PathfinderWiki
Log in

Talk:Domain

From PathfinderWiki
← $1

Revising this page's structure and content

User:Chase rogers is taking on this page, but I have some concerns and have temporarily protected the page to try to bring about some discussion before too much more work goes into it.

  • The new content appears to be copied from OGL sources. Specifically, at least some of the text, formatting, and deity lists appear to be identical to those on Archives of Nethys. Per the no crunch policy, the previous discussion below, and my own general unease with having content identical to another CUP project's, I think we need to talk about how this approach might run counter to the best approach for the page, as well as the wiki's goals and policies.
  • As noted in the previous discussion, long unlinked comma-separated lists are not the ideal format for this content, either for viewing or maintenance. We have tools like the CategoryTree extension, DPL extension, and Cargo database that we didn't have in 2012, and which might make these lists a potentially much lighter load, self-updating, and more limited to what's already documented on the wiki.
  • I'm personally not sold on the value of this page as a canon non-crunch resource without a better idea of the role domains play in the setting when divorced of the rules. While this could be a valuable GM resource, it's one already provided by Archives of Nethys, which is crunch-focused. The previous discussion predates me by a bit.

The most pertinent part of the prior discussion that I agree with is this point by Yoda8myhead:

I think the purpose is, as I indicated above 1) to define what a domain is and what domains there are, as well as what gods provide access to each 2) be a single all-encompassing article where category pages for each domain can point should folks want more information on them.
... perhaps if we create some sort of table to indicate what gods give access to what domains (y-axis: gods, x-axis: domains, sortable by column) it will be an easier page to navigate and not completely negate the work that's already been put into it.

-Oznogon (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Another concern I have is that the subdomains page already contains quite a lot of the information about subdomains, with a more accessible format. Most of the subdomain content on this page could simply link to the headings for that domain on subdomain. -Oznogon (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
After confirming that quite a bit of text was copied unsourced from OGL content, I've replaced the lists with links to subdomain (which is well-sourced) and subcategories of Category:Deities by domain, and added sectstub tags to the sections that still contain copied OGL domain descriptions. These should be rewritten and sourced. -Oznogon (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

2012 discussion

Two issues: 1) Most of the images on this page are related to the domain in question only tangentially, if that; and 2) Isn't this whole page kind of a violation of the "no crunch" policy? Domains are class features. Schools of magic are one thing, they're something that exist in-universe (see: Thassilon), but I've never seen domains discussed in an in-universe context.--Filby (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I think this page should be deleted as it is unfinished and deals with a subject that has no in-universe presence. --Brandingopportunity (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. At first I thought domains might be able to be captured in the gods' articles, such as "Priests of Erastil have particular affinity to spells related to animals, community, good, law, and plants.", but upon more reflection, that doesn't seem right either. Keeps coming back to domains not being in-universe.—This unsigned post was made by FoiledAgain. Please sign all posts with ~~~~.
Well I disagree chaps and think this is a valuable and creative page much lauded when it was first published. It links nicely to god articles and is necessary for the subdomain articles. It may not be finished but if we delete all unfinished pages on the wiki then there's not much left. I find it easy to associate domains in world and, indeed, there are apparently clerics who will choose domains above a particular god, not to mention oracles who have no god but an allegiance to a domain. I strongly vote not to delete.--Fleanetha (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, isn't this used in the NPC template? (it's been a while, so I don't remember offhand, but I think it is) --Cpt kirstov (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the page provides a necessary overview of what domains are and the flavor of each, and I think we need at least the first because we use domains as a categorization parameter for gods. While they may not exist in-world, we'd be remiss if we didn't allow users to find a god that would grant them a given domain, so I don't think we should stop listing domains in deity infoboxes and categories, but I do think this page is pushing the limits of our No Crunch policy. It's also really hard to read because of all the infoboxes and images spacing the short copy elements out unnaturally. I think if we're going to keep the page around, we should consider its purpose and eliminate extras which work contrary to that goal. In this case, I think the purpose is, as I indicated above 1) to define what a domain is and what domains there are, as well as what gods provide access to each 2) be a single all-encompassing article where category pages for each domain can point should folks want more information on them. I think the page will read better and still serve that purpose if we remove the infoboxes, and perhaps if we create some sort of table to indicate what gods give access to what domains (y-axis: gods, x-axis: domains, sortable by column) it will be an easier page to navigate and not completely negate the work that's already been put into it.
It may also be worth considering the creation of a Crunch Template that we can use as a boilerplate at the top of articles like this, that serve a role for the project but are primarily rules-based. This can say something like "The contents of this article deal heavily with rules of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, and are included here to provide context for articles written from an in-universe Point of view. For more information on domains, see the Pathfinder Reference Document on paizo.com." —Paizo Publishing, LLC.png Yoda8myhead (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion post suggested change

Picture me looking haggard and grey: I am quite unhappy about this change. First, thanks FoiledAgain for all your efforts and please do not be offended by what I am about to say - I am not meaning this in any way personally. Atticus clearly expended a lot of effort on this page and to see it removed is sad, when I and others thought it good and useful work (see comments above). I am not sure I like the precedent this sets; something about this makes me feel very uncomfortable and I am well used to people coming in and totally rewriting stuff I've done.

On the new additions, I have the following comments (I see no reason why the table(s) can't be additions, by the way, and not replacements; I just need to think of a way of making this compromise, unless someone can get there faster):

  • we have the only page that I need to scroll right on the wiki
  • This is just the core 20 deities - this page is going to be cluttered if all pantheons are introduced; the old style was better in adding deities. Indeed, some of the data about other gods has been deleted in the change.
  • I think we can do away with the column of subdomains in the second table. FoiledAgain, you may not have been aware but there is a Subdomain page which has more current data than you have here - I'd just cross reference there otherwise we'll be forced to update the same stuff in 2 places, which is never a good thing. I try to keep that page current. We should also have a blue link at some point to that page on the Domain page.
  • The druidic column is a nice addition

--Fleanetha (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries Fleanetha. I'm not convinced it works as-is either, especially since it overflows horizontally for some. And I'm not sure what I removed worked either - I think the article is better without the pictures. Perhaps the infoboxes could be made to work. Much of what Atticus added is still there. I'm not going to start an edit war if you think reversion is appropriate. -- FoiledAgain (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps linking to the category page for the domain is part of the solution instead of trying to turn it into a table? FoiledAgain (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sample table

I've started a couple of sample tables on my sandbox. Issues, but nothing insurmountable. FoiledAgain (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)