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. ----  Varghedin  talk / contribs 07:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

<small> vs <tt>

I am just putting an exemple here:

Deepholm (Unnamed dungeon) · Skywall (Unnamed dungeon, Unnamed raid) · Abyssal Maw (Abyssal Maw, Throne of the Tides)

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

Why was the <small> removed please?

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 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. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 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 Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 09:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

See my draft here. --g0urra[T҂C] 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.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 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 ;)

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 14:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Just because it works with Bookfooter doesn't mean that it will work for instances. --g0urra[T҂C] 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! --g0urra[T҂C] 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?

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 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. --g0urra[T҂C] 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

1. Yes Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (^talk/_contribz) 17:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC) - (Nominated: Dungeons is a mammoth template, size must not be sacrified in favor of accessibility.)
2. Yes PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 17:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC) - (no comment)

Dungeons

1. Yes g0urra[T҂C] 17:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC) - (no comment)
2. Yes Sairez (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC) - (Dungeon allows one to quickly go from the one dungeon page to another, for example the template allows me to view the Black Temple page and then the Icecrown Citadel page.)
3. Dungeons Ddcorkum (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC) - (With the change to natural ordering, vice the previous alphabetical ordering. This allows faster navigation than the other option, which I view as possibly a step backwards.)

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? -- Fandyllic (talk · 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. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 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? -- Fandyllic (talk · 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)