Hi Gamepedia users and contributors! Please complete this survey to help us learn how to better meet your needs in the future. We have one for editors and readers. This should only take about 7 minutes!

Forum:In Hearthstone sections

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hearthstone

It is established that we create "In Hearthstone" sections for pages that actually have content for a Hearthstone section or important characters. There's no point creating an "In Hearthstone" section for every single random mob that shows up in Hearthstone, specially if all the content is just going to be "this also exists in Hearthstone". This is how we ended up with pages that were literally nothing but:

==In Hearthstone==
this exists in Hearthstone
==In the TCG==
this exists in the TCG
==In the RPG==
this exists in the RPG
So it was changed so that sections should actually require content. If it's just a mention, it can go in Notes. We stopped making sections just for the sake of making sections. -- — MyMindWontQuiet 13:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
No clue what you are referring to, but no such thing has been done. Such sections exist. Since a section about, for example, Hearthstone would be transformed to "Notes", and it would contain only the HS info, I don´t see any reason it could not be named "In Hearthstone" rather than Notes. It literally doesn´t add anything when it is Notes, but it benefits when it has the HS section and tag because it immediately shows what the section is about.
Whether it contains three lines (which "this exists in HS" tend to have) or four should not matter, the content IS there. I´d prefer if the other-game content remained separated and properly named so with the inline templates since they have been created for that, instead of being mixed in notes and trivia sections. --Mordecay (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I've literally just explained why above. Because otherwise you end up with pages that have no content and are literally nothing but:
==In Hearthstone==
this exists in Hearthstone
==In the TCG==
this exists in the TCG
==In the RPG==
this exists in the RPG
There's no need to have a full section when all you want to do is say "this exists in Hearthstone" and "this exists in the TCG", just put it in the Notes. It also takes less space. You're creating inconsistency across our pages. -- — MyMindWontQuiet 13:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The sections tend to be longer, like the technician, there are more sentences than one, which is fine, me thinks. I know that HotS and maybe TCG are short, but they haven´t got much love generally, and I think they could be expanded with details that are relevant for Warcraft, which HotS should have some. But I still stand by my stance and the reasons I just gave above; I consider the exact name and tag more important than just generic "Notes" in regards to the other-games content. If anything, tho, the "new" ones follow the RPG convention, so I don´t think this is really inconsistent.
But I still haven´t learned where does this come from. You said that "So it was changed so that sections should actually require content". Where exactly has it been changed? --Mordecay (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmm might've been on Slack? But you were told on Wowpedia as well, like here.
Oh no by "longer" I wasn't referring to the sentences. You'll notice the sentences did not change. But adding sections and Template:Templates, this does make the pages longer, for virtually no reason.
The "exact name" is still present in the notes. The content is absolutely the same. And it doesn't add any information, you don't need a template to say "this is for Hearthstone", when the sentence itself already begins with "in Hearthstone, blablabla." It just feels like adding templates/sections just for the sake of adding templates/sections. Otherwise you end up with empty sections, sometimes multiple in a row, when you could have the same amount of information in the notes, and without crowding the page so much! -- — MyMindWontQuiet 14:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I think a solution could be to copy Arthas' page and have an "In other media"/"In other games" bullet point list compiling all of a character's appearances in the TCG, Hearthstone, and HotS. That way, we'd cut down on the number of 1 or 2-sentence sections on major character pages like Sylvanas Windrunner, and the page length for minor NPCs like Blackwing Technician and Magnataur Alpha stays the same since they don't have any trivia other than "This character appears in Hearthstone" anyway (basically, the only change for those characters would be to change "Notes"/"Trivia"/"In Hearthstone" to "In other games"). Warcraft Adventures content could maybe be included under such sections as well, though I do think RPG content should be kept separate since (unlike the others) that was actually intended to be a source of canon lore at one point, and some characters have a very large amount of RPG lore.
If a character's appearance ends up being really major and worthy of more detailed explanation, that can be turned into its own subsection under the "In other media" header instead of just a bullet point. Deathwing could be an example of this due to how many different Hearthstone appearances he has and due to how noteworthy and unique he is in Heroes of the Storm, whereas someone like Zul'jin could do with just simple bullet points since there's not much more to say about his appearances in the TCG, HotS, and Hearthstone than what is already written on his page. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 15:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Odd that you are referring to a more-than-year-old-revision, when since that time the sections have been changing, and that you present it in a weird definitive way when no such thing is happening now.
Anyway, since the section templates exist I don´t see a reason not to use them. We overuse them with novels and comics, so why would these be a problem? A benefit of a section header is that it takes directly to the HS content instead of randomly finding the HS content in the Notes section. The length of a page seems very small to me when compared, so dunno.
However. I´m now intrigued by the "In other media" section. That would mean that the templates would have to go. Would these icons be ok or it looks weird? --Mordecay (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
That looks pretty messy to me. I'd prefer to just use plain text in bullet point lists and section templates for subsections. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 16:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
And if there were only the icons instead of the bullet points?
Either way, even if the templates / icons (sad panda) are gone, the layout looked good, so it should be taken into consideration, me thinks. --Mordecay (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The layout's fine except for the icons, but I think the Warcraft Adventures information would be better off as its own section, and the Hearthstone artwork might be better to put in the main Gallery so the section doesn't get too cluttered. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 18:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Why would the Adventures be better off as its own section? Kinda makes sense to be a subsection of the "In other media" when it is exactly that. Like if something would be out of the section, or in it, what would be the criteria? Mordecay (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Eh, I guess. Was mostly thinking it looks crowded with both the Hearthstone and Adventures images there, but I guess that wouldn't be an issue if the HS art is moved elsewhere. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 20:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Suggestion instead of "in Hsarthstone" section should we put external link to the mob/npc/etc to the card in hearthstone gamepedia? Maybe even the other way around https://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/Hearthstone_Wiki (Yuvyuv111 (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC))

"In Hearthstone/In TCG/In the RPG" sections are fine. You people are suddenly getting angry about nothing all over again Xporc (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

After thinking about the whole thing some more, I'm inclined to agree. The current format is kind of useful its own way for the reasons Mordecay said above. I'm mostly putting in my two cents on what I think would be the best way to do things if people really insisted on changing it to something else. -- IconSmall TrollDeathKnight Male.gif DeludedTroll (talkcontribs) 18:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm with Morde on this one. PeterWind (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
i also think they're fine. if a character is only in one other game, having a section about that game isn't really disruptive to the page. and if the character is in multiple other games, then these sections can easily be made sub-sections of an "In other media" section to keep things organized —Eithris (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)