Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum talk:Help - Template overhaul

Interlexicanum

• Interlexicanum links:
  • To the English 40K Lexicanum:

    [[lex_en_wh40k:Ezekyle Abaddon|Ezekyle Abaddon]]

  • To the German 40K Lexicanum:

    [[lex_de_wh40k:Ezekyle Abaddon|Ezekyle Abaddon]]

  • To the French 40K Lexicanum:

    [[lex_fr_wh40k:Ezekyle Abaddon|Ezekyle Abaddon]]

• • To the English WFB Lexicanum:

    [[lex_de_whfb:Sigmar Heldenhammer|Sigmar Heldenhammer]]

  • To the German WFB Lexicanum:

    [[lex_en_whfb:Sigmar Heldenhammer|Sigmar Heldenhammer]]

  • To the French WFB Lexicanum:

    [[lex_fr_whfb:Sigmar Heldenhammer|Sigmar Heldenhammer]]

Templates

Introduce a new rule that no new templates can be introduced without prior and explicit Bureaucrat approval. Principle discussion "Ease of use" Vs "Sleek design". --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2019 (MDT)

Tools

• Template:Disambig: template for disambiguation page:

  {{disambig}}

This is a disambiguation page — a navigational aid which lists other pages that might otherwise share the same title. If an article link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page.

• Template:Otheruses: template for articles that are subject to being confused:

  {{otheruses|USE=Use 1|OTHERUSE=Use 2|OTHERPAGE=Use 2 article}}

This article is about the Primarch; for the battle tank, see Leman Russ Battle Tank.

• Template:Redirect: template inside articles that are subject to a redirect due to a disambiguation:

  {{redirect|Name of disambiguation page|other uses|other article from disambiguation}}

Wolf King redirects here. For the novella, see Wolf King (Novella).

• Template:Main: template to point the reader to the main article about an event etc.:

  {{main|exact wiki link name without any brackets}}

Citations, summaries, etc.

• Missing summary template:

  {{ImSum}}

Attention adept of the Lexicanum! This Image needs a summary or it needs to be improved! Please add one for clarity on the image.

• Template:Cite This: This is for noting within the text where additional citation is needed:

  {{CiteThis}}

^{[Needs Citation]}

Warnings

• Template:Spoiler: this article contains spoilers for a specific novel:

  {{Spoiler|source=Example novel}}

Spoiler!

The following paragraphs contain spoilers for:

Example novel

Non-fictional

• Trivia:

  {{trivia}}

The following information is not to be regarded as officially sanctioned and/ or is not written from an in-universe point of view. A detailed explanation of the term "Trivia" as used in the Lexicanum can be found here.

Trivia Tag

I was wondering if it was possible to reduce the vertical size of the Trivia tag ({{Trivia}})? As is it looks a bit off. Perhaps reduce the size of the font in the tag? KazilDarkeye (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Like this? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Thank you. KazilDarkeye (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I just converted the text into ^... as there was no font function. Maybe will have to be revisited at some point in the future. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

...

Spoilers

As I see, the majority of Adepts believes that the spoiler alert in articles about the books themselves is meaningless. Basically, I can agree with that. However, in that case, I would like to see in the articles about books a mandatory separate paragraph with a "teaser" (like "cover description" from the BL site). The idea is that the user can clearly distinguish: 1) brief information in order to interest him/her (and provoke him/her to read a book) but do not get spoilers and 2) get a full information that reveals the full plot of the book (if he/she agrees to get spoilers). This is something that is not exist in good measure in Wikipedia (they just have complete plot with all spoilers in them), and that (in my opinion) should be in Lexicanum. So, if we do not use Spoiler Template in the book's articles, we need uniformity in distinguishing paragraphs with and without spoilers.--Darkelf77 (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2019 (MDT)

I don't know that we need to use an explicit spoiler box on every book page, as long as any spoilers are contained to a section with an obvious name (like "Plot", maybe). But if you like the spoiler box, using {{Spoiler}} with no parameters will default to the name of the current page. Bobmath (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2019 (MDT)

Nevertheless we should indeed make it compulsory to add the "official blurp" (be it from the website or the back of the actual novel) at the top of the article, i.e. before any potential spoilers. --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2019 (MDT)

Well, I like 'Black Library Description' paragraph of GrumpyDilettante. May be it's a way.--Darkelf77 (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2019 (MDT)

Yes, or as I said what is printed on the back of a book which is probably mostly the same. Of course it is easier to copy/paste directly from a website (if available). --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2019 (MDT)

Just to add my two cents, while I'm a wet-behind-the-ears adept here, I very much agree with your findings in regards to the use of the spoiler tag. I've only done a few edits to date, all on fluff literature articles, so I humbly propose the following, based on my experience thus far:

• Firstly, that in articles about sources, the spoiler tag should only be used when this source has spoilers for another one which takes place chronologically before it. To illustrate, the short story Blood Calm has a spoiler for the novel Death of Integrity (the former being an epilogue of sorts for the latter), so I added a spoiler for that, but not the summary I have on the Blood Calm article.
• Secondly, following from this, I agree that the cover or official blurb given by BL, what I've thus far re-labelled as Black Library Description (since the blurb on the BL site usually differs from the one on the back of a hardcopy), should be at the start of an article. I've been putting it at the end, in favour of an overview section prior to a summary.
• Thirdly, I've been doing this on the articles I've edited, but perhaps prior to a comprehensive summary, maybe a slightly more vague overview section could serve to inform the prospective reader about the source's content? Essentially a TL;DR 'snapshot' of the plot, maybe even open ended if that's desirable by fellow adepts.

Just a long-winded suggestion ;)
GrumpyDilettante (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2019 (MDT)

Offtopic remark: It doesn't matter if you consider yourself "wet behind the ears", everybody with sensible and reasonable suggestions is welcome to add their thoughts. Likewise (although some people sometimes mistakenly thought otherwise) "old hands" are not treated with a higher regard if they seriously fuck up or misbehave ;)

on topic: on your fist point: agree. on the second: yes, it should indeed be at the top to avoid problems. Third point: Is the official blurb not already sufficient? On the other hand if the article has really a comprehensive content recap, yes, a tl;dr summary in a couple of sentence can make sense, as an overwview.

--Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2019 (MDT)