Forum:Removal of T:RPG and T:Cat

Proposal
I would like to remove T:Novel, T:Book, and any other of that type of template, completely. For any given article, it's fairly obvious whether the article is derived from a certain source or type of source; as well, we've always used citation to provide where the information in the article comes from. The banners are silly given that holds true. Further, the banners were instigated a long time ago when Manual of Monsters came out, and there was a whole fuss about appendix 3. That situation is no longer an issue. For any given section, it should similarly be obvious, either by inline citation or by the section name or by the first line of the section.

There is a second set of templates similar to the former set that I believe also merits removal: T:Cat, T:WotLK-section, and such, for the same reasons. For example, take Deathwing. We have T:Cat there. But the use there is redundant to the citation later in the sentence and takes up room for no apparent reason. Deathwing is the same; we have a section title... and then we have a notice that says "here, here is information from Wrath of the Lich King. How repetitive. These templates are for their entirety, unneeded.

I do, however, think the first subset of these "notice" templates (T:RPG and such) are helpful on, and would not object to keeping them there. I also believe that the templates T:WotLK-inline and co. are also of use only where they are currently used (adding these and removing -section is not what I'm shooting for and I would hate for that to be an unintended consequence), though I think in might be prudent to tone their usage down (as to the best way to do that, I'm not sure).

Thoughts? --Sky (t · c) 17:51, May 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think they're fine. Mostly, because they help identify unique content. For example, a RPG character. If he's only mentioned in the RPG, then it's worth knowing he's 100% RPG. Same for novels, manga and comics.
 * As for having the templates in the pages of those books, I think it's fine, too because it helps identifying if it's a novel/manga/comic/rpg/undefined book in a first sight.
 * Also, as you said, these templates are great for images taken from the books, providing a visible tag so you only need to open its page to see where it came from.
 * In the other side, for those related to WoW expansions, I think they aren't useful, because the game is too open and, eventually, they won't have an unique source. I think "exp-section" is enough. Anyway, I don't see any tag save the ones from Cata around, and I think they're fine until Cata is released. After that, I think they're pointless.--Lon-ami (talk) 18:37, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Content doesn't need to be unique, and in particular, it's obvious from the infobox if nothing else that the content is unique (or identifiable at first glance). We don't need to provide the reader with "oh, this is different"; they can decide that for themselves. As for id'ing, the infobox does that well enough (and the first line of the article should be able to do the same thing, without a need for a big template&hellip;). --Sky (t · c) 18:48, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't see any of the others except the ones I pointed out to you, right? :P I don't think they're useful anywhere, and I especially don't think we need to replace them with one, all-inclusive template.


 * I think it is important to identify at first glance if an article is about something that is only found in one source, or if a section is about content from a different source. This was sarcastic. Tragic.-- 18:54, May 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to stress this: We can already do that with what is already in the article without the need for a template. In every case I've seen, the templates are completely redundant. Completely. And if they aren't, the article can be rewritten. --Sky (t · c) 19:03, May 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * The use I see for the templates of the games' section is that: 1) They are used as a general source so that someone else can later add the specific quest or quote of the game. 2) Because some people are attracted easier to read a section by a graphical template rather than simply a title with text. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 21:37, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

One nit-pick:  and Book are vastly different from RPG. (Perhaps you didn't link to the templates in the thought that you'd later have to edit this page to remove broken links?)

That aside: If I understand correctly, you are arguing that a section header is obsoleted by the content of the paragraphs of text. I have to say that no, it isn't. The former is observed in a brief scan of the page (at a glance), where the latter has to be pieced out in the context. "Fairly obvious" things that require reading the text are not as evident as context symbols that break up text. I'll point out as well that they form a uniform context indicator, where intuiting a source from the page text will not. Relying on footnotes, for instance, requires even more work on the part of the reader to determine context.

Unless you're advocating for context-symbols being either completely inline, or floating to the side of (instead of on top of) the content they're providing context for? I'm willing to submit, though, that such symbols may currently be overused, and may also be subject to obsolescence. How important are "burning crusade" tags these days, for instance? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:37, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

The tags are fine. RPG content should be flagged since it doesn't always mesh with the other games. -- 23:43, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing that it is duplicate to what is all so often in the (actual) section header itself (i.e., the stuff between the two equals signs), in the infobox, in a set of images, and in what is often the first line directly following the "tag". It isn't that they're "fairly obvious", it's that they are completely obvious, in this case. Re uniform: True, but I'm of the opinion that there isn't a need for a uniform context indicator. It's all from Warcraft, and the specific source can be indicated in the header above, the paragraph itself, or in the references. Importance is another thing that I didn't initially bring up, because it's not one of the universal problems. I see it as a problem with -section type templates, yes. In general, I suppose I could use the same argument that was used to remove the spoiler tags to argue for the removal of these. Re PCJ: Um... I did say that we should have where the information is coming from in the text/in the citations, and which is almost always the case anyway...? RPG almost always meshes, in fact; in the few places it doesn't, we're already very clear that it doesn't. And I suppose you could argue the fact that since we use T:RPG without discrepancy, it cannot be counted on as a sign that the information might not jive correctly, anyway. --Sky (t · c) 23:49, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I referenced T:Books nowhere. :3


 * Ah, the template I meant to reference was T:Novels, ER. --Sky (t · c) 23:53, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Note here, of course, that I think we should keep speculation (though a tweak or two might be necessary, imo), as that's usually from a source which isn't official licensed by Blizzard, and which we should be vigilant about. We don't need to be vigilant for the other sources, and that is what these templates are best at, as you so put it. They get in the way for no reason, then, because we accept every source as being a good once.
 * Well, I'm not sure if my comments were ignored or simply not seen. I have seen that the removal of the templates have started, and I've also seen that some section headers like "The Burning Crusade" or "Wrath of the Lich King" are also being removed. Still, I think that this decision shouldn't be based in just one person's opinion (I've only seen comments from Sky2042 fully supporting the idea, but don't misinterpret me, no offense intended), specially since this templates have been in the wiki for over a year. Some advantages that I've seen for the templates are:
 * They are sometimes used as a general source of information (without citations or references), making it easier for someone else to add the specific quest or quote from the game.
 * Because some people are attracted easier to read a section by a graphical template rather than simply a title with text.
 * To know at a quick glance if an organization/place/character is from only one source.
 * If we only put references, the people will take more work to identify the source. As they have to go down to the reference sections and check where the character or place come from.
 * I think that articles like TCG cards are better with a template to quickly know their nature.
 * Benitoperezgaldos (talk | contribs) 04:15, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought they were already answered by the other replies in general. I thought the age thing might come up, and to be honest, I find it spurious. The age of how long we've had one form of doing things or another should prevent us from improving the view of the wiki? That's a nonsensical objection (though you phrased it as something less).
 * A category does the same (especially given that we now have specific categories for each of the series/games/books/whatnot)! In fact, a category is more helpful in the end run, imo!
 * I don't believe it. Period and end of story. There are several articles (Medivh for instance) where I've removed the templates. Are you be unable to tell what a given section is about? Why not compare that to a diff? Does that look better? No, I find it looks much worse for the article. This change would also be partially about readability: We shouldn't distract our readers with "oh, well, this part is from this source". If they're really interested, there are the citations and various page headers (which the headers or infobox almost always make it obvious what we're talking about).
 * Really? It's a click away. A single click. And then another click to return. Further, this should make people more wary of whether the sources say what they say or not.
 * I'm not sure which articles you're referring to. Onyxia's Lair (TCG)? The first freaking line says it's a TCG set. Every article should say where it's from if it's not immediately apparently from the infobox, if there is one. That's just good writing. Right now, we're making up for good writing with "oh, here's a picture, figure out where it's from".
 * Right now, to boot, we're inconsistently applying the rule. Why don't we tag every NPC with some equivalent of these templates that I don't think exists? Every one. Just so we can identify which source it's from. That doesn't sound ridiculous? Unnecessary? That's what we did with "Template:Bc". We removed that one because it was large and unnecessary. Now, I'm pushing for the same thing, only the templates are smaller. That's it. --Sky (t · c) 01:00, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Quick take: a heading and a section template does seem somewhat pointless. The heading is the one that would almost certainly have to stay, in almost all cases. Section templates don't really make an article look pretty, more often they make it look crowded. Context would generally tell you that the text is talking about something exclusive to an expansion pack (and even then, how does exclusivity really apply to lore?). 16:20, July 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the RPG is the same as like the Cataclysm one. RPG is a different game, and the content is sometimes different enough to make it worth of being separated. I think RPG should stay the same way Novel and Comic works, but only for those RPG-unique articles.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:47, July 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Exceptions are almost always a bad idea. Novel and Comic and RPG would all be going, in case you didn't understand the OP. For example, have a looksee at Marcus (gladiator). As an encyclopedia, our goal should be to educate on the existence of these characters and such, not to make judgements on whether our viewers need to know exactly where they are, so long as their existence can be cited, as Marcus is.
 * I'm honestly annoyed. I've enumerated the same reasons over and over again, and yet to have seen any brilliant counterpoints to my arguments. --Sky (t · c) 17:14, July 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think those templates help to know the source with a single look. That way, you can also identify if the character appears just in one media or not. I think it's important to note when someone isn't present at World of Warcraft, and this is the best way to do it, imo.
 * How do you know if a character is novel-unique or RPG-unique without that template? Checking the references? We never reference in-game stuff save quest text, how would I know if that Marcus is in-game or not? Putting a "he doesn't appear in game" phrase somewhere? The template works better for that sense.
 * In the other side, I'm with Kirkburn regarding the section templates. They aren't as useful, and the references themselves work fine with them.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:20, July 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * (My last comment was mostly regarding the tbc, wotlk and cataclysm section templates.) However, to expand on that: good use of referencing should be able to cover the novel, comic and RPG templates most of the time.
 * If they're used by a section heading - if the content is reasonable, they often shouldn't really need to be in a separate section anyway.
 * It does sound a bit like one reason for keeping them is regarding the "validity" of content from various sources - however, we attempt to not make such a distinction on WoWWiki, because it is not a distinction for us to make. If there is concern over whether something should be kept from some source, that's generally something for individual discussion or explanation on the article itself.
 * All that being said, I think Lon-ami makes a good point about knowing whether something is from a single source (and I'm not sure how to deal with that). 17:26, July 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * One of my main reasons for keeping them is to avoid questioning if it's canon or not. The RPG is pretty controversial there. The template would help know you're reading something 100% RPG, and that you should know that from the very beginning. It's not WoWWiki's duty to tell you if it's canon or not, but we can tell you it's from the RPG.
 * After that, it's your choice to decide if the RPG is canonical or not. The information is there, interpret it as you want.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:34, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's not our job to tell people whether it's not canon or not. If you accept that, I'm not quite sure why you don't accept the corollary: It's not our job to tell people where it came from (beyond a citation). We don't need to have this big, ugly indicator of the basis of an article. As I said earlier, if people are concerned about the information in the article, they'll take the time to go about ensuring that it can be found in the sources. Right now, the reliance on these templates means that we take their usage at face value. Even with citations, we shouldn't do that, but at least citations we can point directly to a page number (in most cases) and say, "There it is. That's where it came from". These templates... not so much. They don't support anything that isn't already there, to boot (find that article!). I'll respond to the earlier points when I've time. --Sky (t · c) 17:54, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing about the RPG that was ever controversial was MoM Appendix 3, and all of that information was merged into a singular article. Funnily enough, MoMA3 is exactly the reason these [opinion: stupid] templates exist: People were worried that information needed tagging. It doesn't. Every source we have is valid, and every RPG usage is cited (find me an article which uses the RPG but doesn't cite it in the relevant places, and you will earn 10 brownie points for finding a bad article and then lose those brownie points for not fixing it).


 * Metzen himself admitted that some things in the RPG were not canon, like Finnall Goldensword. A lot of the stuff of the PRG has a lot of controversial things around, and most of the adventures are completely out of place with the universe.
 * I don't think the template is ugly. When I open an article and see it, I know that it's not in-game, and where it came from, without having to look through the references.
 * And by "our job" I'm speaking of neutrality and impartiality. Telling something is canon or not without official words is opinion, and that shouldn't be at an article. In the other hand, telling sources isn't opinion, it's information, and I think it should be included.
 * It's not about sourced content, it's about unsourced one. Pretty much all the WoW content is sourceless, because it's pointless to give sources for stuff that is obvious and can be seen with just being in-game. You can't know if all the information is from the RPG or not
 * Of course, the template should be only for the 100% RPG articles.--Lon-ami (talk) 18:28, July 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * But that's trivial. You keep making the same points, and I keep shutting them down. Whether or not they are canon, they are part of Warcraft. We are not to judge whether they belong on wiki, or whether they have sufficient canonicity to merit a warning. Just like we did with the spoiler tag, I want to remove the warnings of possibly wrong content (aside from speculation, because those are opinions created by those playing Warcraft). Let the people decide for themselves.
 * I'm not going to argue whether it's ugly, as that's personal preference. I find them ugly. I will again state that they do make reading the article more difficult, which you've not agreed with nor disagreed with, yet Kirkburn has, which I suspect means you do agree with it.
 * We're still telling them the sources. Do you keep missing that somehow? The location of the sourcing is now in a place where editors can be more vigorous in ensuring that the sources match the content. That's the important part here, and I think you agree with me on that point as well. Which source it comes from is irrelevant, and I can see above that you do agree with me on exactly that point on one hand; you then say otherwise in other words elsewhere. Which is it?
 * "[...] because it's pointless to give sources for stuff that is obvious": Why do you assume what's in-game is obvious? Hmm? Why not stuff in the books? That's obvious too, just to the people who buy the books. Why not the RTSs? That's obvious too, just to the people who play the RTSs. I haven't played the game in about 4 years, and yet I take it on faith in the WoW pages that have sprung up since that time. Should I? I think so, because I can verify the information on an external DB if necessary. Could I do the same with the books and the RPG? Yes. I'd have to go and purchase those things (or DL them), but it's still physically possible. Your point only continues to show that the policy is applied in a manner which is inconsistent, even with itself. It's ridiculous to think that this is how it should be [and is]. --Sky (t · c) 15:45, August 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources at Reflist are fine. The reason I like these templates is because they are useful to identify the set of sources at first glance.
 * We're not telling them anything about canon, we're just telling him the article is 100% novel/rpg/manga content.
 * It's just another way of telling the content of the page isn't present at World of Warcraft, in a direct manner, without having to check the sources and wonder if the unsourced parts are unsourced because they are obvious WoW info.
 * I think World of Warcraft is the major source here. Stuff is obvious or not depending on people, so we can't consider something is universally obvious or not. We take the major source, WoW, and make it the global source, the basic theme, while the other themes are secondary. Yes, there's people that gets to know Warcraft from books or RTS games, but the people that get to know it through WoW is the major population, and the wiki is obviously designed around them.
 * We're just telling if something is unique or not to the set of sources, excepting WoW-unique ones for the reason above. We're not telling anything about canon. It has nothing to do with canon.
 * You're not shutting any point, you're just not understanding it, in my opinion.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:24, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Vote
Shall we remove the templates (yes) or leave them (no)?


 * Yes :


 * 1) Yes. See above. --Sky (t · c) 14:10, August 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * No :

Other comments
Just so it's clear to me and anyone else just now jumping in... is this a vote to get rid of the Article header templates or both the article and section header templates? 19:13, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I honestly think the vote's premature. Discussion isn't exhausted, and all three of the editors voting aside from myself haven't made comment on the topic. --Sky (t · c) 20:35, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be nice if we don't start to put/remove the templates until a decision has been reached.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:28, August 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd vote if I knew what this was for... cause personally I like the section header templates... but I could care less about the article header templates. 19:57, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like the section templates to stay, but not the article header ones. -- 10:01, September 16, 2010 (UTC)