Forum:Navboxes are getting kinda stupid

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Navboxes are getting kinda stupid
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 8 July 2016 by Liquidhelium.

I think we need to open a general discussion about when and how we use navboxes, particularly for NPCs. Just to spit out some examples:

Simply put, we're coming to a point where navboxes aren't even being used because we think things will be easier to navigate. If someone lands on the Nex article, what are the odds they actually care about her involvement in Fate of the Gods? I wouldn't say it's unreasonably unlikely, but consider further: what are the odds they would be at the bottom of the page for more? Nex's article has a specific section for her appearance in this quest. After that section, the article is mostly about her in combat. Why does this matter? Because if you consider the structure of the article logically, there's not much reason for a user interested in Fate of the Gods to be expected to be at the bottom of the page. At that point, why do we need that quest's navbox?

The issue here is how much we're trying to cram stuff into a single box for supposedly navigation. And then subsequently trying to make it a perfectly 1-to-1 relationship. That's the root issue which is turning a nifty little navigation tool into an overwhelming mess that, at this rate, is only going to become more and more ignored by users.

We're gradually branching out into vaguer and vaguer categories for our navboxes, which isn't useful. What use is Template:Melee bodies? Why would someone care about an item being in this category other than to compare its combat stats? And since that's not appropriate for a navbox, what point is the navbox then? We have Equipment tables for comparing items.

What use is [[Template:Undead]]. Like, really? Who the fuck cares about Bill Blakey when they're reading about the Tormented wraith?

Navboxes are becoming increasingly useless because we're being idiots. Am I part of the problem? Certainly. I've made my fair share of stupid shit—Template:Spiders.

All I know for sure is that if we continue this way with navboxes, it's just going to get worse.


But I'm not sure why I'm discussing this. It will get 5 comments max and nothing will get done. MolMan 01:09, June 23, 2016 (UTC)

Support deleting all navboxes --Iiii I I I 02:01, June 23, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - Yeah, you saw this one coming, didn't you. While I do agree that some of the amounts of them we have are silly (see: Death, that is fuckin ridiculous), I don't really see the harm in having them. They're doing what they're doing; helping, even if little at all. I constantly use navboxes, as it's an easy way to show what things are in what category in a neat little box without having to delve deep into the clusterfuck that is the categories page. That being said I think that maybe some could be combined, such as Halloween events going into a single template? I do believe there is a solution for this that isn't just "delete all navboxes". --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 02:08, June 23, 2016 (UTC)

What do you think you are opposing? There's no proposal. MolMan 02:12, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
And no, combining all halloween templates into a single one is retarded. MolMan 02:13, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
No need for such language when I'm just brainstorming. --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 02:18, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
Such a bad idea warranted such a response.
And you using navboxes isn't really indicative of their usefulness. You're one of the problem people who are making them for everything, so of course you'd find them more useful.
The thing you said about categories really makes no sense. Categories are easy to navigate. Extremely easy. And even if they weren't, navigation can be structured dynamically for all categories without navboxes. Navboxes should not be used as a substitute for categories; that's why this mess has gotten so bad. MolMan 02:25, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
you're one of the problem people
Yea, I admit, I've made some stupid templates, but I STOPPED DOING THAT and started making them for quests and miniquests, which, are pretty unanimously accepted things to make them for. And furthermore, I don't get why your criticizing ideas (however bad they might be) if you're not proposing any yourself. --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 02:33, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
Because this is such a broad problem that we need to identify the issues first before we even begin thinking about how to fix them. MolMan 02:35, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
Okay, granted. Also, did I really just misspell *you're? Anyway, I think you did a pretty good job at identifying the issue. Wasn't that what this post was about? --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 02:37, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
No. I'm actually pretty retarded. MolMan 02:39, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
At least you know the difference between you're and your :P --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 02:43, June 23, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - What do you propose is done? For Undead, maybe it could be split into smaller ones like npc ghosts including Blakey or the Spirit from jennica's ring's stuff, and monsters into their own thing? Quests could have a link for minor characters but not have the navbox on their article, like nex and TWW. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 02:16, June 23, 2016 (UTC)

My main issue with the undead template is why does it need to be an actual thing? What legitimate reason is there to navigate between members of such a broad concept. Or even of the same species. Ghosts seems fine for a category, and we should have a "Ghosts" category, but what reason beyond "they're the same things" do we have to link them with a navigational template?
I agree with that point about minor characters and whatnot, but I wanted to avoid making specific proposals in the opening of this forum. MolMan 02:25, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
Such categories could be subcategories for Undead, but would it be better to have, say, NPC Ghosts separate from Attackable Ghosts? Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 02:34, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
No. That sort of categorization should be done with intersection. We can see what articles are in both Ghosts and Bestiary, for example. MolMan 02:42, June 23, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose any changes - I don't see the infoboxes as something that are broken, they don't even work on mobile anyway so I don't think each form being inconsistent length is any deal. Ozank Cx 20:46, June 23, 2016 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately ignorant? MolMan 22:42, June 23, 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: - I was thinking of maybe splitting certain pages such as Nex (<quest name>), but then I realized 1. It would not solve the broad navboxes like Undead, and 2. Pretty positive most quest NPCs with minor roles would probably be tiny stubs if that was done. Maybe keep them in the navbox, but remove said navbox from the page? After all, most people looking at the Nex page (or bosses) won't be trying to navigate to other quest NPCs using the navbox. --Jlun2 (talk) 23:23, June 24, 2016 (UTC)

Very very very strong oppose - What else would you expect from me though. But I do agree {{T|Undead}} shouldn't actually be a navbox, a category would suffice in this case. However I strongly oppose removing navboxes from pages, just because they were a minor character. Where would the line be drawn? Also good luck with Death, because he is actually the main NPC on most if not all of those navboxes. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 23:37, June 24, 2016 (UTC)

You're opposing that as if it's a formal suggestion, which it is not. So what are you opposing? Are you opposing the idea of discussion? Because there's definitely an issue with navboxes being overused. Opposing discussion is short-sighted. "Good luck with Death" is a really dickish thing to say in this matter too. I get that you like navboxes and all, but they're a lot less useful than you seem to think they are. MolMan 23:47, June 24, 2016 (UTC)
That's your opinion, you can have yours, I can have mine. #LeaveNavboxesAlone Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 00:02, June 25, 2016 (UTC)
#navbexit User talk:ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of User talk:ThePsionic ThePsionic Special:Contributions/ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of Special:Contributions/ThePsionic 06:41, June 29, 2016 (UTC)

Idea - What if we had a specified template specifically for that article/character? Something like "Events Death participated in" which would have 2 subsections: events (h'ween) and quests, something like the quest series navbox. This one template could replace the 7+ stacked templates of all the quests and holidays characters have been in. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 00:15, June 28, 2016 (UTC)

That would be a cool alternative. It could work as a converse to Template:Quest Series Personalities Table. MolMan 00:19, June 28, 2016 (UTC)
I like it! Seaport. --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 00:28, June 28, 2016 (UTC)
So basically that'd be a table like QSPT, but which links of those navboxes would feature on it? How would it work? Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 09:54, June 28, 2016 (UTC)
Yes! User talk:ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of User talk:ThePsionic ThePsionic Special:Contributions/ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of Special:Contributions/ThePsionic 06:41, June 29, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I agree navboxes have got way out of hand. It's got to the point now where they're virtually an entire category and I have a hard time believing they're very useful. I also dislike the sheer amount of images that have been shoehorned into them - I never understood why they were needed, nor do I think it adds a great deal to them.

Having said that, they're possibly easier to navigate than actual categories. It would be interesting to see some analytics comparing category pageviews to navbox clicks. I think we'v got to the point where we need t define a scope for navboxes, to decide what we actually want them to be. Otherwise they're going to continue getting more and more complicated.

I would also note that we are probably the most prolific user of navboxes on Wikia. No other wiki I've ever come across has so much in there, and it'd be interesting to see if pageviews/session is higher here than elsewhere and if we can attribute that solely, or at least partially, to navboxes. Otherwise, I wonder if it's time to look at other solutions. cqm 06:28, 29 Jun 2016 (UTC) (UTC)

Perhaps, some of the category-like navboxes should be deleted, e.g. {{Monarchs}} and {{T|Undead}}. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 14:39, June 29, 2016 (UTC)
It also extends to pretty much every quest navbox these days. cqm 07:43, 30 Jun 2016 (UTC) (UTC)
No, now you're comparing apples with pears, as the Dutch proverb goes. You can't compare a group of NPCs with all articles related to a quest. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 07:53, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion - A little test. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 13:10, June 29, 2016 (UTC)

That's honestly even worse. MolMan 13:45, June 29, 2016 (UTC)
Then I honestly don't know what you want. Because NPCs like Death have a legit reason for being on those navboxes and it's just plain stupid to NOT have the navboxes on Death's article since he IS on them. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 14:00, June 29, 2016 (UTC)
Then you need to think outside the box. There's definitely some better way to convey this information in a less superfluous way without using navboxes. MolMan 14:02, June 29, 2016 (UTC)
Then show me the way, because I cannot think of any. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 14:20, June 29, 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'll make a forum to solicit ideas and feedback. MolMan 16:16, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
Much sarcasm, such wow. I've only seen one idea so far, no examples yet. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 17:32, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

Concept of my idea - This is what my idea a few post higher looks like in my head. This would replace all the individual quest and holiday navboxes on that particular character, while on other pages they would still be there. Perhaps to these kind of one-off navboxes, the categories could be added as a Ctg template at the end. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 17:55, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a really good idea thus far. It might even be something we can automate based on categories or links. MolMan 17:58, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
Looks and sounds nice Lucky chaotic claw.png Metal Angel cut your wrists sample text 18:11, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
Reluctantly, I have to admit that it does look nice. However I wouldn't make a seperate template article for it, just paste it at the end of Death's article, since it only features on that article. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 22:43, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather see it as a completely dynamic template. And making it wouldn't be that difficult. We could create something like {{Character}} that adds a semantic mediawiki property to pages and use it inline when a character is mentioned. As an example:
{{Character|Death}}'s responsibility is to cripple the construct. He has three attacks:
And that would be enough to have the "Quests and events list" template recognize him as being in the quest. MolMan 22:51, June 30, 2016 (UTC)

Partially Oppose - I can understand the need for moderation. For quests, maybe if a character is a bit character or cameo appearance, then they wouldn't really need to be listed in the Nav. --Deltaslug (talk) 23:22, July 2, 2016 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus that "navboxes are getting kinda stupid," or anything else, for that matter. --LiquidTalk 20:56, July 8, 2016 (UTC)