This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Adam850: One question about State the source. What if the character's name is the title of the work? Like:
- Robin Hood often takes nice strolls... blah blah.
Robert: With public domain characters, we'll recognise the name. With the others, treat it as a title. If the character name is in italics (Oliver Twist turns out to be ...) it'll be clear that the character name is also the work's title.
Eric DVH: Actually, a character's name should never be italicized like a title. For example, “In Oliver Twist, the eponymous character turns out to be…“ or “Oliver Twist turns out to be…”, since Oliver Twist is the book and Oliver Twist is the character. Linking to an article with something other than the work's name is perfectly fine, like “Jack Dawkins is perhaps the ultimate street rat.”
Robert: Potholing the work's name isn't fine - it makes it harder for the reader to tell what the source is. Use the actual name.
Duckluck: Like I wrote on the page, potholing series names is a terrible idea. For one thing, it makes it so people have to mouse over the link (or click on it, if they don't know how to see link destinations) to know what it means, and for another, it encourages sloppy writing by making people think it's OK to have an example that doesn't actually name the work (it's not).
Robert is also right about public domain characters. If they're not from any one work, then it's fine to link to their names, but this will only apply to a tiny subset of examples. As a general rule, links to series should have the same name as that series Wiki page, so if you're talking about Robin Hood the general character your link should look like "Robin Hood," but if you're talking about the British TV show, your link should look like "Robin Hood." Also note that you should specify which TV show you're talking about, because, again, Robin doesn't belong to any one work.
Antheia: A question on the first point: "If it's a reply to an existing example, put that right below any other replies (unless it's a reply to one of those replies)."
Isn't this pretty much inviting Conversation In The Main Page and Thread Mode? Examples shouldn't be replies to, well, anything, should they? (Although they may refer to other examples.)
Fast Eddie: Hear, hear, Antheia. I'll clip it.
Duckluck: Good catch Antheia. I can already see we'll have to watch this page carefully to keep misinformation from sneaking in.
Loser Takes All: I think some explanation of what it means to "Rick Roll" should be added to the "Don't Rely on You Tube..." entry. I'd never heard the term before and had to Google it to find out why that link redirected me to a clip of a German musical. Funny or not, it hurts the tone of the page to have it require knowledge of Internet terminology to understand the prank it just played on you in the context of asking you not to play that prank.
