Board Thread:Wiki-Related Discussion/@comment-5679696-20171014023101/@comment-24304025-20180422232456

Nightlily wrote: Lady Rapunzel wrote:

Nightlily wrote: CadoDoan wrote: Are we even going to do it? It's been 6 months, and we still haven't done anything besides some two test pages which have some issues and a couple of pages which also are not the people agreed to do. It was all depending on Killian finishing his template. However, he has been AWOL for three months. So we could either:

At first i thought this system would be effective, but do we really need "Granny (Enchanted Forest)" and "Granny (Storybrooke)" or "Jefferson (Enchanted Forest) and "Jefferson (Storybrooke)"? Why not, in this cases, just put "Granny" and "Jefferson"? Because "(Enchanted Forest)" and "(Storybrooke)" are not part of their credited counterpart names at all, it was just a way to separate the pages, right? When I created the page, I went with your idea, but one of the users changed it because she felt it was not the format we agreed on. So... Once Lady told me that, even with the merging, we would still separate categories, I felt like it would be just a waste of work anyway.
 * Ditch the plan.
 * Wait until he returns.
 * Finish the template without him (that is, if one of you are codework experts, because this goes beyond the technical skills of the other staff members).
 * Decide which counterpart (the original or the cursed one) should be used for the article name (people agreed to a template where the name changes according to which link you click on, but it was never finished).
 * Personally, I would go for the latter.

What's the point to have Granny EF in a few categories and Granny SB in other categories when the page is supposed to cover both Grannies? XD