Template talk:Infobox Dungeons & Dragons module

Question

What happens if template is changed int he future to add or remove fields? Does this mean pages using old version of template will stop displaying properly as it doesn't follow the instruction that all fields must be present? User:Waza

That's a good question. We may just have to wait to see if we add anymore fields and then exercize due diligence and change all the articles that use it. It's easy to find out which articles use the template. Plus, it won't be so bad since there aren't that many module articles yet. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Experimental Testing Talk

I made this DnD info box template to help standardize our growing collection of pages. Incorporated good suggestes from several users, Waza & Frecklefoot, but we will see where this goes. Wendell 04:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Summary of older talk:

• No WikiProject for D&D, yet. Perhaps someone will get inspired
• No need to race to add several "stubby" module articles with this template. It was meant to help organize articles, not stand alone as an article.
• Lots could be added to the info box, lets not add too much too soon. Need some experience and discussion. As it stands, this info box is taller than many of the current module articles! Work on the articles first...
• Some proposed catagories to add included:
  • 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... 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.
• Items considered but rejected from the infobox. They should all go in the main article with more detailed explaination.
  • Story elements, plot, enemies, etc.
  • Module reprints and super-modules reprints

That is all for now. Wendell 04:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Great to see some progress being made. Should this actually be under Wikipedia:Infobox or Wikipedia:Infobox templates somewhere rather than straight Wikipedia:Template? This is a legitamate question, I don't know, haven't really got my head around templates and info boxes yet, though I think they are a good idea. - Waza 05:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Love the template and how easy it is to use, I have been playing around with it in H1. My first suggestion is:

• Change label column width, in original talk examples they were wider. In this version First published and Characters levels whose data will almost always be one line, are forced out to two lines because the title takes two. - Waza 05:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks great! I'm glad you took the initiative and got this going. I'm glad you were able to incorporate some optional parameters as we discussed. As for adding future items, if they're made optional, they won't break existing clients of the previous version of the template. The only other comment I have is that I agree with Waza, the column label width should probably be a tad wider to prevent text wrapping. Great job! :D — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:31, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Another idea for a proposed category: Contents. For many this would be ## page book & Cardboard cover. Though some modules (examples in brackets) had all sorts of extra's including additional card covers (I6, G1-2-3), fold out maps (H3, H4 }, cardboard counters (H1}, fold up models(H1, B6, AC3}, etc User:Waza

Well I think that Module Contents should be discussed in the article text. Too many variables and discussion to fit within an infobox. Wendell 02:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• About the formatting issues, I agree that 4 fields (Rules Required, First published, Campaign Setting and Characters levels) are split into 2 rows. However on both of my browers the original example had the same issue. However the original example used XHMTL, and did better at centering the text, which I am trying to replicate with wiki-pipes. With my testing the simple suggestion of making those fields wide enough to prevent line wrapping made the whole infobox too wide. Seems we all have some more formatting ideas to work out. Wendell 02:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Associated optional templates

Editors do not need to do anything special to invoke this functionality, just follow the instructions at the top of the this talk page.

• Template:DnDmodule/series

Linked module wikilinking

I want to point out that all the linked modules in the infobox should be wikilinked to their articles, whether or not the articles exist yet. That way, when they do exist, users can quickly jump to them. Also, the broken links encourage users to write articles on them. For example, for the S3 article:

|series = [[Tomb of Horrors|S1]] S2 '''S3''' S4

should be:

|series = [[Tomb of Horrors|S1]] [[White Plume Mountain|S2]] '''S3''' [[Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth|S4]]

(I already fixed the article, I'm just using S3 as an example). Any questions? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, to carry the example further; all the modules should be wiki-linked. For wiki-links in templates(only), the wiki-software will replace the link with a Bolded Entry. In your example, as a template on the S3 article, the following wiki-code

• |series = [[Tomb of Horrors|S1]] [[White Plume Mountain|S2]] [Expedition to the Barrier Peaks[S3]] [[Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth|S4]]

• would be rendered as

• |series = S1 S2 S3 S4
• Wendell 01:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

While many uses of this template have followed the example above by Wendell, much of this is being removed by users editing to correct self links. While what Wendell suggests, self links to bold texts, works (and actually does work in non templates despite what is suggested) it does appear to be against the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Therefore I would strongly recommend that Frecklefoot's original method of bolding the articles module code be used. Please change any self references seen to this and also please bold any module codes where self reference has been removed and the code not already enbolded. - Waza 00:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)