FANDOM


Forums: Helping Hand > Great Wheel navbox

Use the following template for a nicely presented post:

{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}


Hi everyone,

I have just finished creating a navbox for the {{Great Wheel cosmology}}. I also made an image map using the illustration from the Player's Handbook 5th edition as a base. Comments and suggestions are, as always, most welcome.

I started this little project with the goal of including the template in the footers of all the relevant planes that are linked by it, but then the question of other cosmologies came across. Because most of these planes exist in multiple cosmologies, should we create a separate navbox for each particular cosmology and then include all at the bottom of each plane?

Since the Great Wheel is the standard cosmology in 5e, it seems reasonable that this navbox be at least the first one to be made, but I'd like to hear people's opinions before adding it to all the other planar pages.

Sirwhiteout (talk) 19:37, June 12, 2018 (UTC)


Well, I think it looks beautiful, and I like imagemaps and navboxes.

On the other hand, I feel like it is obnoxiously large.

As far as other navboxes, I think that every plane should have a navbox for each of the major cosmologies. However, that too would take up far too much space.

My suggestion would be to make the navbox collapsible, so that it could be expanded to show the full imagemap to those who want to see and stay compact for those who don't need to.

~ Lhynard (talk) 03:42, June 13, 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for the suggestion. I have just changed the template to make the image collapsible.

The picture itself still seems a little too big, though. I will try to make it smaller and see if it looks better (without making the detail so small that it feels like the reader has to snipe the right pixel in order to reach it).

Sirwhiteout (talk) 16:02, June 13, 2018 (UTC)


I don't think that we want to make the image much smaller; as it is, it is already hard to read the labels.

One way to reduce the size is also to use horizontal labels: Transitive Planes: Astral PlaneEthereal plane …instead of : Transitive Planes
Astral PlaneEthereal plane

I do this on occasion to keep the navboxes from growing too large. See, for example:

Baatezu
Least: AdvespaLemureNupperibo
Lesser: AbishaiBarbazuHamatulaSpinagon
Greater: AmnizuCornugonErinyesGelugonOsyluthPit fiendWar devil
Miscellaneous Devils
Alu-fiendArchdevilCambionDuergarFimbrul devilHellcatImpKytonLegion devilNarzugonSeared devilSuccubusTar devil


I wonder if we should have a single cosmology navbox with three headings, each collapsible—Great Wheel, World Tree, and World Axis. The links of all three would be hidden until expanded, and all could have an image map.

~ Lhynard (talk) 18:05, June 13, 2018 (UTC)


Ok, here is the new template:



I had to change the code a little bit in the existing World Axis cosmology/imagemap and World Tree cosmology/imagemap, namely removing the frame or thumb parameters in the image call sequence and setting desc none as one of the imagemap parameters, otherwise it would render the image in a weird position or with an inappropriate size. This may change the way these pictures are displayed in their respective pages, but if these very same pictures appear in the navbox, then it might be redundant anyway.

Thoughts? If this meets general approval, I can go ahead and put it in the respective planar pages.

Sirwhiteout (talk) 01:30, June 14, 2018 (UTC)


Excellent work!
Moviesign (talk) 01:43, June 14, 2018 (UTC)


I love it!
~ Lhynard (talk) 04:25, June 14, 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for the feedback! I am now in the process of adding the navbox to the pages.

Lhynard, your comment almost made me spill my coffee. Well played, sir, well played. :)

Which reminds me: para-elemental and quasi-elemental planes have no pages of their own. Maybe some of them do deserve it. The Quasi-Elemental Plane of Radiance has a very important presence in the skies of Toril.

Sirwhiteout (talk) 14:04, June 14, 2018 (UTC)


Ha ha. I was worried that no one would get it.

I agree about articles for the paras and quasis. There is plenty of information out there about them. I think the biggest issue will be consistency with spelling/hyphenation.

~ Lhynard (talk) 15:02, June 14, 2018 (UTC)


So, regarding spelling and hyphenation, most sources that do mention these planes are 1e and 2e (Planescape) ones. Non-Planescape sources (1e and Spelljammer) seem to use hyphenated forms as the standard (Quasi-Elemental Plane of Radiance, etx.), while Planescape sources do not hyphenate (Quasielemental Plane of Radiance). The Monstrous Compendium Planescape Appendix III mentions the "quasiplane of Vacuum" as well.

The Manual of the Planes 3rd edition calls them "paraplanes" and "quasi-planes", but does not list them individually with any further detail, so not much help there.

I don't know of any 4e source that mentions these planes (which isn't unexpected, since 4e does its own thing) and 5e calls some of them by different names entirely. However, the Dungeon Master's Guide 5th edition only mentions what used to be the paraelemental planes, but leaves out the quasielemental ones.

So I think in the end we have the following situation: if we want to apply the latest-edition naming convention, the main pages of the twelve mixed planes should be called the following:

Since most of these pages already exist as redirects anyway, it would be quite easy to do.

Thoughts?

Sirwhiteout (talk) 20:56, June 14, 2018 (UTC)


Works for me!
~ Lhynard (talk) 21:04, June 14, 2018 (UTC)


According to the dictionary, the word quasi, when used as a combining form, should always be followed by a hyphen. Another argument in favor of a hyphen is that non-English speakers may not automatically know where to break the word quasielemental. My vote is for the hyphenated form. It just looks better. :)
Moviesign (talk) 22:30, June 14, 2018 (UTC)


All other things being equal, I would always go with the orthographically correct form.

Ooh, would that be the reason why the 3e Manual of the Planes writes "paraplanes" and "quasi-planes"?

Besides the most recent edition thing, I just realized that I was also inclined to choose the non-hyphenated form because a few years ago an orthographic reform in the Portuguese language (aiming at bridging the gap between European and Brazilian grammar, go figure) decided to drop the hyphen in many cases (quasi-elemental would have been one of them, in fact).

Anyway. So, hyphenated then? :)

Sirwhiteout (talk) 00:58, June 15, 2018 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.