Forum:Headers for Non-Game Content

Forums: Yew Grove > Headers for Non-Game Content

This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 25 December 2014 by Liquidhelium.

The Wiki is an encyclopedia for all things relating to RuneScape. If it relates to the current version of the game in some way, we have information on it. This is why we have pages on characters like Greagor or Pia because, even though they don't appear in the actual game, they appear in the canonical books and are therefore worthy of articles per RS:G. However, on articles like these, we have giant headers, such as Template:LoB, Template:BaF, Template:AoG, or Template:RtC, on the top of them state that they aren't in the game. Personally, I don't believe this to be necessary and see it only as a detriment to the information by adding unnecessary clutter to the wiki (look at Master Peregrim for a quick example, those 2 headers take up half the page).

One reason we may have them is because we don't want people to get confused thinking that they are somewhere in the game. However, a big header is simply not the way to do it in a comprehensive wiki such as ours. When reading the articles, it becomes plainly clear from what is written that they do not appear in the actual game (although some actually do, like Kara-Meir). If we want people to be aware of this, subtlety can be important. We have navboxes for some of the books, such as Template:Return to Canifis, that explicitly say "Exclusive Characters". When added at the bottom this gets the point across efficiently. Not to mention, the category of the page also helps. We do not need a giant header at the top of the page saying this if it says it at the bottom.

Another reason we might have these headers is because if people haven't read the books yet, reading the article might spoil it for them. However, this is not a valid argument. We are not a spoiler-free wiki and we cannot allow this to force us to degrade the presentation of our articles. It is simply not what we do.

A third reason we may have these headers is to say that the article is considered canon unless the game contradicts it. But why does that need to be said? If it's said on the wiki, of course it will be canon as we do not allow speculation in our articles. And if it was canon and the game has contradicted it, a note would be made explaining this; the header is redundant.

I propose we delete those 4 templates (Template:LoB, Template:BaF, Template:AoG, and Template:RtC) and replace them with navboxes at the bottom of the appropriate articles. There's no use for them and on small pages they simply double the size of the article.

Discussion

Support - As nominator. ɳex undique 22:59, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral - I also don't like the templates taking up half an article, but I do think they're valuable. Can't we just make the templates smaller? Oil4 ^Talk 23:16, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - changed the templates to use the standard messagebox format. Master Peregrim looks okay to me (here's another example with the templates scattered throughout the article if you want to see how it looks). --Iiii I I I 02:44, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see why we need them at all. It's obvious in the articles that the character/organization isn't present in the game. And we don't need them scattered throughout articles, we can just use Template:OccDur, like in Kara-Meir#The_Siege_of_Falador. ɳex undique 02:56, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

I like this Oil4 ^Talk 10:51, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Our policy on canon should be laid out in a project page, not on every page it applies to. Also, you forgot Template:Postbag. MolMan 02:45, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

That too. ɳex undique 18:41, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Support - At first I wasn't sure how to comment on this (I mean we could just merge those two stupid book templates so they take up less space), but what it comes down to is that we are not a spoiler-free wiki. Where canon characters are located is given in the body text & their infoboxes, we don't need a separate template for it (especially those that seem to exist to tell people about incoming spoilers). User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 22:18, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - D'you all think that the books should also fall under the spoiler policy? One could argue they should be excepted due to being IRL stuff that not every player could easily obtain. Fswe1 16:05, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Then they shouldn't be looking characters up on the wiki. MolMan 16:07, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - {{FromBook}} was made today by the wonderful Salix. While it is not likely that we will have a template for each single combination, perhaps it's possible to replace all current templates with a simple "This appears in one or more of the three novels"? I do think we need a template, but you are right in saying having four different templates is very prone to clutter.  ThePsionic  16:29, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

What purpose does a header like this serve though? ɳex undique 18:41, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

It makes it clear where this information comes from. Personally I like when I find some random person's article and I can immediately tell that it's not from the game but from one of the books or from the FunOrb game. Oil4 ^Talk 18:45, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

It has categories that say that, a header is unnecessary. And can be confusing: Doric has the header, but he's also in-game. ɳex undique 18:56, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

And who looks at categories? Certainly not random visitors Oil4 ^Talk 23:22, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

I just don't believe it so important that they know the article is about book-content right off the bat. ɳex undique 15:05, December 4, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I have to agree with Oil, the header box is a nice addition to the article. Gives some context. When I see an article that lacks one of our lovely in-game screenshots, I have to wonder why, and that kind of header helps when I can't have the context of the books. And besides, another thing is: who actually looks at the categories? Because of the way they're placed, you'd have to be looking for them or familiar with the wiki. Personally, I'd take the clarity, especially given a lot of those pages haven't much text to begin with.

Wingcap

22:10, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Per my comments above Oil4 ^Talk 23:21, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - The canonicity of certain lores needs to be explicity explaint, to avoid making unexperienced players believe certain things truly happened in-game.
My suggestion would be to merge all templates about canonicity ({{BaF}}, {{LoB}}, {{RtC}}, {{AoG}}, {{Postbag}}, etc.) in a single template, called {{No canon}}; this template needs to be a single-line (with 24px - 28px height). Thus, it won't occupy too much space. --See ya':
01:13, December 4, 2014 (UTC)

These things truly did happen in-game, they're mentioned when you talk to certain NPCs. ɳex undique 01:41, December 4, 2014 (UTC)

Are you telling me that the Flames of Lloigh-Enn do really existed in-game? Or have you visited recently the Falador Sewers? Clearly certain events and characters are both referred in-game and out-game, and in these cases would be opportune to discuss whether or not applies the {{No canon}} template. --See ya':
03:24, December 4, 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that the Flames are canon. Or that Squire Theodore actually existed and died. ɳex undique 15:05, December 4, 2014 (UTC)

According to Jagex, God letters, Postbag from the Hedge, and RuneScape novels should not be considered canon, unless referred otherwise in-game (the case of Kara-Meir, for example). They're just "fantasy lore in a fantasy lore", myths and legends of Gielinorean folk. This is an important thing that players need to know: these references did not exist and did not happen in-game. That's the role of these themplates (or the hypothetical {{No canon}} template). --See ya':
08:57, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no. Jagex have said multiple times that novels, postbags, ect are canon except the bits that are contradicted in-game. Seeing as they continue to be referenced in-game (Jerrod will be featuring in an upcoming quest, for example), it would be stupid for us to say that they are non-canon. Wahisietel (Talk) 11:17, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - What about an in-line reference template within the article instead, like at the end of non-game content or sections? It would provide the same information without pushing down article content. ~ Lhikan634 (talk) 02:05, December 4, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Per my comment above; {{FromBook}} should in my opinion be used rather than the tree separate templates we use now.  ThePsionic  19:45, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

Edit: {{OccDur}} is a nice supplement to beforementioned template.  ThePsionic  19:46, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - These templates serve an information purpose while indeed explaining a fragment of the wiki policy. It seems to me this, or the fact that they take some space in shorter articles, isn't a problem. 5-x ^Talk 17:28, December 7, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral - The size of the templates I think is an issue right now, so I support the removal as of current since it does seem too much in my eyes. But perhaps all of them could be combined into a single template and also modified to consume less space of the page? Then I'd be okay with keeping them, hence the neutral stance. – Ozank Cx 17:29, December 13, 2014 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to remove these templates outright. However, interested users may consolidate them and make them visually smaller. --Liquid^Talk 06:37, December 25, 2014 (UTC)