Template talk:Skill infobox

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Update request 2 Auto-categorization 3 Added features to skill infobox 4 Update messed up elementalist skill list 5 monster skills categorization 6 Bad......Bad.....Update 7 concise description parameter 8 switch for autocats 9 Quest reward 10 difference PvE/PvP 11 Campaign default

[edit] Update request

1. Not listing attribute for no profession skills: they can't have any so it's useless info, and objected to by many.
2. Auto categorisation based on cost type:Energy or Adrenaline. None for signets, I guess.
3. Set campaign to core, rather than none, if omited, as this is a value all skills have.

Backsword 09:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not much response... Backsword 03:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose no one really cares. If no one cares, why not just change it then as their is no obvious opposition to a change. — ク Eloc 貢 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

1. AFAIK, there are no non-profession skills that aren't already accounted for.
2. Nothing to comment on.
3. Again, no comment.

Go ahead if you wish. — Galil 21:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to continue the discussion on the formatting page first.. poke | talk 06:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just on a related note, I've found that you can't get the PvE-only tag to show up in the box unless the attribute line is filled in. This impacts all the Celestial skills, for example. Is this related to 1) above? -- Hong 04:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed that problem on my Skill infobox sandbox. It's not hard to do. However, since my sandbox has a number of other 'features', you can't really copy it right away. And I don't want to cause a wiki slowdown at this moment by editing this template. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Poke, I'm unaware on any dicussion there that would render any of my three points irrelevant. Could you be more clear on what you are refering to? Backsword 07:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, I don't have any objections to the changes proposed here. I just wanted to throw in that I would prefer to finally clear the whole "How to deal with skills, effects and all the other ideas of skills" discussions. But for now, go for it ;) poke | talk 17:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Auto-categorization

I've added auto-categorization for adrenaline, exhaustion, upkeep and sacrifice for DPL. -- Gordon Ecker 06:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the upkeep category with auto-categorization into Category:Maintained enchantments since it was redundant. -- Gordon Ecker 06:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Cats needs to e in the top section, else nocat won't work. This means any use on userpages on so forth will e included in cats. As an example on how this causes prolems, see the adrenal skill list; it's including a user gash version that causes major malformating. Backsword 07:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fixed. -- Gordon Ecker 07:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Something still seems to be wrong with it. -- Gordon Ecker 08:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you have to close the "{{ #if: {{{attribute|}}}"-part before you start the other categorizations. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 08:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I didn't notice that it wasn't closed. -- Gordon Ecker 02:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

 :-) It is hard to understand how the categorization is made up. I've re-compiled it on my pretty, own sandbox for the skill infobox here, that way it is a little bit easier to read. Perhaps an idea for this template too? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 00:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, it changes formating but not functionality?Then I only makes things more readable? If so, I'm all for it. No need to ask even, always a good idea. Backsword 10:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have some stuff for this infobox in my sandbox I'd like someone to take a look at. Backsword 10:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Are you referring to the elite echo skill type not being displayed correctly? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 12:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The code I was thinking of implementing is ;[[Skill type|Type]]:{{ #switch: {{{type}}} | echo | Echo | Title | title | Skill | skill = {{ #switch: {{{elite}}} | y | yes | true = [[Elite]] }} [[{{{type}}} (skill type)|{{ ucfirst: {{ lc: {{{type}}} }} }}]] | #default = {{ #switch: {{{elite}}} | y | yes | true = [[Elite]] }}[[{{ ucfirst: {{ lc: {{{type}}} }} }}]] }} Was wondering if anyone saw any problem there. Backsword 11:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've got it working as it is supposed to now. See my skill infobox sandbox for the code, and this for the implementation. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 12:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you were refering to now, I originally had the code like that too, but wanted to pull attention towards it not being a single term, as we don't mark that some other way. Backsword 14:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused as to the meaning of what you write here Backsword, can you clarify it a bit for me? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 17:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get what your point was at first, but seeing your code I realised you were talking about case on the skill type name. That code was intentional on my part as I wanted to make it more noticable that it was two different things marked there. But I'm fine with this version too, being that was how I originally coded it. Backsword 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think you do have a point I guess. I just re-coded your suggestion so that it resembled the original way of showing the "Type"-parameter. Since we're probably the only two people concerned with this, let's get to a consensus: do you want to have the Elite and the Type clear as two separate links? The way I'm thinking of (and I guess you were too) is to make Elite start with a capital, and the type too. So that you'd see Elite Hex spell. I'm neutral on this point, so if you are in favor, I'll modify the code again to reflect this change. If you're neutral too, then we'll keep it as is. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 11:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it was just an idea. Don't mind either way. My current code has it with lower case. Backsword 09:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

lower case, please! - anja 10:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added features to skill infobox

Anyone opposed to me merging User:CoRrRan/Skill infobox into Template:Skill infobox? Top of the page has a nice diff-link where you can see the differences between the two infoboxes. Also an example of implementation is here. Changes:

• Implementation of very nice new icons for (mainly) the assassin profession.
• A somewhat clearer way of showing the category code.
• Improved display of the "Type"-parameter in the infobox.
• Bugfix for Celestial skills not showing the 'pve-only' parameter. (Although I think this has been implemented already.) --  (CoRrRan / talk) 12:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd defenitly like to see this implemented. And sooner rather than later. I did find some things that are non optional in my eyeds. Hope you don't mind me adding them to your examples page. Backsword 14:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Noticed knockdown is missing from the req list. We don't have KD icon tho, as far as I know. Backsword 16:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Now have an unpdated version at Backsword/Sandbox/RSI which is based on CoRrRan's code, with the above mentioned updates to categorisation, and listing of campaign and attribute. Backsword 16:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Is your "RSI"-page a direct copy of this version? If so, we can merge your version into Template:Skill infobox directly.

One version before, though the difference is only that I added the noinclude bit, which wouldn't be copied anyway, on my own. Backsword 07:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And do you have a suggestion for a KD-icon? Perhaps I can make something, but I'm thinking of a small dust cloud on the ground, but I doubt it'll be pretty (i.e. LordBiro-style). --  (CoRrRan / talk) 11:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if we can't volunteer Biro for that. Backsword 07:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Celestial Summoning's three professions don't work with the infobox or DPL, but I'm not sure if it would be worth fixing. -- Gordon Ecker 07:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Skills can't actually have more than one profession, so I'd assume that's a common skill given out to a limited number of profession. Backsword 07:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update messed up elementalist skill list

The recent update made to this template messed up List of elementalist skills. The problem lies in the fact that Mark of Rodgort/Skill history is being catagorized now because the update removed the catagorize = y/n option, and its inclusion is causing formating issues. --Valshia 19:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, taken care of by slapping a {{historical content}} on the offending page. --Valshia 20:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] monster skills categorization

anyone have any objections to adding pve-only parameter to monster skills? this will take them out of the common skills category which is something that's been bugging me lately. nvm, i just tested this and it will not take the skill out of common skills categorization. since monster skills are a subcat of special skills and have no profession, they're both special and common skills. to me, that's just completely nonsensical. --VVong|BA 14:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This will have to be done, I think:

  {{ #if: {{{attribute|}}}
    | [[Category:{{{attribute}}} skills]]
    | {{ #if: {{{profession|}}}
        | [[Category:{{{profession}}} skills]]
        | {{ #ifeq: {{ lc: {{{special|}}} }} | monster || [[Category:Common skills]] }}
      }}
  }}

Although this will only trigger for 'monster'-specials. If there are more variations, the #ifeq should be changed to a #switch. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 18:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

i just had a thought. what if we put "Monster" as the profession for monster skills? that would remove the need for a special parameter for monster skills and at the same time categorize the skill as a monster skill. i'm not sure if it would screw some other things up though. are there monster skills that are specific to a profession? i can't think of any but that doesn't mean they aren't there. --VVong|BA 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

anyone want to write a bot to add the pve-only parameter? or failing that tell me how to operate a bot myself? --VVong|BA 21:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Before changing multiple pages I would like to wait till the current discussion on GWW:SKILLS is finished. Maybe, when merging alls other skill-like infoboxes into this, we have to do multiple changes; and then, of course, I'll let a bot do that. poke | talk 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

While it's common for players to think so, 'Monster' is not a profession. They have normal professions, and while most 'moster skills' can be used by monsters of any profession, some do have a specific profession. Eg. Splinet Shot. Backsword 05:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

i realize it's not a proper profession. it just would have been an easier way to solve this issue. but as u say, if there are monster profession specific skills, that would invalidate this approach. i tried looking up ur skill but i didn't find it. i assume it's a ranger skill which would require a bow or something. nvm, it was just a misspelling of "splinter." that does appear to be profession specific. --VVong|BA 13:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad......Bad.....Update

← moved to GWWT:SKILLS

[edit] concise description parameter

it adds all pages that use that template without this parameter to Category:Skills missing concise description.
(Well, for some reason it doesn't do so if used on user pages.)
But all removed skills have this Category now, and it's impossible that they even get one (unless they're implemented into the game ofc) I'd suggest to change this parameter so that it doesn't include skills from the historical content. —ZerphaThe Improver 01:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, historical skills are missing concise descriptions. ;) But I agree, it's probably best to exclude them if possible, since the main use for the category will be adding them to those that should have them. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

DPL to get all skills and filter those without a concise description out? :P poke | talk 01:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

what's DPL? I thought we could add a switch to the concise parameter and make that if "none" for the concise description is chosen, it's simply nothing displayed. Like that we would have a way to manually remove those skills from this category. —ZerphaThe Improver 01:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

May be possible to extract from the dat. Try asking the smurf. Backsword 01:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should the skill descriptions of these removed skills have concise descriptions? I hardly doubt Anet added one for them as well. (Unfortunately, idk how to read the text files in gw.dat. I read sth about a "hex editor" and downloaded one, but this didn't work :/) —ZerphaThe Improver 01:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

After I crashed the wiki with that last night, here is a DPL table :P User:Poke/sandbox/3, use it carefully. I'll leave that page there until there are no skills left. poke | talk 10:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a huge problem, since this is a temporary category to ease editing that will be removed once the normal skills are finished. It's not that much to sort through, just ignore those skills that doesn't have a concise description? - anja 11:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well ok, that's also right...i thought it'd be helpful to remove these skills from the category by doing so, as it will likely require some weeks until the list is complete and the parameter can be removed again. (btw, i already wondered this morining why GWW didn't work, poke xD - DPL stands for Disambiguation pages with links, right?) —ZerphaThe Improver 13:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

DPL = Dynamic Page List, and sorry for the problems I made still make (?) :P poke | talk 15:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Might be true, Zerpha. I'm not sure really how irritating they are in that category, if alot of people think they are would could work something out that doesn't crash the wiki ;) - anja 15:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

after having approximately found out how to use Cheat Engine - thanks to Smurf - i noticed that i were wrong with my supposition! At least Mantra of Celerity does really have a concise description (!) :D I'll look at the other removed skills now, too. Is that a signal of hope to see this skill finally in the game? —ZerphaThe Improver 01:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I still believe that the concise descriptions are automatically generated by looking at what the skills do.. poke | talk 13:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah, you're very likely right —ZerphaThe Improver 21:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] switch for autocats

Bloodletting is an example for a skill in the main namespace that uses this template, but should not be categorized. Is there a way to add a switch here, that turns of autocats like on userskill info box? --Xeeron 13:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Or simply ignore that comment and wait for me to figure out I used the existing switch the wrong way, hrrmm. --Xeeron 13:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

hehe :P poke | talk 14:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quest reward

Instead of manually having to set each skill category, there should be a boolean(Yes/no) parameter to set that. Many skill rewards are counted, but the Resurretion Signet, one of the first and most important skills that all characters may receive during questing, is not categorized as 'obtainable by questing' like the rest. Nor any of the Eye of the North PvE skills. MithTalk 22:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] difference PvE/PvP

now that the diffwith template works, how about adding a link for pvp versions to a diffwith PvE? and/or vice versa. - Y0_ich_halt 20:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it'd be more convenient to just include a comparison with PvE version or comparison with PvP version subsection in the notes section with a side by side DPL comparison of the two skills, or add a link to List of PvE and PvP versions of skills in the see also section. -- Gordon Ecker 05:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign default

It says the default for the campaign parameter is none, but in fact is Core. What to change? horsedrowner 09:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrected the param description. -- ab.er.rant 15:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)