Template talk:Infobox Areas

From Lotro-Wiki.com
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Relaxing the Area Template

It has been suggested to "relax" the Area-template. Alternatively to create a tweaked copy of it for special purposes, whichever is best.

Background: Currently all parameters are optional except "region" which is used to strictly add the page to the "<Region> Areas" category. However, remember that Turbine has their own "definition" and/or use of Area:

The intuitive use, e.g. Buckland within Bree-land.
Unofficial sub-areas which have their own map, much of Moria behaves this way.
Instanced dungeons, e.g. Northcotton Farm in the Shire or Sprigley's Cellar within Archet Dale.
Implied areas within larger dungeons.

All but the first, the intuitive use case, may be considered sub-areas, in one way or the other.

Note that this is not a discussion about quest-instances. Even if they occur in a discernible landscape it is rather an instanced quest than a dungeon. However, instances and dungeons which are "entered" some other way than via an instanced quest is considered.

Problem description: Our strict Area → Region causes problems when it comes to all but the first and intuitive use case. If we today use the area-template for sub-areas the info-box cannot hint about which "parent area" they pertain to. This issue is most eminent in Moria, acknowledged by most editors, and that makes it harder to tidy up those geography articles.

Discussion: The pros and cons with today's area template are obvious, now areas are no longer categorized at random but by a known pattern. They look good and are informative. The cons are that the template cannot display sub-area properties. It is obvious that we need "something" to handle sub-areas. Thus there are two topics to discuss:

  1. Should we use this area-template for sub-areas? Or should we rather use a new and tweaked copy of this template?
  2. Should such sub-areas always be categorized under the region? Or should we allow for sub-area categories under "parents"?

Suggestions:
Regarding the first topic: it seems easiest to improve the existing template, but that would possibly add some confusion about which new parameters should be used when and why. Adding yet another template would add to the set of templates and possibly add to the confusion of choice. Personally I believe that we can improve the existing template by adding four parameters: "type", "parent", ""icon", and "sub_areas".

  • type would be optional and just display text verbatim in the info-box. E.g. "World Instance", "Public Instance", "Dungeon", etc.
  • parent would be optional and display text in the info-box. However, the format will be determined by the above question 2). In any case it is supposed to display a link to the "parent" area.
  • icon must be set if "parent" is set and it overrides the standard icon. Tentatively we provide two valid values: "sub-area" and "dungeon" which are predefined, anything else displays the "missing-icon" image. I think that using the standard area-icon for dungeons and sub-areas would be confusing.
  • sub_areas would be optional and used similar as "dungeons", but listing sub-areas. This would chiefly be used in Moria, rarely elsewhere.

Should we arrive at the decision to use a new tweaked copy of the area these tentative parameters are still valid.

Regarding the second topic: this is not a technical topic really but more about how we want to aid visitors and ourselves, and how we want to group things. The big question is what we want to convey with our categories and what we are using them for.

The fact that the number of sub-areas is quite limited means that it would be easiest to add them to the Region Areas category, no template changes in this regard. However, "Moria Areas" would be more chaotic, and maybe others; the more dungeons/instances/implied-areas within a region the more entries to the category. However, we may add human-friendly comments and lists to the category page.
Another option would be to add another category under the region, such as "<Region> Dungeons", side by side with today's "<Region> Areas". Such a category would be self-explanatory.
Yet another option would be to use sub-categories under the "<Region> Areas" category for the sub-areas.
More ideas? You are more than welcome :)

Personally I am leaning towards a combination of all of the above: use human-friendly text at the category pages, use "<Region> Dungeons" to differ dungeons from areas and sub-areas, and add sub-areas under "<Region> Areas" (flat if not too many, otherwise yet another tier, such as for Moria).

Note: irc-chatting the other day it was asked why not using the Interior-template. Indeed, a dungeon might be understood as an interior, however, that template is not setup to handle "landmarks" and "settlements" within. I am not sure if there is any dungeons/instances that do have such treats, such as implied landmarks (possibly worthy their own article) and implied "settlements" of friendly NPCs providing useful services. Either way, we still would have the problem with Moria and its multi-layers of areas within areas within ... within Moria. A relaxed area-template seems more apt for the intended purpose.

Finally, remember that this is only about location/geography, it has nothing to do with whether an instance is world or public, neither if it is above or under ground, etc. This topic only deals with how to handle geographical areas which are not what was conceived as the general norm when the area-template was formed. But also in a dungeon people tell north and south, tell coordinates, name locations, measure distances, etc., everything that defines geography. Hence, their articles may very well use the suggested relaxed area template.

Sorry for yet another wall of text. Hopefully it covers most aspects so that the discussions do not have to stray away but can become the shorter. If you have no suggestion, please tell yay or nay ;)
-- Zimoon 07:51, 8 November 2011 (EST)

No feedback?
I am about to test adding the suggested parameters to the existing template, not adding yet another template. If this turns out well and if nobody objects I will add the enhancements in a week or so.
However, I would like your suggestions on what generic terms that best convey the nature of outdoor places that should or are best described at their individual articles, such as Michel Delving's Craft-fair, outdoor crafting places in Lothlórien and elsewhere, other kind of outdoor places with several NPCs (not just scenery), maybe many quests, facilities, etc. A generic term that may be used as "type" and for the icon-name.
Is "sub-area" good enough for the sub-areas in for example Moria? Please suggest better.
I guess "dungeon" is good enough for articles on instances where we will use this relaxed area-template? Or...?
Anybody volunteer to create icons for the mentioned three obvious types? For "outdoor places" (whatever will be the term for it), for "sub-area", and for "dungeon". As mentioned above, I believe it is best to use predefined icons. Otherwise we soon have editors who begin to use whatever icon they fancy ;)
Zimoon 04:28, 25 November 2011 (EST)
PS. The notion of "outdoor places" mimics what we capture with Interior, just that it is outdoors. DS. Zimoon 04:47, 25 November 2011 (EST)
A) For the notion of subdivision of a locality, whether a a quadrangle, an enclosure, or a fairground, I wonder if "grounds" would serve the purpose for all of them. It Lotro that could be a craft-fair within a settlement, or an outdoor cluster of trainers or vendors, a city-square, or the similar. Think "Interior" but outdoors; an interior is not defined to a type or function but is very generic and may host whatever from an auction house to vendors' shop, from a craft-hall to tavern, it is still an "interior". Would "grounds" serve the same purpose but for smaller outdoor zones?
B) Already the number of grounds are increasing (it's just that I am using "Interior" for them, which feels odd). When moving on I know that the need for sub-areas will increase. Being able to properly split certain real "areas" into sensible smaller portions. Sure, it will not happen too often and it must not be abused, certainly not! Whatever, I interpret the overwhelming silence as "no objections" and then I will move on, finally, in the wake after Ered Luin :-)
Watch out for changes to the template any day soon ;)
Zimoon 10:09, 28 December 2011 (EST)
Upgraded template is found at User:Zimoon/Sandbox-template
An example is at the bottom of User:Zimoon/Sandbox
Inspect the sandbox and see how to play around yourself, but please do not leave anything laying around in official categories when you are done :P In summary the following is added to the area template:
type (optional): Displays given text as is. If the text equals "Dungeon" the article is added to Category:<region> Dungeons rather than ...Areas. Open for discussion, definitely ;)
parent (optional): Displays "Within: given text" (with given text linkified), no further action. "Within" is generic enough to work for as well sub-areas at Moria as whatever else this template may be used for.
sub_areas (optional): Displays "Sub-areas:" and list of links, similar functionality as for dungeons.
Tentatively these will be documented but not included in the clean copy here and at the boilerplate for areas. They are meant to be used sparsely and with caution.
No support for other icons is added. First off, I suck at graphics. Secondly I begin to think that we can use the Interior template for "exteriors" and maybe use "type" to tell what type of "grounds" it is. The need still exists, I believe it would be confusing to use the "area" icon for something that is not an area, such as a dungeon or a sub-area within Moria.
Zimoon 13:18, 28 December 2011 (EST)

Suggestion: Tell Quest Levels

When walking over locations I found it informative to add some hidden information that is only displayed at the region page the area pertains to, one of these items are the general quest levels. The other, possible details are of varied kind (such as major town and a few of its most notable services, or POI (only if from Tolkien's work)) or they are equal for the region (such as faction).

I suggest that the info on quests is made visible per area in the infobox, such as "Quests: mainly 22 - 28". Or just "Quests: 22 - 28" and the "mainly" is understood by the reader. Many areas also have class or other quests of odd levels, but they are seldom interesting for the casual reader. If they are, such as the level 55 quests in Weather Hills of Bree-land, it can be added as "22 - 28, 55" .. or ignored. And this line of the infobox would be optional of course. Anybody having objections? Zimoon 03:29, 20 February 2012 (EST)

This information may now be used. Added in [commit]. Zimoon 11:32, 24 February 2012 (EST)

Increased Width of the Box?

The current width of this info-box is 230 pixels and was last changed in December 2011. Since then average monitor width has increased quite a lot. I suggest we increase it to 275 or 300 pixels to make room for the longer location names we often see nowadays. Other suggestions?
And if we agree, could the width be applied to the other location Infobox templates as well? — Zimoon 18:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to look into this. When looking at Category:Infobox Templates, the infoboxes for instances, interiors, landmarks and settlements look like good candidates too. They share the same basic layout.
I would also like to discuss widening Template:Infobox Quests as well. Quest names have become longer too, with Enhancement Runes for Host of the West Silver Pieces (Daily) being the prime example. —RoyalKnight5 (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, the trouble is figuring out whether numbers or percentages would be better? I know monitors have also increased in size and shape. Would one be better over the other? I always vote for pixels but just asking. I'd almost say 300 but not sure. We should probably look at all infoboxes; NPCs and Creatures as well?? Rogue (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for input! All relevant templates in Category:Infobox Templates have been updated to 300 pixels, including quests. If that width is too much it is no trouble shrinking it somewhat. But I am using browser window less than ⅔ screen width and see no problems. I have not touched NPCs and Creatures but if that needs an update anybody doing it has my support.
I also vote pixels because otherwise it completely depends on browser width. What looks good to me with a narrow browser window width would on full-screen with a large monitor be a very wide box, mostly wasted space. — Zimoon 11:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)