Talk:Chris and...

From CWCki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Good idea...

But where will this link from? --Miss Meg 18:11, 29 September 2011 (PDT)

Thanks, I might shoe-horn it into a couple of articles. Also, "Chris and..." is perfect for a little template, but it sounds awkward as hell as an article title, especially with piping. I should have chosen a better name. ;_; Barry 18:38, 29 September 2011 (PDT)
It compliments the "About this series" guide I created on the navigational template page Template:Chris and, and so for now I've linked this article at the foot of the template, and also added it to the instructions. Oddly, I just woke up from a slumber - and initially read the second section title as "...his skillet", and I was like WHAT. It's an almost perfect title for that section - so I don't think my misreading of it is going to be a problem for the average reader =) --Anonymax 22:02, 29 September 2011 (PDT)

No. Bad idea.

What was the point of this page beyond being a list all the "Chris and..." articles? I would argue that the text summaries here are largely unnecessary, and the template serves the same purpose, and the arguments above about what will link to this page is also valid. As it stands, this page is useless and a waste. Do what I did and write up and improve your article draft in your user space until it serves some kind of purpose, and is not just a page for a page's sake. --Old meme 08:12, 30 September 2011 (PDT)

Honestly, the article isn't necessary. The Wiki would function perfectly fine without it. But I like the "Chris and..." articles, and back when I was a new to Chris, they were very informative. One thing that always bugged be was the lack of a central "Chris and..." article or redirect, so readers could get a feel for them, sort of like the Videos page for his numerous videos. Redirecting to a template would be fucking strange, so I made an article hoping it would make it easier for the readers, giving them quick summaries of the topics in an easy-to-access way. It's not the most important article, you're right, but it has some use. Barry 08:43, 30 September 2011 (PDT)
I also don't really like this article. When I look at a page, I tend to think "what purpose does this serve?" This page seems to me to just be a larger version of the template.
"Anger: One of Chris's fatal flaws is his anger."
So this tells me that the Chris and Anger page is about Chris' anger. How is this more useful than what I would get from seeing the template? From another angle, if I saw something in the "Chris and..." template and couldn't tell what the article would be about from the title (Chris and the industry, for example), I apparently have two options. I can either click on the link and read the article's introduction to get the gist of it, or I can go to THIS article, find and read the section here about the page (which is almost entirely the same as the intro section in the Chris and the industry article, by the way), and THEN decide if I want to read the article. I don't see any advantage to the latter option. Links to this article won't be anywhere the template isn't and it's inferior as a directory. As a consequence, it's ALWAYS less convenient than just going to the appropriate Chris and... article. Freecell (t/c) 08:40, 30 September 2011 (PDT)
Appreciate the feedback.
Having a template, especially one with so many articles in it, without some sort of central article looked weird to me. Maybe I was just sperging out, who knows. I think the main problem, what you're getting at, is this article doesn't do anything particularly well. It has organization, but the template is better for that. It has bare-bones summaries, but the actual articles are better for that. If I flesh out the summaries more so it doesn't feel like an elaborate list, it will be more useful overall. I'm going to fix it then. Barry 08:50, 30 September 2011 (PDT)
I think the best way to use this article would be to address how the different articles interlink. Everything's segregated into lists, but it feels like each line is its own section. If things were better integrated, I think it would be a valuable article. I'll think a bit more on it and see if I can come up with any advice better than "make it better". Freecell (t/c) 08:57, 30 September 2011 (PDT)
If I can make a suggestion of my own, why don't we turn this page into a disambiguation page? It'll still link to all the articles and very short descriptions will still exist but it won't look unnecessary and full of filler like it does now. I'd have to actually see it in that form to really judge, but I think it would be better than leaving the page as is, and this way it will also fill the role that Barry was talking about; I.e. being a central page for the Chris and series. --Old meme 14:26, 30 September 2011 (PDT)
  • If I might chime in, I think Freecell has a point, but how about we make this a project/portal page? I've thought about doing it before, but just got reminded of it. It would elaborate on the "Chris and..." series of articles, setting basic parameters, that sort of thing, and then we can use the page as sort of a portal. I'd have to look up how Wikipedia does it but they'll have pages about similar topic things on a page that serves as a launchpad for a topic, and I think something like that might work in this case.
Good discussion, guys.--Champthom 04:41, 1 October 2011 (PDT)

A proposal

You know, I've thought about this before but after looking at a similar topic wiki, I figured I'd finally get around to posting it here. Now obviously this is a CWC wiki, and topics on it are related to CWC. Therefore, wouldn't it make sense to just drop the "Chris and..." from articles? Now mind you, I started it, as I was trying to mimic Wikipedia but something like that makes sense on Wikipedia. For instance, an article on "Slavery" would be a general article with slavery, and if you want specific examples of people with slavery you might have an article like "Thomas Jefferson and slavery" or "George Washington and slavery" and in a context like Wikipedia, it makes sense. I mean, you need to specify because you're dealing with general stuff. But with us, we're just dealing with Chris. It's safe to assume that if we're going to be discussing, say sex, it would be safe to assume that we're dealing with Chris - I mean, we're not so much interested in Bob's sexuality or Megan's sexuality, namely Chris's (after all, the CWCki is about Chris). Therefore, why do we really need to clarify that it's "Chris and sex" as opposed to just "Sex"? As I've said elsewhere, any article here could in theory be a "Chris and..." article. We could very well call Bob Chandler "Chris and his father" or the page on Megan "Chris and Megan" but we don't need to clarify it because remember, this is a wiki about Chris.

So what am I proposing? Pretty much we drop the "Chris and..." from these articles. Criteria for making articles could be kept, the template page has pretty good guidelines and has helped make sure that we're not seeing a new "Chris and..." article pop up every day like it used to be. However, as this is a major change to the status quo, I'd like some discussion. Thoughts?--Champthom 04:06, 14 October 2011 (PDT)

It sounds like a good idea. What would we do with the template though? If we axe the "Chris and" part, a lot of articles would be fair game, ones that never were originally part of it. Maybe remove the "Chris and" and rename the template to "Topics about Chris." I'm a little tired so I'm not sure if I'm making any sense, but it's probably no big deal. Maybe I'm missing something?
Again it sounds great, it's just that one part that bugs me. Barry 08:17, 14 October 2011 (PDT)
  • Good question. Something like "Topics about Chris" works, we could still very leave the template as "Chris and...", just dropping the "Chris and..." part from the article name.--Champthom 09:07, 14 October 2011 (PDT)
Good idea. :) Barry 12:42, 15 October 2011 (PDT)
I'm still mulling the idea. The main thing which sticks out in my mind is - while having Chris and... prefixed on to each article name at present might seem odd and out of place, some Chris and... topics would look odd if their title was simply the name given after the Chris and... prefix. Part of why we have the Chris and... naming system is because the articles refer to Chris's relations, knowledge or opinions about a topic.
The solution may simply be to rename some articles - but I feel that if we were to drop the Chris and... prefix, most if not all articles would need some form of re-write to make them make more sense as a standalone article about that topic. It would be about shaping the articles up to be more of an overview about the subject, which then leads on to how it relates to Chris etc. --Anonymax 15:18, 14 October 2011 (PDT)

Not a 'chris and'

'Contests' is not a skill and i dont think it even needs a Chris And article

A new idea

I think that the Chris and... article could be repositioned to summarise the situation, rather than just copying off the lead of the main article. For example, the Internet section could be decluttered to summarise Chris’ activities on the internet… you know, going straight to the point like The World section that I added this morning.

Since I may be proposing a big revision to the format of existing sections, I thought I would ask rather than risking misunderstanding. I feel that such a change would make it easier for readers to see how they match up with Chris’ thoughts and actions.

Message was edited to add a wee bit more detail.

Best regards, --Little Owl (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I actually got the idea from the Metro newspaper that comes out every weekday morning in London, and thought that Chris and... could be like that, for busy people and newcomers. --Little Owl (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


What's a good category to file Chris and pornography under? Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2024 (EDT)

If you're asking about which header on the page, I would put it under Life. That's where his other forms of entertainment are (Internet, Television, Video Games). And Sex. If you mean the box at the bottom... either Body or Society. Neither is quite a perfect fit. JinkiesJanke (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2024 (EDT)
Sounds good. And yeah. Society could work. Hurtful Truth Level (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2024 (EDT)