Talk:Point of interest

From GodWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Page Rename?

Should we rename this to 'Point Of Interest' to match the incoming link from the 'Side Jobs' page or just link under this name?

--S624 (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I think "Something interesting" makes sense, it's how they're labeled in the game. I just updated Side Job to link here under this name. If referring to the feature as a "point of interest" catches on, we can always create a forward redirect to this name. Or, we can move it and have the redirect go in the other direction. But I don't have any issues with keeping Something interesting as the title. (Nor do I have any objection to someone moving it, if they like.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah! I'm glad you pointed out this page is here GodS624 , because I hadn't found it. (I even added writing a point of interest article into my to-do list the other day!)
I would argue that the point of interest terminology is well established. Wrt:
I'd agree that moving this page to Point of interest with redirect would be sensible. -- Djonni (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback GodFeRDNYC  & GodDjonni . I assume it's just as simple as using the move feature? The only incoming links are from this talk page and side job. -- S624 (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
You assume correctly! :) Moving will also replace something interesting with a redirect, and if I'm not mistaken will also move this Talk page over. -- Djonni (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Before we move, which capitalization style? Point of Interest or Point of interest? -- S624 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)--S624 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I would opt for Point of interest, as that will lead both [[Point of interest]] and [[point of interest]] to correctly link, and I think it is least likely to appear in text on the godwiki as [[Point of Interest]]. But whichever you decide, we can add the appropriate redirect to the other capitalisation. :) -- Djonni (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Renamed as 'Point of interest'. Incoming link from 'Side job' changed to point directly at this page. -- S624 (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
πŸ‘ Works for me. And I agree that reading the bog post makes the case for Point of interest. Speaking of, I updated it to use {{Cite blog}} for the blog-post reference. And now, looking at the article, feels like we need a {{Cite forum}} as well, so off to sort that out. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Cite forum template

Tick.png Done {{Cite forum}} created and employed all over the article. I didn't bother to look up the post authors, other than the one (Djonni's) that I was using as my reference when building the citation template. So if anyone wants to fill in the rest, cool beans. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Djonni's forum topic link, above, makes me think I should either rewrite {{Cite forum}} as separate {{Cite forum post}} and {{Cite forum topic}} templates, or I should have it take |topic=number and |post=number arguments instead of expecting a post# in the unnamed arg. I'll think on that. (But not too long, since it'll be harder to change the more use it gets.) Input welcome.
I'm also thinking I should allow a |title=text to override the link text. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Whoops. I messed up. All of the forum links in the article happened to be in topic 1, so I assumed the topic# wasn't needed. But you do need to supply the correct topic number in addition to the post number, for redirect_to_post to work. So, I'll fix that up. And I might as well leave it as one template, then, because I can just add a second unnamed arg, and link to the topic if the user supplies a topic# with no post#. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, {{Cite forum}} now takes two unnamed args e.g. {{Cite forum|1|1}} => Godville Forum topic 1, post 1. One arg will result in a topic link, i.e. {{Cite forum|1}} => Godville Forum topic 1. I haven't done |title=, that'll be another day. But at least the template's usable as-is. I fixed all the transclusions in Point of interest. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I had toyed with the idea of a similar template, but hadn't come up with a sensible way to do it. This seems really good so far!
Considering that both {{Cite blog}} and {{Cite forum}} are used so often in <ref>s, I wonder if it's worthwhile for both of these to implement a |ref=yesno-no that wraps it in a <ref name="cite-blog-ref-{{{1}}}">...</ref> (and <ref name="cite-forum-ref-{{{2}}}">...</ref>) tags, for automatic reference grouping...? Perhaps that would need a |ref-text= to optionally add text after the link, before the </ref> for additional footnoted text, if required. So: {{{Cite blog|116|ref=yes|ref-text=explains the reasoning for this change.}} => <ref name="cite-blog-ref-116">[Normal cite blog code] explains the reasoning for this change.</ref>
πŸ€” Perhaps then also a |ref-only= that just inserts <ref name="cite-blog-ref-{{{1}}}" />. So, {{Cite forum|1|1199219|ref-only=yes}} => <ref name="cite-blog-ref-1199219" />. Does that seem like a useful enhancement? -- Djonni (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
My main worry with that is, if the <ref>...</ref> tags aren't actually visible in the source, then there's no way for people to reuse them except by using this template with its increasingly-convoluted syntax. Which it also then forces them to repeat needlessly.
IOW, if the template inserts the <ref>...</ref> tags, then someone wanting to refer to the same post three times has to write:
* Prayer in response to a small gold donation{{Cite forum|1|1199196|ref=yes}}
* Zero-GP Activatable item containing artifacts
* Healing (including healing artifact gain){{Cite forum|1|1199196|ref-only=yes}}
* 25% quest completion (assumed to give 5% on an epic quest){{Cite forum|1|1199196|ref-only=yes}}
* Gold payout
instead of:
* Prayer in response to a small gold donation<ref name="SR Post">{{Cite forum|1|1199196}}</ref>
* Zero-GP Activatable item containing artifacts
* Healing (including healing artifact gain)<ref name="SR Post" />
* 25% quest completion (assumed to give 5% on an epic quest)<ref name="SR Post" />
* Gold payout
That doesn't really feel better or more convenient, to me. Especially for the editor who just wants to add another <ref name="SR Post" /> citation.
It also creates a trap for anyone who doesn't notice that they're duplicating an existing citation, and ends up creating a second identical {{Cite forum|1|1199219|ref=yes}} cite. Normally a duplicate cite just adds a (harmless) redundant entry in the reflist, which can be fixed by naming and combining the refs (but doesn't even have to be). But if the template is inserting the <ref name=>...</ref> wrappers, instead they've got a giant parser error because there are two <ref>...</ref>s with the same name= attribute β€” and they can't even really see where those are, in the source. -- FeRDNYC (talk)

β”Œβ”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”€β”˜ That's all very true β€” particularly about multiple duplicate citations. I didn't think about the parser errors and how that would be handled by the wiki (and the user) :) Certainly not easier than just typing your own <ref>...</ref> tags. (Good call on pinching {{tag}} too btw!) -- Djonni (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)