Just thought I let you know, the "External links" section goes right under the "Sources" section - though if there isn't a "Sources" section, it goes under the "Appearances" section.
Do not reference articles only appearing in one appearance or source.
Why? Because...
If an article only has one appearance or mention, all of the information would obviously be from that source, and referencing would therefore be redundant.
You're posting the NeedRef template on articles that don't really need it, mainly regarding characters, events and all others that only appears or is only mentioned in one material.(ex. your recent edit on Attack on the Fair Wind and the majority of articles relating to Pirates Online)
The only time those specific characters, events and such need references is if there is more than one source. Best example I can provide is the Society Lady; she literally only appears in On Stranger Tides, but is mentioned in a website, which provided useful and reliable information for our article. Other than cases like this, the NeedRef template is not needed.
Just thought I'd let you know of all this for the future. ;)
I reverted the edits from Blood of the Aztec Curse cause I thought you were editing while the "In use" template was up...but it wasn't. Oops haha xD In truth, I'm still in the process of fixing the page appropriately. So yea, just thought I should apologize for the confusion.
Just FYI, there is no need for capitalizing letters in every section...especially "Behind the scenes" and "Notes and references". It be rare to capitalize something that isn't relating to a name of a character or item...or if the section's title is one word. Savvy? ;)
To add to the capitalization discussion above, it can be viewed that two-worded titles should be capitalized. But again, there are exceptions, such as "Early life" sections.
Ian Mercer's article bears the "Inuse" template. It should be explanatory there.
Okay, I understand the Ian Mercer issue about not editting that page. My apologies. However, I'm not understading why titles of sections should not be capitalized. Don't we want this page to look professional? Perhaps we are both referring to different formats.
However, I'm not understading why titles of sections should not be capitalized. Don't we want this page to look professional? Perhaps we are both referring to different formats.
To be quite honest, I don't know how to explain it in a way I haven't already. There are points where we can captialize our section titles, and there are times where we cannot. As I said above, there are exceptions to either way...chief among them are leaving "Early life", "Behind the scenes", and "Notes and references". IMO, the best way to know if something needs to be capitalized or not is how it is capitalized or lower-cased in any official material. For instance, writing "The Wrath of Calypso" rather than "The wrath of Calypso" because it was written that way in a section from The Complete Visual Guide.
I hope I'm making more sense now. If not, well...at least I tried.
I'm not asking for your explanation. I'm asking for a formal explanation. It just looked better capitalized and I thought that titles are always capitalized. But for the sake of keeping each page uniform, I'll comply.
A formal explanation is not the same as our explanation. Otherwise, we wouldn't capitalize most of our objects and such. For the case of our section's titles, I'm only trying to do the best I think should be done...semi-following how other well-organized wikis do theirs(e.g. Star Wars Wiki and Harry Potter Wiki).
The way a Wiki user's profile is made does not have to follow what is done in our main articles. Every user is free to do whatever they want with their pages...as long as it's appropriate of course(like the big no-nos, duplicate images and cursing, unless if quoting a character from movie or some material).
Just like other categories, "Category:Quoteless" are mainly for in-universe material(characters, locations, etc), and not for the real-world folk. Not saying that, for example, the writers, directors, or actors shouldn't have quotes...as some do have quotes that are suitable enough for use on their pages. However, for those who don't currently have quotes, shouldn't have the "Quoteless" category because, quite likely, there would be numerous actors who would likely remain quoteless(mainly the background actors).
Depends. If it's an actor who played a major and/or supporting character(e.g. Geoffrey Rush or Robbie Kay), then yes the category would be needed for the actor. But if it's an actor who played a lesser known role(like any of the British or Spanish), then it depends if they're well-known or not...the same can be said for those who portray background characters.
i do hope i don't annoy anyone on this site, i'm just trying to figure things ou and not make as many mistakes. thanks for all the help you've given me throughout the months i've been on this awesome site.
Don't worry, that's why we admins are here: aside from fixing this Wiki, we try to help new users. It only gets bad if someone keeps ignoring the rules and breaking them...but that's not the case here - as you didn't know about the category thing.
See, I wanted to give you ALOT of support. You're doing a fantastic job. I tell my friends and family about your blog everyday!
Speaking of blogs, could you help me start mine? I know it's alot to ask, but I have great ideas and plans. It's alot, I know. But everyone I ask doesn't have an answer.
Thank you for promoting my blog! Starting a blog is pretty easy on the site i use. Blogspot.com is connected with gmail.com and all you are required to have is a gmail account. I hope this helps!
I got one! It's call The New 212. My friends are checking out your blog, I tod them to look at it. They say they like it and that they are gonna pass it on.
If I may be so bold as to interject my professional opinion...The way I see it, all film actor-related articles only need one category: "real-world actors". As my learned colleague so naively suggests... categories that are most affiliated with our in-universe articles(yes, including "Males" or "Females"), aren't really needed for actor articles. Look at how other Wikis treat their actors/actresses with categories(particularly in popular Harry Potter and Star Wars Wikis)...they do it that way, so I say we keep doing the same. Not saying we should do everything other Wikis do, but I'm say we do what we do now regarding the actors' categories. But on a brighter note, I appreciate the enthusiasm to do such things, which brings me to what I kinda put off for some time...and now seems like the opportune moment to bring it up.
Now, this is something I noticed as we came into including screenshots from deleted scenes(which are right now, included with non-deleted scene screenshots). What do you guys think about separating the categorizing screenshots according to films?...if you need examples of what I mean, look at this SW Wiki image and this HP Wiki image(I'm only suggesting giving images categories like say, "Images from On Stranger Tides" for OST screencaps). Reason for proposing this is so it'd make things easier to go through screenshots. Sure we got galleries, but what if one were to go through "Category:Film-screenshots"? I'll tell ya, they'd have a headache by the time they're close to finding their needed image. What say you two?
I know you were only trying to help, but for future reference please don't edit other people's userpages. Only admins and such can do that type of thing...but that's only if there is a duplicate image or anything that's against guidelines, or even if that user becomes one of our "Missing Users". Other than that, it's not appropriate to edit other's userpages without their permission. Savvy?
Oh sorry! i was just fixxing missplelling and such, she said she thanked us on her page, but she had our name spelled improperly, and then i spotted some others. My apoligies to
Melspuppies8282.
Well, to be honest, I didn't climb aboard this Wiki until April 2010. But yea, I was here when all the extra Wiki tech-related stuff came along and I played a large role in putting things together. So yea, I suppose I was of great service for the past 2 years, trying to make this site have the most reliable of POTC info of any site(well, aside from the Disney website of course).
Indeed, and it is a good site. I read most of the blogs upon learning of it...particular the duel blog, as recently made a blog on it(topping it by giving your site credit, of course, as that's what inspired me writing it). ;)
My Twitter 
