Template talk:Blackboxendmatter

From GodWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Really necessary to duplicate all this content?

Hmm. I get the idea here, and it's certainly preferable to actually duplicating the content across all of the associated articles. But I wonder if we really need six (I think?) articles that are identical except for the name of the object. Even if those six articles are all generated from a single template.

Couldn't we just create a "Black box artifacts" article, containing the contents of this template (plus a little explanation about which artifacts qualify), and then place redirects from all six artifacts' names to that one article?

Seems... kinder to the reader, to not (potentially) trick them into reading the exact same thing six times. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

OIC. They're not completely identical. ...Then, yeah, I suppose I have no objection to this. (Might consider converting the "See also" list into a Template:Navboxblackboxes, though, as it looks weird to see the name of the current article in a "See Also" list. In which case, I'd suggest placing it on each page, rather than in this template. Like the other navboxes.)
There does also seem to be some issue with font sizing, as I noticed that the Categories list at the bottom of articles which transclude this template is shown in a larger font than it is on other articles. I'll take a quick look now and see if I can whack that. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Fixed.png Fixed The font-size thing. Turns out it wasn't because of the template transclusion, it happened because there was a reference on the page with no <reflist /> to display it. That caused the ref to automatically be placed at the bottom of the page, after the (MediaWiki) article-body content. Which pushed the Categories list below it also out of the body content. Which changed the styling applied to it. Quite the row of dominoes!
I added a References section to this template, though I'm nervous about that, and what might happen if one of those pages has other references that aren't part of the template. I guess we'll find out. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Just saw the change, does look much better. Thanks for tracking it down! :) I've been thinking similarly about a navbox, or learning if an {{#if can check {{BASEPAGENAME}} and so could disappear the current page from the see also list, looking into that was on The List™. I toyed briefly with a full navboxactivatableartifacts, but List of Artifacts has 73 activatables and that's probably a bit over the top.
You make a good point about this template on pages that have other references, I hadn't thought of that. But since the matter appearing on the rest of the page is basically going to be just flavour, I don't imagine it's going to be an issue.
Also on The List™, if this is considered a successful experiment in keeping useful information consistent, easier to find, and easier to keep accurate, I was going to look at a similar endmatter template for other activatable artifacts. I doubt it's necessary for all, or possibly even for any others, but was going to look into it. --Djonni (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have no doubt it's possible to use {{PAGENAME}} to filter the See Also list. (You'd basically just have to test it N times, one for each entry, and not output the entry that matches it. So, just a series of

{{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME: Gift of fate}} | {{PAGENAME}} | <!-- equal --> | [[Gift of fate]] }} {{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME: Deus ex machina}} | {{PAGENAME}} | <!-- equal --> | [[Deus ex machina]] }}

... etc.) But a Navbox also takes up way less page area, so I think it was definitely the right way to go. It's looking good!

I made one small tweak, changing the "Instructions for use" section title to "Example of use". Partly because it didn't actually provide, or even really present, any actual instructions... but also because one of the articles (don't remember which) actually includes an "Instructions" section of its own, so it felt clashy.

Ugh, looking at that diary entry box reminds me that I need to get Template:Diary fixed up and modernized. I successfully rebuilt Template:Diaryquest's style=default mode so that it looks identical to the live godwiki browser interface (actually uses the exact same CSS, as much as possible, in fact), which was no small feat to be honest. So it's dumb that it's still not out there for people to make use of.

I have every intention of doing the same for Template:Diary, at which point I can switch those styles over to be the actual default style for the template. (Currently "default" is not the default style, because Spode was a bit strange sometimes.) I just have to set aside the couple of hours it'll take to actually do it. Maybe this weekend. I'm sick of seeing those weirdo, I-guess-it-was-the-interface-at-some-point-long-before-I-started-playing diary boxes. (And it's really not very much work, now that I've made the decision to just dump all those other wacky, rainbow-colored style= modes instead of updating them, since as far as I can tell they've never once been used, anywhere, by anyone. And also they're ugly and stupid.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Good changes! And thank you for consistently fixing my absent-minded insistence on including the namespace in the documentation, and other goofs :D
The diary template bugs me too, but is well outside my skills to fix, so I'll stand back and cheer. And bring snacks. --Djonni (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Tick.png Done The new diary template is installed, and since I figured I had to "real-world" test it somewhere I even switched this template over to using it. So, for now we'll get to see how it works out here, though I still hope/plan to make it the new actual default soon. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

References block group-sequestered

That <references /> block I stuck in the template code, and the subsequent need to ensure that none of the transcluding pages use one of their own, has always made me nervous. It hasn't become an issue yet, mostly because none of the articles have any references of their own. But, I figured a better idea was to move the template's references into a group of its own, add a <references /> block for just that reference to the template, and let the outer article deal with its own references in its own way. So, that's what I've done. No need to worry about the template's references block or do anything special on the transcluding article. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Good change, each time I look at this I have the same feeling about the references block. Elegant solution. -- Djonni (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Straw poll on end-matter artifact templates

Well, with the introduction of the Autumn mushroom season (Godville Blog, post 127: Poetry & Gathering), it seems that we have a new class of activatable with consistent information across the whole group.

I created Template:Blackboxendmatter a while ago to solve what I thought was a real problem with those articles at the time: all the black box artifacts had totally different information on their pages, inconsistent and patchy. A good edit with great information on one would never be seen on the others. It seemed to me it was a reasonable solution to this, allowing each item to have its own page and description and game lore (rather than pulling everything to one page), while still keeping the information consistent across the group. The downside, of course, is that it makes those pages less easy for novice editors to contribute to.

So, I wanted to test the waters for extending the end-matter style of template to other artifact classes. Activatables are obvious candidates, but there's quite a lot of shared information that could usefully be replicated across other types:

  • Fishing artifacts, bold and normal
  • Healing artifacts
  • Foreign (sailing) artifacts
  • Boss parts
  • Probably more.

Obviously, some of those would be more interesting than others and I'm definitely not advocating that they all deserve their own end-matter template, but it's worth throwing them into a conversation.

What do we think? Do we think that end-matter templates are worth expanding? Is there a clever thing we can do that makes them more editable, like a subtle version of the v·t·e links on navbox and infobox templates? -- Djonni (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I have never been fund of this template, though it was probably necessary at the time it was made. The main reason being it's WAY overdetailled and add WAY too much content that kinda hide the fact that specific article are supposed to be a creative space. That's why when FeRDNYC updated {{Artifact}} to add effects of activatable artifact back then, I did two things:
And I frankly hesitated to remove your template from the concerned articles back then but decided against it because I couldn't find a good alternative to keep the detailled content at the moment (and I had better things to do xD)
My suggestion for the matter at hand, would be to add a special artifacts sections in the Artifact page and to add a special subclass parameter in {{artifact}} for fishing artifact information and boss part that would link to the appropriate page.
Healing artifact have their article and Oceanic Boxes (as i called them) and have a navbox and could be treated the same way i did for Black boxes since they are activatable artifacts. Same could be done for the new autumn mushrooms and other seasonals activatable artifacts.
Then another possibility if you want to keep your end matter format could be to slighly hide it under a collapse function or maybe in an insert so it makes it more digest to read. --WardPhoenix (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Mmm, I think I was the only one who was pleased with my oh-so-clever end-matter template was me, FeRDNYC wasn't hot on it at first either, heh. I certainly take your point about excessive detail in the template, and distracting from the creative nature of the page, I think that's a really great point.
I'm certainly not opposed to scrapping the template for a better solution. The idea of infobox linking to specific sections of Artifact actually seems pretty clever to me. I saw there was a bit of discussion of that over on Talk:Artifacts in Jan-Apr this year that I should go catch up on and join in. I'll do that a bit later today, when I've a bit more spare attention... -- Djonni (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)