UESPWiki:Archive/CP Place Summary Templates

Place Summary Templates

I've been thinking that it might make sense to start phasing out the game-specific Template:Morrowind Places Summary and Template:Oblivion Places Summary in favor of the generic .  For the most part, these all do the same thing, except that the Morrowind and Oblivion ones add a few parameters unique to those games.  Adding a few game-specific options to the generic template would be all that would be needed to make the others completely obsolete.  We already do this for the NPCs, Creatures, Skills, Artifacts, Books, Effects, and Ingredients.  Places are currently the only major subject which still has separate templates, even though a generic template already exists and is widely used.  (Not counting those specific to Daggerfall or Shadowkey, which have several templates for things which have no current parallel in the other games.)  I've been doing some of this myself, with the new Morrowind service pages, and I'm also finding that those already-existing pages can transfer over from the Morrowind template to the generic template with almost no changes.  (Certain fields I've omitted because they aren't all that useful - the "Zones" and "Occupants" fields which exist in Morrowind Places Summary are not really relevant when talking about a store or a temple.  They're mostly only of interest for hostile locations such as caves and ruins.  Still, it would be trivial to add these fields to the generic template if we decided to use it across the board.)

Using a single template makes things easier for editors, since they don't have to remember the subtle differences between one template and the next.  It also means that any changes to the layout need only be made in one place, not all three.  All in all, there's really no good reason I can think of to keep these templates separate, when they all serve essentially the same function.  --TheRealLurlock   15:36, 20 November 2008 (EST)

: The original purpose of the Place Summary was to be a small, lightweight template for the places that didn't need the full game-specific versions - it was supposed to have little more than name, location and code on it. The pages that were being created at the time (and which are still being created) didn't have enemy occupants, zones, treasure or any of the other things that fill up the larger templates, and it made much more sense to have a simple template with as few parameters as possible. See the original documentation for how simple it was to use.

: I'm afraid to say I think your recent changes have ruined the template. Instead of putting MW-specific params on the MW-specific template we now have TWO templates related to Morrowind. We also have a mass of interdependent parameters that make using the template vastly more complex than it was. The thought of combining everything into one, vast template fills me with horror - both at the complexity required in such a template and the thought of the server resources it'll need to process. You've already made the Place Summary template so complex that you had to ask on IRC when you had a formatting problem, and it's just going to be worse the more you do to it. I also with you'd had this discussion before embarking on such a wide range of changes.

: As for making it easier for editors, I disagree there too. People are only creating simple location pages, not ones that require a huge number of parameters. It would have been much easier for people to use a template with just nine parameters instead of one that needs a manual and a flowchart. –Rpeh  03:46, 21 November 2008 (EST)

::Can you please explain to me exactly how I have "ruined the template"?  Or what pages I've used it on that aren't minor?  So far I've used it on stores, temples, guild halls, ships, and other such locations, none of which have enemy occupants (other than an occasional rat or two), or anything else of particular significance.  A possible argument could be made that guild halls are not minor, but these required no changes to the existing template, so it's really irrelevant.  I was suggesting that it could be used on other pages, but I haven't done it yet, nor did I plan to without community approval, so I think your outrage is a little unfounded.  As for the changes I've made, well, let's see:
::*Adding the Proprietor (and propname) field.  Well, the template was already being used on store pages in both namespaces, so this one just seemed like a no-brainer.  And oh, I made it possible to call the proprietor by a different name, nothing revolutionary there.
::*Adding the Dest parameters.  Since I was using the template on MW ship pages (which you can't possibly argue are not "minor"), it seemed like it was incomplete without these.  I don't see mcuh problem with adding them.
::*Adding the Almsivi/Divine parameters.  Okay, not exactly necessary, but not earth-shattering either.  Could be potentially useful on all MW pages.
::*Making the Locationcode parameter optional.  Let's face it, some locations (see MW ships) just don't have locationcodes.  People were making stuff up in order to not have it display "Unknown".  Try going to the console and typing  .  It won't do anything, because there's no such location.  Making this field a requirement just confuses people.  This, by the way, was the edit for which I went to IRC for assistance.  Instead, I got nothing but derision from you for having the audacity to tinker with your template.  (By the way, thank you Game Lord for actually taking the time to look at and correct the mistake instead of ranting at me about it.)
::*Making it possible to specify a City instead of a Region.  This one just made sense because the vast majority of pages that this was already being used on are located within cities.  Having Eight Plates show up in Morrowind-Places-West Gash just seemed ridiculous.  So I changed it so that it shows up in Morrowind-Places-Balmora instead, which makes much more sense.  This doesn't have to be Morrowind-specific either - most of the Oblivion pages that use the template could be pinned to a city rather than a region as well.
::As for the interdependency of the parameters - half of that was already there.  I just had the temerity to actually document it.  And if you think this template is going to be a huge strain on the server, what are your opinions on the NPC Summary, which is FAR more complex, used on a much greater number of pages in five namespaces, and yet still seems not to cause undue strain on the site.  All in all, I don't think I've done anything out of line here.  I made some small changes (sure I stumbled over one of them, but let's face it - wikicode is a pain to read and debug sometimes), and I offered the suggestion that this template could be used more widely.  I was expecting discussion, but not a flat out scolding for making what were really minor and sensible changes. --TheRealLurlock   08:12, 21 November 2008 (EST)

::: As I said in my first post, you've taken a template that was specifically set up for one purpose and changed it into something else with no discussion. You've added several MW-only params despite the existence of a MW-only template.

:::* Proprietor (and propname) Simply unnecessary. Being able to have Trebonius down as the guildmaster on the Mages Guild page infobox doesn't add anything that isn't already on the article.
:::* Adding the Dest parameters. MW-specific. Also makes more sense in the article text given that the articles are about the ships.
:::* Adding the Almsivi/Divine parameters.  MW-specific and unnecessary.
:::* Making the Locationcode parameter optional.  Given that the ''raison d'etre'' of the template was presenting locationcodes in a standard way, making it optional doesn't seem like the best plan. Sure some of the values were wrong but the correct thing to do would have been to replace them with the coordinates for the   command, as has been done on other pages.
:::* Making it possible to specify a City. That one's sensible enough. Fine.

::: Anyway. In general, you asked what we thought about merging the templates and I think it's a bad idea. –Rpeh  08:53, 21 November 2008 (EST)

I'm inclined to agree with the suggestion of merging these templates into a single template.

Even if the original intent with the Place Summary template was to create a simplified template, that clearly is no longer how the template is being used.  Complexity is not going to cause any server processing problems with this template: it is only used once on a page (particularly on the simple pages where it was first introduced).  If pages can handle having the NPC Summary template used ten times on the same page, then I can't even anticipate there being any problems if for some reason the Place Summary template does need to appear more than once on a page.  And as long most of the parameters for the template are optional, their presence doesn't really make using the template any more complicated: a simple template usage example such as     (or even just    ) would still work.  If those are the only parameters an editor cares to use, or the only parameters that are appropriate, the rest of the options can be ignored.  The work required to expand the Place Summary template to cover all three templates is not so daunting: adding all of the functionality into a single template is basically just some cut-and-paste work; Morrowind Places Template and Oblivion Places Template can just be turned into redirects to Place Summary, and instantly all of the pages are converted to the same template.  

On the other hand, having three mostly overlapping templates is unnecessary, difficult to maintain, and frustrating.  We don't have any real guidelines for which template is supposed to be used on which type of page.  At the moment, it seems to be primarily "if there are no enemies, use Place Summary, otherwise use one of the other two" -- which is a pretty insignificant (and potentially even arbitrary) criterion to use.  The original intent of "simple" pages using the Place Summary was just as arbitrary: the game doesn't have a clear division between simple and non-simple places, so why should our templates impose such a division?

If we want to add a new feature to the place pages, edits now need to be made in three different places instead of just one.  Or, even worse, editors keep getting frustrated because a feature that works on one page doesn't work on another page, or works differently for some mysterious reason.  The most recent example I just ran into was for almsivi and divine intervention: it should be possible to add those parameters to pages such as , especially since that information is partially (previously completely) covered by a note on the quest page.  However, the almsivi/divine options only exist for the "simplified" Place Summary template, not for the "comprehensive" Morrowind Places Summary.  So at the moment, there's no consistent way to add that information to all relevant Morrowind pages -- for no real reason other than the fact that these templates are currently unnecessarily difficult to maintain and use.  --Nephele  13:22, 14 December 2008 (EST)

: Well given that the Place Summary has been effectively MWed anyway, I suppose merging it into the Morrowind Places Summary makes sense. I'd prefer to keep separate templates for Morrowind and Oblivion though and begin to look at splitting up the NPC Summary template into separate games too, while we're at it. The NPC template is already too complex and I don't want to see the Place templates heading the same way. Sometimes merging makes sense (for instance, when I merged the Shivering Places Summary into the Oblivion one: both games use the same params so it made sense to use the same template. I'd just rather not see the option to include the number of Kollops on Oblivion place pages.

: Additionally, look at the future. Fallout 3 has already introduced some new features that might well make it into TESV: Alignment, Disposition Base and Mood are three that seem possible. Having so many optional parameters is just bad programming. If consistency across games is important then we should look at specific templates and then sub-templates for common areas. –Rpeh  10:14, 15 December 2008 (EST)