The Vault talk:Unified page layout project/item

Comments
I'm wondering whether we can find a layout which fits every type of item or whether we'll need to split it up. For instance, armor and weapons need a "Characteristics" section which most standard items won't need. I guess we could always make it optional, don't know really. -- Porter21 (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We could, there's a lot of weapons that have different characteristics but it shouldn't be to hard to put the unique characteristics of weapons and armor. Shadowrunner56 07:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Consumable items will also need an "Effects" section, while quest items will probably have a "Related quests" section. Ausir(talk) 10:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I think "effects" is the same as "characteristics" - after all, the characteristics of a drug are its effects, aren't they? And related quests is a section all sorts of items need (for example, armor or weapons which can only be obtained through a ceratin quest need one, too). -- Porter21 (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First proposal up. -- Porter21 (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We also need a layout for items appearing in more than one game, by the way. Ausir(talk) 13:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we only need to figure out whether we rather want the sections repeated under game headers or each section split up with game headers. The first is what we're currently doing. In general (especially for weapon and armor pages), I'm starting to think we should split the pages more often; it's starting to get cramped on some pages and it's only going to get worse with FNV and FO4. -- Porter21 (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Weapons such as the Brass Knuckles and Alien Blaster appeared in all Fallouts probably should be on individual pages for sanity sake. As for videos, I see it isn't discussed here but I've been moving these either superfluous or poor quality videos to the talk page. If there is no replacement and the video is needed I'll leave it in. Let me know.--Kingclyde 00:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a big fan of splitting these, but even if we do that, I'd still keep the main pages not as disambigs, but as describing a given item lore-wise. Ausir(talk) 17:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I had in mind. Basically a "lore" article at the main page and pages with game-specific things like stats, locations, bugs etc at "main page (Fallout 2)". I like the lore-oriented overall articles but with more and more games being added to the series (and the most current games wandering deeper and deeper down the page) it's simply impractical for readers to cram it all in one page. -- Porter21 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed references from the Shocker article that make no sense at all. Can one of you bureaucrats review my edits to the Shocker, Fisto and Power Fist and let me know if I am in the wrong? --Kingclyde 16:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your talk page. I understand the whole issue is somewhat aggravating for you; however, it'd have been better to leave a message on my or Ausir's talk page and keep this page for discussion about the layout. -- Porter21 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, maybe I could have left my frustrations out of it but the edits to the pages do belong here and need to be discussed. I need to know if what I am doing is acceptable or not. More editors will read this versus my talk page for replies on my edits correctness or incorrectness.--Kingclyde 17:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in my opinion stuff like what Trivia to keep is more within the scope of the Policy and guidelines project and not this one. No offense, let's just leave it at that. -- Porter21 (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense taken but I am not talking about trivia I'm discussing the layout of those articles. What do you guys think of the repair section? And the basic format stuff that pertains to this project.--Kingclyde 18:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Finished
Does this layout still need to be modified? -- Porter21 (talk) 22:22, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * We still need a multiple-game item layout. Ausir(talk) 05:05, September 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * We should clarify under variants that just a link should go here and not a brief description and/or a cut content header--Kingclyde 06:10, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need to clarify. It's however not always only a list of links; only variants which have an own article should just be linked (this mainly applies to FO3 armor pages where you have several variants merged into one article). -- Porter21 (talk) 08:26, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * And I don't see what's wrong with a brief description of the variant. Ausir(talk) 09:15, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess there's nothing wrong with them other than than they tend to grow over time. The same happened with the brief quest descriptions I used to add for unmarked quest; eventually you have two articles with conflicting info about something rather than one article and one brief description. -- Porter21 (talk) 09:22, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * A short, concise description is fine, but too much information that is repetitive is detrimental. For the Assault Rifle for instance, the infiltrator and perforator should have a short summary that they come from the pitt add on. Adding a brief description about the differences should be best left to the actual weapons page. Wanda for example should be a link and a line that states it was cut from the game and can only be obtained via console command. How the weapons function should go on the individual weapons page. Just my thoughts. --Kingclyde 09:23, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Example: The first one is the current version, the second one is what I think it should look like.

Variants

 * Infiltrator (The Pitt add-on) - A scoped, silenced version of the R91, it functions similarly to the Silenced 10mm Pistol in that, while not as loud, it deals less damage than its roaring cousin.
 * Perforator (The Pitt add-on) - A unique version of the rare Infiltrator, it has the slowest rate of fire of any assault weapon.
 * Wanda - A unique Assault Rifle that was cut from the final game.

Variants

 * Infiltrator only available with The Pitt (add-on).
 * Perforator only available with The Pitt (add-on).
 * Wanda - Only available via console commands.

--Kingclyde 09:28, September 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, to me your examples seem to conflict with the principle you want to apply. You said how it functions should go in the other article, yet you add "it functions similarly to the Silenced 10mm Pistol in that, while not as loud, it deals less damage than its roaring cousin" to your version of what it should look like. I'd also not add "can only be obtained via console command", it's a bit self-evident if it's cut content. -- Porter21 (talk) 09:35, September 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not how I meant to make it. I edited parts of one and some of the other. I corrected the first entry to match the first. At first I only added a simple link to the article. Then people kept adding information that does not belong. If it can only be acquired via console command or thru a add-on, it should be noted. Other than that, there should be no notes. I didn't add that information, I was tired and edited incorrectly. 3 am edits should not be done by me.--Kingclyde 17:19, September 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant "add" in the sense that it didn't appear in the first but in the second :) What I was thinking is similar, although I do like the shorter version with brackets:


 * Variants
 * Infiltrator (The Pitt add-on)
 * Perforator (The Pitt add-on)
 * Wanda (cut content)


 * Using too many italics just looks crap in my opinion. Other than the details, I don't disagree with you regarding the weapon pages.


 * However, I'm trying to establish a broad rule for all item pages while you're looking at weapon pages specifically. This is the item layout; it does not only apply to weapons, it also applies to armors, drugs, books and misc items. Take armors for example or, as a specific example, Merc Outfit. Variants is not a link list there nor should it be; since the page deals with multiple variants, the section is used there to describe them. Hence you can't simply broadly state "Variants" should not have sub-headers or that "Variants" should not include descriptions. Which is why I suggested the rule "linked list for variants with an own page". I'd extend it to "linked list for variants with an own page (if the variant is cut content or from an add-on, note that in brackets); description under a subheader with the item's name for variants which do (and should not) have an own article." -- Porter21 (talk) 18:18, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Multi-game layout
Well, there are multiple models we could apply. Some are layout-oriented, some tie in with splitting the pages. I'll start by listing the possible methods that I can think of: Summing up pros and cons from my point of view:
 * 1) Repeat certain sections under game headers (h2-header: Fallout, h3-header: Characteristics etc).
 * 2) Split certain sections with game headers (h2-header: Characteristics, h3-header: Fallout etc).
 * 3) Split article into lore info and pages for actual game information.

My favourite is the third, simply because I think it's the most robust and future-proof setup. The first downside can't really be addressed - but in my opinion, it's a minor point really because stat comparison across different game engines are not all that useful anyway. The second downside can be addressed with transclusion.

Basically, the way I see the third method working is: You have a lore page at the non-disambiguated name (say, Combat Armor). It has the sections "background", "in the games" (where the game-specific pages are simply linked), "appearances" and stuff like a gallery with the various versions of combat in the games. Then you have Combat Armor (Fallout), Combat Armor (Fallout 3) etc - one page for every game. These pages have the usual sections outlined above; the "background" section is transcluded from the lore page (cancels out conflicting info).

To make the game-specific pages easy to find, you place a template at the top of the lore page which works similar to Archives; it searches for pages with specific names and displays links to them if they exist (this doesn't mean you have to change the "technical" naming scheme like weapons have; you just have to make sure "ingame name (name of game)" redirects to the real article name). That's details though, just something that crossed my mind.

That's my opinion, feel free to give yours. -- Porter21 (talk) 18:19, September 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * How about #1 for shorter pages and #3 for longer ones? I don't think *all* item pages should be split. The fact that some items work the same in multiple games also complicates it a bit - I don't like names like "Psycho (Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics)" nor having 3 separate pages with exact same info for each game. Ausir(talk) 18:25, September 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, meant to include that but it seems I forgot - if the items work the same and have the same stats, they can be merged in my opinion. I wouldn't list all games in the disambiguated title, only the game of first occurence (also fits with the new disambig guideline at VA:DIS) - i.e. "Psycho (Fallout)" in your example - and redirect "Psycho (Fallout 2)" and "Psycho (Fallout Tactics)" to that page. The question would be if #2 or #1 are better if we assume that only items which are identical across multiple games share one page; going by the sample layout, only the sections from "Variants" to "Notes" would need splitting (as "Background" goes into the lore article and "Characteristics" is the same for all games by definition). Personally I'm undecided on this, guess I'll have to sleep on it. -- Porter21 (talk) 22:50, September 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, under the premise that #3 is applied for items which work differently in various games I'm leaning towards method 2. My main reasons are that 1) it allows sections not to be divided if there's no need for it, 2) the overall basic article structure is consistent with items which appear only in one game and 3) it fits better with what I'd see as ideal for other types of articles which span multiple games.


 * Let me elaborate a bit. For reason #1, if you only combine items that work identical in one article, you don't need to split up "Characteristics" - by definition it's the same for all games. "Background" is transcluded anyway; in essence what remains to be split is "Locations", "Variants" and "Related quests". You don't really need to split "Variants" - it's easier to list all variants and append the games in brackets if not all variants appear in all games. "Related quests" is the same. Which leaves only "Locations" to be split - which is probably not all that bad unless we start listing locations for common items. Of course, you can also not split the sections when using method 1 - but then the structure gets totally confusing (e.g. in one article you have "characteristics", "Fallout" and "Fallout 2" as h2 headers because each game section has it's own "Locations" sub-section, in the next you have "characteristics", "Fallout 2", "Fallout Tactics" and "Locations" as h2 headers etc - ties in with the next point). In short, it's easier to only split sections per game on a per-need basis.


 * Number 2 is probably self-explanatory. You always have the same h2-headline structure in all articles (i.e. the one in the sample layout). If you apply method 1, the h2 structure varies depending on which games are there.


 * Number 3 means that for character, creature and location pages, I'd consider method 2 to be better in any case (due to the higher flexibility when merging sections across games). Applying it to item pages as well makes for an overall consistent approach.


 * Method 1 may also lead to unnecessarily repeated content. Either you merge sections across games which results in each article having a different h2 layout or you consistently repeat the same sections under the game headers - the latter is what I mean here.


 * In summary, if you look at my pro/con table, combining methods 2 with method 3 alleviates or eliminates all of the 4 cons for method 2 (the linking one is least affected but even that one is not as much of an issue when combined with method 3). The "consistent h2 structure" and "easier merging of cross-game info for a certain property" pros are the most convincing for me.


 * So much for my (yet again) rather long-winded opinion :) -- Porter21 (talk) 23:20, September 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds somewhat complicated. How about making some sample articles to illustrate the point? :) Ausir(talk) 00:44, September 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll make some sample outlines later. The principle itself is really not all that complicated but I guess my reasoning why I prefer method 2 is :P -- Porter21 (talk) 08:27, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * There you go: The Vault talk:Unified page layout project/multiitemsample‎. -- Porter21 (talk) 11:15, September 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, it's a bit clearer now. By the way, I think the main article should still summarize the differences between how a given item works in different games, even if not going into too many details. Ausir(talk) 11:25, September 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I guess you could either add it to "Background" (then the comparison gets transcluded to the game articles) or have an own section called something like "Comparison". I guess I'd prefer the latter.


 * Back to the method 1 vs method 2 argument, I assume that means we use method 2? It's a bit of a general question - the only type of article I'd prefer method 1 to be used for is perks, skills and SPECIAL stats. Of course, splitting articles should only be done for items (for other types of articles you usually do not have much cross-game overlap and if you, it doesn't warrant splitting). -- Porter21 (talk) 11:43, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I guess the main issue here is which pages should be split and which shouldn't - the actual layout for multi-game items largely depends on what content is in each article. Since that issue is also holding up the policy project, I'm going to post my thoughts on the issue on that project's talk page. -- Porter21 (talk) 18:27, October 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Anything left to discuss here? Use method 2 for multi-game articles? -- Porter21 (talk) 19:13, October 22, 2009 (UTC)