| abstract | - there should be one in here. some people are using ABC's 2x11, 1x02, etc. format, and others are using S02E11, S01E02, etc. we should arrive at a consensus as to what to use. kaini 13:29, 21 April 2006 (PDT) I agree, that would also be a good item to include in this guideline. Season 1 does not have many individual article pages for the episodes. There should be more time in the summer to clean that up and make it more like Season 2. I believe we should follow what we have been doing for Season 2, which is to make the article title just the text name of the episode (with proper capitlization). The mediawiki does have a few bugs that we have had to workaround, such as the use of the '+' sign in an article title, or using a '?' mark for the upcoming episode title '?'. For wiki code, that will be named just '%3F'. The episode season and number can be stored in the infobox for the episode. I don't think anyone wants to used piped links for every reference to an episode (ex [[S02E01 Man of Science, Man of Faith|Man of Science, Man of Faith]]). - 13:23, 21 April 2006 (PDT) Not just in titles, either, but also for when referencing episodes in other articles, i.e. "in 2x15, Maternity Leave" vs. "in S02E15, Maternity Leave". kaini 13:29, 21 April 2006 (PDT) I see your point, but I don't think this is necessary in most articles. It would break the flow of the article. When I updated the Season 2 episodes with an infobox, I included the season and episode numbers as a field so they would be displayed on the article page. This is just my opinion. What do others think? - 14:53, 21 April 2006 (PDT) I personally can't remember by heart what happened in let's say S2E11, but if someone mentions "the hunting party" - bells start ringing. In Lost, every episode is named - it would make sense to use that name instead of the production code etc, there's no need for using 'cryptic' number sequences at all when referring to an episode. In a list, sure, why not... but in an article, the proper name for the episode should do. --skks 15:16, 21 April 2006 (PDT) I agree in general, and we shouldn't use production codes in page names. It may, though, be helpful to mention the production code, especially when chronology is being discussed on a page. Know the order the episode was shown helps put things in context (like when people learned certain information). A unified way of citing the production code might help. -- Lostpedian 17:45, 21 April 2006 (PDT) Each convention has its benefits. Episode names ring bells, and production sequence gives a hint to the chronology for those who haven't memorized each title and order. I've tended to pipe the title or short number when linkifying references. That way, both show up if one's browser displays the link-to URL. FWIW, I've started using kaini's form, since there are redirects to the episodes-by-title in place. 12:25, 23 June 2006 (PDT)
|
