Template talk:NPC infobox/Archive 1

Argh

I realize this is probably kind of late now, but I hate how inconsistent this template was. You needed to use the abbreviated Prof but full versions of Species and Campaign. Profession icon doesn't autolink, Map and Image do. Species autolinks, Profession didn't. Bleh. Also pretty bleh was how the Image and Map parameters not only autolink, but also include the .jpg part. The result is that not only png images can't be used, but it breaks even stuff like Image:King Adelbern.JPG. On one hand it gives the editors flexibility with stuff like multiple professions and multiple profession icons, on the other hand it dumbs down even simple tasks like linking to an image. Even that Species parameter that autolinks breaks stuff like [[Blood Drinker (species)|Blood Drinker]]; you need to use a clutch {{pipe}} to get it to work; good luck explaining that to anyone who's not familiar with how wikicode works. I just changed the template to address most of these. Now, with the exception of the Image and Map parameters, nothing else autolinks. I'd have done even these two for consistency's sake, but I sort of like the default thumbnail size that this allows, it makes the infobox looks tidy. That's it. (Posting this here so Erszebet doesn't tell me to take a long walk off a short pier, mostly. :P) --Dirigible 03:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

It was said elsewhere that everything should autolink, or none should autolink, not a combination of the two. - BeXoR 04:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

As I said above, getting even the Image and Map parameters to not autolink would be ideal. The users would have to manually specify the thumb size though, that's the only downside. --Dirigible 04:58, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Well I used the creature infobox as a base for this one, copying all the errors in that to this one. Since the image policy still isn't accepted I didn't do any sync'ing with it (but you should use lowercase extensions anyway). The reason why some values auto-link and others didn't, is because it's practically impossible to program it with the current limited set of parser functions (like with multiple professions and stuff).

Just to make it clear; the "pier"-comment wasn't anything personal. As long as the edits are valid and a clear improvement (like this one) you can change whatever you want. Some people changed the whole NPC article's layout to match their personal preference without even mentioning it on the talk page or whatever, so "Argh" and "bleh" are words I'm more than familiar with :P --Erszebet 07:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Gotcha.

Should I go ahead and make even the image and map parameters not autolink then, or are is how it currently works alright? --Dirigible 10:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Sure, since everything will require manual linking might as well change that one too. --Erszebet 12:48, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Rewrite

I'm attempting a rewrite of this infobox. I can make it such that everything except images and maps to autolink. The problems like in profession and campaign, since certain NPCs have multiple professions and/or appear in multiple campaigns. The workaround I did for professions is that if there is one profession, use the auto-linking profession. If there are multiple professions, use the manual-linking profession-manual and icon. For campaigns, I'm thinking a simple manual-linking campaign-manual would do the trick as well. What do you guys think?

I also think that of all the parameters, these should always be visible: Species, Level, Campaign. Regardless of whether the info is known or not. -- ab.er.rant 04:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm a bit confused. Is there no way to auto-link to the profession icons? It seems strange having to use "icon=Image:Monk-icon-small.png" and "profession=Monk" as separate parameters! LordBiro 07:19, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Same. The only thing that I think really needs autolinking is the icon, since everything has already been linked up on many. We don't want to have to go back through them all and fix them. --77.98.24.142 07:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

The problem with profession is that some NPCs that more than 1 profession. If we only do plain auto-linking, you can't display more than one profession, unless of course, the formatting is written such that you should use two infoboxes if there are 2 professions. -- ab.er.rant 06:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you could do it, just instead of saying [[Image:{{{profession}}}-icon-small.png]] you would have to say something like:

{{ #switch: {{{profession}}}
 | Warrior  = {{w}}
...
 | Dervish  = {{d}}
 | #default = {{x}}
}}

or something. Then if profession = Monk/Warrior/Goose you'll just get an x. LordBiro 07:08, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I know, but I don't want to get an x. I'm sure getting it to result in something like Ghostly Hero is a better option. If I do profession = Monk/Warrior, then I won't be able to autolink both the professions correctly (unless I try string functions I suppose). My proposal above, granted that it's not very ideal, at least leaves it such that only those with 2 profession (or more) need to manually deal with icon. -- ab.er.rant 07:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Can I just check, what did you mean by "the formatting is written such that you should use two infoboxes if there are 2 professions"? LordBiro 07:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

By that, I just meant that NPCs like Ghostly Hero would then need two infoboxes - one for the warrior version, and the second for the ranger version. Just to show that the NPC has two professions (if no attempt is made for the parameters to support autolinking multiple professions). -- ab.er.rant 02:19, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I wondered if you meant that, but I don't think it's a good idea. LordBiro 07:17, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

(reset indent)You'll need 4 profession parameters (f.i. for Mursaat Guardian, dunno if there're other examples). --Erszebet 15:24, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

default parameter

Name: "Optional, defaults to (NPC infobox/Archive 1). Do not use an empty value for this parameter" -- If it has a default, why can't the value be left empty? "The name|PAGENAME" (with the braces taken out so that I can display it here) appears to state that, if the value ie left empty, then the name will display the pagename. I don't see a problem with leaving the name value empty. Banaticus 02:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

There is a difference between leaving it empty and omitting the parameter entirely, I suppose. - BeXoR 03:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, forgive me for being in CompSci mode, but "" != NULL. The way the infobox is currently written, if you say "name = " and don't fill in the parameter with a value then the template will think that the name is an empty string. LordBiro 07:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

It's not just the infobox right? This is template behavior. The default value of a template parameter only takes effect if the parameter is not passed in. Passing in an empty value is still passing in a value. To support your idea, I would have to use either #if to detect that it's an empty string. -- ab.er.rant 23:54, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Correct. LordBiro 04:44, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Render and screenshot parameters

Hi guys...do you think we should add parameters for both screenshots and renders? I know that a lot of people really like the renders I cap, but others find value in screenshots from the game since they don't look so sterile. Do you think it would be a good idea to have fields for both, perhaps setting one image as the main shot and placing the other below the main box? --Emily Diehl 18:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I certainly don't see any harm myself. I think it could even be written so that, if the render is not available, the screenshot is used as the main picture, otherwise the render is used as the main picture and the screenshot is shown beneath. LordBiro 18:57, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it would be necessary. I don't find the renders sterile at all. They are much clearer and informative than any screenshots could be. Maps are placed below the NPC information, and I don't think any more images are required than that. - BeX 05:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Same here. The image parameter can be used for renders if available, which would bump screenshots to use one of the map parameters. Personally, I think it should be: image = render or screenshot and map# = maps then screenshots -- ab.er.rant 22:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I really don't think having two pictures of the same thing is a good idea. If it were added anywhere outside the infobox I would expect it would be removed with the reason existing image better, or such. - BeX 01:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I had a question about something related today in the Talk:Bone Dragon page. Basically do bone dragons look the same the word over? Do we use the same render for each of the different types of bone dragon? I don't mind the look but it feels a bit odd having the same image for something we list as a different thing - y'know? With a screenshot you get different angles and setting which gives variety to something which turns out to be the same the world over - so to speak. Not really a for or against thing, merely something to think on. --Aspectacle 02:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

If there are multiple skins for an npc or weapon, you can use image, image2 etc. For instance Earth Staff. I don't think its necessary to capture every angle of every npc - pick the best one and use that. - BeX 02:15, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Clarification: Each of the bone dragon varieties will probably have different pages due to having different name/skills/location but have the same (or extremely similar) appearance. Which is not the situation as you have listed. --Aspectacle 02:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I've been doing this everywhere I can on GWiki; there're lots of NPC's that use the same skin so it'd be better not to upload an image of each and every NPC/monster in the game. Of course, it can be difficult to find out if the image you need is uploaded or not, since searching is done on filename. Also, some creatures are rather hard to take a clean picture from. It would be nice if we can have a clean shot from in-game, but it's not of highest priority imo. --Erszebet 07:17, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Rewrite take 2

I got it set up nicely this time. Check out my proposed replacement for this infobox at User:Ab.er.rant/Sandbox. You can use User:Ab.er.rant/Sandbox/NPC infobox test to preview and to test it out. I made it so that everything except images and captions automatically wikilinks.

Here are some things to consider:

1. Is it better to use numbered parameters (profession2, campaign2, etc.) for multiple professions/campaigns? Or is it simpler just to provide a profession-raw and a campaign-raw for custom values?
2. What exactly if the type? Is it only NPC services? Or can I say type = Boss? If boss an NPC type? If it is, what should be the type used to refer to non-boss hostile NPCs?
3. Do we really need the profession icon there? I sometimes feel that it unnecessarily indents the profession name.
4. Any other suggested tweaks, changes, additions? Or potential problems?

-- ab.er.rant 02:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

1. I have no preference there, either would work.
2. I wouldn't mind having a type=Boss (and have been in fact using it). Not sure what the type for non-boss hostiles should be, or if they even need one at all (guess the non-boss hostiles are like Unlinked skills or Untyped skills).
3. I personally like the profession icon. Maybe we could simply move it to the right side of the text? Would that make a difference?
4. Auto-categorisation, kind sir, auto-categorisation. Think we can set it up? For hostile NPCs the categories would simply be:
   • Category:<Species>s or Category:<Species> bosses if type=Boss; (with a possibility to override it for NPC subspecies like Crimson Skull who should be in Category:Crimson Skull instead of Category:Humans, or for any species for which the plural isn't simply adding an "s").
   • Category:<Profession>s or Category:<Profession> bosses if type=Boss;.

For non-hostile NPCs it would be:

• Category:<Type>s (with a switch for "Heroes", etc)

The only one that's left is the location category. The only way I can see autocategorisation done for that would be to move the ==Locations==/==Missions== content into the infobox, but I'm not sure we'd want that. I guess we could simply add those categories manually, it doesn't all have to be autocategorised. Thoughts? --Dirigible 03:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Since the word "type" can have a number of meanings in different contexts it might be best to use a "boss = y/n" parameter. I'm just thinking, what if we decide to use to type to determine something else in the future? It's probably not a big deal really ;) LordBiro 05:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with using boss=y (and just omit if not a boss). Leave location categories out of autocategorization. I've also made a suggestion directly to User:Ab.er.rant/Sandbox/Profession with icon. --Rezyk 16:13, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't mind having a boss=y parameter, but I would still like to have either type=Boss or something else of the kind to differentiate a boss from normal monsters. If "Type" doesn't include "Boss", can we define what exactly type is supposed to be then, as Aberrant also asked above? --Dirigible 16:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Also thinking we could just set up a simple template, [[{{{1}}}]] [[Category:{{{1}}} NPCs]] used in this form:

==Locations==

• Ascalon
  • {{NPC location|The Great Northern Wall (mission)}}

Which still allows us to control how that category works in the future, if we ever decide to change it for some reason. Support it? Against it? Is it pointless? --Dirigible 16:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Seems like a good idea to me. It also will make it easier when we finally decide to replace the term "NPC" everywhere with "creature". =) --Rezyk 17:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

How about this?

• "| type=Enemy" shows up in the infobox as "Type: Enemy"
• "| type=Enemy | boss=y" shows up in the infobox as "Type: Boss enemy" or "Type: Enemy boss" or "Type: Boss"

Species (and organization?) would still be a separate parameter. One thing I don't like about this is that Edge of Extinction is worded to differentiate by type, but isn't directly based on enemy/boss-ness. --Rezyk 17:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Not sure about type=Enemy. There's a lot of exceptions, I think. Wulk Cragfist is first an enemy, but turns green before you kill him. Same with Jerek, General Huduh and his buddies and Drinkmaster Tahnu. Varesh changes in the opposite direction, from friendly to hostile. Prolly more examples of the same kind as well. Would we label these guys enemies or not? --Dirigible 17:41, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Multiple types? "name=Wulk Cragfist | type=Enemy | type2=Quest giver" --Rezyk 18:21, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Erk, I don't like the look of that, why not "enemy=y | questgiver=y"? It would make the code a lot more sensible. It might be best not to have the type parameter at all. LordBiro 18:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Yea, I think the friend-to-enemy and enemy-to-friend should be mentioned in text and spoiler tags instead of infobox. Which is why I actually wanted to change type to service, to represent NPC services like Storage, Merchant and such. How about just a simple "boss = y" and then have it display as Species: Human (boss)? That should look more elegant than a Boss: Yes right? -- ab.er.rant 23:46, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

We need a "hard mode level" row as well. -- ab.er.rant 00:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

(reset indent) I've added in a boss parameter to indicate a boss type, which will append "(boss)" to the species if supplied. I've also renamed type to service, to imply NPC service rather than the more generic "type". Opinions on these changes?

Also, would like some idea on how to add in hard mode levels. Right now, I've edited over a dozen creature pages to note their hard mode level in the description. Due to the need to map normal mode level to hard mode level, I see three ways for it:

1. Keep it in the description.
2. Do it in multiple rows like this: "Level: 3 (22),<br>10 (22),<br>22 (24)".
3. Split the level parameter like this: "Normal level: 3, 10, 22" and "Hard level: 22, 22, 24"

In the meantime, I'll see to getting the autocategorisation for species and professions in. Oh, are we agreed on that template for location? We need to finalise the naming for missions, explorables, and outposts though. -- ab.er.rant 00:15, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Would there be anything in the infobox to distinguish regular enemies from non-hostile NPCs that don't offer any services? That's the main reason I suggested "Type:Enemy". For hard mode, I prefer #2 or #3. --Rezyk 00:46, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Currently no way distinguish hostile and generic non-hostile. How about a "Services: None" row? Hmm... maybe not. The problem with "Type: Enemy" was raised above. How would you resolve the situations where an NPC is "Type: Enemy" sometimes, but "Type: Friendly" in other times? Having "Type: Enemy, Friendly" looks kinda weird. Can't think of any term that fits... "Special"? "Enemy, later Friendly", "Friendly, then Enemy", "Ally to Enemy", "Enemy to Friendly"? -- ab.er.rant 01:03, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, those are all too messy/weird. I'm fine with not distinguishing within the infobox as long as it's understood that that's what we're doing here. --Rezyk 01:36, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Hard Mode

Would it be possible to add an optional parameter for Hard mode level(s) this seems to make sense really. --Lemming64 20:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

There's some discussion about it in the section right above this one. --Rezyk 20:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

lol so there is :) --Lemming64 20:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Check Ridgeback Skale for an example. I'm not sure whether I like it or not. Looks like a lot of numbers. -- ab.er.rant 00:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Darn it. It seems Stormseed Jacaranda is an example of a case where the same level in normal mode can map to two different hard mode level depending of their location. I'm thinking we now need to split the locations section into normal mode and hard mode, to specify what level the creature is depending on the mode. Or, crature "NPC location" template mentioned above and let it cater for both normal and hard mode. Kinda like {{NPC location|Fahranur, The First City|6|24}} and the display will be "Fahranur, The First City (level 6; hard 24)". -- ab.er.rant 00:36, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Now I'm thinking I might be mistaken... can someone verify that normal-mode-level -> hard-mode-level mapping is one-to-one? -- ab.er.rant 00:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I am not 100% certain but I didn't think any monsters were in different places in hard mode, they are the same just higher levels. --Lemming64 05:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

well, i didn't realize the change to lvl display hadn't been vetted. i had gone ahead and changed lvl display on a few npcs to include the < br > line. do i wait for a consensus here before i revert those changes since it still seems to be undecided? --Wongba 12:14, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Type parameter

This template no longer supports the type parameter, right? It's replaced with service and profession and species? I see type being used here and in the formatting, but it does nothing on the actual NPC articles.. - Anja (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Correct. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll run to change it in the formatting guide as well, I kinda completely forgot about it the first time. --Dirigible 15:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

It was your edit to the formatting that made me realise it might not just be me, since this page, the articles and the formatting was not really consistent ;) - Anja (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Auto Links

I've noticed that this template now autolinks. Many pages were created before this change now have extra brackets around the species and the campaign. Before I go around and start to tidy some of these is this a permanent change and why is it that the profession does not also autolink? --Aspectacle 18:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

It does autolink? By the way, there were a few other changes to the infobox, and a new template for locations, as noted here. --Dirigible 18:35, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah - it looked like it was behaving normally when it was linked - but I see that it wasn't. :) Thanks for the info. --Aspectacle 18:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Multiple Species

this may be an anet bug, but a Carven Effigy has 2 species: Elemental and Undead. Can we get a species2 line added? also, i asked this question elsewhere, but since i'm on the species question, how should we list subspecies of a larger group? i.e. Margonites are a subspecies of Demon, and so are Oni. A +20% vs demon mod will give bonuses for both (i think?) but that info isn't captured if we list the subspecies only. --Wongba 11:29, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Join in on the discussion on species :) -- ab.er.rant 21:36, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Species

in accordance w/ the discussion over at Talk:Species should we modify the NPC infobox to include attributes and start reclassifying NPCs? --Wongba 15:41, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

You had me confused that for a second with "attributes". Let's refer to them as traits. I was kinda hoping for more responses in the species talk page. I believe the process should be:

1. Finalise the mechanism we're using to classify creatures/NPCs and whether or not we are really ditching subspecies.
2. Finalise the actual spelling and capitalisation to use.
3. Discuss over a GWW:NPC on any format changes (unlikely), and how to categorise them.
4. Finally, modify this to include the changes and add in species autocategorisation.

I think it's better to leave the template last because it's the one that will cause the most changes should some spelling or capitalisation or some convention changes. -- ab.er.rant 02:42, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

right, traits. sorry about the confusion. i agree that input is a problem. it feels like only 3-4 ppl have read that discussion. maybe we can advertise for input on a bigger page or something. i dunno. haven't really participated in a change this big before. --Wongba 09:54, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

I've already placed it on GWW:RFC. Maybe we just need to work Rezyk's sandbox into Species and then re-post it on GWW:RFC to request ppl to discuss it anew. I think maybe people just missed the Rezyk's little sandbox link. -- ab.er.rant 21:25, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Storage changes

The changes to Xunlai Agent needs to be worked into the template. I'll look into this soonish if no one else does. -- ab.er.rant 17:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Profession categories

Could we split these categories by campaign? -- Gordon Ecker 07:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fleshiness and Lightbringer vulnerability

Does anyone object to adding these parameters?

{{ #if:{{{fleshy|}}} |
{{pipe}}- valign="top"
! style="background-color:#E88;" {{pipe}} [[Fleshy]]:
{{pipe}} {{{fleshy}})
}}
{{ #if:{{{lightbringer|}}} |
{{pipe}}- valign="top"
! style="background-color:#E88;" {{pipe}} Affected by [[Lightbringer]] skills:
{{pipe}} Yes
}}

They will allow fleshiness and Lightbringer skill susceptibility to be denoted in the infobox. The reason for the Lightbringer parameter is that there are a number of demons in Nightfall which are not affected by Lightbringer skills, and a number of non-demons in Nightfall which are affected by them. -- Gordon Ecker 05:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I'm objecting to is the length of "Affected by Lightbringer skills". I think it might screw up the overall look of the infobox. -- ab.er.rant 02:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think these are a good idea. Also, to address aberrant's concerns, how about "Lightbringer weak: Yes" or something? LordBiro 15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I don't have any suggestions (which is why I didn't suggest any :P). Would "Lightbringer: Yes" be a little too vague? I suppose.... -- ab.er.rant 01:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How about just add an "Affiliation" field which becomes "Affiliation: servant of Abaddon" if and only if it is susceptible to Lightbringer? And explain that as the criteria in the Lightbringer skills/title articles. That's the direction that both the current species' proposals head towards. If that's too long, maybe just "Affiliation: Abaddon" (which also makes it simpler to include Abaddon himself)? --Rezyk 02:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I do quite like that idea, Rezyk, provided the parameter is still lightbringer = yes (or affected-by-lightbringer = true or something). I think using "affiliation = servant of Abaddon" might mean something different. LordBiro 07:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What about "Lightbringer vulneribility" or "Lightbringer susceptibility"? Or putting all special properties in one cell like this?

{{pipe}}- valign="top" ! style="background-color:#E88;" {{pipe}} Other properties / special properties / other special properties: {{pipe}} {{ #if:{{{double damage|y}}} | Double damage and healing }} {{ #if:{{{fleshy|y}}} | [[Fleshy]]<br> }} {{ #if:{{{fleshy|n}}} | non-[[Fleshy]] / [[Fleshy|Fleshless]]<br> }} {{ #if:{{{holy weakness|y}}} | [[Holy damage]] vulneribility<br> }} {{ #if:{{{knockdown|n}}} | Cannot be [[knoced down]]<br> }} {{ #if:{{{lightbringer|y}}} | [[Lightbringer rank|Lightbringer]] vulneribility<br> }} {{ #if:{{{natural resistance|y}}} | [[Natural resistance]]<br> }}

-- Gordon Ecker 03:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That certainly looks interesting. Might mean we can do away with a lot of notes... and might make the creature page shorter than the infobox... hmmm... is that list of properties more or less complete? But GWEN might add more. -- ab.er.rant 17:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I retract my proposal to incorporate lightbringer vurneribility into the infobox, as Lightbringer vulneribility is based solely on on army. -- Gordon Ecker 03:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)