Difference between revisions of "Settlement talk:Template Sandbox"
Hephaestus (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:::::: Well, I agree with you. But isn't it funny how condensed the information can be? I guess my point is that most of these wiki articles are too sparse. I've personally come across about 3/4 of the pages that need more information. Just the facts doesn't always do it. I guess the point of the template is to get "just the facts" off to the side and easy to spot so that we can maybe spend more time on more in depth information. --[[User:Hephaestus|Hephaestus]] 21:43, 22 August 2007 (CDT) | :::::: Well, I agree with you. But isn't it funny how condensed the information can be? I guess my point is that most of these wiki articles are too sparse. I've personally come across about 3/4 of the pages that need more information. Just the facts doesn't always do it. I guess the point of the template is to get "just the facts" off to the side and easy to spot so that we can maybe spend more time on more in depth information. --[[User:Hephaestus|Hephaestus]] 21:43, 22 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | (Skipping indentation) I think the core issue here is that usually '''there is no in-depth information'''. We have a huge amount of pages whose only unique information can be reduced to about five lines fitting inside a box: The name of the result item, the two items to combine, the items needed to complete it, and the skill used. Everything else is either redundant or fluff. | ||
+ | |||
+ | I've been thinking about introducing template boxes myself, so I support this measure. I see three main benefits. 1) A consistent view of the core information. 2) Getting rid of redundancy. 3) By cleaning up the pages, it becomes visually obvious that there's room for (and need for) in-depth information. | ||
+ | |||
+ | I would have adjusted the template some, but I'm still waiting for Egal to add the parserfunctions extension. Also moved the showcase to this page. Makes little sense to use the talk page of a different article from the one we're testing in. :) - [[User:Dashiva|Dashiva]] 15:46, 23 August 2007 (CDT) |
Revision as of 21:46, 23 August 2007
I was thinking that for pages on just about everything covering any kind of resource or building process (like 80% of this wiki) are sort of ugly and they don't flow well. They are, however, quite consistent which is good. If you browse on over the Dwarf Fortress wiki, you'll see nice template boxes on the right hand side that provide a sort of "just the facts" view of several different categories of things. Now DF and Wurm don't have a lot in common, but there is one thing that binds them: they're both games about stuff. I was thinking that designing templates for many of our "stuff-related" pages would really jazz up this wiki and make it more functional. It would provide easy at a glance info in the box, leaving the rest of the page to discuss quirks, advice, or general discussion on that item/building.
Anyway, I created this page for tinkering with templates to see if I or any of you can come up with something that looks nice and works. --Hephaestus 18:00, 18 August 2007 (CDT)
Also, if you guys think it's cool, I'll make a trial template page and a fake item entry to tinker around with the templates. --Hephaestus 18:40, 18 August 2007 (CDT)
- Let's try to keep it to one set of pages. One template (e.g. Template:Test) and one page to use it one (e.g. this page) is enough, any more extensive testing fits better as a subpage of your user page. - Dashiva 15:39, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
- At current, I have made 3 pages including this one with no plans to make any other. You're right though in that one page, TestItem can be done away with and I can test the results of the template tinkering on this page. Overall, I'm more interested in what people think of this idea in general. To me, it would make this wiki so much more tidy and easy to read, but I'm not interested in foisting my aesthetic onto others if they don't want it. --Hephaestus 16:46, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
- It feels strange, but then again it usually does when something new comes along, it will probably grow onto people. On the other hand I'm no wiki-admin, so I'm not in charge to do such decisions ^_^ --Steffe 21:19, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
- Well, if you want to check it out, I plugged the information for a hatchet into TestItem. I'll probably be making up a test image that should be used as a standard for such a template. --Hephaestus 22:08, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
- Hmm, I kinda like the old (current) version better, it feels so empty with the template-version :/ Then again, it's just that, a test so far. --Steffe 19:55, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
- Well, I agree with you. But isn't it funny how condensed the information can be? I guess my point is that most of these wiki articles are too sparse. I've personally come across about 3/4 of the pages that need more information. Just the facts doesn't always do it. I guess the point of the template is to get "just the facts" off to the side and easy to spot so that we can maybe spend more time on more in depth information. --Hephaestus 21:43, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
(Skipping indentation) I think the core issue here is that usually there is no in-depth information. We have a huge amount of pages whose only unique information can be reduced to about five lines fitting inside a box: The name of the result item, the two items to combine, the items needed to complete it, and the skill used. Everything else is either redundant or fluff.
I've been thinking about introducing template boxes myself, so I support this measure. I see three main benefits. 1) A consistent view of the core information. 2) Getting rid of redundancy. 3) By cleaning up the pages, it becomes visually obvious that there's room for (and need for) in-depth information.
I would have adjusted the template some, but I'm still waiting for Egal to add the parserfunctions extension. Also moved the showcase to this page. Makes little sense to use the talk page of a different article from the one we're testing in. :) - Dashiva 15:46, 23 August 2007 (CDT)