Forums:Canonicity: Difference between revisions
KingAragorn (talk | contribs) (Created page with '<div style="background: #eee; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 5px">'''Tolkien Gateway > Council > {{PAGENAME}}'''</div> [[Category:Council]…') |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I know that this issue has been debated and discussed before (mainly [[Forum:Canon scale|here]] and [[Forum:Canonicity and Canon|here]]), but it seems that it never really came to a conclusion - or at least what was decided wasn't wholly enforced. At the moment we have a few different ways by which we highlight articles to show that they're not canon: some are simple 'This is not considered canon', on other pages it's the canon scale. I personally liked the [[Forum:Canon scale|Canon scale]] discussion and the idea to put a scale on each article. I'd like to see a better set of images to use for the canon scale, and with the <imagemap> extension visitors could click on the image to find out what it means. What are your thoughts on the matter? --{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 12:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC) | I know that this issue has been debated and discussed before (mainly [[Forum:Canon scale|here]] and [[Forum:Canonicity and Canon|here]]), but it seems that it never really came to a conclusion - or at least what was decided wasn't wholly enforced. At the moment we have a few different ways by which we highlight articles to show that they're not canon: some are simple 'This is not considered canon', on other pages it's the canon scale. I personally liked the [[Forum:Canon scale|Canon scale]] discussion and the idea to put a scale on each article. I'd like to see a better set of images to use for the canon scale, and with the <imagemap> extension visitors could click on the image to find out what it means. What are your thoughts on the matter? --{{User:KingAragorn/sig}} 12:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
:I always liked the Canon scale, but thought it was outdated. If we're going for it again, we definitely need the <imagemap> idea you're suggesting. Maybe we also need to redefine the scale. -- {{User:Ederchil/sig}} 13:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:18, 12 September 2010
I know that this issue has been debated and discussed before (mainly here and here), but it seems that it never really came to a conclusion - or at least what was decided wasn't wholly enforced. At the moment we have a few different ways by which we highlight articles to show that they're not canon: some are simple 'This is not considered canon', on other pages it's the canon scale. I personally liked the Canon scale discussion and the idea to put a scale on each article. I'd like to see a better set of images to use for the canon scale, and with the <imagemap> extension visitors could click on the image to find out what it means. What are your thoughts on the matter? -- KingAragorn talk contribs edits email 12:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
