Template talk:Infobox zone

Subheader
Param "subheader" don't work. Strizh 05:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. -- 15:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Faction
The output is working correctly (icon gets displayed) but the (Alliance/Horde/Neutral) shouldn't be there :S.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle Pet Range
I have added, which works the same way as   but specifically for the battle pets. You can see an example, at Duskwood. Would there be an easier way to do this for all the other zones, quickly perhaps? 04:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No. 01:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Factions tags
I don't know where we could discuss this so in the meantime I'll put it here. Basically, I don't think faction tags for the affiliations in the infoboxes are necessary. They take too much space due to pushing down the ibox and it doesn't look that pretty. The reason why towns have tags is to show people who visit the page which ones are Horde, Alliance, Neutral or Hostile. So I vote for not adding them into affiliations. If anyone agrees or disagrees I'd appreciate if you wrote it down. --Ryon21 (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not deeply invested in either side, but if putting a faction tag on an affiliation is causing a display issue, then that is the greater concern than a user knowing the affiliation's faction. Aliok (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 23:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Literally nearly every single line and parameter in the Infoboxes have faction tags now thanks to Wesab and others, to the point it's just cluttering. The point of infoboxes is to give key, important information in a succinct manner. This also means one has to be very picky about what information to display in such a tiny space. The question is : is this information so important that it deserves the right to clutter the infobox ? I do not think so, it seems trivial.
 * Add to that the issue of 'this faction is lorewise Alliance but gameplaywise Neutral so what now' and other problems and it's just a mess.
 * As DeludedTroll put it in Slack, faction tags should probably only be restricted to in-game towns and locations in order to display gameplay information. So when you list, say, Hammerfell, one knows it's a Horde camp/zone. And there's no confusion regarding lore and gameplay. If it's a Horde questing hub, you slap the Horde tag on it. That's it, probably. -- MyMindWontQuiet 23:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. So if no one is against it, anyone that can help, we should revert some edits then. Just give the green light. --Ryon21 (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * IMO, I'm for this change. 01:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Especially when a zone is purely Alliance like Dun Morogh, it doesn't need any faction icons unless the location is not Alliance. 01:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes! 02:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather than you doing this manually Ryon, we could probably have a bot remove all faction tags from infoboxes except for those in a given parameter (like inside |major and |minor settlements). -- MyMindWontQuiet 15:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If it is possible then perfect. Although I wound't know how to make the specific request so it wouldn't cause any problem. --Ryon21 (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Source
As with other templates, with the Patch changes I don't see a need for the "Source" line. --Ryon21 (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I second this, this seems like a pointless parameter. Any who oppose the removal of this parameter, comment below. 16:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No opposition. Xporc (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed it. 13:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Changes
I'm not quite into the boat of changing the infobox zone template. As it is right now works okay. The "major" and "minor" settlements is for that-towns, villages and camps or small farms. The capital of the region is basically the place which holds most influence on the region. In the case of Arathi, Stromgarde is for sure the capital, but right now Hammerfall acts as its adversary after the fall Ar'gorok. Hammerfall and Stromgarde have a long history too. In the case of the Blasted Lands, the two keeps were the ones with most influence in the zone. Surwhich has no influence over the rest of the area so it can't be a capital. Having a primary settlement would be redundant with the major settlements imo. --Ryon21 (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Surwich was the spark point but it more has to do with some stuff that DTZ brought up. Refer to the conversation in Discord, it wasn't just the Blasted Lands. --Berenal (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I read some of it. But what is the problem with capitals? I mean, I'm not against having a primary settlement up there but it could become a little bloated with it and may be redundant. --Ryon21 (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mainly its usage across the wiki. Capital is used on numerous pages where, frankly, they're not 'capitals' as much as just the primary settlement for the region. DTZ brought that up and the reason we changed it to have both would be to maintain the idea of the 'primary settlement' of a location, while also preserving the point of a capital, something that was apparently meant to be reserved for places like Gilneas City, Stormwind, Boralus, Stromgarde, Darnassus, etc. --Berenal (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, capital is not only for a nation but can also be a regional capital etc.Like I said in discord - "Large city with large population ≠ as capital though. A capital is where the government of the region is, begin it a huge city or a small castle. Also a place where it spreads its influence over the whole if not most of the region." --Ryon21 (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That personally sounds like a lot of unnecessary changes just for some forgotten Gilneas village in an outdated zone :/ Xporc (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)