9,368 Pages

Forum: The Situation Room > "Day X" headings

Although it strikes me as utterly trivial, I suppose I should put this forward for discussion. While going through the Season 1 character articles, I've noticed that a great number of them follow this general format:

X was a Y during Day 1.

==Day 1==
etc etc etc

With no other subsections and not even a table of contents, it's completely redundant to have a heading for the single season the character was in; it's stated right in the first line of the page, as well as the sidebar. Would anyone be opposed to cutting out these headings altogether? Of course, they would remain for multi-season characters, as well as anyone for whom there is some amount of background info, like Lauren Proctor - in that case, the headings would be "Before Day X" and "Day X."

Basically, I'd like to change articles for the most minor characters from this to this. Any objections? --Pyramidhead 05:52, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

It's a lot easier to see what specific season the character is from if we leave the heading in rather than changing to what you are suggesting. Also, there's the idea of consistency between all character articles. Also, personally I just prefer how they look at the minute, your suggestions don't improve the articles in any way, and it'll take a while to go through and do all the one-season-character pages. I really don't see the point in this.
By the way, this is SignorSimon but the internet cafe where I am won't let me sign in. --User:SignorSimon
I only brought it up because I was changing this myself while adding sidebar information, not thinking that it mattered or was even a precedent (Isley and Susan Collier, for two, have never used the heading) until I was told to either get consensus or change every single one back. Are you really opposed to this? I'm probably the only person who would ever do it, and I plan to get to every character eventually, so it's not an issue of time or work. And again, there's no table of contents on any of the pages in question, making the headings completely useless! --Pyramidhead 18:22, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Proudhug has explained this in the past and I agree with Simon's reasons similarly. If you don't think the TOC is necessary with the smaller pages, you can insert the NOTOC wikitext command/notation, and the TOC won't appear. I do it all the time for small articles. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:23, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
That's not the problem; I know about NOTOC. I'm saying that, since by default there's no TOC on these really short pages, it makes no sense to have an extra heading that gives information clearly established elsewhere. Look, at the very least, is it alright to leave the pages I did change, and any others like them, as they are? --Movebot 17:36, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Okay just post a small list of them so I can change them back piecemeal over time. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 18:26, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Pyramidhead, I don't understand, are you saying that you want to leave the few you've changed that don't have headings because of what you did, but not change any more? That's an even more ridiculous compromise because it's horribly inconsistent. You need to change them back because its one of the many things that you've done without community support. --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 18:30, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Whatever. I'll change them back. --Movebot 20:28, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.