UPDATED FORMAT - PLEASE SEE BOLD NOTE BELOW User:SuperSajuuk has updated and expanded the link templates for common articles as those listed in Appearances. Many of these have useful parameters so for instance :
- {{POA}} yields Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
- while {{POA|F}} yields Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film)
- and {{POA|G}} yields Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (video game)
I wanted to do a quick pro / cons discussion and get some input before adopting them more widely. Some benefits are:
- Reduced source file size for editting
- Quicker to type
- Standardized formatting that can be easily updated
Drawbacks are:
- Unfamiliar/Unclear usage for new users
- Obscured (uneditable?) in visual editor
- Small increase in page rebuild time (very minor especially as pages are cached)
Neutral impacts:
- No difference in page load time or page format for viewers
You can see an example of the changes on this revision
Anyone have thoughts on using these templates as the general format for most articles? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 13:50, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
- The rebuild time is very minor, if not a moot point, since the pages are cached anyway. Null edits can be used to quickly fix issues with the templates if they're updated.
- The point about VisualEditor is moot, as Wikia's VE is very buggy and hasn't been updated in a very long time, so it's still missing loads of features. Nothing that we can do about that, except ask users to switch their preferences to the Source Editor (if they have an account).
- That's the only points I feel that should be clarified. Switching the links to templates heavily reduces byte size, and if done throughout all articles (ie references, appearances etc), pages will be smaller and load better on those with not-so-great broadband connections. :)
- However, due to the vast number of links that would need to be updated, this would definitely be something that would be better updated through a bot to reduce the feeds being filled up in link->template type edits. Of course, users can do that manually as and when they see them, but a bot would be good to get the vast majority quickly with the least disruption. --Sajuuk 13:58, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed that the page rebuild times are minor/moot - just thinking through possible issues to consider.
- As seen in RC, many new users use Visual Editor so the point is not moot. However, as the links should be consistently formatted, having them be difficult to edit with VisEd may be beneficial.
- For clarity, the change over ONLY affects the source byte size and as such only affects editing. This will not affect or improve page load times for viewing the final published page.
- As this only affects editing, the change over can be done as needed when pages are edited and do not have to be done in bulk across the entire site at once. IF widely adopted, they could become part of the Layout Guide and propagated with new page edits and additions.
- While I find these templates and parameters useful, they need to be well named so it is clear as possible without looking at the template source which link is being included. This work should be done BEFORE they are widely utilized to limit the number of updates or parameter variants needed.
- Finally, the continuing attempts to argue that almost all recent changes need, or would be better with, a bot appears to be just another try at justifying your bot request instead of considering the merits or drawbacks of the actual suggestion or any possible alternatives. For me, this approach undercuts your suggestions, instead of supporting them, as the reasoning appears motivated or biased. Hopefully that request can be resolved soon so we can better see how these possible changes best fit together. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:11, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
- I take it that this wiki does not seem to really care for discussions, judging by the lack of it.
- As for the constant need to suggest that I am biased to my bot, that is not true in any way at all. If you go to any other wiki and propose a change like this and there are a huge number of edits to be made, you'll be asked to use a bot to prevent the feed being flooded in edits, as feed flooding will bury spam/vandalism edits.
- That's how it always works, this wiki is no different simply because you don't see the need for a bot to be used. But if you want to sit on the wiki for a month and rack up 10k edits from just changing links to use a template, when it can be done in less than a week with an automated bot, I'm not going to stop you. --Sajuuk 20:18, May 11, 2016 (UTC)
- This seems like a sound proposal overall, but I have concerns over how its implementation would impact references. Many references denote the chapter in which information can be found in addition to the book/movie/etc. How would the link templates handle or affect this? ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 22:32, May 11, 2016 (UTC)
- I'm going to do my best to stick with discussing the templates as they are separate from the bot request and using one does not require the other.
- It does not appear that <references /> work here so I set up a quick sandbox to test out the impact of refs. For book refs, you can just use {{GOF}} - Chapter 4, but I like to use {{BookChapter}} as it helps shorten the ref text and the link templates work fine there. If there are other templates that are commonly nested with source titles it's worth testing them out.
- I could also see expanding the parameters to help with other common long source links like {{FB|FA}} = ''[[Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)|film adaptation]] of ''[[Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them]]''
- --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:34, May 12, 2016 (UTC)
- <references /> absolutely works here (how else does <ref></ref> work? :P): this wiki simply places it inside a template, which I don't really recommend anyway.
- As for references in general, I don't see why it's necessary to do anything more than just <ref>{{PS}} Chapter X</ref> as specifying the chapter name is not exactly a useful addition. --Sajuuk 06:20, May 12, 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, by here I meant in the forum specifically but I must have messed something up as <references /> seems to work. One benefit of {{BookChapter}}, or any other formatting template (like these link templates), is that it creates a consistent, but updatable, display format instead of the mix of user formats such as Ch 2, Chap2, Chapter 2, etc... {{BookChapter|{{PS}}|11|Quidditch}} makes a well formatted reference[1] although making a shortform eg {{BookChapter|{{PS}}|1}} would be useful as well IMHO --Ironyak1 (talk) 07:23, May 12, 2016 (UTC)
- A better option is probably to expand the link templates to handle chapter info so {{DH|2}} = Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Chapter 2 (or Ch 2, or whatever format is preferred) This provides the consistent format without having to embed in a citation template. I would also suggest a second optional parameter that would display in quotes or parentheses and could be used for chapter titles, short quotes, footnote, explanations, etc.. That way the link templates cover both in article uses like Appearances and uses in references. Thoughts? --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:21, May 13, 2016 (UTC)
- This seems like a sound proposal overall, but I have concerns over how its implementation would impact references. Many references denote the chapter in which information can be found in addition to the book/movie/etc. How would the link templates handle or affect this? ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 22:32, May 11, 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not a huge expert on these kinds of things, but it does sound like it could save a fair bit of time in the future - that is assuming that it would become conventional to use them. Sounds like a decent project to me. ArrestoMomentum | talk 19:17, May 13, 2016 (UTC)
- Given that {{DH}} defaults to the Book title, having {{DH|1}} refer to Book - Chapter 1 makes intuitive sense when using these templates. It also avoids the odd citations like DH P2 - Chapter 5, which I see floating around as you can't specify both a film and chapter at the same time.
- The second optional field is helpful as you can add a quote or note for use in a ref.
- For instance: {{COS|8|Nick says that he died in 1492}} = Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - Chapter 8: (Nick says that he died in 1492).
- You can also use it to add notes for the films or games or whatnot so {{COS|F|Armando Dippet is on the stairs behind Dumbledore}} = Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (film) - (Armando Dippet is on the stairs behind Dumbledore).
- I think with these options it covers the various possible use cases quite well but hope that Starstuff and others provide feedback.
- As for it being complex, it's just of matter of wrapping the switch statement with an error check to see the parameter is a number or a string then formatting correctly. This code below also adds in the optional comment and seems to work fine:
{{#iferror: {{#expr: {{{1}}} + 1}}| {{#switch:{{{1}}} |B=Book |F=Film |#default = defaultBook}} {{#if:{{{2|}}}|({{{2}}})|}} |Book {{#if:{{{1|}}}|- Chapter {{{1}}}|}} {{#if:{{{2|}}}|({{{2}}})|}} }}
UPDATED FORMAT AND OPTIONS
SuperSajuuk and I discussed several options for these short codes and to save you all the technical carnage along the way, I'll just summarize the final form we came up with. Note that the use of these short codes is optional and does not interfere with the usual approach of typing out the link to the article. However, these are quicker to type, reduce the source pages size, provide a consistent display format, and have some useful options for both in article and in reference uses. Please provide feedback on the use of these short codes as the hope is to start bringing them onto pages in the near future.
Here are some examples:
- {{PS}} = Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
- {{PS|F}} = Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)
- {{PS|G}} = Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (video game)
For references:
- {{PS||chapter=5}} = Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Chapter 5
For titles with Real variants:
- {{QTA}} = Quidditch Through the Ages
- {{QTA|R}} = Quidditch Through the Ages
- {{QTA|R|Introduction}} = Quidditch Through the Ages,
To shorten common phrasing:
- {{FB|FA}} = the film inspired by Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Other Examples:
- {{HPE}} = Harry Potter: The Exhibition
- {{TBB|F}} = The Tales of Beedle the Bard, "The Fountain of Fair Fortune"
Thanks for taking a look - please let us know what you think! --Ironyak1 (talk) 00:45, May 14, 2016 (UTC)
- ↑ Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - Chapter 11 (Quidditch)
- Well, my opinion on new users not knowing: put a list of the new templates onto the community message board, let the people know. Aside from that, I think this new template system would be great, saves a ton of typing and far more organized. The references does make it easier than just writing it all out manually, which becomes inconsistent from editor to editor. {{SUBST:User:Yatanogarasu/Sign}} 17:18, May 14, 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it would save time and it sounds like a good idea. Not having to type out the whole name when referencing information would be a big help.Misskatniss1546 (talk) 18:08, May 14, 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I have a question. Why is Harry Potter: Magical Places from the Films: Hogwarts, Diagon Alley, and Beyond not included into the Template:HPV? Okay, it does not have the word in the title, but it's from the same author and the book deals with a part of the same things. So why a template of its own for "Magical Places"? I did not know there was the Template:MPF so I thought it was forgotten to be included. The similarity to the content of the other books is too great! Harry granger Talk contribs 13:11, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with author, but name. If it was based on author, all of the J.K Rowling main story books would be listed in a single template, which would just be ugly, confusing and impossible to maintain. The templates being separated by their name is better overall to keep things simple (not to mention easier to update in bulk). --Sajuuk 13:16, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I have a question. Why is Harry Potter: Magical Places from the Films: Hogwarts, Diagon Alley, and Beyond not included into the Template:HPV? Okay, it does not have the word in the title, but it's from the same author and the book deals with a part of the same things. So why a template of its own for "Magical Places"? I did not know there was the Template:MPF so I thought it was forgotten to be included. The similarity to the content of the other books is too great! Harry granger Talk contribs 13:11, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think so. The name of J. K. Rowling does not belong to the books. Okay, the name of Jody Revenson also does not belong to her books, but I think, everyone knows Rowlings books, but are you sure all people know all books of Jody Revenson? As I wrote above I did not know about this other template and thought the including was forgotten. Harry granger Talk contribs 13:35, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
- That's a fair point that those titles are very related; however, the goal with the link templates is to use a short acronym based on the article name so that from the name alone you could likely guess the template, or when you're editing you can easily understand the article referenced just from the template name. So for example -
- The Vault title were a bit tricky in that The Creature Vault and The Character Vault would both have the same acronym so decided on a HPV name for the series with options.
- {{HPV|A}} = Harry Potter: The Artifact Vault
- {{HPV|CH}} = Harry Potter: The Character Vault
- {{HPV|CR}} = Harry Potter: The Creature Vault
- The current list of templates and options is here for now User:Ironyak1/Link Template List. I will update and make it easier to read as we start to wrap up the bulk of this project. Thanks for the input - keep it coming! --Ironyak1 (talk) 13:43, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think so. The name of J. K. Rowling does not belong to the books. Okay, the name of Jody Revenson also does not belong to her books, but I think, everyone knows Rowlings books, but are you sure all people know all books of Jody Revenson? As I wrote above I did not know about this other template and thought the including was forgotten. Harry granger Talk contribs 13:35, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
- 1. I can't stress the importance of being able to specify chapters enough. In the case of the films, the "chapters" in question are the ones used in the "scene selection" menu on the DVD/Blu-ray releases, which generally have names. Being able to specify a "chapter" in a film is as useful as being able to specify a book chapter. If you give only the title of the book or film as a reference, you're essentially forcing readers to go through the entirety of the work if they want to find and verify the information. Detailed references decrease the chances of well-meaning editors removing valid information because they can't remember or find where it's from. Thus I think the link templates should include a chapter function for the films as well as the books.
- 2. I'd suggest adding a function to {{HPLE}} be able to specify individual books within the box set, as has been done with the Vault series.
- 3. A function to be able to specify page number might also be useful. Pagination of the novels differs between the U.S. and U.K./Canadian editions, and thus citing chapters is generally preferable to citing page numbers when it comes to the novels. But some of the film-related books apparently have a single edition or maintain consistent pagination throughout international editions. ★ Starstuff (Owl me!) 22:43, May 17, 2016 (UTC)
(Resetting indent, but replying to Starstuff) For clarity all the link template defaults work inside a ref so anyone can always add whatever note is needed eg <ref>{{PS}} - Chapter # (The Boy Who Lived): Dumbledore- "we've had precious little to celebrate for eleven years"</ref>. I do however like detailed and consistent citations and pushed for supporting them directly as they still handle the extended chapter info:
- {{PS|B|1 (The Boy Who Lived)}} = Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Chapter 1 (The Boy Who Lived)
- {{PS|chapter=1 (See pg 10)}} = Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Chapter 1 (See pg 10)
- SuperSajuuk argued for including the Chapter notation in general for use on film (as DVD Chapters), and video game (as an indication of Level), but I argued that the proper citation model for video games should show: "Level = 1" or "Level = The Glacius Challenge" and for film the citation should be "at time" as it is universal across viewing from a DVD/BR, mp4, or when taking notes at a midnight premiere of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film) :) Each case can be handled separately so I would suggest distinct variables for each medium:
- (book)/default: c,ch,chap,chapter=1 >> "Chapter 1"
- (film): c,ch,chap,chapter=1 >> Chapter 1, OR t,time=10m15s -> "at time:10m15s"
- (video game): l,lvl,level=1 >> "Level 1"
- (soundtrack): t,tr,track=1 >> "Track 1"
- HPLE options are a great idea - consider it done (because they are now :) {{HPLE|G}} = Harry Potter Limited Edition - A Guide to the Graphic Arts Department: Posters, Prints, and Publications from the Harry Potter Films Note some of these are redlinks, but that is intentional as they are on the short list for new articles I'm considering.
- Page citations could be added as well so that for for |B or the default, p,pg,page=325 >> pg. 325 (or page 325? not sure which citation standard is preferred)
Let me know if I missed anything, but I can add in these options if there are no objections. (SuperSajuuk and I reached a hard fought truce over these templates, so we'll have to see if it still holds with these possible changes :) --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:03, May 18, 2016 (UTC)
- Overly detailed references are not necessary. For me, at a maximum, I would be fine with a page number, but nothing more than chapter and page number. No direct quoting, specifying of chapter names or anything like that, it clutters up the reference for no real gain.
- We could have the template handle page numbers like this: {{PS|chapter=1|page=XX}}, which would format with this: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - Chapter 1, Page XX.
- As for the thing on games/films, that's possible and we could easily make the word "Chapter" change based on whether it's a film or game. That's a pretty simple thing to include (another switch function) and if people support it, we can include it. For games, specifying the level would be necessary (but would only be supported through a fixed name parameter to reduce confusion). --Sajuuk 10:06, May 18, 2016 (UTC)
- This is one of the things SuperSajuuk and I got hung up on is whether the templates should allow for unusual citations like (soundtrack) - Chapter 1, or if they should restrict the use of Chapters for books only. Given the use of even more variables, I would strongly suggest that the variables are restricted to their respective medium so you can't make (film) - page 231 or (soundtrack) - Level 4. By doing this we could also allow for non named variables for mediums that only have one variable such a PS|G|2 = Level 2. I would prefer to get clarity on this issue before we do more work on the templates. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 14:36, May 18, 2016 (UTC)
- Many editors on this site (myself included) have put a lot of time and care into creating detailed, well-formatted references, and I cannot allow all that work to be discarded. These templates will make things more efficient, but that cannot come at the cost of lowering the quality of existing references. There will also be cases where trying to shoehorn non-standard/custom references into the new template format will produce awkward results. I'm thinking of the references like this, which are used to explain a piece of information in an article, drawing on multiple sources and requiring several complete sentences.
- I don't have a strong opinion on restricting the templates in the way you've suggested. I mean, when it comes to individual infoboxes, there's nothing stopping someone from inputting "Muggle-born" into the eye colour field. If someone inputs "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film) - page 394" (LOL), whether out of error or deliberate vandalism, it would be easy to correct or revert. But if you think coding the templates to make this impossible would save us headaches, go ahead.
- I'm with you 100% on preserving and encouraging the use of a well-crafted notes and references that combines details from several different sources of information to reach a conclusion. I also agree that simply pointing to the source film or book, without any context of chapter, time, or scene does very little to support the fact being asserted. I do not see the intent of these link templates as preventing or impeding the type of reference you highlighted. (I've actually been thinking about how to preserve some of these oft-used and deeply researched references in a template so they are easy to maintain and use consistently across articles but that is another conversation).
- However, to reiterate, the link templates can always be included inside the standard ref tags and as such act as quick consistently formatted shorthand for the source being referenced. The expanded use of the link templates to directly support referencing really amount to creating a standard display for reference details to help avoid chapter-, Chap:, ch., etc type issues.
- Personally I find references often challenging to correct as it requires a deep knowledge of the sources, the fact being asserted, and a best guess at user intent. For instance, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film) - 13, could imply the book page 13 was intended, or perhaps chapter 13, or that it is the film at DVD chapter 13. Unless you know both sources and the fact in question well (or are willing to check both) it's not always a simple matter to correct IMHO. As such, I would strongly encourage reducing the possibilities for conflicting reference details and am willing to do some work to limit them. Let me mock up one of the templates for testing and we can go from there. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 09:36, May 19, 2016 (UTC)
- "I cannot allow all that work to be discarded." I'm sorry, but under the CC-BY-SA license that this wiki is licensed under, you give others the right to edit your contributions and you have absolutely no right to tell people that they're not permitted to clean up overly detailed page references just because you edited some aspect of it.
- I don't mind some references having note-based information, but a reference tag that is simply a reference to a source of the information (ie Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone - Chapter 1) does not need to be overly detailed and a simple source/chapter/page reference is all that is necessary for those. Notes-based reference tags should still be cleaned up so as the point that the note is trying to convey is kept simple. (Separate from this, I believe notes and references should be entirely separate, not combined together).
- Anyway, it seems nobody has any issues with the templates, so I guess we can just start implementing them on pages and further tweaks can be made over time. --Sajuuk 10:07, May 19, 2016 (UTC)
- I know we disagree on this point Sajuuk, but when I look at references like the one Starstuff mentioned I see a deep level of thought and craft that extends far beyond simply referencing where a simple fact is openly stated. For those of us into the academia of HP, tampering with such references in a way that does not clarify or improve them, would clearly be vandalism and I can understand Starstuff pushing back on the notion that they are mere clutter.
- I personally don't see any issue with starting to use the short code form of the templates (eg POA, POA|F, etc) but the extended format for citations should be avoided until variable names and such are stable as the ongoing changes may break any current uses.
- I have made all the changes discussed on Template:PS. Please look at the Usage notes for extensive examples. Also, please try it out in a sandbox and see if you can create mixed reference details like (soundtrack) Level 1 or (film) - page 1. If everything looks good, I can copy this across to the other core templates. The only other item I wanted to discuss is whether we want to have a Film Adaptation option to create the often seen text like "film adaptation of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 15:54, May 19, 2016 (UTC)
- But we are not here to follow Harvard referencing conventions and I actually find it insulting and ridiculous that anyone would suggest that we should be trying to make references stupidly detailed, just because a couple of users are OCD over academia of a fictional universe.
- And I'm sorry, but I couldn't really care whether you are involved academically with HP or not, because this wiki is not a place for people to practice their skills in writing for university level course work and cleaning up references to keep them simple is certainly not vandalism in the slightest.
- Additionally, the reference that was linked is not actually a reference at all, but a very detailed "note" that someone added. That "note" spans many lines and is very blatantly cluttering the source of the page. That note could easily be removed or condensed to be a few lines and nothing would be harmed by it, especially as it is mostly just someone's speculative opinion, which is based on someone interpreting "facts" and making a theory from it, which doesn't even belong on the page in the first place.
- I'm going to be very frank at this point and state my thoughts and I'm not bothered if people get insulted by it, because I'm getting tired of people trying to "own" their edits on this wiki. When you contribute to wiki's, your edits do not become your property any longer, but the property of the wiki, which allows any user to come along and remove extraneous clutter that isn't improving the wiki (and no matter how many times people say it, detailed references do not improve the wiki): people who hold a personal attachment to their contributions should probably not be editing a wiki.
- And now I'm going to stop posting on this topic and just implement these templates, because further discussion is time wasting and derailing the discussion beyond the original point of this thread.
- (EDIT: BTW: I don't expect a reply to this, I'm just ranting my irritation and a reply is not likely to help the discussion). --Sajuuk 17:22, May 19, 2016 (UTC)
- Having had this Notes and references debate with you before, there is no need to rehash it here. I did want to say thanks for your hard work on these templates. I find them extremely useful and a valuable addition to the site that I plan to use with every page I edit. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:46, May 19, 2016 (UTC)
- We have finalized the citation model, allowing for citing (film) by chapter or time, (soundtrack) by Track #, (video games) by Level, and the books by chapter, or chapter & page . These citation options also minimizes the ability to create odd citations eg (video game - page 2). Please see User:Ironyak1/Link Template List for the full list of options. We've taken into account a wide set of possible uses and believe this current approach meets them all and are ready to move them into wider use. Please take the time to review these and let us know any final issues or questions. Many thanks! --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:47, May 24, 2016 (UTC)
- As there doesn't appear to be any more discussion on these templates, and I feel the current implementation addresses the current needs, I am going to start using them regularly for editing and would encourage others to try them out as well. If there are any questions or issues, please raise them here in the forums. Thanks to everyone for their time, effort, and input on this project! Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:35, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
- We have finalized the citation model, allowing for citing (film) by chapter or time, (soundtrack) by Track #, (video games) by Level, and the books by chapter, or chapter & page . These citation options also minimizes the ability to create odd citations eg (video game - page 2). Please see User:Ironyak1/Link Template List for the full list of options. We've taken into account a wide set of possible uses and believe this current approach meets them all and are ready to move them into wider use. Please take the time to review these and let us know any final issues or questions. Many thanks! --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:47, May 24, 2016 (UTC)
- Having had this Notes and references debate with you before, there is no need to rehash it here. I did want to say thanks for your hard work on these templates. I find them extremely useful and a valuable addition to the site that I plan to use with every page I edit. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:46, May 19, 2016 (UTC)
- Please take care not to flood the feed in minor edits (as essentially, changing a link to use a template is a minor edit). I don't think anyone will appreciate it if all users see is your link template edits burying vandalism and other edits that need to be checked. So please try not to spam out edits and flood the feed. --Sajuuk 18:47, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
- As has been stated repeatedly, there is no need, nor any value, to converting the entire site over at once as these links only help with editing; pages that are not being edited need not be changed, which saves all that tedious work. My few edits to the Choc Frog cards were to test that everything appears to be working as expected (which it is). --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:27, May 27, 2016 (UTC)