Settlement talk:Template Sandbox

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)

Thanks for the much needed input Dashiva. I agree with you on almost all counts. I do agree that we need to keep things concise, but many pages are more than a few degrees shy of concise. For example, the other day I made my first dirt mound and I realized that the wiki didn't mention that you need a second kindling to start the pile. Also, there was no indication of what affected the output of the pile. There are lots of pages like that. Just because information doesn't fall within the template box doesn't mean it's not crucial. That being said, I think critical mass with the template box would have the outside-of-box text filling up the space to the left of the box and maybe a bit below, but not too much.

Template boxes also, as I've said, allow for easier parsing of critical information for quick reference. I also believe that the sparsity of info on the current wiki pages is stylistically negative as very little info tends to get spread over broad expanses of real estate. There are some pages that have no need of much in depth info, so even these pages would benefit from condensing into such a consistent box to make the info more readable. I'm hoping to maybe tweak the template box a little (I'm thinking of merging the image slot and the result slot because they really are redundant) then maybe meshing them into item entries. What do you think? I may also start working on a building template here that serves much the same function, but geared towards information relevant to buildings. Having gone through many of the entries for both items and buildings I find that most entries are not consistent as I had initially thought. and need to be cleaned up as well. --Hephaestus 14:36, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Implementation

Since there were no major objections, I went ahead and started putting the template box into various item entries. I assume the work will be long and tedious. Any brave soul out there care to help me?

In the future I'd also like to consider Bestiary templates, building templates, and some others. --Hephaestus 22:52, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

Some pages such as carving knife and lantern have improvement(-tools) sections. Should these be part of the template? Manny 08:54, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

I was kind of wondering that myself. Since the tools used to imp most things are common to only a few major categories, to include them on every item entry would be redundant. I'm thinking maybe some kind of link to the improvement tool set? Then again, we could edit the various skills entries to include what tools are used when improving in that area. I do think that putting them into the template box is a bit clunky, but maybe there's a graceful way. What do you think? --Hephaestus 09:40, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

I suppose listing the improvement method on the skill pages should be enough. Any exception to the normal improvement method should be mentioned on the item page itself. Manny 10:00, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

It's good to see everyone's so eager to get started, but please hold your (so far unimplemented) horses. Egal finally implemented ParserFunctions, so I have in mind to tinker quite a bit with the templates now. - Dashiva 16:18, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, some of us have already started, but for now we can put the brakes on. What are your plans? I mean can't you tinker with the templates even after we've template-ized the pages or do you have something more drastic in mind? --Hephaestus 16:36, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Check out what I did to Template:Test (demoed on this page) for a basic idea. We want to remove as much redundancy as possible, especially the "method" explanation apart from the actual items. - Dashiva 16:46, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Aesthetically I like what you did very much. However, and speaking of redundancy, doesn't it seem redundant to list a skill twice in a row when talking about improving? Is there a way we can indicate that making an item relies on a skill as well as the tools that belong to that skill set to improve? I do worry that the method section may have been tightened up too much. While it was kind of bloated, there was a use. When confronted with the act of using an iron lump on a large anvil there may be two dozen choices in 4 menus available. For clarity's sake, I think it would be nice to somehow concisely indicate the path down that tree. Again, the old way was a bit bulky and not at all concise. I'm hoping we can come up with something new. --Hephaestus 16:59, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

That's what discussion is for. I agree that having the skill listed twice seems redundant, I did it that way to allow for exceptions. However, it's also possible to hide that entire section unless there is an exception. Adding the create category is also just a matter of including new parameters. We could do "Select Create / {{{group}}} / {{{name}}}" or "Select Create / {{{create}}}" or some other variation. Which would you prefer? - Dashiva 17:14, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

(new indent) I think just Create>Group is good but only for those entries where there are a ton of choice. I think just the way you have it is perfect for most things. Also, I prefer to use ">" simply because that's the symbol the game uses. I don't know if that makes for any html or wiki wonkiness. One thing I was thinking was to change "Additional materials" section back to "Tools required" that way we could always put a link to the set of tools needed to imp a certain thing. This would require the creation of only a few pages and would give us a space to give general advice on how to improve things particular to each set. The link in the table could just say "Tools for Improvement" and link to a list of possible tools needed to imp plus advice on how best to go about it. What do you think? One small thing I'd like to point out is that I think the image should be centered in the space. --Hephaestus 17:48, 27 August 2007 (CDT)