This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was oppose proposal, retain three separate Fantasy Flight Games navboxes. jSarek (talk) 04:42, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
I have built a template, {{FFGStarWars}} for the articles that I have been helping to write about the Fantasy Flight Games' Star Wars-themed games. There are 3 games. Each game has a few expansions. Now, in authoring the template, I used Template:Miniatures as a guide to just get it started. I was a bit rushed at the time having other personal issues on my plate while trying to put together a nav template, but I am working on it now to improve it.
I added a cards and an RPG section to the initial miniatures nav box I put together because I have seen the trend (at least in my areas—I have moved from one region of the US to another) for some gaming groups to combine more than one product in their roleplaying sessions, and Star Wars: Edge of the Empire and the X-Wing Miniatures Game are such examples. RPG space combat character immersion cuts to a scene in which miniatures rounds are used to propel the story in a dynamic and creative way. It helps players to visualize the action as it unfolds, and although there is a win/loss outcome in a miniatures round, gamemasters use either outcome to decide how players are rewarded bonuses (or penalized) during play. It makes for very interesting play sessions (note that I have not yet seen card play involved in this practice, but if combining the two, why not all three).
Therefore, a template designed to involve more than just the miniatures or the RPG or the cards formats of the FFG brands would be useful to gaming fans (in particular, gamemasters) looking for such crossing info. Having a template that combines at least the two elements would allow for visitors to the wiki to easily search out details with such a quick reference navigation box.
The technical details that I was most interested in, with the creation of the nav template, is that the box have collapsing of each game section. For now, there are only three main games for the company, but this format would allow for more games to be added to the template if FFG adds more games (and it looks as if they will). Each game has its own expansions, individually, so collapsing is useful. I would like to have it collapse individually for each of the 3 games rather than for the whole box.
A counter-proposal was made by Thunderforge, however, to split all the games up into individual templates. I was waiting to see what the community would suggest, but changes began to be made without such input, so I am bringing the discussion here for a consensus. I realize that the solution may be to go ahead and split the nav box, but if a reasonable solution to combining products under companies can be made—besides the fact that it would make navigation across brand lines possible for interested persons—it would cut down in the amount of templates created and maintained every time a company releases a new product. If a precedent can be set, all the better. But if it is more appropriate to individually create nav boxes for each franchise release, then I will go with that. So, here is the issue: Keep the 3 games under the one navigation template, or split it into 3 distinct templates.
The proposal I am posting here is to keep the 3 games under the same "umbrella" navigation box.
{{FFGSWXW}}
{{FFGSWTCG}}
{{FFGSWRPG}}
Voting
#The reasoning I have for keeping it as one navbox is that (in formatting it with each section hidden until expanded) it would prevent the "clutter" that the box currently displays. I am working on getting the box to telescope down, which would show only each of the three game titles until one of them is expanded. (If you follow the link in the Comments below, you will see an example of a grouped navbox, which you can click Show/Hide to expand/collapse the content). —GethralkinHyperwave 02:45, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Cade
Calrayn 01:40, July 3, 2013 (UTC) - Seems like it would be neater to simply split them into three nav boxes. Supreme Emperor (talk) 01:42, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
- This is going to get crowded quick. In the long run, if the games have any success, even the split versions are going to get unwieldy - imagine if we had all of WEG's sourcebooks squeezed into one nav template. And I don't think there's any precedent for putting all of one game company's products under an umbrella nav template, either; we certainly haven't done it in the case of the aforementioned WEG (which also had a miniatures line), or for Wizards of the Coast's three RPG incarnations, miniatures line, and TCG. jSarek (talk) 02:28, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Split into three navboxes, as having just one would be too cluttered. To compromise with the reasoning for using only one, I would further suggest that each box, detailing one game, should also contain two additional links, one each to the main article for each of the other games. That gives easy access to all three from each box without over-cluttering them. —MJ— Training Room 02:33, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
- As I originally wrote in the talk page (and decided to be bold in implementing), there is a precedent for splitting up templates (e.g. Wizards of the Coasts' games have separate templates at Template:Miniatures and Template:SagaEdition). Since Fantasy Flight releases new products every month, a single template will become increasingly unwieldy. Fantasy Flight has never stated that these games are intended to be used together, so arguing that they should be on the same template because they work great together doesn't seem meaningful since it's just as easy to combine the West End Games RPG and Fantasy Flight X-Wing Minis in the same way. For all of these reasons, I stand by my decision to split into three nav boxes. -Thunderforge (talk) 19:17, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 05:18, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- --Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 05:33, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- 1358 (Talk) 10:28, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- I like Geth's idea of one, but the three look better and offer a better perspective to our readers. Corellian PremierThe Force will be with you always 02:32, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Switching to oppose keeping one navbox as mentioned in comments. —GethralkinHyperwave 15:11, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Unless someone comes up with a better idea of how to keep it as one. —GethralkinHyperwave 12:58, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
Comments
I am currently studying the coding for Wikipedia's collapsible groups nav box template. It would certainly be just as "neat." —GethralkinHyperwave 02:06, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
- To make it clearer what we're voting on, I've added parenthetical notes to each of the voting headers as I understand them, since some may be confused by a proposal to keep the status quo, which causes voting options to be reversed from normal (most would expect support to cause a change and oppose to leave it as is, which is the opposite of the way this is set up). —MJ— Training Room 02:33, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! —GethralkinHyperwave 02:39, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
- {{Template:X-W}} is a good precedent for keeping the single navbox format, although the X-Wing template is set up to show all the games and their subsequent expansions. All I am looking for is to hide expansions under each of the 3 games. —GethralkinHyperwave 03:35, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
- It is indeed a good template for showing a unified group, although note that there are only 8 links on it while the current Fantasy Flight template has 34. It's my personal opinion that a template should not have parts hidden by default, but that's another issue that we'd deal with if the "one box" choice is voted on. -Thunderforge (talk) 19:29, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. So, here is an example of what I had in mind. Sorry it took so long, and I would have put it together with the initial posting of the issue, but I was working out kinks. Granted, the consensus is heading toward splitting the templates, but I like MJ's suggestion to tie in the other products somehow, and I will work on that as an alternative, but if it changes after this, rearrange the template to suit. If, however, consensus remains to split the templates individually, then I will go with that. Just want to make sure everyone is happy. —GethralkinHyperwave 21:37, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- While I appreciate your efforts, that example looks like three separate navboxes to the uninitiated and is likely to lead to readers being confused about why navboxes that are only tangentially related are present on the article, not realizing that it is a single template. Also, I vastly prefer the {{nav start}} family of templates that is currently used on {{FFGStarWars}}, as its rounded corners look much better than the sharp, angular corners of the {{nav box start}} family that you used above. The square corners just look out of place on Wookieepedia, which has rounded corners on just about everything. And yes, I know that the square corner navboxes are on quite a few articles, but those navboxes IMO should be converted to the round-corner design as well. —MJ— Training Room 23:04, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. I like the rounded box look better, and I have been trying to figure out how to put what I have up above into what is currently on the template page and still retain the rounded format. —GethralkinHyperwave 01:03, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I have been unsuccessful in joining rounded navboxes, so splitting is the better looking choice. The combined nav box that currently exists has no way of collapsing individual game sections, so it remains tall (and, I just figured out, a little broken). Therefore, I am moving my own vote to split. Like I said, I was interested in working with it to try to get it to work. However, the problem is beyond my current level of coding, so I'll just go with what definitely works. Plus, I like the suggestion you made, MasterJ, about using the extant links to reference the other games. So, I have incorporated that above. —GethralkinHyperwave 14:58, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Per Consensus Policy, "After one week from the start of voting on an issue, if the votes overwhelmingly support one option, the thread may be closed early," I move to close voting early on this matter, since the vote to Oppose is unanimous. —GethralkinHyperwave 15:14, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
- The snowball clause that you quoted still requires that the thread be open for a full week, in order to give users who may only be able to get on Wookieepedia once a week a chance to comment. Also, ten votes IMO isn't really "overwhelming", given the size of the community. The guideline I normally use in deciding whether to snowball is 15+ on one side and no more than one on the other side. So there's no harm in letting this stay open a little longer, in case someone comes in late with a good point in support of a single navbox that no one else has considered. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 21:01, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Ah. Sure thing. —GethralkinHyperwave 12:57, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
- The snowball clause that you quoted still requires that the thread be open for a full week, in order to give users who may only be able to get on Wookieepedia once a week a chance to comment. Also, ten votes IMO isn't really "overwhelming", given the size of the community. The guideline I normally use in deciding whether to snowball is 15+ on one side and no more than one on the other side. So there's no harm in letting this stay open a little longer, in case someone comes in late with a good point in support of a single navbox that no one else has considered. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 21:01, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Per Consensus Policy, "After one week from the start of voting on an issue, if the votes overwhelmingly support one option, the thread may be closed early," I move to close voting early on this matter, since the vote to Oppose is unanimous. —GethralkinHyperwave 15:14, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I have been unsuccessful in joining rounded navboxes, so splitting is the better looking choice. The combined nav box that currently exists has no way of collapsing individual game sections, so it remains tall (and, I just figured out, a little broken). Therefore, I am moving my own vote to split. Like I said, I was interested in working with it to try to get it to work. However, the problem is beyond my current level of coding, so I'll just go with what definitely works. Plus, I like the suggestion you made, MasterJ, about using the extant links to reference the other games. So, I have incorporated that above. —GethralkinHyperwave 14:58, July 6, 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. I like the rounded box look better, and I have been trying to figure out how to put what I have up above into what is currently on the template page and still retain the rounded format. —GethralkinHyperwave 01:03, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
- While I appreciate your efforts, that example looks like three separate navboxes to the uninitiated and is likely to lead to readers being confused about why navboxes that are only tangentially related are present on the article, not realizing that it is a single template. Also, I vastly prefer the {{nav start}} family of templates that is currently used on {{FFGStarWars}}, as its rounded corners look much better than the sharp, angular corners of the {{nav box start}} family that you used above. The square corners just look out of place on Wookieepedia, which has rounded corners on just about everything. And yes, I know that the square corner navboxes are on quite a few articles, but those navboxes IMO should be converted to the round-corner design as well. —MJ— Training Room 23:04, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- Okay. So, here is an example of what I had in mind. Sorry it took so long, and I would have put it together with the initial posting of the issue, but I was working out kinks. Granted, the consensus is heading toward splitting the templates, but I like MJ's suggestion to tie in the other products somehow, and I will work on that as an alternative, but if it changes after this, rearrange the template to suit. If, however, consensus remains to split the templates individually, then I will go with that. Just want to make sure everyone is happy. —GethralkinHyperwave 21:37, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- It is indeed a good template for showing a unified group, although note that there are only 8 links on it while the current Fantasy Flight template has 34. It's my personal opinion that a template should not have parts hidden by default, but that's another issue that we'd deal with if the "one box" choice is voted on. -Thunderforge (talk) 19:29, July 3, 2013 (UTC)