Forum:Comp cape navbox

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Comp cape navbox
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 27 July 2015 by Liquidhelium.

As suggested by 5-x I'll run it by here first:

  1. Does the community feel a need for a completionist cape navbox?
  2. If yes, how would the community like to make this? I've made a proof of concept at User:Salix of Prifddinas/CompCapeReqsNavbox|Comp Cape Reqs Navbox (and there's also a seperate one for User:Salix of Prifddinas/TrimmedCompCapeReqsNavbox|Trimmed Comp Cape Reqs).
  3. If no, how could the community clearify an article contains a comp req? E.g. something like {{2007 page}}.
  4. Possible option: create a category instead.

Or does the list of requirements on the comp cape article suffice?

The proof of concept: User:Salix of Prifddinas/CompCapeReqsNavbox

Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 11:50, July 17, 2015 (UTC)


Oppose - I feel like the requirement list on the article itself is plenty. User talk:ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of User talk:ThePsionic ThePsionic Special:Contributions/ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of Special:Contributions/ThePsionic 12:39, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

Question - On how many articles would this appear? Would it be on just the comp cape article itself? If more, then why? --Saftzie (talk) 14:08, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

As with all Navboxes, this navbox will appear on more articles, but only once per requirement. Because that's what navboxes are all about; navigating between articles. And if possible it would appear on a page about that req specifically instead of a general page, unless otherwise decided by the community. E.g. the req about collecting all the scrolls for the Reefwalker's cape will have one, but not Player-owned port. Bad example maybe because Ports will still get the navbox because of the final story missions req. However subpages should be avoided, so it would not be added to Player-owned port/Special voyages. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 14:23, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - This isn't the type of relationship that should be made into a navbox. MolMan 14:22, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 08:04, July 20, 2015 (UTC)
What I mean is that this is a weak connection between the constituent articles. It's akin to linking all the requirements for a quest or task together, which everyone would should agree is ridiculous. MolMan 14:17, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

Neutral - I won't take up the banners or pitchforks for or against the navbox, but I don't see why the grand oppose. While the articles included span subjects far and wide, they have a rather specific fact joining them. I have no problem with a navbox to group these articles. There are navboxes that have a far thinner bond, e.g. Template:Prifddinas items. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 18:00, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

But they have a bond nonetheless. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 08:04, July 20, 2015 (UTC)
Other stuff exists is a bad argument here. MolMan 14:17, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

Na - Doesn't need a navbox. I feel like there's an overuse of navboxes (and images in navboxes) on the wiki. This sort of thing is at most a category, but fine as a mention on the page and a position in the list on completionist cape. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:36, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, I think navboxes are really helpfull to group related articles together. And about those images, I realise now they have enough images and not every link should get an image indeed. But {{Music link}} clearly shows it's a music track which differentiates it from the other links. But then again, maybe the image could be added to the header instead of adding it to all songs, just an idea. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 08:04, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

Neutral - I think the idea has more merit than most people are giving it...there are a lot of people that are trying to get the completionist's cape, and the stats show that a lot of people navigate around from the list on the cape page. However, it's not clear that people ever want to jump from one completionist requirement to another. I think we should clearly state on the page (probably around the end of the first paragraph) of each requirement that you need it for the cape. ʞooɔ 23:47, July 17, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, now it's usually put somewhere at the end and/or at the trivia mostly. Putting them in the lead would increase awareness. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 08:04, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

Support - idk what's wrong with it that makes y'all so against it, I think it's nice and convenient Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 09:36, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't think this is really necessary, but I guess it's more useful than [[Template:Vyre clothes]] and, seeing that you've already gone through the trouble of making the thing... User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 19:04, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe that particular template can be merged with some other clothes template? Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 08:04, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

Support - It will be quite convenient if it is put in. I'm sure anyone that visits that page on a regular basis would like to have clickable links to the reqs. Zaros symbol.png Veryl Nox / Mattack / LWSIFFER 07:02, July 19, 2015 (UTC)

Links can be added to the table on the comp cape page, if they aren't already. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:03, July 19, 2015 (UTC)
Most reqs have several links indeed. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 08:04, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

Neutral - It's hardly the embodiment of evil, but I also don't see the value in navigating directly between requirements. We don't do anything like it for the Task System, for example, which is more commonly used and would also not benefit from such a nav. --Saftzie (talk) 02:01, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

It is not exactly the same as with these reqs, but I kinda see what you mean. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 08:04, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

Support (but read...) - First of all, nice work on the template! When I look at it, I'm thinking how it's any different than simply the list we have. Maybe we could include a description (show/hide) box next to or under each requirement. I understand your motive here. I'm sure the descriptions could be a good compromise because I do think it's a bit annoying having to do research and ask around to friends to get an exact idea of how to tackle the requirement. sMZBK5h.pngiisDlt8.png18:20, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

True, we could figure out how to do that. However I want to point out, they are links, when you click on them you'll get more info about the req. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 19:19, July 22, 2015 (UTC)
Are you suggesting we add how to complete the requirement inside the navbox? That's incredibly stupid. MolMan 19:21, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Comment/Still oppose - As far as clarifying that an article is related to a completionist requirement, that can just go in the prose of the article. And many pages already do that. We don't even need a special template or anything. Kal'gerion battle commendation is a perfect example of how we should do this. I don't see why completionist cape requirements should be seen as special; so there's really no point to treating them any different.

You said above that navboxes are for good for grouping article together; that's not necessarily true. As per Cook (kinda), I don't imagine many people navigating from requirement to requirement like this. The list on Completionist cape is not only sufficient, it's better. It's presented more neatly, the table can be used to check off which requirements you've completed, and the requirements actually have an explanation, instead of just a very vague description. I think that last point is a real killer for the idea. I also don't like the idea of a Navbox that has no real end. I can easily see this one getting too messy to be of any use, just look at how bad {{SoF}} got at one point.

As far as grouping together the articles of requirements, this is the perfect example of what a category is for. I would fully support the idea of just a simple category added to each page that is a requirement. MolMan 19:21, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

As for the no end part, that was neatly solved at Template:Shops by making it collapsable. But I just looked at SoF, it didn't look that bad, but that's my oppinion. I'll add that category idea to the top as an option, I thought there already was one for comp. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 10:56, July 23, 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can see SoF as fine. It got so big and unorganized that it became unnavigable. That's contradictory to its intended nature. {{Shops}} is also an honestly terrible template.
I think Category:Announced items is the perfect example of what we should do with completionist requirements. We have this category connecting all members of this broad idea, and inside that we also have stronger relationships connected with navboxes (e.g. the God Wars items). MolMan 14:10, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - The list on the completionist cape article is better than any navbox could ever be. I've explained this in detail here. 5-x Talk 15:04, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

Neutral - Per IP and Fswe. The list on the comp cape article is, of course as articles go into more detail than navboxes, better, but I don't see a problem with another navbox being on some pages. Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 15:27, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus for the proposed change to be implemented. --LiquidTalk 01:08, July 27, 2015 (UTC)