Talk:Monica Grand: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
sorry to rollback to include the image section. quite important here (and has even been referenced in the quick-guide) [[User:Scott|Scott]] 19:15, 12 February 2006 (EST) | sorry to rollback to include the image section. quite important here (and has even been referenced in the quick-guide) [[User:Scott|Scott]] 19:15, 12 February 2006 (EST) | ||
I know what you mean, but I think it's important to keep puzzle trails separate from character info pages. I'd request that we replace it with a sentence about what happened (ie, "Monica's key contained images"), and a link to the appropriate section on the trail page. Let me know what you think. ~Lhall | |||
(P.S. It's usually better to just copy-paste back in the info that you want, as there were more changes than just the image - quotes, etc. I'm adding that stuff back in, but I'll leave the images in until we talk about it.) | |||
==Context Links== | |||
Hi. I've repeated the Perplex City Sentinel links in the "Pietro Salk and "The Advisor" " section because I find that this wiki tends to declare known things without giving new users a place to look up the source of these conclusions. I know they're also below in the references section but since the game is already so choppy I think it's easier for people to follow a plot trail if everything is placed in context, rather than having to read through every Sentinel report mentioning Monica to find the relevant statements. Let me know if you only want links in the one section - I couldn't find a declared policy on this. [[User:Weefz|Weefz]] 17:01, 8 March 2006 (EST) | |||
Hi Weefz :) Off to a great start in the community, I see :) great to have you aboard :) Indeed there is no policy on how links should be handled. As a rule of thumb, if you think a link to something else might be helpful in any place, by all means do it. I've fFound in some cases where I have a couple links to some topic in the same page, after some time of editing and altering, those multiple links become very disjointed and fFar fFlung. Meaning, if I had chosen originally to use only the one single link, It may well have been very dissociated fFrom the rest of the content. What I'm saying is: it's rarely a bad thing to add more links. In general, I'm of a mind that you can never really have *too many* links on a page (there are rational limits of course -- if every word is a link, it becomes silly and difficult to read. But i think you see what I'm saying.) | |||
Cheers!! [[User:Scott|Scott]] 14:17, 9 March 2006 (EST) | |||
Yep, I get you. Thanks! In that case I shall be wandering around the wiki stitching the various trails together for the next few weeks. [[User:Weefz|Weefz]] 10:25, 10 March 2006 (EST) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:25, 10 March 2006
sorry to rollback to include the image section. quite important here (and has even been referenced in the quick-guide) Scott 19:15, 12 February 2006 (EST)
I know what you mean, but I think it's important to keep puzzle trails separate from character info pages. I'd request that we replace it with a sentence about what happened (ie, "Monica's key contained images"), and a link to the appropriate section on the trail page. Let me know what you think. ~Lhall
(P.S. It's usually better to just copy-paste back in the info that you want, as there were more changes than just the image - quotes, etc. I'm adding that stuff back in, but I'll leave the images in until we talk about it.)
Context Links
Hi. I've repeated the Perplex City Sentinel links in the "Pietro Salk and "The Advisor" " section because I find that this wiki tends to declare known things without giving new users a place to look up the source of these conclusions. I know they're also below in the references section but since the game is already so choppy I think it's easier for people to follow a plot trail if everything is placed in context, rather than having to read through every Sentinel report mentioning Monica to find the relevant statements. Let me know if you only want links in the one section - I couldn't find a declared policy on this. Weefz 17:01, 8 March 2006 (EST)
Hi Weefz :) Off to a great start in the community, I see :) great to have you aboard :) Indeed there is no policy on how links should be handled. As a rule of thumb, if you think a link to something else might be helpful in any place, by all means do it. I've fFound in some cases where I have a couple links to some topic in the same page, after some time of editing and altering, those multiple links become very disjointed and fFar fFlung. Meaning, if I had chosen originally to use only the one single link, It may well have been very dissociated fFrom the rest of the content. What I'm saying is: it's rarely a bad thing to add more links. In general, I'm of a mind that you can never really have *too many* links on a page (there are rational limits of course -- if every word is a link, it becomes silly and difficult to read. But i think you see what I'm saying.) Cheers!! Scott 14:17, 9 March 2006 (EST)
Yep, I get you. Thanks! In that case I shall be wandering around the wiki stitching the various trails together for the next few weeks. Weefz 10:25, 10 March 2006 (EST)
