Template talk:Skill infobox/Archive 1

Discussion

Oh my god. Proper usability engineering in a wiki skillbox? I hope the devil has ice skates. —Tanaric 13:00, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Lol :) well it's something I've wanted to do at the GuildWiki for some time, but those damn templates are so complex now that I don't want to breathe on them in case they come tumbling down!

I've grown too used to parser functions, and I don't know how I can omit Energy.png when there is no energy value specified. It might be worth trying to get parser functions installed. So this isn't production ready yet, but it is a good starting point.

The wiki code looks a bit messy, but my thinking is that once the skill box design is finished we can add the CSS to the stylesheet, and then the wiki code will be considerably cleaner than the GuildWiki equivalent. LordBiro 13:04, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Need ParserFunctions for the Attribute box, apparantly. =P — Rapta (talk|contribs) 13:12, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Is the intent to have the skill box generate the progressions, description, etc in addition to just the box like the guildwiki one, or just the box? My interest is purely in knowing the format so I can add skill pages, and having it all generated would mean we could upload all the skills now without having to wait or mess with manually edited progressions etc. Cloud 19:31, 8 February 2007 (PST)

As far as I'm aware, we do not currently have the extensions necessary to automatically generate the progression table based on the values.

Since this is the case, and since the GuildWiki template system is extremely complicated, I recommend that for the time being we just let the skill box act as a simple skill box, leaving the description and other information in the article itself. LordBiro 03:29, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Adrenaline cost, Health Sacrifice and Exhaustion will be added later I assume? --Theeth 09:56, 9 February 2007 (PST)»

Yes, until we get ParserFunctions installed I know of no way to optionally include this information. Any suggestions would be welcome :) LordBiro 10:06, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Alright. Also, while I'm here, are we supposed to use that template directly in the skill articles or are we going to do the template dance (Template:SkillName) as in guildwiki to facilitate later reuse of data (in quick references pages)? --Theeth 10:14, 9 February 2007 (PST)

For the time being I would recommend that we avoid using that template system. It has some advantages, like being able to produce quick reference articles so easily, but it's also extremely complex. If we change our minds and have to move content over to a template system later then fair enough, but I think we should start simple and someone may even come up with a better solution than the one on the GuildWiki. LordBiro 10:39, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Sadly, I feel it would be very hard technologically to make a much better solution while keeping everything in a wiki. Just looking at the system over at guildwiki, it's practicly replicating a database system using templating syntax and offers adequate separation of the presentation layer and data layer. It's a very tricky problem to solve and I, sadly, don't know enough about mediawiki to offer a better solution... --Theeth 10:46, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Nor do I, but if we copy the existing solution and just make do with it then we will never find a better solution :) For the time being we can cope without it! LordBiro 10:51, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Absolutely, in the mean time, I'd suggest that any reference list should link directly to the skill articles. That way, it'd be easier later to replace such entries with whatever is the solution with a wiki bot. --Theeth 10:54, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Of course we should use the template system, because its so easy to use. It may be complex internally, but it is always the case that making something easier to use makes it more complex, since its taking on more of the job. Just look at how simple it is to edit the skills on guildwiki when there's a skill balance etc, sounds like you're advocating that random variations in the skill articles is good because its easier for you to understand how it was generated? What am I missing? Cloud 13:48, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Not to mention it helps against mindless vandals (not taking either side here, just pointing this out =P). — Rapta (talk|contribs) 13:49, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Margin Error?

As seen here:

The "spell" at the bottom isn't marginalized for some reason. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 12:13, 9 February 2007 (PST)

That raises another point. Should Elite be part of the type or not? --Theeth 12:34, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Where is that, Rapta? LordBiro 13:04, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Shield of Regeneration BlastedtGuildWiki page 13:06, 9 February 2007 (PST)

I think I've sorted this. I hadn't taken into consideration that the <dd> could be larger than the <dt>. LordBiro 13:10, 9 February 2007 (PST)

It's only slightly off left now. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 14:30, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Eh heh heh heh... sorry about throwing off your formatting there =P I've been trying to get the Monk spells in, on the theory that it'll be less work later once we figure out for sure how we're going to get the skills inputted. I fully anticipate having to rework every single one of these pages when somebody finally comes up with a style guildline for skill pages, and I'll do so as soon as it come out, but I wanted to at least have SOME content on the site while we're getting things set up here. --Pepe 14:55, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Elite

Shouldn't we have a parameter called "elite" to separate elite from the type parameter (as it has been currently entered for some skills)?

Probably, but we kinda need parser functions for it, just to make there not be an irritating box saying "THIS IS NOT AN ELITE SKILL" on 90% of the pages we make =\ Parser functions would allow us to hide it when it's not elite, so, like everything else we are apparently trying to do here, it may need to wait for the moment. I put Elite in the description for the moment, just so that it shows up and we don't forget about it later during the edits after we get an actual skill style worked out (by "we" forgetting, I mean "me"). --Pepe 18:09, 9 February 2007 (PST)

If we have the parameter value be "Elite" when it is (to display a link) and blank when it's not, wouldn't that work right now without parser functions? --Theeth 18:54, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Yes, it would work. But, in that case, why not just say "Elite" in the type box? LordBiro 04:08, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Because then you'd have a link to Elite Enchantment Spell instead of Elite Enchantment Spell. --Theeth 06:08, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Yeah, you're right. I think we should find out how long it will be before ParserFunctions can be installed though, since the ParserFunctions option is a lot simpler. LordBiro 06:53, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Blame me for the elite=no :p — Skuld 00:55, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Is it possible to get the Elite tag implemented or is this feature still unavailable? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Valhallan .

Yes, we should start implementing this. The skill box is going to be replaced soon (hopefully) and the new template makes use of the elite parameter. See User:LordBiro/Skill infobox. LordBiro 10:19, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

White space

I'm not familiar with the coding but is there any way we can get rid of all the extra white space? Compare [1] to [2] --FireFox 13:52, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Yeah, I could do that now, but I am in the process of redesigning it at the moment, so would you mind waiting? :) LordBiro 14:54, 10 February 2007 (PST)

/childrant No! I want it now! just kidding... --FireFox 15:07, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Altered skill box design

File:Skill box draft 2.jpg

It's not a radical difference, but I was thinking about discussions here and at User talk:LordBiro/Skill example, and then Karlos asked if I would consider redesigning the skill box, so I did.

Unfortunately since user styles are currently disabled you can't easily try this yourself (and the CSS for setting background images won't work if it's inline) so I can only really show you in this screenshot.

If you have some means of altering your stylesheet then you can add the following code to it:

 .monk .skill-details-wrapper { background: URL(/images/9/9b/Monk-faded.jpg) top right no-repeat; } 

Let me know what you think. LordBiro 16:59, 11 February 2007 (PST)

looks good to me --FireFox 18:08, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Same, the watermarked profession icon in the background looks nifty. Is there any chance that "Elite Enchantment Spell" and "Protection Prayers" could be in one line, though? Or are you purposefully breaking each word in a separate line? --Dirigible 18:24, 11 February 2007 (PST)

looks nice but perhaps a little bit oversized, where you want to place a progression table? if you place it below, i think theres too much empty space at the left side of the box, otherwise there isnt enough space to place the progression-table left from the box... --88.70.22.11 18:33, 11 February 2007 (PST)

That's a really sweet interface. That green bar puts me off a bit... maybe have it a slightly more neutral tone? Or how about set it to a color that matches the profession? — 130.58 (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2007 (PST)

I also like the idea of making the colored bar at the top the profession's color code, but that'd probably be a pain to code right. But yeah, that green looks a little intense in the screen shot.--VGJustice 21:53, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Looks nice. I would also like to see how the different profession colors would work on the top bar. It might indeed look good. (And it shouldn't be hard to make) --Gem (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I too like the design, but has it been tested with the other flavors of browsers that are likely to use it? IE6, IE7, and Opera? (Won't affect me personally as I too use Firefox, but I hate hearing whining from people that it doesn't work in their browser.)  ;) --Rainith 03:22, 12 February 2007 (PST)

A neutral tone is a possibility. Profession colours are also technically possible (I don't think they would be that difficult to implement) and it might look good BUT having the colour change based on profession is a bad idea for usability reasons, as explained above and elsewhere on this wiki and GuildWiki.

The height (~274px) is greater than that of GuildWiki's (~227px). I think, though, we need a better design than simply dropping the progression table below the box. Even with GuildWiki's smaller skill box it leaves a lot of wasted space. Is there no other layout that could mitigate this problem?

I haven't tested it in other browsers yet. Once I do I will let you know :) LordBiro 05:07, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Looks very nice. No complaints on the green bar either. =) — Rapta (talk|contribs) 13:52, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Indent reset. My only suggestion as far as the wasted space would be to either go with a horizontal skill box, or a vertical progression table. I don't know that either one of those would look good, but I think the horizontal skill box would be the better choice (of the 2). --Rainith 05:15, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Why not just add the description to the box? Notes, bugs, and trivia etc can be added outside of the box. Other than that, if any user (not just those that are experienced wiki coders) can use this format then I'm for it. Less is more but I also like to see it look cool at the same time. :D --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 05:39, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I'm not sure what you envision, Vallen. Do you imagine the description would go to the left hand side of the box, in another container? Descriptions vary in length a great deal, and so it might be difficult to achieve. Is there any way you could produce a mock-up of your idea in photoshop or something? LordBiro 05:59, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I'll whip something up and get back to you. Won't be spiffy or anything but something to communicate my thoughts better. Gotta get back to work for now so I'll post it later.--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 06:23, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I'm not keen on how in the current template any entry with more than one word is broken over separate lines ("Protection Prayers", "elite Enchantment Spell" etc), it leads to very deep and ungainly looking skill boxes. Any way to force them to stick on one line together? --NieA7 12:14, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Yeah, make the box wider. LordBiro 12:16, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Gee, always a good answer isn't there? --NieA7 12:42, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Isn't it, &nsbp; or something? Lemme look BlastedtGuildWiki page 12:17, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Found it, spaces but forcing on one line is &n bsp; (w/o the space)BlastedtGuildWiki page 12:18, 13 February 2007 (PST)

tested on Shield of Regeneration, looks horrid, will let you guys look before revert. BlastedtGuildWiki page 12:23, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Elite Enchantment Spell is a bit long, but to my mind it's really silly to have the attribute split over a line, it just looks weird. What's the longest attribute in terms of characters? Protection Prayers? --NieA7 12:42, 13 February 2007 (PST)

[[{{{name}}}]]

[[Image:{{{name}}}.jpg]]

[[Image:{{{profession}}}-icon.png]]

Campaign:

[[{{{campaign}}}]]

Profession:

[[{{{profession}}}]]

Attribute:

That Wouldn't Work As Intended

Type:

[[{{{type}}}]]

• {{{energy}}}
• {{{activation}}}
• {{{recharge}}}

LordBiro 12:24, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Figured that out already :P. I made an editcopy for me over at User:Blastedt/skillboxeditcopy. I think it may help. Meh. BlastedtGuildWiki page 12:38, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I Don't really think that extra space is a problem, here is what Biro's box looks like to me. --FireFox 15:10, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I know absolutely nothing about mediawiki formatting stylee thingamabobs, but, as a matter of interest, would THIS work? As a temporary measure, I mean. I'm getting fed up with adding notes at the bottom of skill pages noting upkeep and adrenaline :D . Failing that, just tell me to shut up and stop delving into things I don't understand ^^ --Snograt whisper 21:44, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Thine silence speaketh volumes :( --Snograt whisper 22:51, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Hey Snograt, it would work, but not very well. I created a little example so you could see how it would work in its current state. You could get rid of the curly braced parts with a couple of changes, but you couldn't easily get rid of the images. LordBiro 13:58, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Thanks for listening, LordBiro - I'm not really moaning, just frustrated. It's just a matter of being patient and waiting for that ParserFunctions hoojamaflip to be installed (right?), and for someone with a lot more tech savvy than me (i.e. YOU!) to do all the complicated formatting and design :D I'm just a low-tech user who needs a nice, simple "type stuff here and press enter" system. Er, and I tend to ramble... --Snograt whisper 18:06, 26 February 2007 (EST)

I know, it's frustrating to want to finish something by being unable to. Hopefully we'll soon see some progress on the technical side of things and we can make life easier for new contributors! :) LordBiro 18:12, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Move

I would like if this were moved to Template:Skill infobox to be in line with the naming convention for the other infoboxes. Unless anyone has any major objections I will do so. I am fully prepared to edit every skill article myself so nobody else has to do any extra work. I'll go ahead and do it in a day or two unless someone comes up with a better argument against than it's not really necessary. I'm aware of that but it's not unecessary either, and if I'm willing to implement the changes myself then there shouldn't be a problem. - BeXoR 10:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you are willing to do the work then I have no problems with it. I believe the template will still work after the move thanks to a redirect, so you will be able to take your time amending articles. LordBiro 12:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

ParserFunctions

Now that ParserFunctions is implemented I've been looking at altering this template to make use of it. My only concern is that a lot of articles use "energy = 0". If we use a simple "if" then it will still show "0 ", as opposed to nothing.

I don't know of any way to cater for both the possibility of a 0 and of no parameter. So is it worth redoing every article, or is there some other code we could use? LordBiro 18:40, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Several if's? ;) if: unspecified, then: nothing, else: (if: 0, then: nothing, else: xxx). It works, but it's not beautiful. — Anja 18:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Er, I already did this, its ifeq. Here,

shield of regeneration

[[Image:{{{profession}}}-icon.png]]

Campaign:

[[{{{campaign}}}]]

Profession:

[[{{{profession}}}]]

Attribute:

[[{{{attribute}}}]]

Type:

[[{{{type}}}]]

• 1
• 1

shield of regeneration

[[Image:{{{profession}}}-icon.png]]

Campaign:

[[{{{campaign}}}]]

Profession:

[[{{{profession}}}]]

Attribute:

[[{{{attribute}}}]]

Type:

[[{{{type}}}]]

• 1
• 1

shield of regeneration

[[Image:{{{profession}}}-icon.png]]

Campaign:

[[{{{campaign}}}]]

Profession:

[[{{{profession}}}]]

Attribute:

[[{{{attribute}}}]]

Type:

[[{{{type}}}]]

• 1
• 1

shield of regeneration

[[Image:{{{profession}}}-icon.png]]

Campaign:

[[{{{campaign}}}]]

Profession:

[[{{{profession}}}]]

Attribute:

[[{{{attribute}}}]]

Type:

[[{{{type}}}]]

• 1
• 1
• 1

BLASTEDT 20:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you have any solution so we can just not specify energy cost if it's a signet and the icon is still not visible? — Anja 20:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

yes, I did that, so you dont have to specify on adrenal skills. it shows nothing if you input 0 or nothing at all. BTW, I had an edit conflict, dont think the person behind the other wheel had that much understanding of parsers, I changed to a stabler version, BLASTEDT 20:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Can recharge and activation be omitted and still not visible? There are skills that does not use those I think. I could edit this into the template myself, but this would just result in edit conflicts with you I guess ;) — Anja 20:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

yes, I will, if needed. Will do now, I enjoy parser functions coding. BLASTEDT 20:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

And.... done! :) BLASTEDT 20:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks ;) As soon as I knew what parser can do, I want it all. :P — Anja 20:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

[3] BLASTEDT 20:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Sigh, hold every user's hand. Implemented another "=0" catcher for adrenaline (0 adrenaline for an energy skill, wow!) BLASTEDT 20:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

(ri) Never think people aren't smart enough to come up with every possible solution! ;) — Anja 20:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

heh - I had just noticed a zero adrenaline entry on Dark Escape - lol! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have a problem with "Coward!", would you be so kind to check your code Blastedt? — Anja 20:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I also think that some spacers are needed ... numbers are currently wedged right up to the preceding icon. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe, for the spacers, .—., without the periods? BLASTEDT 20:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

have no clue what the hell happened to adrenaline.

Lemme try sac.

[[{{{name}}}]]

[[Image:{{{name}}}.jpg]]

[[Image:{{{profession}}}-icon.png]]

Campaign:

[[{{{campaign}}}]]

Profession:

[[{{{profession}}}]]

Attribute:

[[{{{attribute}}}]]

Type:

[[{{{type}}}]]

• 110%

BLASTEDT 20:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

For spacers, can use the code & nbsp; (remove the space after the "&" symbol) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Fixed adrenaline but no safety catch now. BLASTEDT 20:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

lemme try these "spaces". .    . Fudging crap, those are smallBLASTEDT 21:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

[[{{{name}}}]]

[[Image:{{{name}}}.jpg]]

[[Image:{{{profession}}}-icon.png]]

Campaign:

[[{{{campaign}}}]]

Profession:

[[{{{profession}}}]]

Attribute:

[[{{{attribute}}}]]

Type:

[[{{{type}}}]]

• 300
• 500000
• 100
• 1000

Now, I really must go to bed :) BLASTEDT 21:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

nbsp shouldn't be used for padding. It should only be used when you don't want a line to break for some reason. I've altered the template to use padding instead of nbsp.

I also think that, if the #ifeq that Blasted will work for situations where there is a 0 for an entry or when an entry is omitted, then we should use it for everything. "adrenaline = 0" is perfectly acceptable in a skill article. LordBiro 07:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, all cases should be covered, including adrenaline=0. I'm slowly going through all the skill articles now to edit out 0-parameters though, since I think it's just cluttering the article. But as said, it's a slow work and the template should be able to handle omitted and 0 values. I just wish there would be a better way then all those ifs and ifeqs. — Anja 07:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Necromancer and icon

meh

Campaign:

mwah

Profession:

Necromancer

Attribute:

Blood Magic

Type:

Spell

I don't know if you have noticed, because the word necromancer is so long it pushes the profession down because of the icon like so. --Lemming64 07:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

For a while now I've been working on a redesign of the skill infobox, but I was initially delayed because user CSS was not enabled. Now that it is I've done more work on it. Have a look at User:LordBiro/Skill box draft 5 and let me know what you think. LordBiro 07:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Could we maybe put progression + description in another box?

To the left of the info, and taking up the rest of the space, the header Description, bolded, and the description/progression in that box? Would look nice, if nothing else. BLASTEDT 18:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not quite sure what you mean, BlastedT. Since you are an expert in paint, could you produce a diagram? ;) LordBiro 18:30, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

...I hate you :( I'll work on it. BLASTEDT 19:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Haha, looks like an actual nother section, doesn't it? BLASTEDT 19:50, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Replacement

Some time ago I proposed replacing the skill infobox with something closer to the other infoboxes used, and my proposal is available to view at User:LordBiro/Skill infobox. There is consensus on the discussion that this is good enough to be implemented now, and so if there are no objections I will replace the infobox later today. LordBiro 07:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The new version has been implemented. LordBiro 09:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

And I like it, thanks for your work on this LordBiro. Do you think we will do something similar with the other info boxes? I'm not super familiar with CSS so was wondering if it would cause issues to do similar things for the other million info boxes we have :). --Indecision 09:38, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

It should be possible. I split up the CSS for the infobox into generic infobox rules, like have a silver border, use .9em sized font, and skill infobox rules, like have a green header, have a vertical list of skill-stats. It should be fairly straightforward for someone to implement the generic rules and write their own specific rules for a different box. So yeah, I hope this gets implemented on all infoboxes, and I'd of course be glad to help :) LordBiro 10:38, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The box is great, I can't help what kind of things can be achieved with CSS3 whenever the major browsers take up that... *drools* (ps. if anyone is interested in seeing the stuff that is capable see: www.css3.info, it's a very interesting read --Jamie 10:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

nocats

Could someone implement the nocats option so that categories can be entered manually for celestial, snow fighting and spirit skills? -- Gordon Ecker 03:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Category:Echos also needs to be Category:Echoes. --Dirigible 07:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll implement nocats now, and I'll put in an exception for Echo. LordBiro 07:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I've been thinking, and perhaps "nocats" is not the right parameter to use.

It makes sense to me that skill parameters should give information about the skill, but "nocats" actually gives information about how the wiki should treat the skill, and this should really be decided in the template.

I think it would be more sensible if we used parameters like "special = celestial" or "special = snow fight" or "special = spirit skill" or whatever. Or even "celestial = true". This way we actually record information about what the skill is in the skill article, and keep information on how that skill should be categorised in the template. LordBiro 07:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Makes sense, makes it easier if we ever decide to change those around somehow, or use that info for something else. --Dirigible 17:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

A "special" parameter would work, as would a "categories" parameter to override auto-categorisation? -- Gordon Ecker 19:29, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

They would both work, but for the sake of having useful information in the article itself, and deciding what do with that information in the template, I strongly prefer a "special" parameter. For example, we might say why a skill is special in the article using the "special" parameter, and we may use that parameter to put the skill into the "celestial skills" category (using code within the skill infobox), but we might also use this special parameter in a quick reference somewhere else. LordBiro 19:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I've implemented a special parameter in my User:LordBiro/Skill infobox template, and you can see the results at User:LordBiro/Impossible Odds. I think it makes sense to use "Special" as opposed to "Profession" for monster skills, since their profession might actually be Mesmer or something, but they also use a monster skill. At the moment the template just adds the skill to [[Category:{{{special}}} skills]], but it would be relatively easy to use a switch to handle more complex categorisation of special skills if we decide to in the future. LordBiro 07:07, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to implement "special" now. LordBiro 08:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Campaign2

I noticed that Gordon implemented another parameter, Campaign2, for situations where a skill is in more than one campaign. I disagree with this. I didn't realise these situations existed, but if they do then I would say that the skill had no specific campaign, and as such should be omitted.

Omitting campaign at present results in "Core", but this could easily be changed. LordBiro 07:51, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure I understand the intended use of "campaign2", every skill is officially tagged in game to either a specific campaign or to core, so such a tag doesn't seem useful to me. Granted it's targetted at "Monster skills" - but I think we would be better off to tag those as "no campaign" rather than specific to a list of campaigns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. I would say that if a skill is not tied to a specific campaign then we should not have any campaign entry, as opposed to having multiple campaign entries. I mean, where would we draw the line?

I will remove campaign2 and alter the behaviour of the template so that if campaign is omitted then no campaign is shown. LordBiro 14:03, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Special Parameter for elites?

Is it possible to add a parameter that will cause the boxes to turn from green to yellow to easily distinguish elite skills from normal skills? --User:AlbinobirdAlbinobird 13:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

There is actually already a parameter for elites, though it's not noted anywhere.. :/ But I personally think a yellow box would be too much, we already have the yellow border of the icon. - Anja Astor (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

It is mentioned in the skill formatting. Whether or not it is currently being used by the template it is being added to pages. --Aspectacle 17:09, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Skills

The term "skill" can apply to both all skills in the game, or to skills that have no type, such as Vampiric Bite. At present we put all skills with the type skill into Category:Skills, but this isn't ideal.

The problem was solved on GuildWiki by putting all skills of type skill into Category:Skills (skill type). Do we want to do the same thing here? Can anyone think of any alternatives? LordBiro 07:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I can't think of an alternative, but I'm not keen on the brackets. If nobody can come up with something better then go for it. - BeX 09:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Category:Skills by type. All other sub-types (enchants, attacks, shouts, etc) are a subcat of category, so it's appropriate to have these unspecified skills belong there, I think. --Dirigible 09:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I was about to suggest the same thing, skills by type. - Anja Astor (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I think, Dirigible and Anja, you misunderstood. There are some skills whose type is just "Skill", i.e. they aren't Spells, or Sword Attacks, they are Skills. See Vampiric Touch.

Skills by type is a great name for a category containing all the different types of skills, but one of the types is actually called "Skill", and I want to know what that category should be called. Do you see what I mean? LordBiro 10:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

My 2¢ is that "skills by type" is fine. A skill is still a type of skill even if it sounds funny. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 10:24, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I think they could still be categorised into skills by type, since that's where I would be looking for them if I know the category tree right. But if we find a good name for it, that's alot better imo. - Anja Astor (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I do agree that "skills by type" is sufficient but the problem is that there are skills that are actually called skills by its type. How about skills affected by Expertise or something of the sort...considering that most skill type:skill are affected by Expertise.On a second thought, we may never find a good name.--Bane of Worlds (talk • contribs) 10:55, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure what's going on any more :P

Ok, "skills by type" implies to me that it is the category containing all skills sorted by type, agreed?

It would look something like this:

• Category:Skills by type
  • Category:Signets
  • Category:Echoes
  • all the different types of skills
  • Category:Spells

Now, thinking only about this set of categories, what category would you put the following skills into?

• Charm Animal
• Impale
• Shove
• Vampiric Touch

LordBiro 11:11, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

"Skills" as a subcategory of "Category:Skills by type"? --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 11:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

(ri) I understood the problem from the start Biro, but with category tree logic, it would actually fit into skills by type. They have no type, I would say. Then you could also say they have a type, with the expertise example... My personal opinion is still that they have no type, though. That's the base my reasoning comes from :)
I don't think the wiki can handle same named categories being parts of different trees? It still treats them as separate things like articles, just categorised categories :P So far, due to Skill by type being confusing, I think Skills (skill type) is the best one. - Anja Astor (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Anja, I just wanted to check, because I wasn't sure if everyone was on the same page, and that does indeed make sense. Vallen, unfortunately you cannot have two categories with the same name, which is what my original point was at the start of this topic.

I think the best option is to put them straight into skills by type, but putting them into skills (skill type) also makes sense. Which does everyone prefer? LordBiro 11:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

[Edit conflict]Hm. I see my logic above was wrong. I thought you could have subcategories that required a precategory. Sort of like how a user page can have many pages but stem from the primary page but I see it is different now. Why not have the difference then be minute but accurate? Category:Skills (with an 's') for the entire skill list and Category:Skill (with no 's') for those examples you gave? They are a 'skill' as described by GW and can be used as such to avoid those parenthases. Or, you could go crazy and use Category:Skill skills and still be accurate.--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 11:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I would prefer Skills as a subcategory of Skill types or Skills by type solely because I hate brackets in article names, but I agree with Anja that Skill (skill type) is the most accurate description. - BeX 11:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Anja beat me to the reply (had to answer a bizarre comment on GuildWiki first), but I was thinking the same thing, that the label "Skill" shouldn't be read as a different type, but simply as a lack of one/any. The label "Skill" would be applied to every skill in the game if we were to write them out properly. For instance, Mending would be "Skill (Spell (Enchantment Spell))".

If the subcategories of Category:Skills by type are all the different types of skills in the game, then the implication is that those skills that aren't in any of those categories are skills without a type. Hence logically it makes sense (to me, anyways :P) for Vampiric Touch to be directly under Category:Skills by type.

If they have to be in a subcategory though, could it be something like Category:Untyped skills, at least? I really don't think Category:Skills (skill type) is valid. --Dirigible 11:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Those brackets are displeasing to me which is why we may not find a suitable name except the singular Skill over Skills which is a nice alternative.--Bane of Worlds (talk • contribs) 11:57, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Just noticed that skills that don't belong to any profession go under Category:Unlinked skills, which is a subcat of Category:Skills by profession. I think Category:Untyped skills as a subcat of Category:Skills by type would be consistent with that. --Dirigible 12:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I still don't know why we need to make it so complex. Make it Category:Skill which is what they are. Category:Skills is for the skill list. It's simple which is what this is not ending up being. Think of the newer users and what they would type in. If I were looking for a category list of skills labeled as a "skill" then I would look for category:"skill" and not "untyped skills", "skill (skill type)", or any other variant. It's not that hard and shouldn't be. You're all getting too complex with this. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 12:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Vallen, I think your way is confusing and wrong, every category is a plural, why should this be an exception? Dirigible, yes, that makes a lot of sense. LordBiro 13:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok then. Make it plural and change the current "Cat:Skills" to "Cat:Skill list" --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 13:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I admire your perseverance, Vallen, but "Skill list" is not a plural either :P LordBiro 14:39, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it even is a "Skill list" at all. Maybe a "List of skill lists" would be more appropriate, but that's even worse than simply using "Untyped Skills", I think ...and it still wouldn't be plural... --Dirigible 14:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

[Edit conflict] I usually don't have the patience for these types of discussions but for once it's something my meager intelligence can grasp and isn't as technical as most of the discussions on here. Back on topic, you misinterpretted my last comment (at least I think you did). I meant, the currently used Category:Skills is a list of all skills. Move that category's contents to Category:Skills list. Then you can implement the freshly emptied category for the skills that are only labeled as "skill" (like Charm Animal) under Category:Skills making it plural and including those skills that are of a "skill" type meeting all your requirements and not implementing parenthesese <sp?>.

I'm very against complex titles (if you haven't noticed) ever since I had to type in "Ruins of the Tomb of the Primeval Kings" every time I wanted to jump to the article on Guildwiki. It's been an annoyance and I find more and more uneeded lengthy article titles being created. I figured while this wiki was young and didn't have much of that yet that I would fight the good fight while it was still possible. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 14:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

[After edit conflict was read] You could make it into "Skills list" or "Skills lists" for more plural options. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 15:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't we have exactly the same problem with "No Attribute"-skills? They fall in (example) Category:Mesmer skills, not in a subcategory, like Category:Domination Magic skills. If typeless skills are to be put in a subcategory somewhere, then "No Attribute"-skills should follow the same logic. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 15:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I would think that there would be 2 types of categories for “No attribute skills”. One would be (for example) Category:Mesmer No Attribute Skills specific per profession and the other would be an all profession inclusive Category:No attribute skills. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 15:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Category:Skills is not a list of all skills. It is a category containing skills, and I don't think we should name it anything else. As has been discussed above, CoRrRan, I don't think skills with type "skill" should be in a subcategory; Anja suggested that we put these skills in Category:Skills by type, and this makes sense to me. LordBiro 15:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Alright, perhaps I haven't read (or understood) the entire conversation properly, but I just wanted to point out the similarity between "No Attribute"-skills w.r.t. the Skill-type skills. The other way around (am I assuming this correct?) would work for me, since that would be similar to the way "No Attribute"-skills are currently categorized. (Thus they all fall in the 'top level' category Category:Mesmer skills, instead of being placed in a subcategory Category:Mesmer No Attribute skills.) As long as there would be consistency. And perhaps I'm totally lost on this subject, so I'll shut up. :-) -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 17:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Blame me for Category:Skills. I did not think of the Skills as a skill type.  :( BLASTEDT 18:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

CoRrRan, that is 100% correct as far as I understand! LordBiro 18:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

How about not having any particular category for them, akin to how we probably would not have a category for "all non-elite skills"? If not that, I'd prefer "Untyped skills". Using Category:Skills by type does not make sense to me from the point of view of that category name being displayed on the skills' pages. --Rezyk 18:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

The problem then is that a user may want to find all "skills", because they work well with expertise. LordBiro 19:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

But that is...not quite true? Expertise doesn't work on all "skills" (specific example: Soul Twisting), only some of them (touch skills and ranger skills). --Rezyk 19:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You are right -- I have not played Touch Ranger since Expertise was changed! Expertise used to affect "all non-spell skills". Please ignore my above comment about expertise. LordBiro 19:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Too much wikiing, not enough playing ^^ - Category:Skills affected by Expertise anyone? --Snograt 19:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree. I thought I could handle this discussion but recently I've lost all motivation. A rebel without a cause (to coin a phrase). So, I remove any further debate from me from here and am sure you all will figure it out satisfactorily in the end. I realize I'm only slowing the process now and I don't like doing that. Sorry for anything I did/said that came off as a bit offensive or rude if anyone took it that way, I was trying to help and as usual, got carried away. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 07:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing you've said has seemed offensive to me, and it seems that all of your suggestions have been sensible. If you were to stop arguing because you felt that other ideas make sense, even if you don't agree, then that's fair enough, but please don't stop discussing just because you feel you are slowing things down! LordBiro 08:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Since this conversation seems to have died down, and having skills of type "skill" in the top level "Skills" category is annoying me, I'm going to alter the template now to put these skills into Category:Skills by type and if an alternative gains consensus then we can change it. LordBiro 11:04, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Variable Sac

Rip Enchantment: this skill has a variable Sacrifice parameter. Any idea what would be best practice for it? I currently use 30- as parameter value. I tried using Max 30, but then the layout is screwed. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 18:03, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Can it work with XX..YY? If so, I would think using the 0..12 progression would be sufficient, since XX..YY..ZZ would probably be a lot of info to fit into the info box. --IzzionSona 22:13, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Hideous

It looks like someone, intentionally or not, messed up the template completely, and it looks hideous now. Not knowing what the code is supposed to look like, I'd rather not use trial and error to attempt to fix it. Can someone who knows it better fix this? Specifically, the "infobox" is no longer a box, but a list of information in the upper left of the page, above the skill progression. It looks highly amateur =\ ~ Kailianna Firesoul 17:52, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No one messed with the template. For some reason the CSS isn't working. --Dirigible 17:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Oooh, that makes more sense. I couldn't figure out what was wrong with it when I went poking around :P ~ Kailianna Firesoul 18:06, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Basically, the wiki is supposed to send to the browser the contents of this page, MediaWiki:Common.css, which has the skill css. It uses usemsgcache=yes to send this CSS data though, and apparently the message cache has been reset or something? Lets wait and see, hopefully it'll reload the content from the database again soon. --Dirigible 18:19, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Special:Allmessages still isn't showing the correct content of common.css ... =\ --Dirigible 19:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

What the hell? :o LordBiro 19:38, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, something is completely borked. Look at the sidebar! Weee!--Dirigible 19:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Ugh, such a problem...hopefully, it will be fixed soon.--Bane of Worlds (talk • contribs) 21:54, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Wtf? The skills are all messed up? Like, look at Return. All the stuff is shoved to the left.--Eloc 21:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Guild Wars Wiki:Reporting wiki bugs#System messages. --Dirigible 21:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Broken Template

The skill template appears to currently be broken. Alignment and placement has been changed.

Altered background based on special parameter

After adding the "special" parameter to deal with those skills that are unusual in some way, it occurred to me that the "any profession" symbol in the background was not really relevant. So I've produced a similar image based on the Monster_skill.jpg image. This would be used in the background of monster skills. Any thoughts on implementing this? LordBiro 11:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I support - that image is more appropriate than the "any" icon. I would like to see a couple examples first, just to see how the colors look in a skill box - my only concerned that the dark gray edging may obscure some text. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You can add the following code to Special:Mypage/monobook.css to preview it:

#content .skill-box.Monster {
    background: white url(http://wiki.guildwars.com/images/a/a5/Monster-faded-large.png) no-repeat 7.5em 0em;
}

LordBiro 11:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Oops, forgot that won't work because I'd need to change the skill infobox first, you can see a preview at User:LordBiro/Impossible Odds. LordBiro 11:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I had to tweak the example in my preview to get text to overlap with the image ... when it does, the text is difficult to read in those areas. Not impossible, but noticeably more difficult.

I need to run off to work now though, so I'll comment more later tonight. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:56, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I think that using the following values the background image shouldn't intersect any text:

#content .skill-box.Monster {
    background: white url(http://wiki.guildwars.com/images/a/a5/Monster-faded-large.png) no-repeat 8em -1em;
}

While I could alter the image to some degree, making the border lighter and maintaining the style would be a little difficult, so I'd rather use this solution unless there are any doubts. LordBiro 07:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no idea how that modification would impact the appearance - can it be worked into the example? I modified the example slightly so that the name of the campaign overlaps (just to get an example). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

It doesn't alter the appearance, it was my attempt at cheating :P By moving the image further away from the text I was trying to prevent the chance of intersection happening. I'll try altering the image a bit, I'm just not certain what to change really, the border is dark, but it has to be quite dark to match the style of the other icons. LordBiro 11:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've uploaded a new version of the monster icon. It's got a red border instead of a black border, so it shouldn't be as difficult to read next to text. Any thoughts? LordBiro 07:25, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

To fully admire its glory, I guess we need an example. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 07:47, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I should have mentioned how to preview it :) If you add the following to your monobook.css and look at any of the monster skills you'll be able to see it! :)

#content .skill-box.Monster {
    background: white url(http://wiki.guildwars.com/images/a/a5/Monster-faded-large.png) no-repeat 7.5em 0em;
}

LordBiro 09:37, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I should have guessed... ;-) Very nice! No problem reading the text. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 10:21, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

What ever happened to this? -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 14:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Imho let's go for it! -- (gem / talk) 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I was seriously confused about this comment, since I already see the Monster skill picture, but then I noticed that I had already included the code into my Monobook.css. I'd say let's get this into Mediawiki/Common.css ASAP. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 15:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I added it. :) LordBiro 16:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the monster skill background be golden-ish like most monster skills?

Well... whatever... I had an idea for the Environment effect background. Something like this. A simpe shape that fits the idea of 'terrain', 'area' and even 'item', since some Environment effects are given by bundles (like the scepter of Orr or the Urn of Saint Viktor) and a square-like thing makes it easir to separate from the circle of skills. Could it be done? And more importantly... would the one who made the other cool backgrounds be willing to do this one? MithranArkanere 03:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

--> dominant colours are black/brown and red. - BeX 06:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sections of code

I cleaned up the code a bit to make it more readable (adding spaces etc. so that editors don't feel like they are programming LISP :P ) and it occurred to me that the code for auto-categorisation is in two places. Most categories are calculated at the top of the template, but the elite category is decided halfway through the code. I can understand why this was done, since elite can have 3 values(y, yes and true), and as such it uses a switch, and having the switch in two places is messy.

So I just wondered, which is better? Having all the auto-categorisation in one place, or only having a switch statement once?

Personally I would prefer to have categorisation all together; templates are cached so they aren't calculated at every page load, so while having two identical switches might be redundant it wouldn't be particularly inefficient.

Anyway, I know this isn't clear cut, so I thought I would ask :P LordBiro 16:52, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't mind it being done either way (as long as it doesn't become a rule). I agree that runtime efficiency isn't much of an issue here. Here's the major advantages I see:

All categorization in one place:

• More control over category ordering (but not full control...still can't go alphabetical).
• Can more easily add a "nocats=y" parameter to disable auto-categorization if/when we want. With our rampant auto-categorization, such a parameter might be useful to avoid categorizing during sandbox tests and for humor articles.

Categorization wherever:

• Can often have simpler (less duplicates) code logic, so easier to read/maintain.

--Rezyk 17:15, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

(edit conflict) Having the switch at two places has no function, it just tricks you into believing you have edited the template but you haven't (edited one, not both). But I would otherwise prefer to keep categoriers to one place. - Anja (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2007 (EDT)