Template talk:Armor infobox

Not really necessary

While I appreciate the effort, I don't think this infobox is necessary for the wiki's armour permutation articles. For the most part, the reason is essentially because of the short-length nature of the articles themselves: compared to those with quite a history (such as the Mk V and ODST), most of the armour articles are very short. The short-length nature of these articles, contrary to what users might consider to be stubbed and/or requires expansion, is already helpful to the articles' presentation in such a manner that everything known about the armour permutation is already available to readers. To introduce the infobox to an article that has already provided short, concise information does not enhance or assist the readers in presenting a good summary; rather, what it does is introducing repeated information in a redundant manner (a good example would be the first article to ever use this infobox).

It should be reminded that infoboxes are not necessary for every wiki article; it is necessary only to assist readers to identify key information at a glace. This infobox, in my opinion, does not fulfill that purpose. I don't it is necessary to be implemented in articles. — subtank 15:37, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

Ugh, I just saw this a few seconds ago. Now I edited a bunch of pages... I tried checking the activity on halopedia to see if the was somethi f said or progress but I didn't notice this until a bit ago. The EVG has several bits of content that would make the armour articles longer, even game specific stuff lacks in certain articles. Well although I like the infoboxes, I suppose it's not my call to make. I'll stop editing the pages for now. Pardon my dust... Erickyboo (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

I for one think that we should use this infobox (if I wasn't stuck on a tablet and therefore with limited copy paste functions I'd have added some myself). However, let's try some of the larger armor articles like Mjolnir Mark V or Mark VI, and see how it looks. Also, If we can expand article information, go right ahead. -- SFH (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

Honestly, I would love to have an infobox for the armor pages, but I am inclined to agree with Subtank. The infobox is more or less rendered useless due to the size of the page and how easily it is to locate the information that is present in the infobox. However, I do not own the EVGs, so if they do contain enough information to length the page to a decent degree, then it may be useful to keep the template. At the time, we could possibly just use the template on pages like the ODST armor or MJOLNIR Mk V, instead of the different variants. Although that would be rather inconsistent. - NightHammer (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

I'm not so sure. Having observed it in articles, the infobox does actually fill its purpose (conveying basic info at a glance) quite well. There is the matter of redundancy, which is admittedly pronounced in short articles, but it tends to be there every time an infobox is involved. As for using Wikipedia as a role model, they have infoboxes for far sillier kinds of topics. Hell, even Wookieepedia uses an armor infobox (they have one for assorted items too) and they haven't imploded due to the sheer redundancy of information. Same goes for both Essential Visual Guides, so it's not like there's not plenty of precedent. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 23:49, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

(reset indent) Firstly, anyone can make a template and they can do so without ever requiring permission. The only guiding principle that I always remind to others when doing so is to avoid template creep. I don't always see the need for an infobox unless the article itself is so lengthy that readers would be lost in finding out the key information and would eventually give up in finishing reading the article. As of right now, most of the armour permutation articles themselves don't require this infobox, save for the ODST, Mk V and so on. Inconsistency should not be much of a worry as long as the general flow remains consistent. I would just like to remind that we have a similar practice with the website infobox: only a handful of articles have this infobox while others, due to their short length, look fine without one. If we could just relegate the template to only articles with considerable length, I guess that would be a workable option.— subtank 07:15, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

An additional note. Given the general title of this infobox, I assume that this template will also be used for other armour articles and is not exclusive to MJOLNIR armour articles. This is a potential issue as the current parameters in this infobox could not properly serve other armour articles. However, if the usage is only limited to MJOLNIR articles, then I would suggest renaming it.— subtank 07:33, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

The infobox would definitely benefit from being universal rather than MJOLNIR-specific - if its use is limited to MJOLNIR, I see little reason to justify its existence. Some of the fields seem perfunctory even now - for instance, "bios" is going into too much detail IMO. And is the "Era" field really necessary (disregarding the fact there's supposed to be an overhaul of the era system coming up which might actually make an era field relevant again)? --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 07:40, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

From a universal standpoint considering the amount of articles the wiki has and the breadth of information on armours, the only useful fields for an armour infobox would be the Manufacturer, Function/Features and Weight. The infobox could use a couple of miscellaneous fields to cover other key info.— subtank 07:52, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

Eh, I don't know about leaving out the "Testing site" field. On one hand it doesn't apply to most of the non-UNSC armors, but then we do know it for most of the variants in Halo 3, Reach and 4 and that's still a few dozen articles. I'd prefer the miscellaneous fields were left to very specific information (i.e. more specific than something that applies to a few dozen articles) since they really aren't very user-friendly. The "Manufacturer" and "Development location" fields could definitely be represented by a single field. What's the rationale for adding a "Weight" field, though? We know the weight of perhaps one or two armor types so the field wouldn't even be applicable to most articles. If anything that's something to be relegated to the "miscellaneous" fields. The "Role" field is, to me, titled appropriately enough. As for "Type", it is still relevant to most armor articles, UNSC and Covenant so I wouldn't left it out. Key information at a glance and all. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 09:19, 22 June 2014 (EDT)

Well, realistically speaking, "testing site" doesn't really serve much purpose since armours can be tested anywhere and will eventually be field-tested in the frontlines, thus covering almost... well... everywhere. I'm leaning towards "Manufacturer" and ignoring "Development location" since "Development location" might not represent the location of the manufacturer. Also, similar reason to "testing site" applies as well to "development location". Weight is somewhat useful information for armour from a realworld military perspective; I figured this would apply as well in-universe. The field does no harm when the weight of the armour remains unknown; then again, we would want to avoid having a "Weight = no" in the infobox. "Type" feels redundant to me: we already know that the infobox will be applied to "armour" articles. Most, if not all articles will list it as "Type= Body armor" or "Type= Combat armor", which is fundamentally the same thing. I'll amend the infobox and see if it works out. — subtank 17:19, 23 June 2014 (EDT)

Done. It's quite limited now. I've added additional fields for additional information where appropriate.— subtank 17:35, 23 June 2014 (EDT)

Though I suppose the point is rather moot by now, the thing about the Testing site field is that it specifically exists as infobox field in the H4 visual guide, so at least the developers thought that particular information notable enough to specify (and who are we to second-guess them in matters like this?) It's not a problem as long as all if that info is conveyed in the article body, though it wouldn't have hurt to have it it in the 'box for those quick glances as well. As you pointed out in regards to the Weight field, there's no harm wherever it doesn't apply since it won't simply show up, whereas using the misc field to type out the info in the numerous cases it's specifiable (that is, deferring to the better judgment of the visual guide writers) is needlessly arduous.--Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 19:44, 23 June 2014 (EDT)

I don't really understand the developer's rationale of needing one specific testing site but I digress. Added.— subtank 04:57, 24 June 2014 (EDT)

New thread basically but if people seem happy with the info box like this, then tell me so I can go ahead and expand the armours with more info and stuff. Kind of like what I did with the crawlers. I don't really enjoy leaving details left out. There's also the outside perspective to look at. What do people visiting the site think? How to facilitate people's learning? For instance, on debates and versuses, people often check wikis and sites like that for information and stats so while certain details might not be exactly what some people think of as important, for others they could be. And the pedia is like this learning center for people. Even little details can expand on things, things people take for granted. I suppose I could add those details to the page itself to have more content, although I think people on the outside would prefer having an info box, even if it's how the Venator one is right now. I also edited that one first because Sith Venator... But that's my take on it. Erickyboo (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2014 (EDT)

You're definitely free and in fact encouraged to add information as long as it's properly sourced and not repeating what is already stated. That said, the infobox can contain info that is also stated in the article body. I do agree that the hardcore editors can sometimes get quite detached from the reality of most of the actual readership of the wiki and an outside perspective can definitely be a learning experience.--Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 04:46, 26 June 2014 (EDT)

Weight and features

I am struggling to see a reason to keep the Technical specifications section. No article uses it. Not one. So can we remove it? Would make life so much easier for future pages. -CIA391 (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2016 (EDT)