Great idea, Fw190a8! It's a good way to show readers what sources have things they might be interested it, and what more needs to be written up out of one. I learned to index sources like that at my first wiki, Star Trek's Memory Beta, such as here. I tried it here early on, but didn't see it practiced on any other source page, and my early effort didn't look nice, so I gave up. I was thinking of attempting it again however.
I've expanded on your list of indexes, and to make it shorter I adopted an arrangement style from that wikia. Let me know what you think of the results. -- BadCatMan (talk) 02:02, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
- Hell yes, that looks way better with the bullets and is more concise! I got the idea from Wookieepedia (see w:Starwars:A War on Two Fronts) where their implementation is slightly different. For this wiki, I reckon your implementation is better. As always, open to opinions from other editors, though! Fw190a8 (talk · contr) 13:49, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
- I think here we might end up with a lot more information per source than an at Wookiepedia, especially out of sourcebooks. A compressed approach (the sideways list) would work well for us, I feel, and it puts everything right there in front of your eyes rather than scrolling down a list to look for it.
- Another idea is to subdivide the lists. For example: characters who appear, followed characters who are only referenced or have very little information given about them. So a story where Elminster appears is distinguished from one that only namedrops him.
- Another example is to divide Locations into, say, sites, buildings, settlements, and realms. -- BadCatMan (talk) 03:27, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're right. I think it might well be worth splitting it into sections "Characters (featured)" and "Characters (mentioned)" and the same with everything else, like "Spells (featured)" and "Spells (mentioned)". It would be useful to the reader to know which spells were cast by a powerful wizard in an adventure, for example, but if we list those, the reader should not expect to find the descriptions of the spells in the source.
- Okay, I broke it up by appearance, referenced only, different types of places and so on. For spells, I decided not to print whole NPC spell-lists, but only mentioned those that had a particular importance in the storyline. Similarly, I listed special magic items, but not non-magical items and +1 longswords.
- I used "New" for a new magical item statted in the adventure, and we could do the same for new spells. I'm not happy with the title though.
- I figured the full-line across the page from the == header would be better to divide individual FR-set adventures or short stories from each other when they appear in the same work.
- That extends the list down a bit, but gives a lot more organization to it. I think I'm generally rather satisfied with it. :) -- BadCatMan (talk) 06:12, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Not just magazines. I figure this could be done for any source material page, whether sourcebook, novel or computer game. Of course, it's a bit more work, but I find it's not too much of a chore for an editor already committed to fully outputting articles from a particular source, whether "Into the Nest of Vipers" or Cormyr: A Novel. ;) Even if one just picks out a handful of topics while working on something else, it's easy to pop the links in along the way (though easy to forget about). It's a handy checklist for the editor too. :)
- That's better, but most things will be "first appearance", like all the NPCs. I wanted some way of expressing that an item like the torque of faith is first statted out in this adventure, in case someone wants to check out the rules aspects, but didn't want to get too crunchy about it. Perhaps a footnote, or would be it better as a note on the article itself? -- BadCatMan (talk) 02:51, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I hope I am doing this right. OK, the artist listed for the cover of the Dragon issue is listed as "Bron" and not "Brom". The link goes to an NPC named Bron as opposed to a(n external link?) to the actual artist.
I am not sure how to fix this; just thought I'd point it out.