Difference between revisions of "Template talk:InfoBoxForLangProduct"
Sarna News
m |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
In my opinion, the drawback of having a second Product Infobox, and thus more administrative overhead, far outweights any benefit this template may have. Remember that templates are supposed to be helpful tools, and need to be simple and easy to use. Having to decide which of two largely identical infoboxes to use isn't helpful imho. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:07, 5 June 2018 (EDT) | In my opinion, the drawback of having a second Product Infobox, and thus more administrative overhead, far outweights any benefit this template may have. Remember that templates are supposed to be helpful tools, and need to be simple and easy to use. Having to decide which of two largely identical infoboxes to use isn't helpful imho. [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] ([[User talk:Frabby|talk]]) 04:07, 5 June 2018 (EDT) | ||
:I am going to agree with Frabby on this one and vote that we do not really need it. On a quick glance the only additional info line I can see is the "Original Product" and if that is a qualifier I will have the urge to add it to really poor products like [[TRO: Succession Wars]] that had virtually no original writing and are a derivative product. Doing that would widen the scope of the infobox but not by much.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 04:41, 5 June 2018 (EDT) | :I am going to agree with Frabby on this one and vote that we do not really need it. On a quick glance the only additional info line I can see is the "Original Product" and if that is a qualifier I will have the urge to add it to really poor products like [[TRO: Succession Wars]] that had virtually no original writing and are a derivative product. Doing that would widen the scope of the infobox but not by much.--[[User:Dmon|Dmon]] ([[User talk:Dmon|talk]]) 04:41, 5 June 2018 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Hi, I do see a need for the additional Infobox, albeit not neccessarily as large as it is right now. First of all, there are a number of german BT-products (there is even an category for it), without the novels it might be about 20 of them. There are at least four products, that aren't documented in the wiki at all... they lay in front of me right now. Secondly the current fashion of combining two different language products ([[Technical_Readout:_3026#Hardware-Handbuch:_3031|sample]]) in one page is at least a poor solution, given that most german products are not just plain translations but regularly differ more or less in content/artwork etc. So I think, yes the large GermanInfoBox is dispensable. But if the german product is combined with an english product in one page, it would be reasonable to use a shortened InfoBox, where you could for example only find the german cover, german publication info and the names of the translators (they deserve credit for their authorship). If you don't mind, I adapt the German InfoBox an build it into [[The_Kell_Hounds#German_Version|this page]] for a better example. What do yout think? [[User:Phasis|Phasis]] ([[User talk:Phasis|talk]]) 09:07, 6 June 2018 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 09:07, 6 June 2018
Why do we need this?
Bluntly speaking, I am opposed to this template. Its marginal benefit is the single "original product" field, a niche application in what is already a narrow application field - there aren't too many German BT products to begin with, and those that are merely translations of US products (especially novels) arguably don't require an article of their own. Conversely, those original products that do warrant an article are not usually based off an "original product", rendering this subtype of Product Infobox self-defeating and redundant.
In my opinion, the drawback of having a second Product Infobox, and thus more administrative overhead, far outweights any benefit this template may have. Remember that templates are supposed to be helpful tools, and need to be simple and easy to use. Having to decide which of two largely identical infoboxes to use isn't helpful imho. Frabby (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2018 (EDT)
- I am going to agree with Frabby on this one and vote that we do not really need it. On a quick glance the only additional info line I can see is the "Original Product" and if that is a qualifier I will have the urge to add it to really poor products like TRO: Succession Wars that had virtually no original writing and are a derivative product. Doing that would widen the scope of the infobox but not by much.--Dmon (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2018 (EDT)
- Hi, I do see a need for the additional Infobox, albeit not neccessarily as large as it is right now. First of all, there are a number of german BT-products (there is even an category for it), without the novels it might be about 20 of them. There are at least four products, that aren't documented in the wiki at all... they lay in front of me right now. Secondly the current fashion of combining two different language products (sample) in one page is at least a poor solution, given that most german products are not just plain translations but regularly differ more or less in content/artwork etc. So I think, yes the large GermanInfoBox is dispensable. But if the german product is combined with an english product in one page, it would be reasonable to use a shortened InfoBox, where you could for example only find the german cover, german publication info and the names of the translators (they deserve credit for their authorship). If you don't mind, I adapt the German InfoBox an build it into this page for a better example. What do yout think? Phasis (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2018 (EDT)