Archive #1

Auto-categorization of skills without concise descriptions

{{{concise_description}}} should still be displayed when not specified, to better help users notice it instead of relaying on categorization. The "return to" link seem redundant to me, since the skill box's name field already provides the link. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 21:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I know, I just did it for easier return after checking it. you can remove it if you want. —MaySigWarw/Wick 21:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Instead of displaying "{{{concise_description}}}" then, could something like "Information missing" (or whatever along those lines) go as the else part? -- Brains12 \ Talk 22:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer something that informs the user of the variable name so they don't have to go to a different page to look it up. Not everyone remembers the exact wording/capitalization/dash-vs-underscore used in the template parameter names. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 22:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, template:skill box draft currently has some other low-priority changes pending (I want to wait to incoporate more changes at once, to minimize the job queue which is at about 20,000 right now. So when War's proposed changed are finalized, it'd be nice to do them together. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 22:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(update) Template:Skill box draft has been updated with the auto-categorization. I'm now waiting for any other proposed changes for the skill box before pushing it live (including possible alternate text to display when concise description is not specified). -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 00:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
So whats up with this: Category:Skills_missing_concise_descriptionJediRogue 02:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
do you mean why is it red, why it has so few stuff in it, or what the entire issue is about? -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 03:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Touch Skills

The concise descriptions are noting touch range in the skill type, and not in the description. Maybe we should add a "touch = yes" parameter that would change for instance "Elite Skill" to "Elite Touch Skill"? — Poki#3 Poki, 13:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Arg, lemme think about it before I form an opinion. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 23:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to add the parameter in for now. However,the skill box itself will not display it. The parameter is there so that other skiill templates (qr etc) have the ability to do so, especially ones that will pair with concise descriptions. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 23:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think individua skill templates should specify "touch = yes" in the same way elites are specified, but I am currently against specifically including it into the skill box itself. I am modifing the box to check for touch= for autocategorization purposes though. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 23:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of something exactly like the "elite = yes" parameter. It wouldn't be a big problem to add that to skill templates, since it looks like we only have 42 touch skills. — Poki#3 Poki, 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

An alternative would be to add a "Range" parameter. Values could be Normal, Half, Touch, Melee and Self.
</br> - Most spells and bow/spear attacks would be Normal range;
</br> - Half-range spells and bow attacks (like point black shot) would be Half;
</br> - Touch skills such as blood ritual would be Touch;
</br> - Regular melee and melee weapon attack skills would be Melee;
</br> - All Stances, rituals, self-targeting skills such as fire attunement and elite forms, and PBAoE skills like cyclone axe and star burst would be self.
</br> Also "None" could be used in place of "Self" if that was deemed more appropriate. --Dracaena 07:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's overkill :/ But anyway, are we going to do this? Because I really want to add the concise descriptions to some skills, but I can't because I'll be ignoring touch range :/ — Poki#3 Poki, 10:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
We definitely need something for this, either using "touch=yes" and "half-range=yes", or using "range=xxx". The range parm has the potential to be more widely useful, but it would be a lot of work to add it to every skill. The touch/half-range parms would be much easier to do (only have to add to certain skills), and for this template we could just add the following between the Elite check and the type check:
{{#ifeq: {{{touch}}} | Touch |}} {{#ifeq: {{{half-range}}} | Half-Range |}}
So that, say, Star Burst would show up as "Elite Touch Spell," just like the in-game concise description shows it. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 06:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
We really need these... Someone added a note some time on Ice Spear cause it, as noted, only states half range in the Skill Type. I find the "Elite Touch Spell" and "Half Range Spell" that Ishy proposed good. Might stretch the skillbox a bit, though... --- VipermagiSig-- (s)talkpage 16:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The longest Type would be on Point Blank Shot and Zojun's Shot, which are Half Range Bow Attacks. This is what Point Blank Shot would look like, it's only ~30px wider. Some people might complain that it looks odd, but I don't think the stretching will really be a problem. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 18:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't look too horrible. At least it then clarifies the whole skill :) --- VipermagiSig-- (s)talkpage 18:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

So what happens if some skill IS half-range only, but the in-game concise description does omit mentioning it? Do we display it or not? We have a tradition of sticking with in-game text errors and then clarify on the side. The above current proposal would not let us handle this situation. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 21:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact is, the concise does state the range (unless you can find me one not stating such?). And there's Template:Anomaly. --- VipermagiSig-- (s)talkpage 21:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
My question is about implementation details (whether the range should be automatically or manually inputted), not whether to implement it. We made a conscious decision to leave out the skill type and attribute from the original "skill description". Now the circumstances is different, so obviously we should re-evaluate the original decisions made. My question is part of that evaluation. Basically, are we now going to incorporate the entire skill type and attribute text into the description area of the skill article? -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 23:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
There are only ~60 touch skills and ~15 half-range skills in the game (including monster-only ones). I don't see a need to overturn that decision for such a small number of skills. I also couldn't find any skills that said "half the normal range" in the full description but weren't typed as "Half Range" skills, nor could I find any skills that said "target touched" that weren't "Touch" skills (I didn't re-read all 2881 of them, I just used Excel's search, so that's not 100% certain). If there are any, they would be very few, and we can just mark them as anomalies.
One argument for adding the type back to the description is that the type in the standard descriptions doesn't include the Touch or Half Range identifier, so we'd be able to document the difference that way. However, I see little value in doing that, so I still argue for simply adding Touch or Half Range to the type in the infobox. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 02:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Right after I posted that, I think I just "got" what you were saying about automatic vs. manual - you mean whether we should simply put "Half Range Spell"/"Touch Skill"/etc. directly in the 'type' parameter, or whether we should add new 'halfrange' and 'touch' parameters. I would vote for the latter, as those parameters could then be easily utilized by the other 'Skill box ***' templates, without having to use StringFunctions to parse out the 'type' parameter. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 02:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Blah, somehow I got confused into thinking the proposal is to do it the GWW way. Crossing out irrelevant stuff I previously stated. Anyways, I am more supportive of a Range parameter, that by default figures things out from its skill type and only need to be specified in special cases. This would increase the height of the skill box instead of the width. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 03:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Okay, we need to get this changed now. I say we add a "range" parameter to the skills that need it (half range/touch) for now, and simply insert that into the skill's type in the infobox. Later we can come back and do something fancier. I'll go ahead and get the skill templates updated, since that won't hurt anything. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 01:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed there is a "touch" attribute in some of the skill boxes, but I understand that as of now it's not used?
We do have "target", and that is used like "target = Spirit range" quite a few times. See User:M.mendel/target.
Going by Range we have compass, soul reaping = spirit, the other spirit range (does it have a name?), casting, earshot, area, nearby, touch, adjacent to, and the weapon ranges. It makes sense then to make range = one of those or the weapon type for the attack spells. Of course that's the outlook, it is certainly enough to at first only add range the skill types you mentioned. I propose that the terms used be taken from the table in Range, or added to it. --◄mendel► 07:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we just need Touch and Half-range. — Poki#3 Poki, 10:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
What range is half-range, exactly? --◄mendel► 10:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Half of normal spell range. You can cast Flare while the enemy is right outside your aggro bubble, you can cast Ice Spear only in half that distance. --Macros 10:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
And the concise descriptions have Half-ranged spells (Ice Spear) and half ranged attacks (Point Blank Shot). I might have missed something here though ^^; — Poki#3 Poki, 11:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think of that, I don't know anything about half ranged bow attacks. --Macros 11:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I took some screenshots: Image:HalfRangeTest1.jpg, Image:HalfRangeTest2.jpg, Image:HalfRangeTest3.jpg. Guess I was wrong, it's not exactly half range after all. The second picture shows how far I was able to get before I automatically ran in to cast Dancing Daggers. --Macros 17:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I updated the table in Range with what I measured on Macros's screenshots (thank you!), but the pic with the circles needs to be redone. --◄mendel► 19:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Profession icon...

The small profession icon is touching the profession name sometimes (if the profession name is long, and the skill type is short). See Dark Aura, Arc Lightning etc. — Poki#3 Poki, 23:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Flush your cache and let me know if it is better now. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 01:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It's ok now... EDIT: Well... not always. — Poki#3 Poki, 10:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bold text

Is ugly. (I mean the energy cost and those things). Dragnmn talk cont 19:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Using this template for non-skills

I was wondering about the implications of using this template for things that are not technically skills, e.g. Environmental Effects, Conditions, and Disguises. It's already being used for a few, like Lucky Aura and Chains of Enslavement. I'm wondering this because in my search through gw.dat for concise descriptions, I found that all skills, effects, blessings, conditions, etc. are treated essentially the same by the game engine in that they all have a name, a description, and a concise description. Since I'm pretty sure we'd want to document these concise descriptions, it would make sense to use this template. However, I'm a bit hesitant to change up existing articles for this - especially the Conditions pages, which have looked the same for over a year. On the other hand, most of the env-effect pages need some cleanup, and this could help...

Bah, I don't know. For now I'll just finish adding concise descriptions to things that already use the template. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 07:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to come up with a similar template for enviromental effects. Similar but it does't need all the same info and it could be a different color and trigger different categories. 18:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That's probably the way to go - especially since, as you noted, they wouldn't need even half the features this template has. I'll get concise descriptions on the rest of the "real" skills, then start working on that. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 01:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I got one mocked up: [[User:Dr ishmael/Effect box]], see it in action at [[User:Dr ishmael/Test Effect]]. I suck at design, so I dunno what sort of color would be good for the header row. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 06:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


If you add NOTOC to this page, will it remove the table of contents from all skill pages? --Macros 04:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The TOC was intentionally placed there. You'd have to dig back on the original discussion. I don't even remember which side of the argument I was on anymore... -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 04:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find the original conversation, but I assume most people involved aren't active on the wiki anymore. The TOC box is right in the middle of the template, and it's really ugly. Could we have some sort of revisit to determine if we should keep it? --Macros 05:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with debating the position of the TOC. I am against unitarially removing TOC from all skill articles (but that might mean no TOC by default and give TOC on special cases). I also think I have a better work around against the issue that originally placed the TOC there. Go to 800x600 resolution and take a look at, say, Backfire with TOC collapsed to appreciate the original issue that made Fryen put the TOC where he put it. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 05:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Why do we need a TOC? Skill articles are ridiculously short. And 90% of the content is the same for all of them (Acquisition, Notes, Related articles.)
If we can't have it that way, then could someone make a few test pages showing the TOC is different places? Then we could vote on the best one. --Macros 05:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I see the problem with pages like Backfire. Would there be any way to condense the attribute box for 800x600 only? Though, that page looks ugly with AND without the TOC, but maybe that's just because I never use 800x600 :P --Macros 05:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Essentially every attributed-skill will have the same problem. I think the next larger standard resolution also has problems too. I have a solution, but the solution involves putting a blank space where the current TOC is. Anyways, some skill pages do get a bit long. Thus I do think having a TOC helps. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 05:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the TOC was always below the description, but above the progression table (like in one of my skills) and not at the very top. Didn't you accidentally break something during one of your updates Pan? ^^; — Poki#3 Poki, 09:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Poki you came intot he conversation late. Backfire is now on a testing version of the skill box. Go pick a random other attributed skill to look at d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
...anyway, why change the TOC? :/ It's fine as it is... — Poki#3 Poki, 17:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with Macros here that the current TOC position for the skill articles is arbitrary and unconventional. Typically it should be either at the top of the page or before the first heading. The reason why it was placed between description and progression was just to fill up empty space, and thus I am proposing an alternative that would also satisfy the "filling up space" goal while adhering to more natural expectations of TOC positioning. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 18:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
IMHO the most important thing on that page is the skill description, so that should be at the top. It definitely looks bad that the icon and other data on the right is at the top, and the actual description is sometimes below that. I agree that it should be on the top for almost every page, but skills are an exception. — Poki#3 Poki, 18:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The TOC links to the Description as the first and foremost item, so I consider that a sufficient compromise to honor "Description" as the #1 important item on the page. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 19:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I have put the TOC next to the infobox on my draft split skill template so you can see how it would look on User:M.mendel/Sandbox (just to test that out). Can anyone on New Monaco say how it works with the ad? --◄mendel► 15:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well ads don't appear in the user namespace... -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 18:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
But anyways, I think it looks great provided we put in anti-box-ad mechanisms. (With the box ad, thigns with infoboxes look bad regardless of the TOC positioning). -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 18:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

bug with new autocats

The new autocat section has a bug - it allows cats on User: pages. I made a change to the draft that so that all {{NAMESPACE}}-ed pages get handled separately, and only Template: pages get the template cat. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User skills shouldn't use this template, as they'd introduce random red links. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 20:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Fact remains a lot of users made skills before the User skill box template existed. And some didn't know of that template and used the normal template anyhow... --- VipermagiSig-- (s)talkpage 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
There's 10-20 user skills in each of the subcats from Category:Eye of the North skills. True, they shouldn't be using it, but they are, so we should at least safeguard against it. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 20:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I advocate to change those usages to {{User skill box}}. Having them showing up in the categories help us catching the improper usage. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As an additional note, some users just copy what they see on other user's userpages. So the more improper usage of templates are out there, the more it propagates, and it'd be more work when it comes time to clean them up. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 21:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Well then, as the wiki janitor, I guess it's my job to clean up those user skills. :P —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 21:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Holy shit... [1] O_O —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 21:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Um... Pan, don't look now, but one of your skills is on there... >.> Felix, RT, Giga, Shadowcrest, Gordon, Viper... damn. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed something else - it now ignores the nocats parameter. Was this also intentional? —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. My reasoning was that if it's not supposed to be categorized, I assume it's a user skill so it should use the other template. Immature assumption? -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 21:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my original new design is to have Skill box transclude another template, that handles the actual layout, and have skill box only add categorization. Then the "nocat" would be the same as just using the inner template. That is when "nocat" got removed. But then I decided to also move auto-linking to Skill box, so that the underlying template can be used by users too. And then somebody pointed out that {{user skill box}} already exist, so I reverted everything except teh categorization scheme, with nocat still being removed... -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 21:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so that's what [Template:Skill box base] was. Anyway, I saw nocats used on nearly all monster and temporary skills when I added the concise descriptions. Since they hadn't been cat'ed before, they suddenly created a bunch of redlink cats when you updated this yesterday. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 22:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Try contacting users with many skills and ask them to do it, I just killed mine.--Gigathrash sig Gìğá†ħŕášħ is hosting a beauty pagent! 22:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking of doing, actually. And thanks! —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 22:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, Monster skills would be something we probably should build into the categorization system. Do they current all have Profession set to "Monster"? -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 23:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe most of the monster skills do, yes, although there are some showing up in Category:Common skills. There's also Junundu skills, special-event skills (Snowball/Dragon/Rollerbeetle arenas), and the various EotN PvE skills showing up in that cat as well. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 00:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... holiday/event skills should probably count as special "Campaigns"? (even though some might themselves be campaign-specific?) -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 03:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I could bot change {{Skill box}} to {{User skill box}} on all user namespace RandomTime 05:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Could, but if it has an icon it wouldn't show in the user version. Entrea complained at me about that last night. Dr ishmael 21:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dual Icon weirdness

Perhaps its my browser (only have IE6 at the moment), but it appears that dual icons (luxon/kurzick skills like Ether Nightmare) do have a problem formatting/aligning nicely next to each other. IMHO the problem is a space too many:

..Luxon]] <br> Luxon...
         This space should not be there

-- Merty sign-- ( talk ) 11:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any of those spaces around the K/L icons are actually necessary - I subst:ed Ether Nightmare at User:Dr ishmael/Sandbox, removed all the spaces, and it looks fine in both FF 2 and IE 6. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 14:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, are the 2 spaces that are at the left of the energy icon needed too? — Poki#3 Poki, 15:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead and meddle with {{Skill box draft}}. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 18:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, there is a draft..figures.. Done. When or how does a draft become final ? -- Merty sign-- ( talk ) 06:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no formal process, but I'd like to incorporate more changes and do them all at once. Whenever we make a change of the template, a list of tasks gets generated for the server to perform, one task for each page that uses the template. Change the template twice and we produce twice the number of tasks. If you feel this issue is really a big problem, I'll get an interim version finalized sooner (my attention has been busy focused on other stuff). -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 21:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I currently don't see a difference the space makes. You can go to Ether Nightmare, hit edit, change the top to {{Ether Nightmare| draft}}, and preview. I'm also not sure what space you are complaining about. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It only shows up in IE (and maybe only version 6, I don't have 7), but it's the space between the Luxon icon and the <br> after it. Where the red underscore is below:

(Luxon).jpg{{pipe}}Luxon]]_<br> Luxon

Spaces around the text "Kurzick"/"Luxon" and the space before the icon doesn't seem to matter, only one after the icon. I think it gets wrapped to a "virtual" newline below the icon, then the <br> kicks another newline for "Luxon". —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I could have sworn I fixed this weeks ago... —JediRogue 23:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It's like this (also with IE7) : User merty dual icon. Removed spaces in draft en works like a charm. -- Merty sign-- ( talk ) 14:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

TOC redux

Please move it below the skill description. :( Thank you. — Poki#3 Poki, 23:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want it moved back to that weird spot? )-: You didn't comment on the previous discussion after my explanation, so I though you accepted it as being fine. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 00:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
No... If I go on a skill page the description is that interests me the most. Not the TOC. It looks really, really bad :( — Poki#3 Poki, 13:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You can say that about every article though. Nobody is interested in TOC the most, but it helps people navigate the article. I think it looks really, really bad in terms of inconsistency to have the TOC shoved in the middle of the first section of the article. If you find the TOC useless, just collapse it, it'll remember your preferences. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 19:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
So having the description at the lower part of the box looks better? Having it next to the icon looks good, but next to the energy cost only looks good on paper. About collapsing: I find the TOC useful in just about every page except skill pages and I can't collapse it just for these pages. Depending on the number of skill trainers, skill pages aren't even that big. If I didn't know better I would be for removing the TOC entirely. If you don't want the ToC "shoved in the middle of the first section", how about removing the first section, and making "Acquisition" the first? — Poki#3 Poki, 19:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. Description isn't part of the box at all. It's also not designed to be "next to" anything, any more than say Prince Rurik's "General" header is designed to be "next to" the "Classification" part of his infobox. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 19:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't have any more ideas how to describe the fact that it looks bad. — Poki#3 Poki, 00:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I would second the opinion to remove the TOC, how many skill pages are long enough to warrant it? Can scroll down to the bottom in 2 seconds on about every page. --AlariSig 00:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with that - skills pages only have Details, Acquisition, Notes, Related Skills/Articles, and maybe Trivia sections, and they generally take up less than 2 screens at 1280x1024 resolution (probably half of them are less than 1 screen, even). I don't see the need for a TOC on such short pages. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 01:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

cat issue

Pan changed the template to do something weird with categories and now monster skills are trying to be categorized as if they had they didn't have the no cats parameter. Whats up with this? —JediRogue 04:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

He left out 'nocats' from the template processing entirely - everything that uses Skill box gets autocats now, unless they're in the Template namespace. That is what prompted me to do the {{User skill box}} campaign - so that User namespace skills wouldn't show up in the "real" categories. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 06:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well what do we do about the monster skills? —JediRogue 07:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like we can edit the autocat - i'll look into it and see if I can edit it RandomTime 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
@Anyone who can code - would changing
{{#IF: {{{profession| }}} to {{#IF: {{{profession|#expr not monster}}} Work? RandomTime 19:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to work on {{Skill box draft}}, which you can preview on actual articles to see if they work. RT's code shouldn't work btw. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 23:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, since no one did 'fixed' this, I took the liberty to try so, although I'm not a coding hero,. I think it is solved now..-- Merty sign-- ( talk ) 16:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Merty, the edit you made would work fine in the current version of Skill box (which I see is how you tested it), but where you put it in Skill box draft it does absolutely nothing (it's in a switch block, in a clause that only runs if profession is one of the 10 character professions). The reason for that is, and I should have caught this when it happened, Pan screwed up. There's a switch block that he added to take care of this, but then he inadvertently removed it when he reverted the TOC change. I'm going to put that switch block back in. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 18:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
As long as I'm doing this, I'm going to add the range stuff as well - putting it into the Type: in the infobox (this will match the in-game type displayed with concise descriptions) and adding categorization for it. The discussion above about that has died out at least three separate times, so something just needs to be done about it. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 18:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, should have though about checking that. Thanks Dr Ishmael. -- Merty sign-- ( talk ) 18:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this back to my attention, I'd forgotten about it with all the drama we've been having. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 18:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Evolving a database

I can see how evolving a database within the wiki is tricky. Autocat sheda some harsh light on why this is so. It'd be easier if everyone could just add {{Autocat}} at the bottom of the page (where categories usually go) and Template:Autocat would use the BASEPAGENAME to read Template:BASEPAGENAME and make a categories from that. It could even categorize user data into user categories if done properly. The problem is that it can't easily access the skill data directly. I know two techniques (one already tried & tested) to grab the data out of the present skill info templates, so it is possible, though.

If we move to make a "database" article for each item that has data (Monster,skill, effect, NPC, whatever) and maybe some site javascript that kicks in to ensure proper format when user edit the "database" it is probably possible to do it more efficiently. Why do this for a wiki that has at most a year of active life in it (unless GW2 sucks bigtime)? Because GW2W will profit from a well-thought-out database, too. --mendel 15:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

High-res icons

I added code to put links to the hi-resolution icons on Skill box draft. I considered simply #switching on profession, which wouldn't require any changes to the template pages, but unfortunately that would catch the Celestial and Snow-fighting skills as well, which don't have hi-res icons. So unless anyone can come up with an easy way to exclude those skills under the #switch, we're going to have to go with requiring "highres=yes" in the skill templates. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 16:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I have some concerns still with the high-rez icons. see Image talk:Hi-res-Shield Guardian.jpg‎. Also, why are we keeping these off the skill pages directly? Do we have a separate gallery for normal skill icons? Why do these get their own pages? Should the images redirect to the skill page as well? Etc etc etc. —JediRogue 18:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Use #ifexist ? (duck) Jedi has a good point, though - the skill box is wide enough that we can simply put the hi-res icon at the bottom, much like we do with maps on the location box. Use hi-res = image.jpg is my suggestion, that way it is more transparent to the editors and you don't need to go on a renaming spree for the Lann images (or have you reuploaded everything in standard format and name now?). A redirect is only necessary if we want to go to the skill from the icon (such as in a skill bar) - which I don't think we would want to do anywhere, so it's probably not a necessity. Or is there a need for Template:Maxi_skill_bar ? (I hear we can get the imagelink extension enabled if we ask nicely.) --◄mendel► 19:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Having a map in a location box provides additional information, while adding a hi-res icon to the skill box would just take up space. They'd have to be down-sized a little (248px is too wide for an infobox, that's over 1/4 of the screen at 800x600 (which some people still use)), so readers would still have to click-through to see the full version anyway.
There's also the fact that, as JR noted, not all of the hi-res icons match the in-game icons (some have an alternate version, like Power Flux, while others duplicate another skill's icon, like Shield Guardian). That's actually an argument in favor of a "hires=" parameter, since we could leave it out for skills that have the wrong icon on the cards.
I haven't re-uploaded the other professions yet, but I plan on doing it by the end of the week. Except for the Monk ones, none of them indicate that they are "hi-res" in the image name, and all of Lann/ScathLann's images have his/her username on them, which should be changed because they are now used in mainspace. They should also be in a uniform format, which should be 248x250px with square coreners. (248x250 gets the most icon without getting any of the border; I'm still not sure how some of the Ritualist ones got to be so wide, there just isn't that much icon on the cards.)
I agree with mendel that we don't need redirects on these - that would actually counteract having a link to them in the skill box, you'd just go right back to the skill page. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 21:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Downsize by factor 2, then? I'm afraid that if we don't put them in a very visible place, they just won't get any exposure; i.e. almost nobody will realise we have them, or take the trouble to load a whole new page just to see it. The way to go with next to no effort if we want to just add a link is to auto-create the link from the profession to the profession gallery for those skill items, that would make the click worthwhile actually. --◄mendel► 21:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
auto-create the link from the profession to the profession gallery for those skill items Based on that, I changed it from a link to the image to a link to the gallery using an anchor to go to the specific image's section. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 21:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! (This has the advantage that it won't redlink even if the anchor doesn't exist.) --◄mendel► 22:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC) & 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

To Do

  • remove autocat for skills missing concise descriptions. --◄mendel► 21:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
We should probably keep that until we know there will be no more new skills, which would be when Anet announces the end of new content for GW. As long as I'm around, it won't get any use (as I'll ensure all new skills have complete data), but just in case. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 21:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
We don't have categories for other kinds of missing information (description, activation time, what have you), and it is quite obvious that the concise description is needed, because a) people are going to copy existing skill templates to create new ones, and b) it shows up as {{{concise}}} on the page. It was useful to keep track of which skills needed these descriptions added when they were introduced, but it is in fact useless now. --◄mendel► 19:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah... meh. I'll go delete it and stuff. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 19:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Quest skills

Based on a suggestion here, I added a line to the draft template that autocats skills with "quest = yes" to Category:Quest skills. Comment if you have a better idea for the category name or any other comments about this, I'll copy it into the main template in 3 days. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 16:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

colors unreadable

The header colors need to be changed. RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG 00:55, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA unless otherwise noted.