Template talk:LittleBigPlanet
Removal of Sackboy's Prehistoric Moves link
[edit]IznoRepeat, I can't understand your reasoning behind the removal of the link to Sackboy's Prehistoric Moves. Could you explain which part of WP:NAV your are referring to please? - X201 (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- The section on redirects notes that the end user should have a consistent experience with respect to links in the navbox (the bolding of pages which you are present on. Adding section links to the navbox defeats that. Additionally, navboxes which include anchor links are "duplicating" navigation, generally. We should only have one link for a given page. --Izno (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- That advises to avoid them, it doesn't say all redirects must be removed. At the very top of WP:NAV it says "Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics?", it holds true for removal of links, "Does removal of this link hinder the reader in finding related topics?" the overwhelming answer is yes. I fully support what you're doing in regards to tidying up the Nav boxes Izno (it's been a long over due task), but in this case, I feel the removal will harm a reader's experience for a small cosmetic gain. - X201 (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Except it's not a "cosmetic" gain. It's a fundamental difference in navigation which enables editors to keep a tidier house and readers to get to the articles they need to get to.
"The overwhelming answer is yes" needs a reason. I completely disagree, and I think NAV is persuasive on the count. You haven't yet given a reason this game is anymore important than Tiberian Sun: Firestorm, any more important than any of the number of Red Alert expansions, or any more important than any other expansions or games which don't have their own articles.
Part of the reason I'm so adamant about it is because of IPs or new users, or even experienced users, who innocently make a redirect into an anchor link and in the process choose not to consider whether that contributes significantly to navigation, as was done here. It's easier from a maintenance standpoint if the only links included are individual articles, and it represents a concrete point for navigation makers to say "this is useful". And with that concrete point, it's easy to say "there is no slippery slope, and my edits are consistent". Consider any of the above examples as a point here. --Izno (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- I can't see anywhere in the essay where it says that Anchors are explicitly banned, which seems to be the point your argument rests on. If WP:NAV is such an important reference for navigation surely it should be made into guidelines rather than just be an essay? I'll remove the Prehistoric link, rather than continue this discussion (we disagree, and I can't see either of us changing opinion), I'll use the time to expand it into a standalone article. - X201 (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't say that, but the sentiment is the same (and it's something I might be bringing to the talk page of that essay in the future). As for importance, I wouldn't know. I suspect that there are a large number of people who support it, some who don't (at least), and many who don't know about it. /shrug.
- I'm not looking for removal here, I'm looking to convert you to my cause. :D --IznoRepeat (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm actually closer to supporting it than you think. The big problem I'm having, is reconciling the "Only in NavBox if it has its own article" part, with the small sub-articles that need people to find them in order for them to be expanded. The search is only of use if you know what you're looking for, the NavBox is brilliant at informing people of related subjects that they may not know about. I'm worried that the small but important stuff will be shoved into the background, never to attract new readers, and only to be tended by people who already know that it exists. - X201 (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a template for redirects of this nature at Template:R with possibilities, in case you weren't aware, and the redirect should also be tagged with Template:R to section.
Beyond that, I'm not sure I can provide an answer to the question of "get someone [new] to work on it" beyond setting up an article which can survive WP:N as a stub and letting the various and sundry others work on it from there, or pointing out via something like {{expand section}} at the top of the section that we want work done on that particular topic, or lastly, doing all of the work yourself. --Izno (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm actually closer to supporting it than you think. The big problem I'm having, is reconciling the "Only in NavBox if it has its own article" part, with the small sub-articles that need people to find them in order for them to be expanded. The search is only of use if you know what you're looking for, the NavBox is brilliant at informing people of related subjects that they may not know about. I'm worried that the small but important stuff will be shoved into the background, never to attract new readers, and only to be tended by people who already know that it exists. - X201 (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- I can't see anywhere in the essay where it says that Anchors are explicitly banned, which seems to be the point your argument rests on. If WP:NAV is such an important reference for navigation surely it should be made into guidelines rather than just be an essay? I'll remove the Prehistoric link, rather than continue this discussion (we disagree, and I can't see either of us changing opinion), I'll use the time to expand it into a standalone article. - X201 (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- That advises to avoid them, it doesn't say all redirects must be removed. At the very top of WP:NAV it says "Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics?", it holds true for removal of links, "Does removal of this link hinder the reader in finding related topics?" the overwhelming answer is yes. I fully support what you're doing in regards to tidying up the Nav boxes Izno (it's been a long over due task), but in this case, I feel the removal will harm a reader's experience for a small cosmetic gain. - X201 (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Needs LBP3 DLC
[edit]I added the DLC icon for LittleBigPlanet 3, it need contents of LBP3 DLC such as Rare Launch T-Shirt, Metal Gear Solid, and uhh... Dragon Age. 2601:4:2C82:191:D8F8:EFC3:9414:4E36 (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
