Template talk:Dungeons

I'm going to change the way this works by adding the dungeon wings as opposed to the name of the wider dungeon, as I think that is more useful for navigating through instances. As it is now, you can't access for example Serpentshrine Cavern directly through the nav bar, instead having to go via Coilfang and then access it from there, which I find quite clunky. Feel free to discuss it. -- 07:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

== vs

Without a, the wings of a dungeon appears too big and with a the character form look very strange (large spaces between letters)

Why was the removed please?

22:42, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * The small was removed because of the fact that the navbox already has a setting of small font on it (90% normal size?). That, multiplied by the sizing on small (likely to be also 85-90%), and it had strange rendering. Firefox makes it look like the tt but only smaller. In general, it's just not fun to look at stuff that small when it is easily avoidable. --Sky (t · c) 02:01, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical vs Natural Ordering
Right now, it seems that dungeons from the same hub are alphabetically ordered. I think this should be changed to ordering based on the level of the dungeon (from within the same hub) as this strikes me as a more natural ordering. For example, PoS(5) should not come after ICC(10/25) simply because P comes after I in the English language. I think most people would consider the natural ordering to be FoS, PoS, HoR, ICC in that case. Ddcorkum (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And the hubs are in alphabetical order with each other as well... it just makes it easier to find things if they're in an order that doesn't require you to already know what order the place should be done in. Here's an example... Ink has the articles in the order of when you get them... but as you can see on Template talk:Ink, some users would prefer alphabetical order. 00:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Another solution here would be to cut the dungeon by expansion instead of continent, but that would make three big categories. I'll make some test about this 09:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * See my draft here. -- 10:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm with Gourra, it's bigger, yes, but the current template is already a mess of in-line icons.
 * The order, imo, should be alphabeticall for "location", and level for "instance". That means Vortex Pinnacle comes before Throne of the Four Winds, but Skywall is the last of the list. It's fine in Gourra's version.
 * Also, I think the template should be renamed to instances, because it includes raids, too. Battlegrounds and Arenas should be linked, but not included.--Lon-ami (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Or now that I realize it, we could make a new template called Instancefooter, and include each expansion's PvE instances, arenas and battlegrounds under it, to reduce space.--Lon-ami (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem of an instancefooter would be that you cannot jump from an expansion's instance to another expansion's instance without first going to that expansion.
 * Going from Ragefire Chasm to Grim Batol means going to Cataslysm is mandatory.
 * 13:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, that's its major flaw, but books have that problem, too, and we live with it.
 * Anyway, I saw other wikis had "interactive" windows. Using Bookfooter as an example, being interactive would mean the bookfooter changes when you pass the cursor over each header (cursor over novels, it changes to novels, cursor over comics, it changes to comics).
 * This would avoid having to visit different pages, and would allow to see the entire template from a single place.--Lon-ami (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've drawn the major design of Instancefooter, I'm pretty sure a JS Pro will come over here to give us some OnHover action script ;)
 * 14:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because it works with Bookfooter doesn't mean that it will work for instances. -- 16:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you understood the point with my draft, which was that it was divided by expansion. With Instancefooter you can't even get from for example Wailing Caverns to Grim Batol! -- 16:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Like Lon-ami said, you cannot do it with books either, but with leave with it. Nothing terrible to pass by the expansion to get your dungeon. And it seems to work and fit rather nicely. Or am I wrong?
 * 16:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And why should I care if it works for Bookfooter? You're making it give unnecessary amounts of work for viewers to get to where they want. Who even asked for an Instancefooter in the first place? It seems to me that you're the only one who wanted it. -- 16:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Instancefooter template seems rather useless to me. The entire point of the footer is to make it easy to navigate between instances, and reducing it to a set of links to pages containing instance lists seems to defeat the entire point. The current template may have some issues, but yours goes too far in the other direction. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Abandon Dungeons to Instancefooter
The purpose of this vote is to choose between using Dungeons or using Instancefooter.

Place your vote in under the template you want to use.

Votes

 * Instancefooter :


 * Dungeons :

Comments
I think none of those is the answer.

The answer, imo, is a new style of Bookfooter, where, when you move the cursor over the icon of the expansion, the table below changes to the instances of that expansion.

Some graphic example: http://es.pokemon.wikia.com/wiki/Mew

(You must go to preferences and deactivate Oasis to work)

If you notice, under the image of the Pokémon, there are 2 dates. Putting the cursor over one of them changes the image to that one.

That wiki, one of the best designed ones, imo, had a lot of templates that worked like that, and it was awesome. I'm not an usual editor there (joined just when I replayed Blue some months ago) so I'm not sure how those codes work.

If we achieve something like that for Template:Bookfooter, we could make a Instancefooter that works properly.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm torn. I like Instancefooter for it's simplicity, but I agree with Sairez's point that Dungeons allows you to go directly to the instance page. I'm not voting for either one, because I think it may be that there are pages on which each would be good or have another navigation footer that shows only the instances in vanilla WoW or a particular expansion.
 * If I were forced to vote, though, I currently would vote to keep Dungeons. InstanceFooter is just too simplistic. I will think on this more.
 * Should this discussion be moved under Forum:Wowpedia general forum? --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 10:04 AM PST 13 Nov 2010
 * How often do normal viewers jump between dungeons in different expansions though? It is my feeling that InstanceFooter serves the purpose more directly. -- 17:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm not seeing it right, but InstanceFooter is increasing the number of pages that I have to go to to jump between dungeons in the same expansion as well. A really cool third option would be the dungeons template, but with only the expansion of the dungeon being viewed expanded by default (and the dungeons from other expansions minimized, but expandable, by default).Ddcorkum (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, if I perceive the goal correctly, we want to use something simpler than Dungeons, but not as simple and lacking the navigational advantages that Instancefooter has. Also, we should think about why users would want to try to jump around between instances. MY thought is the at the most basic need, users would want to jump around by geography or rough level range, so as examples I made Eastern Kingdoms dungeons and Original World of Warcraft dungeons. Are these simple enough yet still providing enough navigational capability? --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 12:13 PM PST 13 Nov 2010
 * That does seem a much better alternative. I would rather have the templates separated by expansion than by continent, though, as that fits more with the navigation people are likely to use. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer breaking down by expansion/level, then by location, so Original World of Warcraft dungeons seems like a good compromise. Ddcorkum (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I vote for the Dungeons-but only showing expansion-appropriate instances version. -- k_d3 02:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be cool if Dungeons could have a parameter like expand={vanila|bc|wrath|cata} where the given option would expand by default, and all others would be collapsed by default. If the option were left blank, all would be collapsed. D.D. Corkum (T / C) 02:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion is pretty old, but I did make a version of that, that people could just expand per expansion, just like how the class set templates are. However people didn't seem to like it so it just got shut down. -- 22:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When I was making my templates, I noticed the expand/collapse params didn't seem to be working right in general, that should probably be looked at, but the NavBox template makes my head hurt. Not as bad as Tooltip, but pretty bad. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 11:14 PM PST 13 Nov 2010


 * Could the decision on this affect in any way to Bookfooter? I personally dislike having to navigate across different pages to see novels, manga and comics :S.--Lon-ami (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of Ddcorkum, having something like like expand={vanila|bc|wrath|cata}
 * 19:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Zul'Aman and Zul'Gurub
For me Zul'Aman and Zul'Gurub are Cataclysm dungeons, because they cannot be done, if you don't have Cataclysm, despite the fact that Zul'Gurub's entrance is in Stranglethorn Vale (which is a Vanilla/Cataclysm area), and that Zul'Aman's entrance is in Ghostlands (which is a TBC area). Hans Kamp (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree, if they need x expansion, then they're part of that expansion. Pretty much like Naxxramas' and Onyxia's Lair's remake on WotLK.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Using Tabber?
I think the current model for the template isn't good, but it's the best available alternative we have; unless we install tabber.

What's tabber? Check here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Tabber

Personally, I use it on my Diablo 3 wiki, and it's pretty decent. Two examples here: http://www.diablo3-esp.com/wiki/Mago (let's you switch between different genders of a class) and http://www.diablo3-esp.com/wiki/Rajar (let's you switch between image and video on an ability).

What's your opinion? shall we give tabber a try, to make the template better? I'm posting this here because it's the template I think needs it most, but it could be applied to many other navigation templates.--Lon-ami (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Redesigned Instances
Which section does redesigned instances go? to the expansion they were redesigned or the original expansion where they were introduced? I think this that kinda of a issue that can only be solved with a poll(i don't know the specific code for polls).--Ashbear160 (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * They go to the "Removed" section. -- 20:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No i mean where do the redesigned instances go, example:


 * Zul'aman and Zul'gurub were redesigned in the cataclysm and are in the cataclysm section.
 * Deadmines was redesigned in the cataclysm and is in the vanilla section.
 * Shouldn't it all just be consistent instead of applying double standards?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So could i get an answer?--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hans Kamp asked this same question a couple sections up, and the answer is that it's based on the expansion you need to access it (which, in most cases, is when they were introduced). -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Aye, and since ZA, ZG, can only be accessed at 85, that's Cata, whereas Deadmines still has a lower level. Scholo, SM, and RC will still have lower versions, so they should remain in the vanilla section. 18:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hm ok but what about duplication of instances that is in the original section and Mop section, that coobra mentioned above?--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Duplicates shouldn't exist, however, due to the MoP articles already being created and MoP not being released yet, the originals take priority while the MoP versions can sit on the MoP section, until they go live. Then the originals can be moved to the removed section and the MoPs moved to vanilla. 19:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Updated Vanilla dungeons
If Shadowfang Keep and the Deadmines was updated in Cataclysm but wasn't moved to the Cataclysm section (along with some other dungeons such as Razorfen, Blackfathom Deeps), why was Upper Blackrock Spire moved to Warlords of Draenor? Is this because of the Iron March? 03:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * UBRS is now level 100 (or will be in 2 weeks), that's why it's in the Warlords section. Same reason why ZA and ZG are (or should be) in the Cataclysm section and Naxx is in the Wrath section. -- k_d3 04:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So basically its base on the level? 22:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. -- k_d3 23:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)