Jump to navigation Jump to search

Even though "Lore" is of less factual interest I would love to see it up'd, just above Location. It gives the article a little flair ;)

Objections? --Zimoon (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

I agree the Lore gives an article a bit of flair and I thought about moving up Lore myself as well in the past. However, as you already said, Location is of higher factual interest. At the wiki we try to make clear what an article is about right away, and thus I think Location should always be on top, like it is now. I don't have any personal preference whether Lore should be just under Location or at the bottom for the page; my main subject on the wiki is Creatures though, and not Locations, and I think there are people on the wiki who work more with Locations and have a stronger opinion on this. We should await their feedback.
Another thing is that we should take into account that changing this could mean changing a LOT of already existing Location pages. --Ravanel (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Locations are something of Rogue's baby, and I understand she's worked hard to come up with a flow for things. That said, my personal preference would be for location / "important" information at the top, as Rav said. It doesn't have to be a === Location === header, though - just a short introductory bit, two lines, that says what the place is and where it is. The thing about Lore that confuses me is I'm not sure what's "Lore" and what's just plain description. I always thought Lore was just about relations to Tolkien's work, like Strider's mention of the Forsaken Inn, or anything along those lines (more examples escaping me at the moment)... Sethladan 21:08, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
We are thinking the very same here, and I did not mean top when I saod "up'd".
Some of the articles I have added the landmark/area/*-template to have had true lore, i.e. a quote of Frodo, a historical review, or the similar, and I have moved them to a "second" position. I have removed the ==Location== markup in the cases the aesthetic result looks more horrid than wanted, usually resulting in a sentence of two with a factual content.
The common Wiki-style is just that, an "introduction" or "summary" without section markup, then sections, either strictly ordered (works perfectly here with lots of articles), or by importance. But, after all, content is king so... :) --Zimoon (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
I think you have to be careful there. Sure, I've felt the urge to change things a bit now and then, but these boilerplates are there with a reason. The idea of what is "horrid" and what not differs quite a bit between contributors. Everyone has a different taste and if everyone adds things in the order they like, pages will end up looking all different. For people who visit this wiki to looks things up, this looks messy and confusing. Uniformity is really the key for scrolling through pages and knowing where to find what you're looking for in one glance.
Concerning Lore, I can see why people thought to have it on the bottom of the page. Sometimes it is really long (e.g. Aughaire), and written in italics, which sort of "breaks" the page if it would be somewhere on top. Lore is in this view more of a sort of extra information, a background that you can look up if interested. On the bottom of the page would make sense then.
I really think it's a bad idea to sometimes put Lore on top of the page and sometimes on the bottom, though. --Ravanel (talk) 06:52, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
With "horrid" I just meant that beginning an article with a section headline does never look nice. In most cases that particular ==Location== can be omitted, and to be honest, it most often is not Location but a short intro to the place. Unless that first part does not grow veeeeeeery long I would suggest it can go without headline.
I absolutely agree, the Lore part should not shadow the article so that the factual parts is at the next page. I may reconsider what I have destroyed so far and definitely use even more sense in the future. Definitely I am copy&pasting a lot from the boiler when updating existing articles (and removing the location-category), without re-ordering the items, we are in full agreement on that one. --Zimoon (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
Glad we're all in agreement! :) I wonder if it would be better to focus on the quality and content of the articles, though. Once that's finished, then we can worry about the best order of the sections? Sethladan 11:17, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

Suggested change

Could I suggest the following which would simplify editing of the template. That is about how I have written for the recent two days or so, while rinsing my own dirt, before continuing rinsing away the Location category from F to Z :)

{{Infobox Landmarks
|name = 
|type = 
|region = 
|area = 
|map = 
|NS = 
|EW = 
[[File:{{subst:PAGENAME}}.jpg|400px|center]]<br clear="all">{{Toc-right}}
'''{{subst:PAGENAME}}''' is a [type] within [[area]] in [[region]] {{Tooltip Coords|region||}}

A small description about what this area is about or what can be found here that is of interest; no lore.

== Deeds ==
This location is involved in the following [[[region] Deeds|deeds]]:

== Quests ==
*[] [[Quest:|]]

*[] [[Quest:|]]

== NPCs ==
<when applicable>

== Mobs ==
The following [[Creatures|creatures]] are found within/around {{subst:PAGENAME}}:

== Maps ==
[[File:[region].jpg|left|400px|Map of [region]]]<br clear="all">

== Lore ==
:''[insert lore here].''

== Gallery ==

  • I know some people shrug against PAGENAME but it does two things, preserves spelling, eases our job.
  • I do wish there is a {{REGIONNAME}} that uses the info in region= :D

--Zimoon (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

So the main change here is removing the == Location == header? Correct me if I've missed something. Also, you can use {{subst:PAGENAME}} if that eases your work. :-P Sethladan 14:24, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
Yes, that is the only substantial change, plus some minor wording. I am not English native but I find it easier with shorter sentences :) --Zimoon (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
As I understood it, it was decided that we want to get rid of PAGENAME altogether on this wiki, so I think it is a very bad idea to include it in the boilerplate. I don't know the details, you should ask this to some oldschool contributor like Rogue, but I'm sure there are reasons for it.
Secondly, I personally don't see any reasons to remove Location as a header. Location is clear, everyone knows what it is, you can describe how to get to the place, where it exactly is, put coordinates there etc. I like Location.
I could live with a small description, but I wouldn't make this longer than the necessary main information. For instance, there's been pages in the past starting with "<name> is an area/settlement (etc) in <region>". This is short, but provides the most important information, and you don't have to start with a header at the top of the page (of which I agree it is ugly). Then again, there should be a picture in the middle of the page, so the page technically starts with a picture, not a header. --Ravanel (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
I found a note somewhere that we should not use them within templates, it was said to mess up some linking. So that will never happen from my side again. But if there is any other technical reason... ? --Zimoon (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
This is totally about personality and not what's "good" or "bad" but I think "text text text {{PAGENAME}} text text" is ugly ("horrid"), so that's one reason I don't use it. :-P
On a more practical note, it might make sense to discourage using it because it can be (is!) confusing for a lot of new editors who think they have to type the page's name in there, and then you get things like {{Talk:Boilerplate:Location Landmarks}} which is totally not the intent.
That aside, it won't break anything if you use it in this way on location pages (unless we start transcluding locations), but I will most likely go out of my way to change it any time I see it on a page anywhere. Fair warning. ;)
Sethladan 22:01, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

It puts unneccessary load on the server (see here), too. Really, just use {{subst:PAGENAME}} if you insist on using PAGENAME :). --EoD (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2011 (EDT)
Thanks, {{subst:PAGENAME}} seems to be the right way to go. Thanks again --Zimoon (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

1. PAGENAME is not to be used, end of discussion, it's ugly code, not necessary, you can copy and paste the name easily enough. We want to get rid of it, and have had bots in the past removing / replacing it so lets keep things progressing not digressing.

2. == Location == stays. As Rav accurately pointed out the image of the location is above the header anyway, so it is not at the top of the page. If the page isn't like that, it just means it hasn't been updated yet.

3. I updated the location boilerplates and would really appreciate it if people would not undermine something I have JUST done. It's really disrespectful and I really don't appreciate my hard work, and trial and error being called "HORRID". I would not do that to anyone, and would appreciate the same. If you have ideas great, but be tactful and make suggestions... not like this.

4. Lore stays at the bottom. It is more fluff information, just a simple addition. This wiki is more for the content of the game, not LOTR itself.

Rogue (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

With all due respect, Rogue, but I disagree on several points. Plus if I happen to use one English or two that happens to upset you I will blame my non-English origin that probably causes me to not see nuances and emotionally charged expressions the way you do. Horrid is my way to say "it looks ugly" ;)
1. I am a software developer, code is there to ease my job, whatever is visualized for the reader might not be what I type. If I need to copy and paste 3 or four times a page that is 3 or 4 times too much. Times the number of pages I have taken on me to fix. Which gives I will use {{subst:PAGENAME}} wherever possible. I might use my own boilerplate for that if you think that is better.
2. == Location == I suggest we let it stay in the boilerplate and then decide from case to case. A topmost header-line does not add value to anything, but it degrades aesthetically. A lot. And whatever distracts a reader is a bad thing, that is in every "editors 101" class. As I mentioned elsewhere, a common wiki-style is a topmost summary without header, then headers for the distinct sections. But of course, there are exceptions to the rule, but in this case I believe not.
3. "Horrid" is explained, more details added in 2). One thing, this is a suggestion, on the talk page, not anything "like this". This site attracted me over ZAM and lotro.lorebook mainly because of it looks but also that it seemed fairly better updated. That means I in some sense did appreciate your hard work, and I still do.
-- Might it be the case that the boiler-plates looks great in theory, when setting them up? If so I agree, they do. But when filled with some content the topmost header disturbs the artistic me, and it disturbs the flow of reading. The ==LOCATION==header does not add any factual value, but the first sentence and perhaps one or two paragraphs do.
4. I agree, gave it a second thought, and a third, and I agree.
Friends? I hope so. My intention is not to make enemies but friends. It is also to continue my decades long journey of being the helper-by-heart that I have gained reputation for in previous games. However, I take advice and I comply, but I also have a brain that is massaged over my lifetime and still functional. And when it comes to how important the aesthetic really is from a readers point of view, then I have a pretty solid background.
--Zimoon (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
1. Things about {{subst:PAGENAME}}. If you look at that example, you can see that it rewrites special characters into html code. For an editor that is both ugly and unreadable, therefore we avoid using it in texts, but we use it in templates (it's necessary there) and I don't have any problems using it in [[File:]] tags.
2. I discussed a lot about that with Rav, and won't comment further on it, as everything has been said.
3. Just admit that you love the work Rogue did (I do), although you have your suggestions. :)
5. I can see that you want to help, but it might be easier if you come into our IRC channel.
--EoD (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

Problems and Errors in this boilerplate

1- "Type" is undefined.... I can find no clue as to what value should be there.

2- The correct image syntax is:

Munfaeril's Shrine at twilight
[[File:File.png|200px|thumb|right|alt text]] --> [[File:Munfaeril's Shrine at Twilight.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Munfaeril's Shrine at twilight]]
The syntax in the Boilerplate does not work as, I assume, you intend:
[[File:.jpg|350px|description]] --> [[File:Munfaeril's Shrine.jpg|200px|nothing displays here]]

nothing displays here

The "thumb" parameter is necessary to trigger the border around the image and the "caption" under it.

3- "Caption" should be used instead of "description" as the two words mean and imply different things, especially in this context.

The "description" word implies that the contents of that field are NOT displayed with the image, but merely "describe" the image as a comment. And in fact, this is the way the above Boilerplate syntax works.
"Caption" on the other hand is a well known term in the Graphics Industry, which means "text that appears below an image," and makes it obvious that "something" is wrong when it does not display.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions
Also note that the default positioning is "left".

4- on this page, {{Toc-right}} is ugly and, in almost all cases, extremely ugly.... not to mention superfluous when used with the "landmark box."

Personally, I prefer using __NOTOC__ on such pages -- example: Munfaeril's Shrine. (Which happens auomatically if there are less than 4 "==" level entries -- example: Isengard)

5- "First a friendly reminder, the following boilerplates are used just for locations that are marked at the in-game map."

This is not really a true statement. Turbine routinely "forgets" to "flag" Points of Interest on the in-game maps. This was (and still is) especially true of ROI. See: "Known issues from Patch 1 as of 20 October"
Dunland - Isendale - Cuvnerth, Athdar and Brontrig do not have POI flags on the map"
This sentence should also read: "that are marked on the in-game map."

6- No idea what [[Category:geography type]] refers to. Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

Just some quick replies before bed. And I will walk over the commented version of the template, sorry that I have missed that.
  1. "type" is just a tiny description of the landmark and can be whatever. It does not add to some category so you can even type "Neek-breek" without problems. See other landmarks for suggestions.
  2. Images. Using "thumb" is not at all mandatory and is not suggested at any location templates. The Landmark boilerplate works flawlessly and we do not need to fiddle with it right now. For the topmost image you add the name of the location just before the ".jpg" and you are done. Then, use the == Gallery == at the bottom. No images in the margins, only rare exceptions are acceptable. Why is this a problem in the first place?
  3. I agree, and not. In fact you confuse "thumb"-images with thumb-less images. The "description" is in this case an "alternative text" that is read when a user turns off images or when sight-disabled visitors use a synthetic-voice browser. So neither "description" or "caption" is correct in this context but "alternative". Caption is used for "thumb" though, but the boilerplate does not suggest using "thumb".
  4. Definitely not a __NOTOC__ because some pages are long and a toc helps. Let us ponder a week over the "toc-right" issue. I thought *I* was the aesthetically nit-picky nerd around but ... :P
  5. This is to avoid that all of us begin marking things as official landmarks when they are rather an individual's choice of an interesting location. That will be a walk on a slippery slope. Thence I chose the more harsh wording. If there is a good reason for an exception, sure, but with care. Again I think of Pandora's box ...
    Nothing hinders anybody from adding a plain article about whatever location but we just need to watch out so these are properly categorized. In the end of the day, since templates does magic thing to categories we need to be restrictive about when we use them.
  6. Many editors also wonder over that one, I did it as well. Browse Category:Physical Geography and Category:Humanoid Geography. I am unbiased but know that some players love these. Most often I neglect and erase that one. However, some locations should really go to Category:Places ... when they are true lore-places.
First thing tomorrow I will walk over your suggestions and improvements. However, some stricter wording is chosen deliberately to avoid the wild-grown zoo we are working hard to clean up ;)
-- Zimoon (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2011 (EDT)
2 and 3... This may be browser specific... or a bug in Safari...
Turn off images.... you will note that ONLY the image with the "thumb" displays anything, and it in fact, only displays the border and the caption. The second image should display the text, "nothing displays here" for the image.
Or put another way -- the WIKI version of the File Parameter does not map directly to the HTML image alt="text" ...sigh.... but my home page is written in validated HTML 3 and Safari is not displaying the alt text... so I have to do some more testing on that. Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2011 (EDT)
See tests and conclusions.
Because this is not a real problem, why suddenly alter the boilerplate suggestion at this point. Or you'd better explain exactly what the problem is in Safari because I fail to see an issue. Other than correcting "description" to "alternative text", I will do that.
-- Zimoon (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2011 (EST)
4) ... yes, I concur; I have recently edited articles with no sections but the single ==Location== and indeed a toc with one entry looks strange. But I refuse to add __NOTOC__ ;)
Since a toc is auto-added I think that resolves the problem. Editors may add toc-right if a page grows long but still not ≥ 4 headers. I will update the boilerplate later today.
-- Zimoon (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2011 (EST)
OOOOPPSS --- {{toc-right}} M-U-S-T be there. Period!!!
What happens when the number of headers grow ≥ 4 is that the TOC ends up at the LEFT side. And if anybody thought it looked weird with an almost empty TOC you should see how it looks like with it at the left side :(
Changes are reverted and I will war anybody that fiddles with them ;)
-- Zimoon (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Reverting Changes

Here we go again! I'd like to revert this boilerplate to this version: for the reasoning of the same caliber. Language changes seem awkward to me and the changes unnecessary. If you find there are changes between the linked version and this current one that you prefer please discuss here! I'm giving people about a week to respond before checking back Rogue (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

For instance "Type" is undefined.... I can find no clue as to what value should be there." is a good point and can be addressed. This may take some doing as I am thinking of a list of conditions that will automatically categorize for instance and which already exist. These categories need to be updated and re-defined however those are a good baseline for what "Type" is referring to. Rogue (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
See my comment on the Areas page for now. --Stargazer (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)