No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|My opinion on the subject is well-known at this point, but I'll go ahead and say yes. I'll also explain why. It's not just (in my mind) about keeping up with WotC. After all, our no-crunch rule means that for the most part, we try to be edition-neutral, only updating lore to reflect new canon. However, it is my opinion that the 4th-ed style box templates look flashier and more stylistic than those they are replacing. While this is, one might argue, a form over function decision I've tried my best in updating the templates to actually make them even more functional as well and I also believe that by making the wiki more aesthetically pleasing, we do the FR fandom a service while also making FR more appealing to those who are not already familiar with the setting. Many wikis have a distinctive look and I think the "4th-ed" style template (which really are only based on some formatting in the FRCG and FRPG) help give us one. |
|My opinion on the subject is well-known at this point, but I'll go ahead and say yes. I'll also explain why. It's not just (in my mind) about keeping up with WotC. After all, our no-crunch rule means that for the most part, we try to be edition-neutral, only updating lore to reflect new canon. However, it is my opinion that the 4th-ed style box templates look flashier and more stylistic than those they are replacing. While this is, one might argue, a form over function decision I've tried my best in updating the templates to actually make them even more functional as well and I also believe that by making the wiki more aesthetically pleasing, we do the FR fandom a service while also making FR more appealing to those who are not already familiar with the setting. Many wikis have a distinctive look and I think the "4th-ed" style template (which really are only based on some formatting in the FRCG and FRPG) help give us one. |
||
|[[User:Niirfa-sa|Niirfa-sa]] 06:43, October 18, 2010 (UTC) |
|[[User:Niirfa-sa|Niirfa-sa]] 06:43, October 18, 2010 (UTC) |
||
| + | }} |
||
| + | {{Forum post |
||
| + | |On the original matter, I also say yes. Let's go ahead and figure out a way to put years into the infoboxes, so that it makes it easier for readers to understand the context of a figure, which is not always readily apparent. Right now the way we're doing it is a bit of an eyesore, so if someone can figure out a way to do it more prettily, feel free to give it a try. |
||
| + | |[[User:Niirfa-sa|Niirfa-sa]] 06:45, October 18, 2010 (UTC) |
||
}} |
}} |
||
Revision as of 06:45, 18 October 2010
Forums: Helping Hand > Adding a year to the infobox templates
Use the following template for a nicely presented post:
{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}
Back when we were dealing with 3 editions of the game that spanned a few decades, if you took the stats (population of a town, for example) and put them into a template, even if you were using the second edition stats, they would still be reasonably correct for the 3rd edition game.
Now we have four editions, I am wondering if there is scope for putting a realms year into, say, the location template, so that someone viewing the article can easily see which year the population figures (and ruler, government, etc) applies to.
Of course, the next question would be: what do we do if there is infobox information for both 2nd and 3rd editions, or 3rd and 4th, or 3 editions? Would we show two infoboxes, or maybe come up with some better way of showing the information?
User:Fw190a8 10:57, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
Thinking about infobox templates as a whole, do you think we should "modernise" these to look more like the 4th edition box templates, such as {{Demons}}?
User:Fw190a8 11:59, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
My opinion on the subject is well-known at this point, but I'll go ahead and say yes. I'll also explain why. It's not just (in my mind) about keeping up with WotC. After all, our no-crunch rule means that for the most part, we try to be edition-neutral, only updating lore to reflect new canon. However, it is my opinion that the 4th-ed style box templates look flashier and more stylistic than those they are replacing. While this is, one might argue, a form over function decision I've tried my best in updating the templates to actually make them even more functional as well and I also believe that by making the wiki more aesthetically pleasing, we do the FR fandom a service while also making FR more appealing to those who are not already familiar with the setting. Many wikis have a distinctive look and I think the "4th-ed" style template (which really are only based on some formatting in the FRCG and FRPG) help give us one.
Niirfa-sa 06:43, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
On the original matter, I also say yes. Let's go ahead and figure out a way to put years into the infoboxes, so that it makes it easier for readers to understand the context of a figure, which is not always readily apparent. Right now the way we're doing it is a bit of an eyesore, so if someone can figure out a way to do it more prettily, feel free to give it a try.
Niirfa-sa 06:45, October 18, 2010 (UTC)