Template talk:Creature infobox/Archive

I was really hoping this wasnt going to get carried over from guildwiki, there should be a different template system for NPCs, not using "BeastInfo" -- Scourge  05:05, 9 February 2007 (PST)
 * I, too, want some changes. We need a more intelligent system, taking into account the special cases of foes, NPCs, animals, etc.
 * I'd like to see auto-categorization being included into the template, using parser fuctions, but this needs to be discussed in general. The template code may be complicated, but the template must be easy to use, in order not to confuse wiki newbies.
 * Oh, and please, please, don't call it "beast". That's been bugging me ever since day one of GuildWiki. Call it "creature". That's the ingame term, and it's so much more neutral. --Tetris L 05:13, 9 February 2007 (PST)
 * Sounds like a good idea, I wouldn't have a clue how to do it though :( -- Scourge  05:32, 9 February 2007 (PST)


 * I think this makes sense. Firstly I don't think we should bring this template over, because a) it looks very complete and I have questions over it's license issues (although this is my paranoia and it could be unfounded) and b) it's not that good.


 * As some of you might have seen I redesigned the skill box to use divs and lists instead of tables, and I think we should do the same for the beastinfo box.


 * Also we should probably have a separate box for friendly NPCs and monsters, although this is debatable.


 * Either way, we can do a lot better than this. Let's just scrap it. LordBiro 05:37, 9 February 2007 (PST)

The edit summary says "all previous contributors have agreed to GFLD." I don't think the person actually looked at the edit history on GWiki. --Fyren 05:40, 9 February 2007 (PST)


 * I say scrap it, it really needs to be redesigned like the skillbox (as LordBiro said). -- Scourge  05:42, 9 February 2007 (PST)


 * Don't freak out just because some is wielding a paper shred with the heading "license", please. >_< ~ D.L. 05:45, 9 February 2007 (PST)


 * Non-trivial edits. By your own admission, Pan's edits are non-trivial.  --Fyren 06:09, 9 February 2007 (PST)


 * Well, cool. So those are non-trivial? Then act upon it. Just don't slap that "suspected violation" template on there again. I'd go as far and call them all trivial edits besides the initial design. And you're right, I missed that Pan doesn't count towards GFDL license edits. ~ D.L. 15:57, 9 February 2007 (PST)


 * They either change the functionality of the template, like how it chooses the image name, or change the actual appearance, so yes. So if I suspect there is a copyright violation, which suspected copyright violation template are you suggesting I use? --Fyren 21:10, 9 February 2007 (PST)
 * No no no. I meant, you state that there is a copyright violation. There's nothing to suspect here. I state that there isn't one. And just like copying 'print "Hello World!"' isn't copyrighted, those small snippets of code aren't either. Trivial algorithms are still trivial. ~ D.L. 04:22, 10 February 2007 (PST)
 * First, algorithms aren't copyrightable. In this case, the "algorithm" would be something like "varying the image file chosen based on the parameters given."  What you copied was actual code that does something, regardless of what, that was written by someone else and not released under the GFDL.  If the algorithm were copyrightable, you wouldn't be able to do it at all no matter if you wrote the code from scratch or not.  Incidentally, patents are the form of intellectual property that processes or methods would fall under. Ignoring the analogy, Pan definitely changed both the look and the function of the template, and as we already went through, hasn't released anything under the GFDL (yet, perhaps try to contact Pan).  --Fyren 00:33, 11 February 2007 (PST)

redesign
I really think we should rethink and redesign this whole concept. One thing that I would like (others may disagree) would be to link the color of the box with the profession color of the creature (I'm talking about the 2 yellow bars in the current version. That assumes that we go with a) a box and b) it uses a color of some sort.  --Rainith 18:55, 9 February 2007 (PST)


 * I agree with redesigning the look and layout to give this a fresh look, not a rip-off look. I do not agree with changing the main color bar (if we will retain that) to go with professions. The main color to me serves to tell immediately what this page is about. i.e. you see a yellow box, you know it's bestiary, you see a green one you know it's skills and so on. Plus, the profession icons by Biro are noticeable enough and an artistic element in their own regard. --Karlos 04:41, 10 February 2007 (PST)


 * I agree with both of you. As Karlos says, the colour of a taxo-box should give you an immediate impression of what the page is about, and not what profession the character is, so if there is a redesign I would recommend using a consistent colour. LordBiro 14:10, 10 February 2007 (PST)


 * Fair enough on the color part. I've seen it used many times in strategy guides, which is the reason I brought it up.  One thing I would like to see added though, is an optional map (like the map used in the location box on GuildWiki), that can be used for bosses or other creatures that require maps.  That would help keep the map part of the box and not screw up the formatting of the editsections as occured on GuildWiki so often.  This would work much better with ParserFuntions installed though.  --Rainith 19:39, 10 February 2007 (PST)


 * Can't we get a middle ground on the colour thing? I'd like to see the profession reflected if possible, why not have a consistent colour header and a background by profession or something. It'd be nice if bosses had an aura around their info box too ;) --NieA7 03:10, 14 February 2007 (PST)
 * Aren't we already using the profession icon? It's big enough that you can't miss it. --ab.er.rant 17:48, 14 February 2007 (PST)


 * We are, but stylistically speaking having colours associated with the profession appeals to me. It's not a big deal, I just think it would look good. --NieA7 01:51, 15 February 2007 (PST)
 * Hmm... maybe as an additional border or something? Because I believe that having a fixed infobox color depending on the article type helps keep thing more consistent among similar articles. -- ab.er. rant -- 01:58, 15 February 2007 (PST)
 * I'm not too fussed about the fixed infobox colour thing - I don't know about other users, but I take the clue for what I'm looking at from the article title and picture (if there is one), not the heading of the info box (however, I know several other people feel strongly about that so as I'm not especially bothered I'm happy to let that go). I think it's the kind of thing we're going to have to experiment with once we've got colours and templates sorted out, just to get a feel of how it would look... --NieA7 02:17, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Can I start using this?
I'd like to start adding monsters to the Wiki, beginning with the bosses. I was wondering whether I should hold on till how this is going to look is figured out, or can I go ahead and use it for now? --Dirigible 09:59, 10 February 2007 (PST)
 * Well, you could... if you're willing to go back and make all the changes if this changes drastically... :) -- ab . er . rant 18:05, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I disagree with this.
I think we should go with a left align and a profession-colored caption background. This gives us a distinct recognizable difference from GWiki while still allowing for an easy read. My test example:

Obviously it'll be better w/ smart templates. Jack 14:52, 19 February 2007 (PST)


 * I disagree with your suggestion. I don't really care too much about alignment, but I think infoboxes look better to the right. If they were to the left I wouldn't lose any sleep!


 * I can't agree with profession colours for the caption background. I've explained my reasons above, and I'm sure you've read them, so I won't repeat myself. LordBiro 15:31, 19 February 2007 (PST)
 * I'm against it. If you put it to the left, you disrupt the starting margin for the paragraphs affected by the box. There's a reason why the TOC was moved to the right by some people. There's a reason why the TOC on the left always leaves white space on the right. The reading and alignment disruption makes it ugly. -- ab.er. rant -- 16:46, 19 February 2007 (PST)


 * No need to move it to the left, it looks far better on the right. - FireFox [[Image:firefoxav.gif]] 16:50, 19 February 2007 (PST)


 * Discussion closed then :) Jack 17:02, 19 February 2007 (PST)