This is a forum page. Please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~. Be civil and polite to other users!
While it's easy for people to simply reject this proposal and say "Too much redundancy!", I'd just like to point out that we created articles on all skills and books in The Last Stand: Union City. Isn't that redundancy already?
Anyway, as the title suggests, I would like to propose that each book in The Last Stand: Dead Zone get their own individual article, as we have done for The Last Stand: Union City. Reason being is that, since we already have these articles for TLS:UC, it only makes sense that we make them for TLS:DZ as well. These books could also have an interesting background written for them, and it'll be easier for readers to look up information on said books. In short - books are pretty much notable enough to have their own articles. I think a lot of people come onto this wiki and enter "White Flag book" into the search bar. It will also be easier to manage, since the list of books here is very disorganized.
For starters, we'll stick to books for now. Since components and junk never had their own articles in TLS:UC, it's not something I'm going to consider, though I am open to any suggestions on making articles for these items. Just have a good reason handy.
So, Dead Zone - do you support or oppose this, and why? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 21:40, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
Discussion[]
I support your idea. It is going to be a lot of work, but it has been kind of quiet at the wiki since we just mostly fix grammar and reorganize images. If we do do this, we should leave the TLS:DZ books in the chart and make the book names links to their individual pages. Bazooka4343 (talk) on this day of 21:47, July 24, 2014 (UTC)
- I agree as well. And for this task you could partially use your bot! Although not sure how sophisticated it is :) Naraxer (talk) 02:28, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see how my bot could do anything, really. It would probably be just as easy if not easier to just copy and paste a "template" into the page and then fill it in. I don't think AWB has the capability to do something this complex, in its nature anyway. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 02:32, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
- Sure! Let's! —ShoopDerWoop 12:17, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, don't forget, we'll have to make one big navbox! —ShoopDerWoop 12:27, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, something to actually do on this wiki. I'm in. OrangeSkittles (talk) 12:43, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
- The Components page hasn't been updated to include all of the newly added items, Schematics and relevant "How to obtain" sections haven't been fully updated for the Vintage changes, and we still haven't gotten all of the new base levels for the weapons affected by the Vintage update. Ecthel013 (talk) 22:40, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, considering that all the re-leveling for all the Vintages have upped the levels, now less of us can actually go look for them...--Minecraftproman1266, the good o'l Bostonian. (talk) 14:59, August 14, 2014 (UTC)
I have a few articles created now. Now that we're underway, I was wondering about creating articles on book categories as well, namely Combat, General, Mission, Resource, and Survival. The template that rendered the text you just saw is {{Book Category}}, and it always links to books. I think we could create the relevant category pages instead of clumping everything in one article that's harder to navigate. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 20:52, August 17, 2014 (UTC)
- *bump*, specifically, like Category:Combat books, Category:General books, Category:Mission books, Category:Resource books, and Category:Survival books. There could also be a Category:Challenge books. Categories are a pretty marvelous thing. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 20:54, August 19, 2014 (UTC)
- Could you change colors of item template? I think backgroun is too bright and it converges with the link color. Also is there a need to include a game name in template? Seems like useless information. Or perhaps there is same named books in other TLS games? Naraxer (talk) 22:29, August 19, 2014 (UTC)
- An infobox contains information for readers that are in a rush and don't feel like reading the entire article to extract the data. A lot of other wikis already include information like this, like the game the item appears in, into the infobox as well as the article body itself. Also, we'll need to change pretty much all templates on the wiki since they all use the same color scheme. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 14:34, August 23, 2014 (UTC)
- Update: Okay, after some asking around at Community Central, I managed to get links to be colored differently inside the template without the use of extensive HTML code. What color should the links be? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 15:04, August 24, 2014 (UTC)
- The gunbox template has more darker red background which looks fine. Also I am not questioning whether infobox should be used or not. I was asking about particular field called "game".
- Also I want to ask are you going to keep general books page with a list of all books? I think it should be kept to look for different books quickly. But does it mean that once you want to edit effect of book you have to do it in 2 places, the general list and the actual book page? Can't they be linked somehow (edit once and it gets updated everywhere)? Not sure if wiki provides easy facility for it.Naraxer (talk) 16:15, August 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Update: Okay, after some asking around at Community Central, I managed to get links to be colored differently inside the template without the use of extensive HTML code. What color should the links be? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 15:04, August 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding the "Game" parameter, many wikis already have a parameter in their infoboxes. An infobox isn't an infobox if it doesn't contain information like such. There's no harm in having it in the infobox, and redundancy isn't always a bad thing.
- And yes, the Books page is something I would like community input on now that the articles have been created. It is possible to edit one page and both pages will be updated (via templates), but we have already tried that for splitting weapon articles up into individual pages, and it failed terribly. I am supportive of getting rid of the table at Books. We could probably replace it with something like Books#The_Last_Stand:_Union_City; a simpler list. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 12:11, August 25, 2014 (UTC)
Bump Any consensus yet? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 14:46, September 2, 2014 (UTC)
- Well, a list with a book description without giving any numbers should be fine. Perhaps even could state the number if it's always the same. Naraxer (talk) 01:30, September 4, 2014 (UTC)