FANDOM


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)
I notice that you did some excellent work on the {{State}} template, which is currently used on Waterdeep, and this is the kind of template I had in mind, I just didn't realise at the time that someone was already most of the way there. ;)

I suppose we can work out what information changes across editions, and what doesn't. For example, an individual's class and alignment could change, but their birth year will not. Then we can have "sections" to each template, similar to the geographical/societal/political sections of the {{State}} template, but that can be included or omitted in situations where an individual, for example, only has 3rd edition information, or has 2nd, 3rd and 4th.

The other consideration is that any changes to "core" templates like {{Person}} or {{Location}} need to be backwards-compatible, as they are in use on thousands of articles, which would otherwise break. This could be limiting, but doesn't have to be.

Perhaps we can sandbox some of these new templates for the moment, if anyone wants to attempt their creation, to get a chance to discuss their implications?

Fw190a8 16:33, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and post a link here to my re-updated version of the Creature template over here. Ignore the fact that the image double-posts, that appears to just be an error that doesn't carry over to final version.

I've implemented color coding so that creatures from different planes have different colors for heading and text. Go ahead and give the colors a look and see if you like the results. If anybody has any suggestions, feel free to put them forward. If people like what they see, I'll go ahead and replace the current Creature template with that.

I've also done a simple upgrade for the book template.

Niirfa-sa 03:01, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
The book template you've done looks great! On your example, the image appears twice, not sure why that's happening. Also if you put "ISBN " in front of the ISBN numbers, they turn into links to book sources automatically, which might help some people.

I have had a go at the {{Location}} template, based on the {{State}} template. One thing I noticed is that if you didn't put any of the parameters into one particular section, say the geographical section, the layout actually broke, so I added an "if" clause to leave the entire section out unless one of its parameters is there. The flipside of this is that each time a new parameter gets added to a section, it will also need to be added to the list of parameters that trigger the visibility of that section.

Any problems do let me know, or just go ahead and fix if you can!

Fw190a8 16:02, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
Location looks pretty good. Nicely done. Good catch on the geography section. I'm thinking of going in there and allowing the subsections to disappear entirely if they have no data input - some of the locations using the template don't seem to have any geographical information, for instance.

The book template should be fixed, incidentally. I've also gone ahead and created new templates for each of the different power types (spell, prayer, exploit, evocation, discipline, hex) that are now in use in the wiki. If anyone wants me to revert them back I can do so easily - it's just a swap of the template coding and all of the templates currently in use will go back to their old look (though they'll remain separate templates, rather than just the spell template).

Next up I'm going to try and see if I can fix the issue originally brought up regarding dates.

Niirfa-sa 08:38, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.