Template talk:Rune infobox

i need help on something. since rune images of the same profession are the same, is there a way to link the image displayed to the profession instead of what it currently is, pagename? --VVong|BA 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, it might be hard when you consider it should work with rune of clarity and such also? I think the easier solution is to use image=<Image name> - anja (contribs) 20:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

we could put a category in there that indicated minor, major, or sup. but that gets into a question i had on another talk page that was never answered. should runes of the same attribute go to the same page? what would u even call that page? e.g. "rune of vigor" when no such rune actually exists? or should we just create a new page for every individual rune as gratuitous as that sounds?

I have no idea really.. Simplest sounds one for each rune. But it seems smarter to keep all vigor runes of "Vigor rune" article.. Bleh. No opinion! :P What page where you asking that on? Might want to put it up under Request for comment since this comes down to all runes, insignias, inscriptions etc. - anja (contribs) 20:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the images be called "Minor rune" or "Profession minor rune" imo. There is no need to upload them multiple times. I would prefer a page for each rune, so that if the item is found in game, the user can click the name in the help window and be brought to the correct page. Then we can have a rune nav if they want further information. - BeX 02:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Upgrading

I'm working on an upgrade to this infobox. Specifically to get rid of the mixture of autolink and non-autolink, the way the bonus is specified, and the way the profession and icons get used. -- ab.er.rant 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't login to check right now, but can someone tell me if the name of the rune is really like Warrior Rune of Superior Absorption and Elementalist Rune of Superior Fire Magic? I'll check when I get off work, but it'd be nice if someone can confirm it earlier. -- ab.er.rant 08:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. - BeX 08:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :D -- ab.er.rant 08:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.... for runes like Rune of Restoration and Rune of Clarity, the "armor bonus" row is very long. Anyone have a god idea how to reduce it? I'm thinking we could move the stacking/non-stacking thing to another row, but it might still be too wide. I just think the small rune icon doesn't look good when the infobox is so wide. -- ab.er.rant 09:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

On the bonus articles we'd just force a line break. - BeX 10:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

One minor problem, those types of runes shouldn't have "Major" in the names like it shows in the Infobox. They are major runes, but they are just called "Rune of (name)." --Torak321 14:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh darn it. That kinda sucks. So Warrior Rune of Major Absorption should really be Warrior Rune of Absorption? -- ab.er.rant 07:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the common runes he's talking about like the rune of clarity, etc. - BeX 12:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks -- ab.er.rant 13:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any experience with templates, but I did some testing and came up with a way to auto-link the bonus for all of the profession runes. User:Torak321/Testing/Rune - See User:Torak321/Testing also. --Torak321 17:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

value

The cost of a rune purchased from a merchant.

This is not a good idea as it's changes too often. Also see Guild Wars Wiki:Article retention#Prices poke | talk 12:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

as i said in the change summary, this change was made for the Rune of Holding. its price doesn't change. --VVong|BA 13:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rune of Holding is considered a rune as well? Hmm.... I didn't consider it because I was thinking of only the armor runes. The auto-category for a Rune of Holding would be wrong. -- ab.er.rant 08:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

Couldn't all this functionality be merged into the item infobox? Same with the insignia information also? Just seems a bit silly to be using a separate infobox for an item. - BeX 13:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

i only created the rune infobox b/c the insignia infobox existed. and since u created the insignia infobox, u should d best know whether it was silly or not. ;) --VVong|BA 13:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The insignia infobox wasn't originally about an item, it was about armor bonuses, so that's why it existed. It shouldn't really anymore though, but after the update I was too lazy to incorporate the stuff into the item infobox... :/ - BeX 14:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

i'd try to do as u suggest, but i don't wanna break something like the item infobox. if someone were to do it, it wouldn't be a bad idea to include the current weapon infobox too. --VVong|BA 20:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for a merge too. The reason I didn't do it was because it felt easier to edit this infobox than it is to merge this into that :P -- ab.er.rant 01:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to break it either. - BeX 05:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It is possible to merge this infobox and the insignia infobox (and similarly, the weapon infobox) into the item infobox, however the colour (as this is done in CSS currently) of the infoboxes would be difficult to keep/transfer under the current system. Also, each additional function added to the item infobox adds another layer of complexity to its use/editing which makes things more difficult for the average user. I'll start work on possible prototypes, however I'm not sure when I'll be finished. An idea to make the infobox somewhat simpler would be to split out the CSS and formatting elements, similar to the skill infobox. However, I'm not particularly adept at CSS so am hesitant about implementing this sort of change. --Indecision 00:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the harm is in having a separate infobox for runes, once all the pages are set up it's not like additional ones will need to be made very often that may cause confusion in formatting for newer uses. --Lemming64 00:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the colour though, since they're all classified as items anyway so there's no reason why they can't share the same infobox colour. -- ab.er.rant 01:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This colour shouldn't be used for runes. It's the armor infobox colour. The reason the insignia box uses it is because it originally wasn't for items, but for armor bonuses. See Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Infoboxes - BeX 04:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You can view my current progress at: User:Indecision/Sandbox/ItemInfobox. The current implementation splits off the auto-typing and auto-categorisation to be handled by two sub-templates (which helps simplify the code). Runes and insignias are supported, however I haven't updated the documentation for them yet. Additionally, I haven't been able to carry across the strong auto-typing/naming/categorisation of the existing rune infobox at this stage. I'll work some more on it a little bit later on. --Indecision 06:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the implementation. All the documentation should now be up to date. I still haven't carried across any of the strong linking in the rune infobox (as this plays havoc with the rest), see User:Indecision/Sandbox for the differences between the two. --Indecision 01:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've created a CSS version of the template at User:LordBiro/Item infobox. It doesn't currently function as an infobox (I'm not as familiar with the item infobox as the skill infobox) so you can feel free to parameterise it :)

The only problem I've noticed is that when a field is more than one line long it simply flows into the next field. I'm not sure if I can fix that easily... but I'll give it some thought :) LordBiro 14:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, but couldn't you just change the width to 6.5em? ;) poke | talk 14:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good so far. Just a quick query, from what I can tell it seems that parameters are just specified on the fly. Is this the case? That could be very useful, but might cause some problems, given the scope of the item infoboxes potential contents. Let me know if you want me to do anything more with my current implementation, at the moment I'm happy enough to leave it alone for a bit :). --Indecision 14:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Indecision. As I explained above there are no parameters yet, I just made this to show the appearance. If you'd like to merge my changes into your template, or if you'd like to put your functionality into my template, then go for it :) I might start adding the parameters myself since I expect people will have the same questions ;) LordBiro 14:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought was the case :). Just was contemplating removing all parameters and letting havoc reign for a little bit :). I was mostly surprised at how simple the display code was, and somehow forgot that you'd mentioned that it hadn't been parameterised yet. Also, as the item infobox has a large number of optional sections/parameters, the idea of on-the-fly specification appealed for a brief moment. I'm a little tired atm, so probably wasn't making a great deal of sense. --Indecision 14:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That's ok :) I was just worried I'd missed something for a second! I've added parameters to it, but for some reason the links aren't working quite right... I'm not sure why! LordBiro 15:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)