revisions to books between titles—it doesn't exactly make sense to have this rule apply just to ESO on the basis that, were we to decide to do nothing, people would be confused. They're already confused, so we'd just be at square one. Since we are doing something, we may as well have it apply to all of the games. It's usually good to avoid unnecessary exceptions in guidelines, and apply them broadly where applicable.

So the real question now is:

  • Do we want to create game-specific book pages only when the content or meaning is changed?
  • Or do we want to create game-specific book pages if any material in the book is changed?
  • Or do we want to maintain one page per book, but still documenting multiple versions on it?

I would be fine with any of these, but I'd prefer the second or third points. I would make the argument that punctuation and other minor fixes can actually change the meaning of a text as much as revisions to the actual words. The idea of "content changes" are also slightly subjective, so it would reduce future conflicts about what constitutes a significant change if we avoided the issue altogether.

If we went with #2, FishTank said that the SEO hit from creating these pages would be fairly minimal, and there are not too many for it to be impossible. Still, the SEO hit isn't zero, so #3 would avoid that duplication completely. You could make an argument for both #2 or #3 being better suited for efficient referencing. If there's only one page to reference (#3), that's no problem for new editors. But it might be valuable to be able to cite the specific versions via page titles (#2), without additional qualifiers.

We'd also have to decide how to handle infoboxes. I'm not really keen on re-creating a ton of game-specific book infoboxes, considering {{Book}} exists and works quite well. I'd suggest that we simply continue to use {{Book}} on these individual pages, with all of the games' stats appearing in the collapsibles for comparison.

*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.