I think novel/manga/comic pages need a standard everyone should follow. Of course, all of them follow one already, but it's not written anywhere.
I've seen some changes differing from that unwritten policy, so my suggestion would be to make a policy/guideline for these pages. Some debatable points:
- Adding novel/graphic novel template:
- I think it's pretty obvious all of these articles should contain these, to be able to identify the nature of the article first sight.
- I think it's nice to have different versions of covers. Sample, artwork and final are great. We can leave a small gallery down for them. In the case of the comics, it's a pretty appreciated thing, because they're part of the comic-collecting nature itself (having different covers for same issues has a reason behind it).
- Different versions, prices and release dates of each of them:
- Some of the books get different versions, like hardcover being reimprinted in softcover and things like that. Others, depending on place, have a different number of pages, and of course, different publishers. For the publisher, I would limit to the US version, the original one, and for the prices, I would leave it as it is: US, EU and UK. As for the different bindings... We could simply put "Hardcover / Softcover" and then "20.00$ / 10.00$" and avoid wasting space.
Those are the major issues I've seen lately. As for other tips on how the layout should be in my opinion:
- Bookbox and introduction
- Books (only for series and compilations)
- Gallery (when we have more than one cover image or relevant pictures from inside the books that deserve to be in the page)
- External links
Another last thing I would like to mention: distinction between the books and the series of the books. Series would be the same as books, but without a Bookbox. Same for stories inside books (like Legends').
- That would be a good guideline/standard, indeed. I just have the doubt, where should the novel/comic/manga template should go, above or below the bookbox? Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 17:48, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
- The banners that describe the article should go at the top of the page.-- 18:47, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, as for the different version of covers issue (I'm sure this is a response to some action or mine of another, considering I removed a few on one article ;), I deleted the extra ones because of the fact that we're hardly obeying the idea of "fair use" if we have 4 different versions of one cover. I tried to pick the most well defined in that case, plus the actual cover of the issue. I'm not particularly opposed to the notion of having every type of cover, and I didn't know there was a reasoning behind it, but then again…
As for your "layout", we should probably have "Synopsis" or "Plot" rather than "Description". The latter isn't very descriptive of what would probably end up in such a section. That said, this comes down to a MOS layout issue, and I don't think it would be terribly difficult to poke at the MOS to include a few more sections. --Sky (t · c) 17:55, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, description, as in the back of the book. Well, we should also have a synopsis. :) --Sky (t · c) 18:05, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, so the templates issue will be solved in another forum, there should be a synopsis/plot below the description, and per MoS, ELinks should be after references. So I think that the only unsolved issue that remains is the cover versions; I, personally, feel that we should leave as most versions as possible, it looks cool. Benitoperezgaldos (talk – contributions) 05:52, May 27, 2010 (UTC)