Template talk:Anomaly

New Design: Add border

I advice to add a border again. Since the background color is white as well, it does not look clear. As this template is normally added without colon, now, all you can see is the "Anomaly ?" and the normal text, with a traceable distance. between the other notes. The old yellow design was maybe a bit too flashy, but this one is ... dumb. It should be either added a border or a background color. —ZerphaThe Improver 14:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it looks alot cleaner this way. Although I would be ok with a border (rather not background color), I do think this is better. - anja 15:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My original version was best. :-) --  (CoRrRan / talk) 20:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be bothered with just a thin, plain black border around it. -- Brains12 • Talk • 20:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I only removed the border so that it would match up with {{bug}}. If you add a border around this one, add one around {{bug}} too please. — ク Eloc 貢 01:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a border was also my main intention. Suppose you disliked the silver color? Ok, i'll add a simple black border to both templates. —ZerphaThe Improver 13:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, even the black border distracts the attention from the rest of the page, so i am still against any kind of border for this or the bug template. Could you explain a little better what the other visual problem is? I couldn't see any when i tried (unless you added * for some reason before the template).--Fighterdoken 23:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really distract the reader. Knowing bugs/anomalys is pretty important if you want to know how a skill works and it's not working how you thought it would for you. — ク Eloc 貢 01:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving the irrelevant (2nd) part of the previous comment aside, i am trying to gather info about the "As this template is normally added without colon, now, all you can see is the "Anomaly ?" and the normal text, with a traceable distance. between the other notes". The anomaly (and bug) marks are still noticeable enough without the border, and my tests didn't really show any displaying problem to warrant the box to be visible again. Plus, without the border, we can merge the warning within the notes section, but having it visible we will need to go and move all the bugs/anomaly warnings to the bottom of wherever they display, or it will look really fugly.--Fighterdoken 05:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

/agree with Fighterdoken. - anja 10:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Can we please get rid of these ridiculously ugly borders now? — Galil 23:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I liked the old, big templates better. — ク Eloc 貢 00:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Without the border, I find it not distinctive enough, IMO the border stays. (My original version was even better.) --  (CoRrRan / talk) 12:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they should be distinctive at all. They should be like normal notes. Big and red steals all attention from the normal, main, content, and most of the bugs reported are not so glaring it needs to be "in the face" of everyone. - anja 12:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Definately not like normal notes, they should be distinct IMO. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 12:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If they steal any attention, they need to be important. Menial, worthless information should either be left off the page entirely or put in an unobtrusive template; even if it is a bug, it should not attract attention at all (unless, of course, people absolutely need to know about it). A bug affecting a party's ability to complete a mission, for example, should be attention-grabbing; a bug in Prince Rurik's armor if you zoom up (or something equally silly) should not be.

Maybe we can use different borders based on the severity of the bug (such as the example above). A huge bug can have {{bug|urgent|blah blah blah you need to know this or you risk losing the mission}} and a small one can have {{bug|small|cynn has a thong}}. We could even make that a three-tiered template. -Auron 13:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Not everyone needs to know Cynn has a thong before playing teaming up with her. - anja 13:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

...cough -- Brains12 • Talk • 16:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Revisit: This thing is friggin ugly! If we want the "in your face"-ness to stay, at least it should look good doing the "in your face" business. It should also fill an entire row and should be easy to separate from actual article text. IMO, this doesn't do a good job:

Bug!	Ugliness FTW

What I'd want if we are to keep the border would be something like this;

Anomaly

This is an anomaly. Wikipedia:Anomaly, you know...

Easily separated from article content, with that indent and all. Same goes for {{bug}}. — Galil 17:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Alot better. I still think white without border is enough, but this design would be ok to me. - anja 17:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Anomaly & Bug? poke | talk 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Those would work too. Doesn't really matter much to me as long as we get rid of this ugly one, and get one that's easily separated from article text. Both of these do that. However, after playing with the boxes I've found they look odd when you get lots of text in them, same with mine. Both of them are easy to fix though. — Galil 17:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Poke/sandbox poke | talk 18:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

poke's propose is nice imo. The minor change with the colors of the template's words and their equal punctuation marks make them more uniform as well...(btw, i also used silver at the beginning...it's less eye-catching and is actually quite plain as well :P. —ZerphaThe Improver 22:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Have we decided on a design yet? -- Brains12 • Talk • 20:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

restyled :) poke | talk 19:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks a lot better now. :D — Galil 17:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Coding bug

See here for an example of what I mean. It seems to go through the {{effect infobox}} — ク Eloc 貢 22:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. — Galil 17:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally a solution! Poke and I tried alot yesterday :P (see Template:Bug also) - anja 17:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. ;) — Galil 17:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bah. :P - anja 17:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

it does not change anything apart from the fact that the div is now behind the box.. But it's still too wide.. poke | talk 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Set a width of 75% or so? Calor 19:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it didn't. But the content isn't behind it, only the lines. Kinda like every other line on any article that are there (including section titles). I don't see how it hurts. — Galil 20:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel you want to fix it anyway though, by all means do. Just make sure to keep the flexibility of it. I wouldn't want fixed width content. — Galil 20:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Could we get it so that it is equal on both sides? — ク Eloc 貢 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That what is equal on both sides? ... poke | talk 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming the margin. But since the margins already are equal, I can't say I'm sure. — Galil 22:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you, Eloc, mean the margin, than it is not possible to have it equal when a infobox is overlapping the borders, no. poke | talk 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there no way to make those lines not go all the way to the right? IMO it looks silly now, just like a heading-line. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 17:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The only working option is a fixed size or a fixed margin on the right.. poke | talk 22:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd mention, it seems that if you put this template in a bulleted list, it screws up the tabs at the top of the page. See here for an example. -- Hong 01:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ya, you gotta put the bullet inside the template for it to work properly. — ク Eloc 貢 02:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Types of anomalies and bugs

Since ANet will (sometimes) fix description anomalies, I propose that we add a parameter to this template to allow us to classify types of anomalies (and do the same for bugs). Some possible values:

• Skill description — discrepancies between the description (concise or full) and the skill's impact.
• Lore — two sources of lore conflict.
• Terminology — the term is applied differently from elsewhere in the game (notably: miss = fail to connect with target vs miss, a specific mechanic with specific consequences)
• Mechanics — an exception to how the game behaves elsewhere (notably, Restoration spirits resurrecting summoned creatures).

By default, things would be categorized into category:anomalies, which would mean we don't have to update existing uses. The idea is so that we do not have to create a manual list of anomalies (or bugs), such as List of skill anomalies. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)