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 Tavern Brawls.
- It makes sense to put the current/newest one at the top; after that it feels natural to keep overall sequence by running them backwards from there. It's also going to make a lot more sense in that the original Brawl shouldn't forever be stuck at the top of the list; better that it gets refreshed as new Brawls come and go. This also makes it easier for players to search through recent Brawls without getting lost in ancient ones. It's basically a Brawl stack. -- Taohinton (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Brawl-specific daily quest?
As a policy point it's probably worth noting here that info relating to specific Tavern Brawls should not be posted on most other pages, such as individual card pages. The reason is that the occurrence of a specific Brawl is fleeting and especially as the range expands, extremely rare, and outside of that Brawl, the info has zero relevance. Tavern Brawl is also only one game mode, and arguably the least consequential of all. Luckily, we have a very good place for putting Brawl-specific info - on the individual Brawl page. This is also a far smarter place to put it for those seeking such info, for several reasons. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
In response to the templating by User:Shammiesgun, I have to say I can't really see the benefit. The same amount of work is required by editors - in fact, slightly more, since a new template has to be created each time, while the same text still has to be entered - and the content is only used on a single page so there's no effort saved. If wanting to change this page, the editor can't simply edit it, they have to find the appropriate template/s and then open and edit them individually. However, they can't preview the changes in situ since they won't show up until the template has been saved, making the process a lot trickier. The presence of sections inside the templates also makes the page less clear when editing.
I had previously considered making a 'Tavern Brawl section' template for use on this page: the editor would type in the name of the Brawl, the flavor text and the content text, and the section would produce itself, header, image, formatting and all. However, when I tested it, it didn't actually save much effort: we already copy, paste and edit the text from a previous Brawl, for similar savings. In exchange, the varying content of each Brawl (including cards and mini-subsections) combined with the lack of visible section headers meant that use of the template made the editing layout of the page much less clear. Using a template like this would make it easier to make page-wide formatting changes in the future if we wanted to, but would also make it much harder to make exceptions.
- It's been a month, so if there are no replies to this I'll revert the page to its former setup. -- Taohinton (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is an old section, but anyways, my stance is that I am very much against content-templating (the linking of big templates of content into articles) because there will most likely be articles wherein the content of the template needs to change, and then it's just best to revert back to editing the content on a per-article basis. In short, templates containing a large amount of content which are to be used in multiple articles, is simply bad design, and will cause headaches. Aegonostic (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Table of Contents will eventually get out of hand; any proposals?
- I could see archiving once per real year, once per Standard format year (both leading to about 52 entries before reset), or once per product release (significantly fewer). If the latter, we could keep Brawls from the TWO most recent product releases, but archive each before that individually, so there's always at least a couple months of content. - jerodast (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about this for a while :) Personally I don't mind the TOC, but the page is getting longer and longer, and slower to load. I agree that periodically archiving the older Brawls makes sense, although we'll need to go to the archives to grab older Brawls when they get reprised (and presumably remove them from the archive page in the process), so archiving too heavily will make maintenance fiddlier. I don't like the page taking so long to load, but it's certainly nice to have a good range of Brawls for interested players to read through (most won't bother to visit an archive page). -- Taohinton (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- We can just have this article be a more generic list of brawls. Existing headers and sections can be retained. This will not require archiving. Only the most recent brawls are displayed under sections, and these sections can be copies of their respective main article headers or something, so to make reprising an easy copy and paste from the main article into this one. Older brawls will not be displayed in all their antiquated glory, and newer brawls will still be displayed on this article. It sounds like a good plan. What do you guys think? :) Aegonostic (talk) 06:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- The main difference I'm getting here is not using an archive, and actually I agree that probably isn't necessary. The best solution would in fact be to simply comment out older Brawls - until we get to a truly mammoth page that should be fine and will reduce page size and load time while still making it easy to retrieve for reprises.
- A related issue is the "History" - this is also getting out of hand. In this case I think a full history somewhere would be worthwhile. We could link to a 'main' "Tavern Brawl list" or such where a full list would be kept, but this would be annoying in terms of updating. A better solution might be a self-hiding div beneath the main History (similar to the Wild format card sections), where the older list would be available. I've made a draft of this which works fine, but I'm not sure if it's necessary yet? -- Taohinton (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- If one concern is page size and load time, it might be worth the effort to trim the size of the Brawl summaries in the Previous Tavern Brawls section. All that information is repeated from the main article page for each brawl, so really the "Previous" section could just be a table with the barest information -- brawl name, brief summary, no card images. For that matter, the History table could serve double duty if you want to cut out a lot of content. Ambignostic (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a possibility. However, I suspect that if we're not going to list every previous Brawl (and that will soon become impractical or simply not useful... who is going to scroll through 200 different Brawls?!) then the load time/size will probably be fine with the current level of detail.
- In terms of length, I've added some comment tags to hide roughly half the current list of previous Brawls. The page was really too long (especially considering it would not be able to be 'complete'), and I think this feels more reasonable. I'm not sure of the exact number we should list (and it will vary by Brawl type and also grow slowly over time anyway), but does this feel like a reasonable size? -- Taohinton (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's been a while, so I've gone ahead and made some changes to wrap this up. I've implemented the hidden 'Older Brawls' list as discussed and sandboxed; and reduced the number of previous Brawls by about half again. Both lists will slowly grow and can be shortened every few months or so as they grow too lengthy. For now this feels reasonable, loads far more quickly, and I think is probably a bit more accessible than the previous version. -- Taohinton (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
When Brawls were first introduced, it made sense to state that a Brawl was "the seventeenth Tavern Brawl." etc. Now that we have many reprises, the introductory sentence on some Brawl pages is beginning to get a bit long. The worst example so far is of course Randomonium, which starts with "Randomonium is the eighteenth, twenty-eighth, thirty-ninth, fifty-ninth, and sixty-seventh Tavern Brawl." As we get more and more reprises, this is only going to grow.
We already have a table of previous Brawls, so I don't think we need to list the Brawl numbers in the lead section too. However, I'm not quite sure how best to replace the list. Perhaps we should simply remove the first part and make it
- Randomonium is a Tavern Brawl. It made its debut on October 14, 2015.
We could state the placement of the Brawl in terms of how many different Brawls had come before it, but this would likely be both unclear and simply hard to work out each time a new Brawl is added: Miniature Warfare made its debut as the 33rd Brawl, and the table below the lead section reminds us it was also the 74th Brawl, but it was in fact the 24th Brawl to be added.
- Columns per each Brawl:
- Numbers (for each reprises, e.g 27/86 )
- Duration (e.g February 1 - February 6)
- Name (e.g Gift Exchange)
- It's best to be simplistic, thus I like your first option, aka the part about:
- "removing the first part" and doing "Randomonium is a Tavern Brawl. It made its debut on October 14, 2015."
- However, it is possible to document different versions of each Brawl in a tabular format. A table with the column "Notable Changes" (from the previous version of a Brawl) could be implemented (like the one in the table of this section: Tavern_Brawl#Repeated_Tavern_Brawls).
|Tavern Brawl||Start||End||Notable Changes|
|18th||October 14, 2015||October 19, 2015||blah|
|28th||December 23, 2015||December 28, 2015||blank|
|39th||March 9, 2016||March 14, 2016|
|59th||July 27, 2016||August 1, 2016|
|67th||September 21, 2016||September 27, 2016||some card got super nerfed|
- The discussion seems to have gotten a little confused. We already have a table like the one suggested by TheGamer765 on Tavern Brawl; and a table almost identical to the one suggested by Aegonostic on individual Brawl pages. An extra column for changes would be fine to add there in the few cases that have actually had changes.
CET vs UTC
Re this edit and its follow-up, I'm neither for nor against but I am curious why this is considered to make more sense. We have times for all other time zones listed in local time (PST, CST, KST) - CET is the European equivalent. CET is used whenever an EU time is stated for an event or stream, and is by definition the central time zone for Europe. -- Taohinton (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- My guess is that the original editor is living in Great Britain and not the rest of the EU. (all hail Brexit) Aegonostic (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
- In defense of UTC, it literally is "universal" time, so I can see its appeal as the go-to standard. Hell, people love UTC so much that the French gave it its acronym even though they don't use it locally :P It is perhaps also relevant that this is an English language wiki. CET may be Central European Time, but it's not Central Anglophone Europe Time. Also, we use PST for the Americas, not CST, because the time zone choices are not some perfect standard of balance and fairness. (In PST's case, Blizzard's just playing favorites.)
- However, there's no real debate. If Blizzard gives Europe times in CET, we should too. - jerodast (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
According to this post on Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/63jo38/the_100th_tavern_brawl_is_going_to_be_each_player/), The 100th Brawl will not be a single Brawl, but a randomly selected previous one. TheGamer765 (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)