Forum:Locations on monster pages
After a small discussion on the
#wiki-rs discord channel I have decided to move it over to here. After making some edits around monster pages, it became distinctly obvious there is no distinct information around the location of monsters. True, you can go to a dungeon page and view the monsters present but that is counter intuative when wanting to know what locations a monster may be in. This is also something I would see a newer player requiring more than most longer term players.
From having a look around it seems that we have no real standard around adding this information to monster pages. I've found a number of different methods: Zombie, Vyrewatch and Greater demon. It can also be seen that we have done something similar to item spawns, but again another standard: Knife.
I feel like a standard is something that we need to discuss and I have proposed two variations that could be used: User:BlackHawk/sandbox2. If anyone else has any thoughts on this then feel free to share.
Support - I'd prefer option 1 in my sandbox as a standard. Looks clean and if you need to see the exact spawn locations we have a map link. I feel that option 2 takes up too much page real estate. An alternative could be using the mapframe for a single location or maplinks for 2+ locations.10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Option 3 - We've recently been adding monster maps on the RSC wiki and I prefer our approach there. Here, option 1 doesn't tell you where it is, so you have to open the link to see each individual location, which is not user-friendly when you want to get a quick idea of where to go. Similarly, Option 2 can get cumbersome when there's a lot of areas or they're spread out a lot, since you're loading so many maps and you have to unnecessarily scroll the find the relevant one (and the other important content is pushed down).
On RSCW, if there's one one spawn area and no switch infobox (like you'd have with multiple combat levels), we use a mapframe. If there are multiple spawn areas or a switch infobox, RSCW has has a list that tells you in words where the monsters are and allows you to open a map if you want to see it that way. classicrsw:Farmer is a good example of what I'm talking about in general, and classicrsw:Ghost is a good example of when there are multiple versions of a monster. ɳex undique 14:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Option 4 - I like the tabular form. For the sake of page load times, I oppose 2. I think there's more information that should be displayed in the table. The two data points I would look for or potentially want to sort by would Region/Kingdom per Nex's RSC example and Number of Spawns, as currently I have to count the number of pins to identify how many are there. See User:Aescopalus/Sandbox2 for an example of this additional info. General note for standardization: ideally a template could be created to present this information in tables, as opposed to just having a bunch of individual tables on all of the pages. That way, if changes needed to be made to the presentation, there wouldn't be as much rework that needed to be done. Potentially, you could even auto-populate the Region and Number of Spawns from the other input information in the template. 23:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I completely agree with you on adding in the Kingdom and Spawns columns. This would make finding larger clusters for a slayer task for example much easier. I also agree that this should be built into some kind of template if possible as it will be a lot of work to put this onto every monster page. 07:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Option 4 - In cases where there's a lot of spawns, having the entire map for each spawn could be excessive and clutter up the page, so I don't support 2/3. I do agree with Aescopalus that a template would be useful.03:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Support - As discussed in #wiki-rs I prefer Option 1, both because it seems cleaner, and because of the risk of overhead with loading multiple maps on page load. By extension, I like Option 4's inclusion of spawns counts. I don't find the inclusion of Kingdom particularly useful. We already have the landmark which is what people most readily identify with. If we want to go more specific, "Floor 4" or "Eastern section" would help players better find the spawns without a map. If we want to go broader, a Nearby Lodestone/City would help them get there. But including Kingdom doesn't really help me use this table more effectively. ThetaZero (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Support between 1 & 4 - I think these two are the cleanest and most user-friendly. I do not think Kingdom is necessary information but I do think spawn no. should be included as in option 4. --16:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Option 4 - Having multiple maps in a vertical format will clutter up the page. Putting the maps as a maplink not only make the page cleaner, but also reduce server processing time. However if we're hiding the location map behind a click, we need to include the basic information that the user needs to know in the row itself. Spawn count is one of such pieces of basic information, and I'm glad it is already included in the suggestopm. While kingdom is not essential, given that we include a link to the location itself, it is handy to know for newer/more casual players. Would be content with Option 1, but definitely prefer Option 4! Sir Veylantz (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment - I wonder if something along the lines of the Drop Sources table could be done for this which can be generated for each monster.
- Weak oppose Drop Source style table - Opposition is based in terms of practical execution, not because I dislike the concept. If there's a well-thought out proposal for this, I'd probably change my mind. That being said, when thinking about this, there would be two ways to do it:
1. Put a list of Monsters on each location page, and have a template pull the specific locations onto the monster page
Problems with this approach arise because boundaries are ill-defined or where locations are not explicitly names.
Examples of this: Should I put my Rat in the Lumbridge Castle location, or the general Lumbridge location? I don't want to do both, but they are equally true. If I decide to go with the Lumbridge Castle location, do I have separate entries for rats in the cellar as for rats on the ground floor? After I iron out my Lumbridge Castle question, should my Goblin get a new location called Lumbridge (goblin house) to keep at the same level of splitting? Or should I put it on the Lumbridge page in general? If I decide to go with the Lumbridge location instead, then where should I put my Goblin that exists east of Barbarian Village and southwest of the Grand Exchange, where there's no named location? Should it just go in a general Misthalin bucket? I can't think of a one size fits all answer to the problem, and I think leaving it to common sense will just lead to confusion or duplication.
2. Put a table of locations on each monster page, and have a template pull the specific monsters for the location page.
This one has could bypass some of the problems from the previous example with the issue identified above, because you wouldn't end up with duplicate entries on the Monster's page. You would need to stick with defined location names though. For instance, no defining a location as "East of Barbarian Village and southwest of the Grand Exchange", or the template wouldn't pull correctly. You might be able to get away of leaving simple cardinal directions and floors depending on how the template is written. You could still run into situations where you can't see any Rats in Lumbridge, depending on how the locations are defined. This one is less problematic to me, but also is less usefulness. 17:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Soft oppose - While I like the idea, I feel like any of the methods will quickly become overwhelming and confusing when it comes to monsters such as skeletons, zombies, and goblins for instance. There are sooooooo many different types of those monsters in the game that attemtping to log the location of each type, combat level, and attack style will result in a huge ugly mess no matter how you try and do it. While the idea of mapping out locations for monsters in some unified way makes sense on paper, in practice there are some monsters that simply won't be compatible with such a standard. In the case of the above three examples it would be because of their many variants and locations. Even if you group different variants together based on their location you'll still need a separate entry for each location. Realistically speaking, that actually creates even more entries because the same variant of those monsters is present in multiple locations. It gets even worse if you want to include monsters such as mice, rats, rabbits, giant rats, etc. Maybe I'm overcomplicating it, but I feel like this is the exact reason why there IS no standard when it comes to this. 18:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Option 3 or Option 4 no kingdom - I really don't think kingdom is necessary either, but including number of spawns is nice. Part of Option 3 that I particularly like is the maplink being part of the location - it's kinda gross imo just to have a long list of 'Maplink' text in the Option 1 and Option 4 map columns.02:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)