Template talk:Infobox D&D module/Archive 1
Original text moved from Talk:List of Dungeons & Dragons modules
How about a standard info box to be included in each module page? I noted that several of our growing module pages do not contain the basic info like character levels, Campagin Settings or rules editions. See my examples below (where some data is bogus). Once we determine the basic format, we can make the info box a templete; instead of inline tables. By templetes, I mean something like this page
So comments? --Wendell
| The Keep on the Borderlands | |
 | |
| Code | B2 |
| Rules Edition | D&D Basic Set |
| Campagin Setting | Generic D&D or Ravenloft |
| Authors | Gary Gygax |
| Character Levels | 1-3 |
| Part of Series | No |
| Super Module Reprinted | N.A. |
| Vault of the Drow | |
| image goes here | |
| Code | D3 |
| Rules Edition | 1st Edition AD&D |
| Campagin Setting | Generic D&D or Greyhawk |
| Authors | Gary Gygax |
| Character Levels | 10-14 |
| Part of Series | G1 G2 G3 D1 D2 D3 Q1 |
| Super Module Reprinted | GDQ1-7 |
- Well, I for one think it's a great idea. I'm a big proponent of infoboxes for articles on similar subject matters. However, I was thinking of something that looked more like this, but it's the same basic idea. Some of the advantages of templates are:
- Only having to fill in parameters, not muck about in table syntax
- Being able to make some fields optional, useful for when you don't have all the possible information
- When you don't have some information that the template accepts, you can just leave it out and it renders the infobox without it, without any ugly "Missing" entries. But I agree, we should nail down the structure before template-izing it.
- So far, I like what you have. I'd have wikilinks for all the modules in the series, though. I'd like to hear what others have to say. For example, I think Waza would like to weigh in on it.
- Is there a WikiProject for D&D? I wonder if we have enough issues (such as this module infobox thing) to start one? Would it even be worth it? Hmmm... I started a WikiProject once, and that was a lot of work. I don't relish doing it again right now. But now that it is up and running, it's all pretty smooth. :-) I guess this is something that should be brought up on the main Dungeons & Dragons Talk page?
- Next, please sign your posts. I added your signature above, but please sign them yourself. You can do this with 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is preferred since it also adds a timestamp. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea Wendell, and also Frecklefoots comments. The info box would be helpful and put some consistancy in the module articles.(I asume these are just examples as all the info is not accurate.) some of the hardest things might be deciding on some consistency of language to use withing some of the cells of the info box. Rules edition is one that could be tricky with the whole Basic - Expert - Advanced - 2nd Advanced - 3rd. The Differences between editions of Dungeons & Dragons is one article that has some good detailed info but is missing alot partcularly a simple summary.
As for a D&D project. I think the main article and lots of the major articles linked to it need a lot of work. There is lots of info there but it is not well organised or even particularly encyclopedic in style at many points. If a project could help clear this up it would be a good idea. My own knowledge is of AD&D from the early 80's to the (very) early 90's (I stopped playing a soon after 2nd Edition came out) and a little D&D Basic/Expert from early 80's. So I could be of only limited help in a project. I really came to the D&D article to get some info on the games current state without the commercial baggage and advertising hype of the manufacturors site. I found myself working on bits of this sub article because this was the bit that was familiar to me that needed some work. I find thats mostly what happens on Wikipedia, most of the articles are things I go to to find more info and find I have info I can add to the article. Waza 22:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- A project certainly would help to better organize, straighten up and build consistency in articles relating to D&D. Actually, I'm surprised that there isn't a D&D WikiProject already. I know that WikiProjects have certainly helped Arcade games and computer and video games. Like I said, I've started a project before, but it requires more time than I have right now. But anyone can start one. If you look around enough, you can find detailed instructions on how to do it. Then all you'll have to do is advertise it on the main Dungeons & Dragons Talk page, and I'm sure you'd be inundated with dozens of willing participants. :-)
- My D&D experience is from the mid- to late '80s as well. I stopped playing after I got married (my wife is more fun than D&D). ;-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:31, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the feedback. First lets address info box technology and wiki stuff.
- Fully agree, templetes are the way to structure the info box. I am not certain of all their capabilities, I usually just copy an example and modify it as needed.
- Not certain about a D&D wikiproject. I do not have the experience, time, or enery to start one (now). And the few D&D module pages we have does not need a full project. We can decide here and now, and implement it. I agree that the entire suite of D&D articles would benefit from a project, so I will consider such in November or so.
- Not sure about the templete options to implement when you don't have some information that the template accepts, you can just leave it out and it renders the infobox without it, without any ugly missing entries. The examples I have seen did not implement that option. For some data fields, like pictures, that seems wonderful, producing neat professional graphics. For other data fields (author, data published, code, etc) I would want the ulgy reminder to force someone (or me) to look up that information.
- Second, lets address info box content.
- We all seem to agree on the basics of Title, Picture, Code, Character Levels, Campagin Level, Authors.
- I agree that rules editions assumed for each module is tough to state simply (original D&D, 1st ADD, 2nd ADD, blue/red box Basic D&D, etc); but it seems important and often overlooked in manually free written pages. Hence the info box which forces something to be said about it.
- Campaign setting seems important, and not too ambiguous. Grayhawk vs generic D&D seems the only pitfall.
- I think we need to add published date to info box.
- Plot or main "enemy" should be in the written article, not the info box. In fact, for the better modules, several paragraphs of description should be encourged, not limited to an info box.
- How to capture "related modules"? If they are in an intended series that is an easy definition. But otherwise, is it important to state and be precise in the definition of related? What is related? Intended to use the same player characters is an easy definition of related. But what about the same NPCs? Same location? By those 2 suggestions, original T1-4 would be related to Return to Temple of Elemental Evil. Sounds like something for detailed discussion in the article, not an info box. Hence remove related modules?????
- How many modules were actually re-printed in super modules? Not many I think, hence remove that section of the info box.
- As far as reprints, I only know of G1, G2, G3, D1, D2, 23, Q1 reprinted as various combinations (G123, D12, GDQ1-7) and A1, A2, A3, A4 reprinted as A1-4. There was some mention of B1-9 being reprinted as a super set. Sounds like something for the article, not an info box. Hence remove related modules?????
- With these recommendations, a bogus example is:
| The Keep on the Borderlands | |
 | |
| Code | B2 |
| Rules Required | D&D Basic Set |
| Character Levels | 1-3 |
| Campagin Setting | Generic D&D or Ravenloft |
| Author(s) | Gary Gygax |
| First Published | 198x |
| Linked Modules | |
| B1 B2 B3 G1 G2 G3 | |
- Its short and sweet. Wendell 00:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your idea Wendell and I like your summary form of discussion. As you have probably noticed I find it hard not to be verbose.
- The new suggested info box is definately getting close (and may even be what) to go with.
- agree with getting rid of the Supermodule but it may be worth keeping the Part of Series cell (and find a better name for it) The GDQ series is a good example where progress is not clear. Also some codes are not a series but have small series within then (eg I3, I4 & I5 form the Desert of Deloation series but are not connected with other I# modules.) How about Linked Modules as a cell title?
- How about Intended Sequence or Intended Progression or just the data at the bottom? See latest example Wendell
- A few ideas on lablels of cells:
- Rules required instead of Rules Edition - as some modules require a particular supplement (eg BattleSystem) as well as a particular rules version or edition.
- Author(s) instead of Authors
- First Published instead of Date Published
- A few ideas on lablels of cells:
- - Waza 01:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Also, the final templete will be (should be) in wiki-pipe table format. Not this XHMTL or whatever. Currently thinking the module progression should go at the bottom, spanning both columns, without the line break between Linked Modules and the actual data. Wendell 02:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Like the Linked Modules being at bottom. Can easily be left of were not required as links are probably only applicable to about 25% of modules - Waza 02:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- Missed your suggestion you inserted in the middle of my last comment. Either of the alternate titles would be fine, but I kind of like the idea of no title, just put the codes at the bottom where appropriate.
- Two more ideas for possible extra info in the box:
- Item code. While TSR stopped using the module codes in the early/mid 90's each TSR product before and after still had an item codes. I am not familar with current products, but a quick hunt on TSR Archive and D&D Homepage seems that these numbers continue to today. While most players of the 80s and earlier are familar with the module code, the item number could be an invaluable unique reference for latter modules.
- ISBN - These started appearing on modules around 1981 (including reprintings of older modules). This is useful if someone is trying to track down a secondhand copy.
- Two more ideas for possible extra info in the box:
| The Keep on the Borderlands | |
|
| |
| Code | B2 |
| Rules Required | D&D Basic Set |
| Character Levels | 1-3 |
| Campagin Setting | Generic D&D or Ravenloft |
| Author(s) | Gary Gygax |
| First Published | 1980s |
| Linked Modules | |
| B1 B2 B3 G1 G2 G3 | |
- I've gotten a little lost in the rampant posts back and forth, but here's what I've remembered to bring up:
- Optional parameters in templates: The computer and video games infobox uses optional parameters. I'm not sure how they work internally either (i.e. the template code), but if you leave out some information, it just doesn't render the row for the information at all. This is very useful since sometimes the item isn't known (for video games, lots of parameters aren't known when the original article is written). The line stays in the wikicode, so the information can easily be added if it is ever tracked down.
- I find the italics distracting. I like the bold text as used in the The computer and video games infobox (and the arcade game infobox too, for that matter).
- The infobox could use some color, much like the infoboxes I cited above do. I "linked modules" row should especially be a different color to call out it is a title for the row below (the colors used in the example at right are rather ugly--they can be changed, I just did it as an example).
- Of course the final template will use the pipe syntax. :-)
- This topic has gotten rather large. Shall we move it to a subpage? Peace. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:45, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I've gotten a little lost in the rampant posts back and forth, but here's what I've remembered to bring up:
- Yes, putting this on a sub page is a good idea, anyone know how to do this?
- Like the idea about different colours for different series, however this may conflict with the Infobox Project guidline which is trying to make a unique colour for each type of infobox. There does appear to be some debate on the Infobox talk page though.
- If we do need to choose one colour, how about the orange that was used as a stripe across the top of many modules in the mid 80's like Image:Dungeonland.jpg or Image:H2-minesbloodstone.jpg?
- I like the bold rather than the italic in the cell titles.
- The colour in the cell titles doesn't do it for me, but it may just be that colour which looks Ok in the heading doesn't work there as it has too much contrast to the info cells.
- Been trying to do a little research on infobox's, like how to make one. Looks like it will take a bit of work to absorb and test. If anyone else wants to read or get started on it - check Wikipedia:Infobox and Wikipedia:Infobox templates
Overall I think the 3 of us are making good progress with nailing down a form for this box. I am itching to have it done so we can try some in articles. Having the box means it will be easy to start article stubs as a basis to be expanded in the future. In my experience people are more likely to add a little to an existing article even if a small stub, starting a new article seems to be a bit intimidating for some. - Waza 01:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)