Template talk:Castlevania series
|
|
Bloodstained
[edit]I removed the Bloodstained titles from the template. A link to the main Bloodstained article is OK, but I believe the rest of the series should be moved to its own.MailleWanda (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Template style
[edit]@AHI-3000: First of all, this is a silly thing to edit war over, but in general, if multiple editors are reverting your change, the onus is kind of on you to seek consensus. I stated my case in my edit summary. Collapsible sections are absolute overkill. Those are used on navboxes with ridiculous numbers of articles - like 200+. This one isn't nearly that big. The divisions aren't even helpful. Keep it simple. Why are we creating a single-item list with "Settings"? Are the 5 top-level sections insufficient for some reason? Why are we subdividing sections into groups at all?
As a side philosophical issue for elsewhere, there is a deep antipattern on Wikipedia navboxes that they need to be, like, perfect taxonomies with a zillion subdivisions for every precise difference. But that isn't actually good. The useful navboxes are short, auto-expanded, and don't require any clicking. A navbox is just a "See also" list that is the same across several articles. And "See also" sections also don't need to include tons of extraneous detail; just links are fine. Unfortunately, the tools that exist for the ideally-rare cases of large and unwieldly navboxes sometimes get misinterpreted as "Every navbox needs all these fancy features to be complete", but that isn't really the case. Something to keep in mind elsewhere. SnowFire (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @SnowFire: @Oknazevad: I have conceded that the collapsible groups may not have been necessary. Although I must ask, do we really need a subgroup for Lords of Shadow, which only lists links to 3 games? I think that it would likely be better fused into the Spin-offs section. AHI-3000 (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- The Lords of Shadows series is more than just spin-offs, but are mainline games, yet not the same in development or continuity as the original series of games, so their own subsection is the best way to list them. This has been discussed before. See the archives.
- I'm also going to agree with SnowFire's general point as I've seen this elsewhere. Navboxes are aids to navigating articles, not substitutes for them. Sure, some level of categorization of links is good as it helps people find the link in the navbox (which helps with the navigating thing), but the idea that someone looking at the navbox should be able to tell the exact nature of the articles is a bit overkill.
- Please keep WP:BRD in mind. oknazevad (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Oknazevad: Do you have any problem with the template being organized in any way besides that specific group? I'm trying something different (without collapsible sections) AHI-3000 (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think the template is fine as it is and doesn't need to be changed at all. Also, do not make changes to the actual template while discussion is ongoing. Use your sandbox to compose adraft and link to it in the discussion. I am reverting your changes until the discussion is concluded. oknazevad (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Oknazevad: Do you have any problem with the template being organized in any way besides that specific group? I'm trying something different (without collapsible sections) AHI-3000 (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)