Template talk:Historical

From GodWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Historical page.

  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • No personal attacks
  • Do not bite the newcomers
  • Respond in a mature manner
  • Be welcoming
  • Maintain civility at all times

Research tools in hatnote?

First, great work WardPhoenix, making this and modifying {{Sign}} for the purpose!

Part of why I wanted to make {{Delete guild}} was to have automatic research tools included in the hatnote. I was wondering if that would be useful in this too. Something like:


This article is about something which is no longer in the game.

The subject of this article was once a part of Godville, but is no longer. It is kept here for its historical or creative value. Please do not delete this note or the article's content without discussing it on the talk page first, however, creative contributions and additional accurate details are still welcome.
Research tools: What links here — Search for Historical on Godwiki, or on the Forums

Would this be useful? It means that if you suspect a page is historical, you can preview with the hatnote and confirm your suspicions with some ease. -- Djonni (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! Plus I wonder in the same time if we shouldn't change some other {{Sign}} childs by using emoji instead of picture (for scaling purpose, but anyway that's another talk).
I guess it would be a nice idea for both templates! --WardPhoenix (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
using emoji instead of picture (for scaling purpose...) Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I'm on a slow but determined side job to eliminate unnecessary, non-scaling images wherever possible...
On topic: I'll enhance the template with those research links then! -- Djonni (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


A couple options I'd offer for debate:

  • Category:Historical, the category that's temporarily being used now. Simple, memorable, not especially informative.
  • Category:Articles about things that are no longer in the game: More informative, very long. That's perfectly fine for a hidden or maintenance category, but this is neither.
  • Category:No longer in the game: Maybe a good compromise?
  • Category:Questionable Content: This refers to the old way that content was flagged by users for removal — a special Ideabox category which is no longer there. It's also the name of the forum topic that was created by the Devs to take its place, now rarely used.

We should probably make a decision on this before we start using this lovely new template too much... -- Djonni (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Questionnable content don't fit IMO, if it is Questionnable in the sense of "can this be considered offensive/innapropriate/etc?" ; Removed content would sound the same way I guess...
Historical as you said, is short but vague (could be mistaken for something about history/lore) while the long one is well... long.
No longer in the game :seems a good compromise but it sounds somehow weird (but that's the best fit at the moment, so if others like it let's go for that one) maybe we could tweak it a little..... Content's not longer in game'?
On the other wiki they used Pages kept for historical interest. Maybe something like Articles kept for historical interest could work but it lacks the clarification about not being in game............. *scratch head*
We need others' ideas :D --WardPhoenix (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
We need others' ideas :D Always. πŸ˜„ I think your Content no longer in the game suggestion is definitely worth considering though. -- Djonni (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

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”˜ Oh well, User:Emptysora went bold and created Category:Historical, so let's go for it πŸ˜… (It have the advantage of having the same name as the template in a way...). -- WardPhoenix (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)