Difference between revisions of "Talk:Conan Edogawa Appearances"
From Detective Conan Wiki
m |
NakagawaRyou (talk | contribs) (→Appearances other than for the Anime and Manga) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Maybe we could list them all for movies, openings, closings, ovas and specials since there aren't a lot of them after all. It might potentially be more user-friendly since the reader has direct access to the full lists (since they're not that long). Also, we wouldn't need to update the totals for those anytime soon. Of course, it's more difficult for Chapters and Episodes and the total should indeed be used there if necessary. But as long as we can avoid using the "inverse" option, it would be good for user-friendliness. What do you guys think? --[[User:Maurice|Maurice]] 23:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | Maybe we could list them all for movies, openings, closings, ovas and specials since there aren't a lot of them after all. It might potentially be more user-friendly since the reader has direct access to the full lists (since they're not that long). Also, we wouldn't need to update the totals for those anytime soon. Of course, it's more difficult for Chapters and Episodes and the total should indeed be used there if necessary. But as long as we can avoid using the "inverse" option, it would be good for user-friendliness. What do you guys think? --[[User:Maurice|Maurice]] 23:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yeah, I guess that's a better idea. [[User:NakagawaRyou|NakagawaRyou]] 23:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 23:55, 22 December 2009
Appearances other than for the Anime and Manga
Maybe we could list them all for movies, openings, closings, ovas and specials since there aren't a lot of them after all. It might potentially be more user-friendly since the reader has direct access to the full lists (since they're not that long). Also, we wouldn't need to update the totals for those anytime soon. Of course, it's more difficult for Chapters and Episodes and the total should indeed be used there if necessary. But as long as we can avoid using the "inverse" option, it would be good for user-friendliness. What do you guys think? --Maurice 23:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess that's a better idea. NakagawaRyou 23:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
