From Hearthstone Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Babbling Book full.jpg

The subject of this article has
an entry in the Editor's Handbook.

For background information and
guides on maintaining this article,
see Adding new heroes.

Flavor text[edit source]

Should the flavor text not just be on individual hero pages? There are already 15, and more surely coming. At what point do we just treat additional heroes and their attributes like additional cards (list them but split off the in-depth)? - jerodast (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the flavor text; it definitely doesn't need to be there, but on the other hand it isn't listed all together anywhere else, and I'm not sure if it's doing any harm.
Flavor text aside, I'm not sure what you mean by 'in-depth'? I think the current format will be fine for quite a while yet, since the total number of heroes is low and they are very significant characters. The only additional info we provide is class, which is very useful and not otherwise apparent. -- Taohinton (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
By "in-depth" I meant anything other than high-importance game information, especially where an overview of all of them together might be interesting. The class of a hero is very important, and it is good to include it here. I have also listed "source" for all the alt heroes, since one can compare/contrast the sources of different heroes, and an all-in-one-place overview is useful for someone looking to catch 'em all. Whereas I don't see any particular benefit to having all the flavor text listed together. It's...trivial. There's nothing to compare between any two heroes' text, and ultimately it's just a tiny snippet of much more extensive lore anyway. Details of a hero's power animation, additional lore, etc, would also qualify as things correctly relegated to the in-depth, individual character pages.
Overall, if the flavor text for heroes is that important, we should just include it in the earlier "Playable Heroes" section alongside the portraits and class icons. But I think there's a reason we chose not to do that - it's not that important. If folks would like to promote the flavor so it's integrated with that "here are the heroes" section, okay, but having a section much later down feels like "oh yeah, forgot to mention, there's flavor text too, you know, if you were still wondering about that from earlier and didn't already click on them to learn more". - jerodast (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
In terms of perspective, I think it's all subjective. I originally hid the flavor text for the card backs in a mouseover tooltip, because I didn't want to clutter the lovely art with some silly jokes; but another editor pasted them all in openly and once they had done so it actually didn't look, or feel, so bad :) Sometimes it's nice to spread that "whimsy" around, and the padding can make things feel richer rather than simply more dilute.
However, in this case I agree the flavor text doesn't have any real purpose, and since you're obviously in favour of removing it, I'll invite you to do the honours ;)
I totally agree with your comments on placement. This discussion raises another one (or possibly one you had in mind), which is that it could be nice to have more in-depth summaries, a bit like we have on Alternate hero. On the one hand a very simple table like on this page is much handier, and the more in-depth summaries are a bit pointless, and potentially unwise in terms of data duplication/division; on the other, there's something to be said for highlighting content with quality presentation. Not sure how we'd marry the two, though. Arguably it could go along the lines of a hero/heroes split (which you might be in favour of anyway?), with the latter having an initial brief list followed more substantial summary sections for each. Whether it's worth the effort or not is another question xD -- Taohinton (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I really am totally fine with the flavor text going along with the initial hero listing, which is why I didn't remove the section in the first place. I do realize my perspective on "importance" is subjective :) But the current placement feels like someone wasn't sure where else to put it. There's room for flavor text in the Hero article, but there's no need for a flavor text section in the Hero article, if that makes any sense haha. Perhaps you are right on whimsy: Spread it around, like it is on card tooltips! I'll remove the big block o'whimsy for now. No objection to someone putting it back distributed amongst the heroes list if they like.
And yes, I am indeed in favor of more distinction between the senses of "hero" (I wouldn't even necessarily split the article, just have two major sections?), but I have some higher items on my todo list. - jerodast (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)