I added a new feature to Template:Infobox Item:
Enter |use = to the template. (Under stackable)
Where the item is mainly used for. Examples:
- A dragon chainbody is mainly used for: Defensive combat → [[Defence|Defensive combat]]
- A bronze scimitar is mainly used for: Melee combat → [[Melee|Melee combat]]
- Quest items → [[Quest]]s
- Slayer equipment → [[Slayer]]
And so on...
The links are used to create easy access to other articles, but they are still related to the item.
What do you think of it?
I like it Buzz, sometimes articles are not clear enough to the reader, but this feature would make everything pretty straight forward. I say go ahead with the addition. --CFLM Talk # Sign 08:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I personally think that the "Main use" should be made clear in the first few sentences of the particular item. (i.e. "The Bronze knife is a member's only Ranged throwing weapon.", "A Thumb is an item used in the Rocking Out quest.", etc.) If an article is not clear enough, the article SHOULD be made clear. Adding the "Make use" and neglecting the article is not beneficial. Another thing that worries me is if the item has multiple uses, or no "Main use" at all? 08:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: Multiple uses:
Amulet of Glory:
Skillcape: Main use:
Slayer's staff: Main
But here we are discussing about Main use.
- I would totally agree. There is a danger of infoboxes becoming too prescriptive, and people thinking that the whole of an item should be summed up by ticking the boxes. The very first thing any article should say is what the article is about - is it an item? A person? A place? Part of the game's interface? Too many item articles start off by saying how to get the item, for example, and think that more basic information is given in the info-box, so it's not so important in the article text. Most items have multiple uses. Something like armour would be the exception, but then again it should be fairly obvious what the main use of armour is. Basically I think the text of the article should give the information on items, and not rely on the info-box. If we did that then the main use would appear right at the top anyway, and that would make for quality articles. Leevclarke talk 14:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- There is an existing feature useful for "easy access to other articles" and it's Categories. From Wikipedia, "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles." See Wikipedia:Categorization. Adding categories to articles have been overlooked by some editors, but this is a very useful feature and helps links relevant articles together. 08:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Mr. Azliq:
- For your first part:
- I feel the same way that the "main use" of every single item should be mentioned first in the item articles. But there is temporarily no standard and instructions for editors to write a clear use of the items on the first few sentences. Not all items are having that nice introduction.
- Moreover, having that "Main use" row can provide a brief concept of what the main context of the article and function of the item is.
- When there are more than one purposes, just list those by using "*"s.
- Would it be possible for Jagex to release some thing with no purpose? At least dragon kite is for decoration. Or actually, we could make that "suspected".
- For your second part:
- Sorry to interrupt, but I don't think that we are supposed to discuss the categorisation problem. Shall we move back? XDRAGONAITE + 08:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- If there is no standard, we should have a standard. (If there's no instructions, we should have them.) I would rather improve on the quality of the article, than inserting the "Main use" for each and every item article. Having "*" (asterisks) would be rather cumbersome, I think. The template would become long and inconsistency would creep in. Templates should be brief and to the point, and having multiple entries would not be helpful. Regarding categories, I was suggesting that Categories be used as replacement to the "Main use" feature. This is because Quest items should be in Category:Quest items, Ranged weapons should be in Category:Ranged weapons, etc. This replaces the need to insert the "Main use" feature links in the first place. It is not a different discussion, but a solution to the above. (Btw, you can call me Az. Mr sounds too formal. LOL. Azliq is just a nick.) 10:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This is like i did with the EQUIPABLE part of the template. I think this will be useful, very useful. I will start on other templates (for improvement), if this "project" is running. Buzz (Talk • # • √ • P ) 18:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Let others comment on this before proceeding. If I'm the only objecting to it, then it's okay. 01:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Azliq. I don't think the extra box would be a good addition, as the primary use of an item can be too varied. And the template is already inconsistent enough everywhere I look. The article itself is a very good place to mention what the items uses are if it isn't obvious enough. And that's a big point to me also, stating someething blatantly obvious to all but a few 4 year olds does not help, it hinders, as it wastes our time reading something we already know instead of getting to more relevant information. What next, colour?--Degenret01 19:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, primary use can be varied... of what item?? That's why i made MAIN USE, every item has 1 to 3 maybe 4 main uses. Other uses can be written in the articles. Buzz (Talk • # • √ • P ) 07:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with "Main use" is it's subjective. (For example, X may think the main use of an item is A, while Y thinks is B. Z thinks that it's A and B.) This leads to confusion, and potential edit wars that could destabilise the integrity of this wiki. All other fields are objective. For example, "Equipable?" only has 2 answers: Yes and No. And, "Store price" only has the store price. I hope this clarifies my objection to the addition of "Main use" (in the template). 08:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- No, look at the note above, the example, this is for every editor the same. Buzz (Talk • # • √ • P ) 06:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
As some of the others have said, the main use of an item belongs in the article's lead paragraph, not in the infobox. In my view, infoboxes should be reserved for information that doesn't belong in the body of an article, but would be useful nonetheless. For example, we wouldn't list whether or not an item is tradeable, stackable, etc. in the article body, but we would in the infobox as that's certainly relevant information. On the other hand, the main use for an item is part of the article's content proper (and if it isn't in any particular case, it should be) rather than a statistic that can be left out to the side. If we need to make sure that editors know about this standard, then mention of it can be added to the style guide, where it should probably be in any event.
The idea that there could be more than one "main use" for an item is perfectly valid, too: what's the main use for willow logs, for example? We could have a long debate over whether it's fletching or firemaking, but ultimately either one could be correct, and listing more than one in an infobox using bullet points makes the box look a bit cramped. After a while, it's possible that it would become another field similar to the "other drops" field in the monster infobox where in nearly every case it simply says "see article" and the field itself is completely redundant. Skill 19:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- The main use of Willow logs:
- It has multiple main uses. Other uses will be written in the article, or more information about the main uses, like, what bows can players make from willow logs? And other stuff. Where are the fires good for? Buzz (Talk • # • √ • P ) 20:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Other drops has been removed from the Monster template a while back, by the same person who has removed "Main use" from Item template. I didn't think it was appropriate for him to do so now, while discussions are still going on. But anyways, since it has been removed, I'm going to cleanup the documentation that still contains references to "Main use". I hope this is acceptable. 12:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)