Forum:Idea for information box for content box templates

Forums: Helping Hand > Idea for information box for content box templates

---

Use the following template for a nicely presented post:

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

---

Background

On my talk page, BadCatMan started a thread in response to how I had made an article that was high up in the wanted articles list. The creature was on the list solely because it was a link in a content box, and BatCatMan was suggesting that I not waste time with articles for creatures that are not realms-specific. I agree with him; I'd much rather write articles related to the Realms, but I was misled by the content box, because I had (perhaps foolishly) assumed that whoever wrote it had obtained the list from a Realms-specific sourcebook.

Proposal #1 — rejected

All content box templates should be required to have sources.
We could easily add a parameter to Template:4ed box and Template:Content box (and its colored friends) where a source could be added and have it appear somewhere in small text at the bottom of the box. I have a feeling that would kind of look ugly, so I also propose a second soultion.…

Proposal #2

All content box templates should be required to have sources on the actual template page, but not in the box itself.

Example

I have created two quick examples of what I mean, one based on the generic wiki "meta" boxes often seen at the top of pages that have something wrong with them and the other based on the Template:Information box we use to source images.
One would simply include
<noinclude>{{Content box source|{{Cite book/The Best Sourcebook EVER}}}}</noinclude>
or the like at the top of any content box template page. Here are the two examples, using a template I made for my Tethyr Geography project as the dummy template:
Click here for the example.
(I am not at all attached to the format of either box; it's just to get my idea across.)

Thoughts?

~ Lhynard (talk) 21:31, April 18, 2015 (UTC)

I know that BadCatMan doesn't really like such content boxes at all, but I really like them, and I think some others do. I think it would be good to get rid of ones that aren't sourced though, so that the ones left are a true indication of "gaps" in Realmslore that should be filled by editors.

~ Lhynard (talk) 21:33, April 18, 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm dubious about various aspects of this topic. I think trying to limit the content of these information boxes to only proven canon material is ultimately a losing proposition. It is human nature (or at least geek nature) to want a complete list of, say, demons, regardless if they appear in an official FR publication or not. If we cut out all demons we think are non-canon, it will be a never-ending battle with new editors that look at the list and say "they're missing some demons, I'll add them" and then we have to undo their work, explain our reasons, and possibly alienate another helping hand. Repeat ad nauseum. The boxes Lhyn made would help, but it still leaves that dissatisfied taste in the mouth when a list is incomplete.

Even if a particular demon doesn't get mentioned by name in an FR sourcebook, doesn't mean it does not exist in the Realms. You can't prove a negative. As a resource for DMs, I would want to have the whole list of demons to choose from.

Therefore, instead of (or in addition to) requiring references for each demon, we could go ahead and list them all and stub out the articles with a note (or a fancy box) that says something like "This creature has not been discovered in a Forgotten Realms sourcebook and therefore may not be canon. If you find otherwise, please provide a source." Another possibility is to divide up the box into canon and not-yet-proven-canon sections. If we want to have a place to put references, Proposal #2 could work, using <noinclude> tags around the refs or I could write a script, I think.

—Moviesign (talk) 05:45, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Since I originated the problem...

I don't think putting references in the content boxes would help. That would just vastly inflate the references on any given page that uses these boxes. Ideally, the links in these boxes shouldn't need references, as they should lead to pages that are referenced.

Third option: Put the complete list of demons on the demon page or a subpage, or at a List of demons page. Then we have a record and ready red links for new pages, and it satisfies anyone's desire for a complete index and demonology. We can put a note there to say that not all are necessarily present in the Realms, satisfy desires for clarity on that front.

Then we reserve these content boxes for links we know for sure that are in the Realms (as on Lhynard's Tethyr case), or that actually have pages on the FRW.

After all, on Wikipedia and other wikias, these are navigation templates, used to navigate a wiki by touring a series of similar, related topics (when I do use them, I just click through them in sequence). Wikipedia says on navigation templates "Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles. Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first."

So, we remove all the red links and reserve these boxes for pages on the wiki. That makes them easier to use for navigation around the wiki, removes clutter like obscure no-name demons, and no one need expect a page to exist on them. It also massively reduces the number of reported wanted articles.

Sound good?

— BadCatMan (talk) 06:56, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

If you <noinclude> the refs, they won't show up on every page you use the jump cat box. But I agree it's better the refs are placed in an article rather than template documentation. I like BadCat's option #3.

—Moviesign (talk) 14:14, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, BadCat's plan seems less cluttering :)

- Darkwynters (talk) 15:34, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, all.

Ok, so we all agree that Proposal #1 is out (no references in content/connections boxes). I think I'm ok with BatCat's Proposal #3, but I'd like some clarification, because it involves the most work of any of the proposals, and I want to make sure we are all on the same page before I make a ton of changes.

Proposal #3

All content box templates should be treated as navigation templates.

• They should not contain red links.
• Red links from existing content box templates should be deleted and the list should be moved to a page "List of Foo" with a link from the "Foo" page. The "List of Foo" page should have the Template:Unrelated (or a similar) box at the top.

Questions/Comments

1. Is that a correct recap of your idea, BatCat?
2. Content box template pages are still going to need some sort of policy explanation at the top, similar to my Proposal #2. Otherwise, new editors will make their own new content boxes with a bunch of red links.
3. Shall I move all my red-link containing content boxes to my Sandbox until I've completely filled them in?
   In my case, I made the lists from FR sources, and I intend to fill them in, but it could be confusing to others. I don't want to delete the red links from my boxes, because they are more than just lists—they are hierarchical: they contain information content in addition to being useful for navigation, and most (good) content boxes are the same way. (My language box, for example, shows you that Maiden's Tongue is a Central Thorass language, even though the article isn't written yet. That knowledge is better than nothing at all, if you come to the site for information and run a search for Maiden's Tongue—which I've done.) I've spent a lot of time in the layout.
   The best option then would probably be to unlink the links but keep the text in place. This would maintain the hierarchical information. Is that satisfactory?
   Even so, using something like Proposal #2 would act as proof that, yes, all the information in this box is in the FR, that is, the hierarchical structure has a source.

In summary, I love the idea of making list pages and removing many red links from content boxes to reduce "wanted" articles and treat them more like navigation boxes, but I think we may still need something like Proposal #2 anyway in addition.

~ Lhynard (talk) 00:42, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's it. Or the "list of foo" could go on the Foo page.

However, if it is guaranteed Realmslore, like Lhynard {{Faerûnian languages}} or Tethyrian geography, then I'm all in favour of keeping red links, to show something is in the Realms, to maintain structure, and to encourage a new article. So maybe we can clarify this only applies to core-D&D lists, not FR-specific content.

— BadCatMan (talk) 02:54, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm using Demon and Template:List of demons as a starter test case. The Demon page essentially already contained such a list, if one counts the {{Main}} links to other demon sub-categories. I went through and removed all the red links from the template and made sure every red link I removed was somewhere on the Demon page or one of its sub-articles. The template actually is an ok size now, and tomorrow, the wanted article page is going to be a lot smaller.

That's all I'm going to do for now, in case we decide to change something or if I did something wrong.

~ Lhynard (talk) 03:43, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

Great! I've done {{Abominations}} and {{Angels}}.

— BadCatMan (talk) 13:21, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

How about making the title of the "Foo" box link to the "List of foo" page? In the example case this would be either the Demon page or List of demons page. That way a user can easily get to the whole list.

—Moviesign (talk) 14:07, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

I'd been doing that on my own lists, and I have changed a few I've come across; I think that's the way to go.

~ Lhynard (talk) 14:21, April 21, 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll start off by saying that I think you guys have come up with a good solution to the problem of redlinks and potential non-canon articles in the navigation panels. However the generic/core articles are something of a backbone for the wiki and are a useful tool for bringing an even broader range of users here. There are a lot of 'core' creatures in the background of many adventures, sourcebooks and novels that casual users of the wiki wouldn't think to add or expand. As Lhynard orginally pointed out these redlinks are a great way to dive in get articles made. Some of you might have noted the few Indexes I've added recently. I did this partly to help me know what articles I need to create in the future and to encourage others to get stuck in (hopefully with what I consider the more mundane 'core' articles). Although I agree with the move, I think we need to bridge some gaps this might create.

1. Help editors who create articles to update the navigation panel; the List of Demons page might do this anyway.

2. Add more indexes....though I know they are quite a tall task.

Other than that, I like that this will actually make the Wanted pages article far more useful.

--Eli the Tanner (talk) 00:02, April 22, 2015 (UTC)

Moviesign: That's a good idea.

Eli: We don't plan to remove any old generic articles. The aim is to limit the obscure, back-end-of-monster-manual stuff like the abyssal drake. I think we can keep the old classic monsters that we know will have a Realms connection somewhere; most are already statted anywhere.

Eli: I did not notice you'd indexed those. Great work! I'll make these Featured Source articles, or you can do it yourself. Anyway, these indexes are a much better way of indicating what's in the Realms and needs to be added.

— BadCatMan (talk) 13:57, April 22, 2015 (UTC)

Righto BadCatMan, if I see some generic articles I'll check the Indexes for links and vice versa. Thanks for the support on the Indexes, I did them for my own benefit mostly but I'm glad they wil get more use now. I noticed it encouraged some new users to make a swathe of articles around them too. I might submit one or two to the nominations page, but some of them still need summaries. Thanks.

--Eli the Tanner (talk) 09:51, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

I added an intro and summary to The Twilight Tomb and made it a featured source. (I ran that, good horror atmosphere but it really peters out in the final tower.)

— BadCatMan (talk) 11:57, April 23, 2015 (UTC)