PathfinderWiki:Crunch removal initiative

TLDR

We want to remove everything game-rule related that is not in-universe lore from the wiki.

Consensus on this point has not been established as of the date of this comment.

While I very much agree that we should stop including crunch in infoboxes, I disagree that we can, much less should, remove "everything game-rule related that is not in-universe lore". As stated, this would remove all product pages and rule-related categorization, both of which are useful. -Oznogon (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Reasoning

Currently the wiki has quite a bit of rule content on the wiki. Maintaining this is a lot of work and fills many infoboxes with unnecessary information. We should rather use links to matching Archives of Nethys entities, as AoN is the official collection of rule related content.

Goals

Remove crunch-only properties from all infoboxes
Introduce an easy way to link to AoN within infoboxes
Determine the fate of articles that are inherently crunch only

Comment. Categorization is not listed as either a goal or non-goal. I would suggest retaining mechanical categorization if possible, which unlike infobox crunch is functional in nature and potentially queryable or (with CirrusSearch or DPL) intersectionable.

A large part of the maintenance burden with mechanical content, as experienced with the Remaster changes, comes from not having a single source for such details (edit: specifically, the requirement to consistently edit the same information in multiple places, such as the 1E and 2E tabs of an infobox, in categorization, and on related redirects and articles). Removing crunch from the infobox and limiting use to mechanical categorization still significantly reduces the maintenance burden. -Oznogon (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Non-goals

Removing 2e traits, since those actually contain lore information

Disagree. As with creature abilities and mechanical effects, if 2E traits contain lore, that should be expressed in the article. Most 2E traits are strictly crunch. Several traits not only are crunch but also subjective (commonality, size), the wiki does not provide context or criteria for them, and to do so would involve reproducing and maintaining crunch content that AoN already provides. -Oznogon (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

TODO's

Add AoN linking capability to infoboxes, if applicable
Add AoN links to everything
Remove crunchy fields from infoboxes
Determine the fate of inherently crunchy articles

Helpful lists

Infobox types with links to AoN:

Template:Alchemical item
Template:Creature
Template:Deity
Template:Item
Template:Magic item
Template:Person
- Comment. AoN lacks many NPC articles. In 1E, AoN has no articles for named NPCs, only NPC types (ie. "Android impostor", "Shopkeeper") or organization NPCs with mechanical definitions ("Knight of Ozem", "Razmiran Priest"), neither of which would use t:Person in a PFW article. In 2E, only NPCs depicted as Unique-trait creatures have AoN entries; only 88 AoN entries have the Unique trait, and many of those either lack PFW articles or are not people. -Oznogon (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Template:Spell
Template:Technological item
Template:Vehicle

Crunchy articles

Everything using one of those infoboxes is inherently crunch-only:

Strongly disagree that all class articles are inherently crunch. Secrets of Magic added significant lore defining spellcasting classes as in-setting concepts, a significant amount of which is already in wizard and a majority of which remains unincorporated.

Removing class articles would also ripple into ancestry (especially Adventurers sections) and organization articles. Having a content page for categorization also is beneficial for defining the category's contents.

Every setting prestige class also inherently involves canon information, much of it unincorporated due to a 13+-year lack of interest; they might warrant redirects to related subjects, but some have enough canon information to warrant expansion or lack a strong connection to another subject. Several prestige classes have already received canon updates or expansions in mechanical definitions of archetypes.

Suggest at most badging classes as real-world content, replacing their infobox mechanical content with AoN links, and redirecting long-stubbed prestige classes to related articles where possible. -Oznogon (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

We should think about removing articles about things with the following infoboxes, if there is no significant lore outside of the item rules.

Comment. The mere existence of some of these things, particularly technological items, is inherently significant to canon. Mundane items with real-world equivalents that lack canon content are already subject to Scope of the project. The only types here I broadly agree with are Item and Spell, and even then we should take care with assessing both. -Oznogon (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)