Template talk:NPC infobox/Archive 4

event affiliation

what should be done about the affiliation of npcs associated w/ an event? ppl add the event an npc is associated w/, but b/c of autocat, they npc gets listed in the event category. this is an issue b/c event npcs are already listed in the "x event" NPCs category. e.g. the Nian and the categories (category:Canthan New Year category:Canthan New Year NPCs). if every npc were listed this way, all the npcs would just get listed in the main category. it's also complicated by the fact that some npcs are associated not just w/ events, but activities like dragon area or costume brawl. still other npcs, like Icy Grentch are affiliated w/ another NPC such as category:Grenth. i'd rather the affiliation parameter link directly to the event NPC category, but i don't know how to set it up that way. --VVong|BA 20:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

All the other affiliaton cats uses the straight name. I'd prefer it if this was the same for all groups. I.e either all cats has NPC tagged onto them, or none does. Backsword 12:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

what about creating a new parameter, such that any event npc's affiliation will have the autocat append NPC to the end of the affiliation parameter? --VVong|BA 15:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone at ArenaNet stated or implied that holiday NPCs have their own armies / affiliations? If not, I would consider the use of the affiliation parameter to tag festival NPCs to be abusive, excessively speculative and misleading. Army / affiliation is an actual game mechanics trait, like family / species, profession and level, if people just want to categorize pages, they can categorize them manually. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

actually, i'd prefer that. up to this point, i've removed any attempts to put a label on the affiliation of these npcs. --VVong|BA 05:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are some things that are 'temporary', but not 'historical', there could be an info tag for them like there is for discarded and historical content. Something like "This article is for a <whatever it is> that appears only during <event>. Yaddayaddayadda..." MithTalk 19:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew McLeod. Backsword 08:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

so andrew said the festival npcs are their own armies? i didn't see any text there about festivals. --VVong|BA 14:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would help if you linked the revision where he said it, Backsword. - anja 19:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

PRE-EMPTED APPOLOGY

before anyone shouts at me, i edited the info box so i could use it on my user page and didn't realise i was changing the actual template, don't worry tho, i changed it all back :D <--just incase someone is scouring the recent history page :D Kraal 15:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed the background settings a little

I had seen previously that someone had brought up a concern with a table showing the lines behind it through the contents of the table, and to fix this, to set the table background to white. While working on the list I am doing, I noticed that the NPC infobox used on a charr boss page had the same problem (I would guess, not knowing exactly what they were seeing). I edited the infobox style to have a white background to not show the lines through it when displayed over them. Checked it, and it seems to work as intended. 42 - talk 04:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTOC tag

I have seen on many of the pages that many infoboxes are used on, that someone has to manually add a __NOTOC__ tag. Specifically locations and NPC pages. I suggest adding this to the guideline to allow the __NOTOC__ tag to be added to the templates pages. 42 - talk 06:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at GWWT:CP#NO TOC tags in infoboxes, so let's keep discussion centralised there for now (since that seems to be the place with the most responses). -- pling 13:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposing a change to Affiliation

I propose a change Wyn proposed a change over at formating npc to make Affiliation Optional and to show up only when they are affilated with like Cosairs, Am Fah, Jade Brotherhood, etc. Instead of affiliating them with land like wildlife or their culture like Norn, Asura, etc. -- riyen ♥ 22:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You do do you? lol -- Wyn talk 22:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

over here, well, you proposed it first there. :-P (silly face) So yea I agree, I think it needs to be changed. Just trying to get others to see what they think. It should be changed at both places, here and there. -- riyen ♥ 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This also automatically adds the category "whatever the affiliation is" to the page, and I think this is a good thing. Not using the affiliation would remove that helpful category link to the page.

Game players are in a certain game area, and they want to find out what other creatures they might have to fight. With the affiliation filled in properly, they can easily tell. If it isn't there, then they need to go hunting for that information. Removing them would make it more of a problem on the people this wiki is for, the game player. 42 - talk 23:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If removing the part that would make it always appear on there. It wouldn't show up on others as "not specified". It'd show up only on the ones needed. This is related to the discussion on the Formatting NPCs and to go with many who are against affilations like Norn, Canthans, wildlife area, etc. I think it would do better to be Optional. -- riyen ♥ 23:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Having it show up as "not specified" or not isn't the issue. If it isn't there, even if that doesn't show up, would mean having to add this categorization information by hand (possibly to over 2,000 pages) that this information is still missing on. I disagree that it is "optional". 42 - talk 07:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Solely missing the point of this change:
|- valign="top"<br> ! style="background-color:#EBB;" | [[Affiliation|Affiliation]]<br> | {{#if:{{{affiliation|}}}|[[{{{affiliation}}}]]|Not specified}}<br> |- valign="top"

Taking out - this section - Not specified
Now it would lead down to this section {{ #if: {{{affiliation|}}}<br> | [[Category:{{{affiliation}}}]]<br> | [[Category:NPCs who need affiliation set]]<br> }}
And taking out this section | [[Category:NPCs who need affiliation set]]
would have it to be optional.
I'll have to try on my sandbox to make sure, but no problem. That's the change I propose. The removal of those two areas. I did this via my sandbox and have figured out how to possibly get it to work. Just I would need to actually test it in a template to make sure. Here's a link User:Ariyen/Sandbox/Test to what I have done. It can be redone, to be optional. -- riyen ♥ 10:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is going on in another location at the same time. Should we move this line to that location and leave a "this discussion moved here note? 42 - talk 03:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's similar, but not the same. This is about the 'technical' code of the template of the affilation and optional, not about affiliation it's self. -- riyen ♥ 03:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The purpose and the point of discussion is the same, the affiliation tag in the infobox. The reason to do the change (if one is to be done) is as much a point, and that is why it should be carried out in one place. 42 - talk 04:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I don't see how you get this. I'm talking about the actual coding of the box to help it be optional from required. The Possible way. Not about whether it should or not - that's the discussion on that page. They're not the 'same' - that one doesn't deal with the coding part it's self. This one does, there's a difference. -- riyen ♥ 04:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"Huh?" The reason for any proposed template change is because you think it (the affiliation tag) should be optional. How is that not the same reason for doing the change? It is about the affiliation tag and if it should be there or not. People should also be aware that you are proposing a change to the formatting so that they can offer opinions on that as well. 42 - talk 04:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You haven't checked the rfc have you? If you had, you'd shush instead of this insisting nonsense drama. Look, This thought it self was suggested by WYN not me. LOOK before you READ. Secondly, this is about the TECHNICAL part of the NPC box, A suggestion, if (and most likely) that other passes. Many don't seem to know this can be optional it's self, just having the filling it out be optional or not, that's what that is about. So, stop this drama, insisting this belongs else where, when obviously you don't know what it's about. Now, hopefully you do. Next time, ask before you assume. You wouldn't look so bad. -- riyen ♥ 04:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "Look, This thought it self was suggested by WYN not me." So, you missed the post I made above "The reason for any (I should have used this instead of any) proposed template change is because you think it should be optional." Nowhere in there did I say you suggested the affiliation necessity/change. The template change you "are" proposing, though. And it is still a related issue.

"So, stop this drama, insisting this belongs else where, when obviously you don't know what it's about. Now, hopefully you do. Next time, ask before you assume."
"This discussion is going on in another location at the same time. Should we move this line to that location and leave a "this discussion moved here note?" That looks a lot like "asking" from my understanding of the English language. I also do not see any "insisting" by me anywhere in this discussion line that this belongs somewhere else.

I get that you are suggesting a template change to allow it to be optional, that is not the point. I am suggesting that this discussion be moved to the related affiliation issue discussion. 42 - talk 05:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If it was the same. I'd see that, but there is enough differences that the discussion should stay. This discussion is in relation to the template more-so than the relation to the other discussion. Therefore, the discussion is where it belongs. -- riyen ♥ 05:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, you did not ask why this discussion was here and not there. What it was for. It was assumed to be similar and the same. you suggested a move, you did not really ask for a move or anything about this discussion, therefore you 'assumed' this should be 'combined' there, not seeing the differences. -- riyen ♥ 05:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) 42 and Ariyen, get a room, please... (seriously...)
About the issue being discussed, i remember we had some... "concerns" when Backsword first brought the distinction between "afiliation" and "species". All in all, since there is no feasible way to discern what afiliation non-"of slaying" npcs have, i think it just makes sense to have this field in particular show as an optional entry on the infobox, instead of making it visible as "unknown".--Fighterdoken 05:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

FD, I am presenting a point of view, and having someone else take issue with it. I have no personal axe to grind.

This issue was also discussed back in 2007 judging by talk page posts already made on this subject. To quote an issue raised on another topic, why does this need to be changed now? Why wasn't this fixed way back when? (I don't happen to share it, just bringing it up because it seems to be a valid point to this discussion as well.) 42 - talk 06:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

More than likely because:

• None cared at the time.
• None realized it could become an issue at the time.
• None thought the "unknown" data entries would be the rule instead of the exception.
• All of the above.

Still, now is as good of a time to fix it as any other.--Fighterdoken 06:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's why I'm proposing to fix it. Not fix it and have an issue that way either. -- riyen ♥ 06:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Secondly 42, you didn't present a point of view. you had an issue with it being here. Not knowing and assuming is not as good as asking. That's why you 'proposed' a move. Instead of not knowing why the discussion was started here. *shrugs* So, Fighterdoken (not shortening your name, that's rude, unless you want it.), do you think I should edit the page and have Affilation be optional? Or wait until more have a say? -- riyen ♥ 06:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, i would "really" prefer to wait until Backsword comments on it (since i blame him for all this XD), or at least give it a couple days. Meanwhile, testing on a sandbox would be a good idea...--Fighterdoken 06:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea, kinda waiting on him. I did the test here of what I could User:Ariyen/Sandbox/Test. You can participate, too. If you want. I think I'd need like a template sandbox to make sure it works or not, but not sure. I just know that so far, it looks promising. -- riyen ♥ 06:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No Ariyen, I didn't have an issue. I asked a question, you tried making it out like I had an issue. And you really need to stop trying to put words in people's mouths like you are.

("Secondly 42, you didn't present a point of view. you had an issue with it being here. Not knowing and assuming is not as good as asking. That's why you 'proposed' a move. Instead of not knowing why the discussion was started here." I repost my "asking" "Should we move this line to that location and leave a "this discussion moved here note?". It is amazing how much that looks like asking a question. I then presented why I thought it could or should be somewhere else, some people call that presenting a point of view. I understand that it is a template discussion, even if you want to keep telling me I don't, Ariyen.

And FD, what you posted was actually similar to my response to fixing something else that I saw as an issue. The "reason" (leaving it alone because it has been there for a long time) that I disagree with that I posted before was presented to me as a reason to leave it (the other issue) alone. 42 - talk 07:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I dropped it by last comment, you can't. You have no idea what this discussion is about, you were ' wrong' in the move, not checking the above discussions. I say if this needs to be moved, the others needed to be moved to the formatting/npc as both Areas have 'Affilation'. That gives no reason for a move. Drop it. Continue it, you are proving yourself wrong, and quoting only shows even more that you have an issue. Most with issues either leave things alone, stop their drama or go about something productive, like playing the game. This is a wiki. it's not 'serious' business like you want it to be. It's based on a game. If you want seriousness? Go have a life. -- riyen ♥ 07:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Actually Ariyen, the quotes are there to show you how you are attempting to put words in other people's mouths, and show how you try to make it seem like they have an issue with something when they don't. That is my only point with the quotes. Continuing or not has nothing at all to do with proving myself or anyone wrong, that was never the idea. All I did was ask a question, and you blow it up into something huge and try to blame someone else for doing the same thing. 42 - talk 06:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oooooook, to answer your initial question:

The problem we have with "affiliation" is that the only way a common user has for checking the value of it is through "of-slaying" weapons, vs +armor shields, skill with army limitations, or through in-game npc-to-npc interaction.

Since it's just not possible to get the information for most of those 2000+ npcs, the only value we can assign them is "unknown", and an "unknown affiliation" category is not useful for documenting purposes when we have no way to "fill the blank". --Fighterdoken 06:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I got that side of things, but isn't it possible to use the already included auto cat included on that particular attribute of the infobox to "affiliate" the unknowns by region? That way, the affiliation, when not specifically used to flag because of that, still retains the usefulness it needs for the other ones, and can also help by making it able to have the regional affiliation as well. 42 - talk 06:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No. The affiliation parameter was not set for that purpose. What you ask would mean we would just be making up affiliations. Besides, for your example in particular, NPCs may be encountered on more than one region.--Fighterdoken 06:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but in that case, the classification could be bumped up to whatever lowest level that particular NPC could be tagged as being in. For example, say an NPC showed up in the Northern and Southern Shiverpeak Mountains. Then the "region" would be "Shiverpeak Mountains", and so on. In theory, this could apply all the way up to the campaign, because, as far as I know, the NPCs this would apply to do not "jump ship" from one campaign to another, and the ones that do like the Charr (which doesn't even have an infobox, sorry), can have this noted in the body of the article page. 42 - talk 06:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is now getting off topic (off the technial) and should be talked about on the Formatting part. -- riyen ♥ 06:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

@42. Again, that would mean we would be making up an affiliation. We don't provide false information just for the sake of filling up blank spaces.--Fighterdoken 06:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Not in reality Ariyen, since this (I think) could be the starting of a discussion to tweak the infobox template to have a region line. In that case, this discussion would just need another section header, and it could otherwise stay right where it is.

FD, it isn't making up anything. The information is already there. It is not false. 42 - talk 07:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You have made it to become dealing with Affiliation it's self, not the template. So, I'd suggest moving part of this article to the formatting NPCs. -- riyen ♥ 07:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Not all creatures have a type, but all creatures have an affiliation. This means that you can make it so the type doesn't appear in the infobox if not set, but if the affiliation is not set, it should say something like "Not specified" or "Unknown". Regardless of it being know or not, there is an affiliation. MithTalk 22:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)