Literally as the title suggests - this CT is regarding the Authors page.
What, exactly should we do with it. Originally, it was a page that had a whole heap of minor subheadings, for each of the authors. Under each heading, the books written by that author would be listed. (Similar to the Timeline page, but with books instead of events).
The advantage of that was that links from any of the books could link to that page, and, because they had headings, direct links could be made. For example, [[Authors#Jiub]] took you right to the section that lists Jiub's Opus and its several different parts. Admittedly, it was a little bit messy, but it was never really a page meant to be looked at as a whole (unless one really wanted too) - it was more a tool used so that people could check out other books written by a same author. (Quite a lot of authors actually have written multiple books). Anyways - my question is - do we want to go back to this system, or do we want to maintain the current system of tables. (If the latter, what should we do about all the links to that page, of which there are hundreds, linking to sections that no longer appear).
Incidentally, we changed to the current tabled system about two years ago now. There wasn't a CT or anything at the time - it was kind of just ... done. :\ But anyway - just wondering where the community stands on this issue - because it never really got the chance to vote :)
(EDIT: Originally, I said that I'd never actually got around to CT'ing it. I actually had, here, but that conversation was October 2013, back when it was originally changed - and the conversation really didnt get much further than "oh, well, its happened now", and didn't actually get around to discussing whether it should be changed or not - so it never did).
EDIT: Another option would be to create pages for the authors themselves instead. That page would then be able to list the works that they'd written, thus avoiding the need for headers, and still having a neat list on the authors page.
I'm only neutral because I never bother to read the books on the wiki. But in my opinion, a list in table format is not very useful (especially this one, some table lists are useful). Personally, the list of books an in-game character has created should be listed on their page, under a heading like "Books"
- Thats another option I hadn't considered. That could definitely be done as well. (And if so, the tables definitely could stay). Only problem with that one - we'd then need to create a LOT of pages. (At least 250-300 pages would need to be created).
EDIT: I included this option in the vote as well, because it is another option :)
I think it could look better under headings as opposed to the table- when people go to that page, they'll be searching first via author names, and it will be faster to spot in the table of contents as well as see all the books that author wrote listed in its section. Sajuuk's suggestion is a good one but I don't think it would be worth it to create full articles for characters like these who have nothing to list but their book(s) which can be found on the Authors page anyway.
If we prefer the table version, would folks prefer separate pages for the authors themselves? For example, Authors Redirects has a list of Authors that currently redirect to non-existant headings in that page. That list isnt a full list of authors, either. Thats why Im asking about the page itself - because theres a lot of links that dont go where theyre meant too, due to the tables
There isn't an anchor called "Jiub". From using inspect element on that row, the id generated by the LE template (which makes the anchor) is: .5B.5BJiub_.28Dawnguard.29.7CJiub.5D.5D (used in the link: Authors#.5B.5BJiub_.28Dawnguard.29.7CJiub.5D.5D)
This is caused by the fact that the Jiub article is disambiguated and is piped in this way on the template, generating an unusable anchor. We can solve this just by getting rid of the LE template and manually specifying anchors in the tables.
ive isolated and tested what caused this issue. Talen-Jei wasnt working, but as you can see Here it now does. For some reason, having an ordinary page link (no piping, just a plain link, is enough to stop it working. (Different to headers, in which that would have worked.
@Spartan - that's okay - its kind of an obscure topic :)