Template talk:Deity

Inner Sea Gods Additions to Template [CONCLUDED]

Inner Sea Gods has three new "categories" included with each of the deities: symbol, sacred animal, and sacred colors. We have two choices: either integrate these elements into the main body of the pages, or include them with this template. I vote for the latter. How do others feel? --Brandingopportunity (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of integrating them. What about adding a spot for source like many of the other infobox templates? I say that due to alternate sources for deities like Empty Graves. --FoiledAgain (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that adding a few more parameters to this info box would be useful. I don't think we need to include source information, however, as that's primarily so that a GM can use a given monster or NPC in their game. Since there are no statistics associated with a deity beyond what's being added to this infobox, I don't think we need to cite sources here. They'll be listed in in the References section from in-line citations in the article's body copy. And since many deities are detailed in numerous places, it keeps confusion about which is the primary source out of the infobox.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If you insist on using impeccable logic to counter my poor intuitive feel for aesthetics... ;) --FoiledAgain (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, since nobody else has chimed in on this, I will make adjustments to this template by May 1, following the idea I originally posted (i.e. including the new categories in the infobox). If someone thinks this is a bad idea, they should make a good argument before 5/1. --Brandingopportunity (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to dive in and argue this is a good idea. I especially welcome the holy symbol addition, as we have many 'deities' that have a symbol but no artwork. So far I have not been satisfied to include such key information within the text. Nice work Brandingopportunity. --Fleanetha (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I MEANT to have this done by May 1st, but then somebody around here recommended me to help write a module and then asked to write the biggest thing I've ever worked on for Paizo. So I got a little sidetracked, but it's done now. --Brandingopportunity (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)}}

Thanks Brandingopportunity: there's no rest for the wicked or wiki editors. --Fleanetha (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Gender parameter

Have we agreed on adding this new parameter to the template yet? - HTD (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Revised 1E/2E infobox sourcing [CONCLUDED]

To avoid the kludge of cramming multiple sources and pages into the source parameter, {{Deity}} and {{City}} now support 1e-source/page and 2e-source/page parameters. They must both be used together to render correctly; to preserve existing behavior on infoboxes, the source and page parameters work as before if the 1e-source parameter is not used. Usage details on Template:Deity/doc and Template:City/doc. See the city template on Kibwe or the deity template on Abadar for examples. -Oznogon (talk) 07:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposing AoN parameters (RESOLVED)

I think it would be useful for the Deity template to have an AoN1e parameter and an AoN2e parameter. I assume that the same could be implemented in StarfinderWiki templates such as Template:Deity  and Template:Creature . Thank you so much! --Descriptivist (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It already has them, and they already work. They're just not in the documentation yet. Virenerus's bot has even already added them to some deity articles. -Oznogon (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC) done -Oznogon (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Alignment and sanctification (RESOLVED)

Firstly, I think the infobox template should be reprogrammed so that "Cleric Alignments" instead displays the output as "Follower Alignments", as the parameter is named in the PF2E Core Rulebook. As I understand it, even in PF1E, follower alignment restrictions have always applied to inquisitors, warpriests, and any manner of non-clerics, such as evangelists and sentinels.

Secondly, the Pathfinder Remaster has replaced alignment with sanctification, a new parameter that needs to be added to the Deity infobox template. There exist approximately six possible sanctification entries: can choose holy, must choose holy, can choose unholy, must choose unholy, can choose holy or unholy, and "none" (that is, cannot sanctify). --Descriptivist (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This infobox is already far too long and full of edition-specific garbage irrelevant to the scope of the project. We already desperately need to convert it to a tabbed infobox like {{Creature tabbed}}, but we also should move much of the content out of the infobox and into the article body. Edicts and anathema are especially egregious in here since some are longer than article body paragraphs, could be better linked or contextualized in the article body, and are usually blatantly plagiarized in order to get them into the infobox.

In some cases, thanks to an anti-common sense rule that the infobox image must be a religious symbol and can never be a depiction of the deity, the right column is even worse because a thumbnail image of a depiction gets buried underneath a mile-long infobox that has no image, or we don't use art of the deity that we already have because the article's a few-lined stub with a mile-long infobox.

We could stand to move all of these parameters into the article text, many of which are redundantly already described there anyway:

• Titles
• Areas of concern
• Worshipers
• Edicts
• Anathema
• Symbol
• Sacred colors

These were useful 15 or so years ago when there was no reliable freely available statblock-like reference for these things. There's a better resource now, and we're cluttered with redundant, outdated, edition- and revision-specific mechanical info irrelevant to a canon encyclopedia as a result.

I see no reason to pile more Remaster-specific mechanical info into these infoboxes until the fundamental structural problems are improved. I especially don't want to add yet another dimension of manually entered template-parameter input to make converting it all to structured data that much more difficult. And I especially don't want to discuss sanctifications of non-Remastered deities derived solely from the Remaster Compatibility FAQ because the whole concept is mechanical garbage already handled by AoN. -Oznogon (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we already have a {{Deity tabbed}}, and it was explicitly marked as deprecated in favor of {{Deity}} by Fleanetha in 2020. So sure, let's pile even more edition- and revision-specific details into this infobox. -Oznogon (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Noting here, as the record has been lost, that the decision and the changes made at that time to the {{Deity}} template and the deprecation of {{Deity tabbed}} were discussed in detail and agreed by the community on the now-defunct and deleted wiki forum. --Fleanetha (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Sanctification label (RESOLVED)

The label "Sanctification (2ER)" is confusing; it doesn't really disambiguate something, and I don't know if I've ever seen someone use the abbreviation "2ER" in any Pathfinder community, so I believe it needs to be replaced. I would simply display it as "Sanctification" in articles. A parenthetical would only become necessary if a second sanctification parameter were to be introduced, like "Sanctification (3E)" as opposed to "Sanctification (2E)". --Descriptivist (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll remove the 'R' so it's '2E' to align with the other elements around it and doesn't raise the qn about what the 'R' means. --Fleanetha (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Simplifying the deity infobox (ib)

Many of Oz's points written above under 'Alignment and sanctification' are valid, even in light of the changes made in 2020. The ones I see as especially ill-fitting in the ib are 'Worshippers', 'Edicts', and 'Anathema'. The latter two particularly bloat the ib exacerbating the problem discussed above. Furthermore, these three are all readily understood in-world, so would translate easily into the body text of the article as separate sections or as subsections. This is a big change as we can't just move the text out of the ib so, for now, I propose we amend the ib doc and the article spawner to align with this suggestion but we would have to retain the lines in the ib template to avoid losing the data until it is transferred. Maybe a bot could do this all in one go, but there I am unsure? Any objectors to this way ahead though? With all the new deity material being added from Divine Mysteries, a quick decision is sensible here. --Fleanetha (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

When we don't have CUP access to the religious symbol

I also agree with Oz's point about artwork. Though I think it's right that we consistently make the primary artwork for the deities their religious symbols, when that artwork is not available to us under CUP, we should use appropriate artwork that we do have in the ib instead. Such art can be replaced easily once we get access to the religious symbol artwork. I propose we amend the instruction in the ib doc and in the article spawner to allow this. A hidden comment can be added to request the swap out of any artwork for the religious symbol if it becomes available. Any objectors? --Fleanetha (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Worshipers → Worshippers

Per Fleanetha in the edit summary of revision 552644, the spelling of both the "worshipers" parameter and the resulting text in the template should be changed from "worshipers" to "worshippers". Fleanetha's consistent edits to use the spelling "worshippers" in article body text will otherwise remain internally inconsistent in articles.

Because editing this template requires administrative privileges, I'm raising this as a formal request.

Doing so would require aliasing "worshipers" as a parameter in the template to avoid breaking all current usage of the template, and a bot edit to replace all uses of "worshipers" with "worshippers".

Note that most US spellcheckers and web browsers will flag "worshippers" as incorrect; this should be disregarded. As a result, this preference should also be documented in Manual of style. -Oznogon (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Styling template contents

Fleanetha, I've moved this discussion here so your feedback can be incorporated into the template documentation, as none of the unwritten style guidelines you've raised here are documented in the template or MoS. -Oznogon (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Edition-specific HTML comments

Oz, I put in some comments about this god and others not being in 1E to save future editors searching for info that does not exist, but you've deleted it all with no comment. I know we don't need every line in the template, but I think such a comment somewhere in the page is useful, although best hidden, as it's mainly for editors. --Fleanetha (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You've previously suggested to other editors that they not use HTML comments for information that should be surfaced either in discussion or to the wiki's audience. If we need to indicate that a subject has edition-specific concerns, the {{1E}} {{2E}} templates are more appropriate for communicating to both readers and editors that a subject is relevant to only one edition. The Meta namespace is more appropriate for contextualizing those concerns or surfacing them outside of the main article, and the Talk namespace is more appropriate for comments in general.

Having redundant inline comments copied and pasted into several edition-specific template fields—none of which will ever be populated for that subject—also makes the template more difficult to edit, especially in the Visual Editor, which for that template lacks TemplateData to provide necessary context for those comments or indicate that they're optional. Because the template is locked to administrators, an administrator could add TemplateData to provide context to those fields.

Because the edition-specific fields were unnecessary for subjects that have no information in that edition, and the comments were fully redundant with each other, it seemed uncontroversial to remove them.

If you don't like my way, any suggestions? --Fleanetha (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

If it's useful to indicate that an infobox's subject is strictly edition-specific, particularly silently or separately from using {{1E}} or {{2E}} in the article, it would be more useful for the template to have a parameter where that information could be explicitly indicated to template editors. If its sole purpose is to communicate that information to editors, the parameter wouldn't need to produce visible output in the resulting infobox, making it trivial to implement.

You would then be able to fill one parameter instead of several. It would be consistently communicated across articles. It would allow for automatic categorization by edition, whether for visitor navigation or in hidden categories for maintenance purposes. And it would appear in the Visual Editor, with additional context if an administrator adds TemplateData to the template. -Oznogon (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Oz for the explanations as ever, and I think I understand your points about the templates. We are using hidden comments re alignment, as well, and I thought I was following your lead, likely mistakenly, though—is that also something we should reconsider? However, I do like the idea of using the pre-existing templates you mention, as that's a much better way of going about this and has the added value of informing readers as well as editors in a consistent manner to other such instances. I'm happy to go that way in future. --Fleanetha (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion on the alignment parameters. On {{Creature}} in particular, if the alignment parameter is completely omitted for 2E, the infobox (including the 2E tab on {{Creature tabbed}}) displays the 1E alignment, or an empty alignment grid if no 1E alignment was provided.

Prior to the Remaster, this was a useful fallback for the 1E-to-2E transition. Thanks to the Remaster, that feature became a burden. To prevent the alignment grid from appearing, the alignment parameter must be included but left empty. I added the HTML comments to specify that the parameters were intentionally added in order to be left blank, as opposed to other optional parameters that could be safely removed; their intent wasn't to communicate but to serve as a workaround that forced the template to behave as required, without affecting its behavior on articles unaffected by the Remaster. -Oznogon (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I started to adopt the above suggestion with Jukha and Wulgren. As an alternative, I added the 2E badge to Dajermube as it is more subtle but effectively does the job. I can't see any material difference between the two methods except losing auto-categorization with the badge, which is not necessary for this purpose. Am I missing anything, or is this a valid option too? I prefer the badge. --Fleanetha (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Alternate domains case

Also, why are you consistently changing my sentence case on the 'alternate domains'? That makes no sense when the domains are not capitalized and I just noticed it. It feels like we are, hopefully inadvertently, warring here, so I'll comment. --Fleanetha (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The first item in lists is consistently capitalized across other values in this, and other, infobox templates, including the list of domains. Alternate domains are consistently separated by a linebreak and their own subheader, which to me seemed to uncontroversially indicate that it is a separate list. Therefore, I followed MoS guidelines to make the lists' styling internally consistent.

As such, I've intentionally capitalized only the first item in alternate domains lists, such as Radiant Prism. If I've done otherwise in an article, it was unintentionally and in error.

If we're meant to conform to Paizo's usage or style counter to internal consistency, this should be codified in the MoS—as I've proposed doing in Project talk:Manual of style, and which you seem to have opposed. That in turn makes your feedback, where you again seem to refer to Paizo's usage as a reason to style something counter to established guidelines for internal consistency, once again confusing to me. -Oznogon (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, Oz, thanks for the clear explanation. My mystification was nothing to do with the MoS: I was just frustrated stuff was being changed that seemed fine to me with no comment (and forgive me if you had at some point commented - I missed it). I'm not precious about the particular way I was forming lists, I just want consistency, and I'll follow your way of listing domains, then, from now on. --Fleanetha (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)