Talk:Point of interest
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
S624 , because I hadn't found it. (I even added writing a point of interest article into my to-do list the other day!)
- Ah! I'm glad you pointed out this page is here
- I would argue that the point of interest terminology is well established. Wrt:
- Terminology as used by devs: Godville Blog, post 116; Godville Blog, post 118; in-game hint for Side Jobs
- Terminology as used by players: Points of interest discussion forum topic; forum as relating to side jobs, forum as relating to ideabox
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Personally, I would opt for Point of interest, as that will lead both
- 👍 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
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=numberand|post=numberarguments 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=textto 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_postto 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)
- 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
- 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)
- Okay, {{Cite forum}} now takes two unnamed args e.g.
- 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-nothat 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>
- Considering that both {{Cite blog}} and {{Cite forum}} are used so often in
- 🤔 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)
- 🤔 Perhaps then also a
- 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.
- My main worry with that is, if the
- IOW, if the template inserts the
<ref>...</ref>tags, then someone wanting to refer to the same post three times has to write:
- IOW, if the template inserts the
* 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.
- That doesn't really feel better or more convenient, to me. Especially for the editor who just wants to add another
- 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 samename=attribute — and they can't even really see where those are, in the source. -- FeRDNYC (talk)
- 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
That's all very true — 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)
