Militant Order of Cuiraécen

[Beruin]

Discussion thread for Militant Order of Cuiraécen. If you would like to add a comment, click the Post Reply button.

[Beruin]

Okay, I just started here, it's my first try with the wiki and there's not much here yet - and some things are still wrong from using other templates/Boilerplates.
However I really wanted to add a table for non-landed holdings as a template, you know with the headings
Holding - Level - Province/Ratings - Domain/Ruler
but I just couldn't get this darn thing to work.

Please help! (and explain what you did, so I might learn a bit)

As an afterthought, I really think we need a template for non-landed domains, at least I couldn't find one. However, as should be obvious I know next to nothing about creating wikis, so I definitely can't do this.
Any takers?

[Sorontar]

The tables that normally indicate holdings for provinces etc use a {{Domain/Begin}} template and a {{Domain/End}} template call. The first template sets the headings and defines the table styles and supposedly uses another style as well (but I can't find that one). The second just closes the table off.

cf. http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/ind...e:Domain/Begin
cf. http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/ind...ate:Domain/End

So if you want to set your own headings you will either have to write your own {{Holdings/Begin}} template or manually cut and paste the relevant stuff from the {{Domain/Begin}} one. For instance:

{| {{BRWiki: Domain/Table}}
! Holding !! Level !! Province/Ratings !! Domain/Ruler
|-
||Joe's Taverns || 2 || Roesone || Ghoried/Joe
|-
||Josie's Haberdashery || 3 || Roesone || Roseone/Josie

|width=5|
|}

See this in action at http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/ind...Wiki:Sandbox/2

However, people so far have generally just used the domain style, even if it gives information about holdings not related to the organisation/individual being discussed in the article. What is it that you want that this style won't show? Or is it a matter of clarity and relevancy?

For more help on understanding BRWiki tables, see http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/Help:Table

Sorontar

[Beruin]

Thanks Sorontar, that helped. I tried a few things you mentioned, but just couldn't get them to work right. Well, still learning..

As for the format, I believe this is clearer and it removes unnecessary clutter from the table (i.e. guild holdings for a temple). This makes it clearer, especially for larger non-landed domains stretching over several realms

[kgauck]

I prefer the clutter. The format used the BoP has too little information. I prefer to use the realm format for all organizations because you can see at a glance who the domain interacts with, not just who has title to the land.

[Beruin]

I should've put " unnecessary clutter" in quotation marks I guess, of course the information is not useless. However, my reasoning for preferring the format for other holdings - used not only in BoP, but also in the atlas and the other regional books - is that it's easier to see the geographical spread of a particular non-landed domain over several realms and to notice where it is strong and where weak.

That's usually the first information I want to know, whether as player or DM. To then see with whom the domain interacts, I'd consult the relevant realm entries.

Should we do a poll to keep the format consistent in the wiki or is this not that important?

[AndrewTall]

I prefer the clutter, but would suggest highlighting the temple column to show it more clearly. Or given I don't know how to highlight on a wiki table, putting the temple stuff in bold.

I'd note that the temple may well hold law and / or guilds so a simple column either mixes up holdings or misses out 'non' core holdings for each organisation

[kgauck]

I do think consistency is important. Each domain should navigate like every other domain.

I like the idea of being able to see the geographical spread of temples, but I generally find that its just as easy with the standard format as it is with the limited format. As long as the standard format follows a sensible geographic order (rather than being alphabetical or random) its pretty easy to see where a domain has sway.

I would also like to see maps. I think the perfect map would use the icons from the Gorgon's alliance to denote where and how big a holding is, but I suspect the introduction of Microprose's efforts would prove a stumbling block for the IP issues.

[Magnus Argent]

IMO, a realm table should contain data pertaining to one realm and a domain table should contain data pertaining to one domain.

They serve two different functions: a realm table shows all of the provinces within a realm and lists the regents who rule the various holdings within that realm. A domain table shows all of the holdings within a domain and lists the rulers of the provinces in which those holdings reside.

Neither table depicts the 'whole picture' but at least thanks to wiki we can easily cross-reference the two.

[kgauck]

Why should there be two functions for tables of what are two very similar types of organizations?

To broaden the question, why should the format of a landed domain and a priestly domain, be different, especially if a priestly domain and a guild domain are formated the same?

I contend that all domains should have the same format, and use the same template. Whether they have provinces is really immaterial to how a domain should be presented.