Template talk:Skill infobox/Archive 2

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

when type = skill then cat needs to be [Skills (skill type)]

however my rubbishness with the code doesn't seem to be able to make it work properly, I expect it needs another parameter that I have forgotten, in the same vain that if the type is Echo the category is Echoes. The reason in this case is so that the top category of Skills is not full of actually skills that have a type of skills. if you see what I mean! but should rather be Category:Skills (skill type). --Lemming64 14:45, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Or Untyped skill as it has been changed to now, still that bit of code does not work --Lemming64 14:49, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Just switched it back to uppercase "Skill" as you first had it, just got to wait for a bit till the template change kicks in. Category:Untyped skills seems to be populating, so it's working! :) --Dirigible 15:04, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
It was discussed further up the page, and I thought it was agreed that since skills with type "Skill" have no type they should go into Category:Skills by type. Anja made a strong argument that this should be the case, and I have heard no strong argument that "Untyped skill" should be used. LordBiro 15:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
It was agreed that skills with the type "Skill" have no type, but it wasn't agreed that they should go into Category:Skills by type (even though at first I myself also had Skills by type as my first choice, with Untyped skills being the second). But as Rezyk pointed out, having Category:Skills by type at the bottom of the Troll Unguent page doesn't make much sense, while Category:Untyped skills seems to fit better. It's the same reason why when you look at Resurrection Signet you see the categories Core skills and Common skills, instead of Skills by campaign or Skills by profession.
By the way, we have Category:Unlinked skills and Category:Common skills; shouldn't these be merged? --Dirigible 15:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
The entries in unlinked skills shouldn't have been there IMO. I've edited them to reflect this. Are they even skills? If so then they are certainly not "normal" skills and should probably use the "special" parameter, but I'm not sure.
Re-reading the untyped skill argument above I agree that there wasn't consensus to do anything, rather just consensus that they were untyped skills, so I think that this is a reasonable change. LordBiro 15:50, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Contagion

Am I the only one where Elite enchantment spell doesn't fit on one line in the skill infobox (i.e. Contagion, Elemental Attunement). -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 15:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

fits for me. i'm using firefox on 1280x1042 screen. have u tried different browsers? --Wongba 16:13, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
I checked it in IE6 and I can see the problem. It's because of a modification I made that I thought was fine. I think it'll be best to just make the skill box slightly wider for everyone. ATM it's 19em, I think I'll increase it to 20em. LordBiro 17:08, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Done and it all appears to work. Please let me know if you spot any errors. LordBiro 17:22, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Doesn't fit in the box on Firefox. It looks like it would fit, but misaligned vertically, with the first line of text being centered as opposed to the whole block of text. --Valshia 17:59, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't have the problem anymore, thx LordBiro. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 18:14, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Realized I didn't have the latest version of Firefox on this particular comp. It looks fine now that I updated. --Valshia 19:59, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Additional skill parameters

I have a fairly large number of tags that I'd like to add to the skills for categorizing such as 'bleeding', 'dazed', 'hex-remove', etc. How about adding 'tag' as an additional parameter with these as a comma separated list? I'm prepared to immediately populate it, put up a page describing all the tags, and make changes based on further discussion. But I'd really like to start by slapping them up as soon as I know where, and what format. Additionally I'd like to have 'target' (self, other ally, etc), 'failure' (level with 50% failure chance), and 'range' (touch, half-spell, etc) up there as well, tho I'm not ready to populate them myself. Cloud 15:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Using a "tag" parameter containing a comma delimited list is a bad idea.
If we have a single parameter containing numerous values then the only way to use those values would be to parse the string. This is a pain and we shouldn't be doing this on the wiki when other, more flexible options already exist.
It would be far more useful (and far easier) if we used parameters in this way:
causes-bleeding = true
There has already been discussion of using parameters such as "target" and "range" (I'm not sure if you aware of how the parameters are used on GuildWiki, but if you're not then it's worth having a look).
I'm not keen on implementing any solution at present, as DPL is not yet installed and this might affect our decision(s). LordBiro 16:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I only suggested comma delimited because of how much "pollution" all the individual tags might add, although realistically it wouldn't be that extra much per skill, so I'm fine with one per line. I'm interested in this primarily as a skill data consumer, and I would use it now, whether DPL is in or not. Perhaps its inexperience, but I don't see a problem with adding information that causal users won't see, is valuable to some, and may be used (in some form) by DPL later, and, if it comes to that, can be bot removed. Cloud 17:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll throw 'pveonly' on my wishlist too, with EN coming ;) I only found limited discussion about more vs. less in the skillbox on guildwiki, nothing about target or range specificly. Or anything else that not in the box but is a parameter of all skills Cloud 17:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I am hopeful that we will find out soon whether DPL is installed or not. If it would take some time to find out then I would probably agree that we might as well just start adding tags now since they will potentially be useful in the future.
If you'd like to start implementing this sooner then could you produce a list of all parameters that you're planning on adding? A bulleted list would be most useful. LordBiro 22:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Took longer to clean up my list and make it presentable then I thought it would, take a look at User:Cloud/Skill Tags. In truth it isn't as intimidating as it first appears, in general its a couple of tags per skill, but allows for pretty wide categorization. Cloud 11:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks interesting, Cloud! I'll have a look through and reply on the talk page there. :) LordBiro 11:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion parameter "requires"

For assassins, add the parameter "requires" to the template, with the following options:

  • requires = hex
  • requires = enchantment
  • requires = lead
  • requires = off-hand
  • requires = dual

Thoughts? This is currently 'implemented' at Template:Skill infobox.assassin (in a <noinclude>-tag because the parameter doesn't exist yet.) In addition, this parameter might also be used for skills like Discord. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 01:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. There's also requires = knocked down for Falling Spider and Falling Lotus Strike. -- Gordon Ecker 02:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not opposed to this provided a single skill can only ever have a single (or no) requirement. Is this the case? Are there any exceptions? LordBiro 07:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes there are: the example I gave (Discord) requires two conditions to be met. But on the other hand, we're not going to put that information into the Necro quick ref. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 07:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Categorising PvE only skills

It might be an idea to include an entirely optional parameter for this template so that skills that are PvE only can be categorised, and perhaps we can visually have this displayed on the actual skill infobox too with something like "This is a PvE only skill" in bold. A simple step but it would be nice to bundle all the PvE-only skills in a category. --Jamie (Talk Page) 08:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. How about PvE = yes/y/true? LordBiro 09:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
That should do it. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 10:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Since that's one of the things I just asked for above, I'd have to agree ;) Cloud 11:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I was just thinking, the special parameter might already do this. special = PvE only would categorise these skills into Category:PvE only skills. Since this is a valid use of special I think it's reasonable to use it, but a new parameter is fine too! ;) LordBiro 11:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Special is a bit of an oddball already, instead of having pve = true you could add Sunspear, Lightbringer, (cap sig?), etc, to special. One thing that's kinda interesting is that there are PvP Monster (Thief, Ghostly Hero) skills, so you could mark some up as 'special = Monster' and 'PvE = y' both.
I made a mistake actually... "Special" skills are those skills that are not available to most characters, or at most times, so they are monster skills/celestial skills/rollerbeetle skills/any skills that are not classified in the same way as the majority of skills in the game.
If a skill is "special" then it won't be categorised in any other way than, i.e., "Monster skill". As such it wouldn't be suitable for this PvE-only thing, and we would need another parameter. Sorry! :D LordBiro 17:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

PvE-only=y instead of PvE=y? --Rezyk 17:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

PvE-only is probably better just PvE, otherwise you might think it was everything that can be used in PvE. Brio, maybe add "For skills not normally available to players" to the description of special? It really isn't obvious that's what its for, even you got confused! ;) Cloud 17:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, hehe, I will update that now :) LordBiro 18:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Good job guys and gals. --Jamie (Talk Page) 18:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless there's an argument against it in the next day or two, I'm going to add PvE-only to the list of parameters. Cloud 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The pve-only parameter was moved to 'unimplemented', what does that mean? It (and 'pve = y') are certainly on a number of the skills themselves, what has to be implemented before its okay to mark up the skills? Or is this just to indicate that the template does actually do anything with the parameter? Cloud 14:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the latter was why Gordon moved the description to "unimplemented". -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 16:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at Category:PvE-only skills, most of the PvE-only skills are already listed in the subcategories - it doesn't make sense to have the same skills in both places. So should we delete those subcategories? Or...exclude the PvE-only parameter from skills in the subcategores? --Torak321 23:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What about using "special = PvE-only" and manually categorizing? -- Gordon Ecker 23:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the categorisation is not clear, but special and pve-only have very different meanings.
Most skills are standard skills, i.e. ones that you can find in the game and see in your skill list, and equip whenever you like. Of all of those skills, some cannot be purchased at a priest of balthazar with faction. Those skills that appear on the skill list in PvE and cannot be purchased at a priest of balthazar are therefore PvE-only skills.
Some skills are not standard skills, i.e. either
  1. they do not appear on the skill list and cannot be equipped whenever you want to use them
  2. they are depend on a title and not on your profession
Categorising a skill as "special" will remove it from all other categories, with good reason. If you're looking for skills that cause burning then you're probably not going to want Burning Breath, since you can't equip it when you want.
Special skills are not necessarily a subset of PvE-only skills, it's just that (as far as I'm aware) no PvP special skills exist yet. That said, special skills aren't simply PvE-only skills. Let me summarize what I think makes sense.
  1. Skills that exist in the skill list AND the priest of balthazar need no special treatment
  2. Skills that exist in the skill list AND NOT the priest of balthazar are pve-only skills
  3. Skills that never appear in the skill list are special skills
  4. Skills that rely on a title or allegiance are special skills
Does that make sense? LordBiro 07:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, special skill is an unoffical term, so it can be used to mean whatever we want it to mean. All the special parameter does is adds another row to the skillbox explaining what's unusual about the skill and removes auto-categorization. -- Gordon Ecker 08:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Signet of Capture

ID unset
  • 2 Activation
  • 2 Recharge
Special
PvE skill
Type
Signet (PvE-only)
Campaign
Core



By "special = PvE-only", I meant using PvE-only as the value for the special parameter in the skill boxes of PvE-only skills (excluding PvE-only skills which already use the special parameter for a more specific classification, such as Junundu skills) and then manually categorizing them in whichever categories are appropriate, rather than using the auto-categorizing pve-only parameter, like this, instead of using the pve only parameter, which doesn't do anything other than auto-categorize, which is apparently undesirable, as it puts some skills in both Category:PvE-only skills and one of its subcategories, and using the pve only parameter for some PvE skills but not others is counter-intuitive. -- Gordon Ecker 08:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I understood what you were suggesting, Gordon, and I suggested a similar thing earlier in this thread before changing my mind.
Personally I think the best solution is to not tag Junundu/Monster/Celestial/etc. skills as PvE-only. I don't think that it makes sense to use manual categorisation when all other categories are automatically determined based on parameters. I also don't think it makes sense to encode conditions to check if special is set to "pve-only", and as such I think the only sensible option is to have a separate parameter. :) LordBiro 14:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
What about title-based skills? If the PvE-only parameter is only going to be used for Signet of Capture, Sunspear Rebirth Signet, Lightbringer's Gaze and Lightbringer Signet, it seems kind of pointless. Special = PvE-only puts skills in Category:PvE-only skills, special = Celestial puts skills in Category:Celestial skills, special = Sunspear rank puts skills in Category:Sunspear rank skills and special = Rollerbeetle puts them in Category:Rollerbeetle skills, the parameter seems to work fine. I don't see any point in using a second parameter that does the exact same thing. -- Gordon Ecker 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't do the exact same thing. At the moment using "pve-only = y" on Signet of Capture it is in the following categories: "Signets | Core skills | Common skills | PvE-only skills". If we altered the parameter to say "special = PvE-only" then Signet of Capture would only appear in the following category: "PvE-only skills".
Special removes the article from all of the other categories, i.e. the type categories, the campaign categories, the profession categories and the attribute categories. This is very important for skills like Monster skills, and I think it makes sense for other skills too, like Junundu skills and Rollerbeetle skills, since we only need to know about these skills in very specific circumstances, like if you're in a rollerbeetle race.
I was going to write more, but I have to leave for work :) hehe, bye! LordBiro 07:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I only object to the counterintuitive omission of pve-only = yes from the skillboxes of some PvE-only skills. I wouldn't mind skills being in both Category:PvE-only skills and one of its subcategories, I just assumed that everyone else agrees with Torak's objection because no one has actually said they disagree with him or her. -- Gordon Ecker 09:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I like the definition of pve-only being skills that are normally equipable (not limited to small specific areas) in pve and can't be used in pvp. Cloud 20:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just been looking at the template. If special is set then a skill cannot appear in pve-only, since special overrides all other categorisation rules.
As such there should be no instances where an article is auto-categorised into both, i.e. Junundu skills and PvE-only skills. Does this go some way to solving the problem? LordBiro 21:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

← reset indent

I can see category hierarchies like this ...

  • C:PvE skills
    • C:Temporary PvE / PvE only / PvE-only skills
      • C:Celestial skills
      • C:Junundu skills
      • Disarm Trap
      • Vial of Purified Water
    • C:Title skills
      • C:Kurzick and Luxon skills
      • C:Lightbringer skills
      • C:Sunspear skills
    • Signet of Capture
  • C:PvP skills
    • C:Temporary PvP / PvP only / PvP-only skills
      • C:Dragon Arena skills
      • C:Rollerbeetle racing skills
      • C:Snow fighting / Dwayna vs. Grenth skills
  • C:Temporary skills
    • C:Temporary PvE / PvE only / PvE-only skills
      • ...
    • C:Temporary PvP / PvP only / PvE-only skills
      • ...

I don't think any skills should be in both Category:PvE / PvE only / PvE-only skills and Category:Temporary skills, but I do think that there should be subcategories which belong to both. -- Gordon Ecker

Temporary isn't really a good name because they aren't limited duration, they're just area specific. For that matter is you consider PvP and PvE as separate 'areas' the area specific metaphor works all up and down, with the exception of Monster only skills. Cloud 03:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It's the term used in the Equip Skill window. -- Gordon Ecker 04:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
For Disarm, Purified Water, Celestial, and by extension Junundu perhaps, but Dragon Arena? Although I don't have any better suggestions. Cloud 09:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Any conclusion on when PvE-only should be added to a skill? Its been removed from the Luxon/Kurzick skills because "cat:Allegiance rank is a subcat of cat:PvE-only", I think it makes more sense to have all pve only skills (including Sunspear and Allegiance) marked pve-only. Cloud 08:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
We could also remove the PvE-only parameter from the template, or remove auto-categorization from the PvE-only parameter and make it add a note without categorization. Or alter the parameter so that it categorizes the skill based on the parameter's value. -- Gordon Ecker 06:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Or have the PvE-only parameter add skills to cat:PvE-only or 'cat:PvE-only Unlinked' if the attribute parameter is missing the same as whatever we end up with for the No Attribute profession skills. Then we revisit it if they add a PvE-only skill that's tied to a normal attribute. Cloud 00:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
But if that's all the PvE parameter does, using the parameter would be pointless for 20 of the 24 currently available non-temporary PvE skills. The parameter could be useful if it also categorizes PvE skills by profession. -- Gordon Ecker 00:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegiance rank skills

Can anyone confirm that the ten Allegiance rank skills have the same name but different icons for the Luxons v the Kurzicks? (I'm currently unable to login - PC problem). If different icons, how should we handle that? Add sub-text to the skills name such as "Elemental Lord (Luxon)" and "Elemental Lord (Kurzick)", or should the skill box be modified to permit two icons? Personally, if there are two icons depending upon allegiance as I've seen claimed, then I would prefer going with two icons in the skill box rather than two articles - other input on this? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If the only difference is the icon, then I'd definitely vote for a single article, otherwise people are going to add notes, etc for one or the other instead of for both. Cloud 15:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Second that. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 15:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think, rather than filling in attribute = Allegiance rank we should consider something like allegiance-skill = true. We can then have a condition which says that if the allegiance parameter is true then we should handle 2 display pictures (perhaps "{{{name}}} (Kurzick).jpg" and "{{{name}}} (Luxon).jpg". This might need a change to the CSS, but I will knock up a prototype later on. LordBiro 17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good so far. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 17:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Can't you just make a condition if attribute = Allegiance rank or do the conditions only work with things that are already booleans? Forgive me, but I'm ignorant :) Cloud 23:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
We could also make it so that if attribute = Sunspear rank or attribute = Allegiance rank, the word "attribute" in the infobox is replaced with "title". -- Gordon Ecker 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Custom Icons

Though it lacks any real priority, to the best of my knowledge, these skillboxes will always use the icon of the name of the skill. Ie: Aegis will ALWAYS use the icon of the same name. There is no way to change the icon in a skillbox save for renaming the skill itself. It's not too important for the official information, but for things such as humor skills, this is a problem as one must decide between uploading a new icon (but then having to follow the userpage policy and, to display it, name the skill "User Example Humorous Skill") or leaving the skillbox saying the name of the skill you wish to use the icon for (such as, if using Wastrel's Worry, the skillbox saying Wastrel's Worry rather than "Humorous Skill). If anyone can find a way to override this, that's great, though it is not too important. File:Esig2.jpg Eldin 14:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy the template to your user name space and modify it? I believe someone has allready done that. -- Gem (gem / talk) 14:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unlinked skills

All the unlinked skills have had attribute = Unlinked added to them to make them show up in the Unlinked skills category, see User talk:HeWhoIsPale. Since I don't like the side effects (changed appearance from No Attribute to Unlinked, and loss of Profession skills category) I changed the skillbox to add the unlinked skills category to unlinked skills and am reverting the attribute = Unlinked lines from the skills. Cloud 14:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jsut awuick note: Don't do anything before a discussion is held and we have a conclusion. -- Gem (gem / talk) 14:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I badly want to revert the changes that have already been made to all the skills right now because they're messing me up. So I changed the skillbox template (which LordBiro has since reverted) so I could revert the skills without effecting the purpose of the changes to the skills.
LordBiro, this is not my fight, but I read through the talk page you referenced and didn't find anything specific about the category of all unlinked skills. Is it in the Skills section and I missed it? Or somewhere else? Thanks. Cloud 14:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm at work atm, so I will be brief; the discussion was about whether unlinked skills should be categorised into a single category or they should be categorised into their profession category only. So an unlinked warrior skill would appear in category:warrior skills. LordBiro 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Brief is good :) As long as we don't want to populate the Unlinked skills category it should be removed, the fact that it was sitting there empty is what led HeWhoIsPale to take the initiative and edit ~70 skills which we now want to revert. Cloud 15:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind dual-categorizing unlinked skills in both no attribute skills / all no attribute skills and <Profession> no attribute skills or common no attribute skills. -- Gordon Ecker 00:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather not dual-categorise, but I do appreciate that categorising unlinked skills into "<profession> skills" probably isn't very intuitive, and that's why HeWhoIsPale has gone to the trouble of altering the skills. As such I think it does make sense to use "<profession> skills with no attribute" or something like that. What does everyone think of that? LordBiro 06:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
i've been having a discussion regarding the usage of the word "unlinked." apparently unlinked currently refers to no attribute skills, but i feel this is a misleading characterization. the current definition is written to include no attribute skills such as allegiance skills and the word "unlinked" gives the impression that it doesn't scale or progress w/ anything when it actually does. a note is inserted regarding this discrepancy, but i feel that things could be clearer. i suggest that either we start using the words "no attribute" in place of "unlinked" b/c it is more precise and comes directly from the game, or we remove allegiance skills from the definition so that there's no possible confusion. --VVong|BA 06:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the term "unlinked". It's not descriptive of the skills properties. "No attribute" is true of sunspear skills, since they have no attribute, but "unlinked" effectively tells us nothing. I would support any changes from unlinked to no attribute. LordBiro 07:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Things have got a little muddled so I'm just going to go over some points, and you can tell me if I am totally wrong! :)

Currently the infobox categorises skills without an attribute parameter into "Category:<Profession> skills", and shows the text "Attribute: No Attribute" in the infobox. Some users have not understood this system of categorisation (understandably, since while it might make sense it isn't necessarily intuitive) and have tagged the attribute as "Unlinked" in order to force skills into "Category:Unlinked skills".

There seem to be two options available in order to improve categorisation. We could, as Gordon suggested, dual categorise skills with no attribute into both "Category:<Profession> skills" and "Category:Skills with no attribute" (or something similar). Alternatively we could categorise skills with no attribute AND a profession parameter into "Category:<Profession> skills with no attribute" (or something similar).

Does that sound right? LordBiro 09:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My primary concern to not have an intentionally empty category in plain view tempting people to fill it, and since both of your options take care of it I'm fine with either of them. Perhaps a slight preference for the latter. Cloud 06:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Special

It would help to remove the 'skill' from the special attribute. Why? Environmet effects are no called Enronment effect skills, just Environment Effects. Since the 'special' is used mainly in 'Monster Skills', 'Event Skills', 'Mission Skills' and 'Environment effects' but the last have no 'skill'. So because of them we can't have the 'skill' attacked to them. (By the way... it's time to archive old stuff here... how do you do that?) MithranArkanere 16:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Skills#Environmental_effects. There are two options;
  1. Alter the template to omit the word "skill" from the special attribute which would require
    • Altering the template
    • Updating every special skill article (all monster skills, all event skills, all mission skills)
  2. Alter the template so that environmental effects are handled which would require
    • Just updating the template
The first option is probably the right one, but it would require more work. LordBiro 16:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Could someone alter the template so that the special parameter only suppresses the attribute line when the attribute parameter is unspecified? Unlike most monster / NPC skills, spirit attacks have linked attributes. Also, could someone make it so that the Attribute is replaced with Title when the value of the attribute parameter is Allegiance rank or Sunspear rank? -- Gordon Ecker 02:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


I will make the first change suggested, could you point to some of the offending skills? I didn't realise there were any special skills with attributes but I hadn't considered spirit skills!
I'm not going to make the change to the attribute parameter just yet. The code for handling whether "attribute" should be shown or not makes the attribute parameter a little complex, and it may be best to move that whole section into another template, just to make life easy. LordBiro 06:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
There aren't any yet. Spirit attacks, which are the only non-player skills with attributes, don't have articles yet, and I don't think the environment effect articles use the skill infobox yet. -- Gordon Ecker 07:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess that's why I missed them then :) All of the (currently miscategorised, but we will change that soon ;) skills in Category:Environment_effect_skills use the skill infobox at the moment. LordBiro 07:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:PvE-only skills

some pve skills are now double categorized. e.g. Lightbringer's Gaze. it is now in pve-only skills AND in Category:Lightbringer rank skills. the sunspear skills would be in the same situation except the parameter is mistakenly set as "yes" instead of "y". does this need to be resolved? --VVong|BA 23:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Request (Sorry im a wikinoob lol)

I've trying to make my own skills in my user space, but to make a name for it requires me to make a skill icon for each one, since it takes the name of the skill icon. Would it be possible to have a Skill infobox that allows you to make your own skill? (Sorry for explaining the question/request so bad lol) here is an example: [Example] Anti Oath 03:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... apparently someone else asked this same question above ("Custom Icons" section). I'll see if I can locate something. -- ab.er.rant sig 07:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have created a {{User skill infobox}} for use in user space, as this request and the previous request by Eldin to change the template was kinda ignored. I don't know why this template was created without the flexibility to specify a custom name for the icon but I suppose it might be a bit risky to tweak this since it's used by so many things now. So to make things simple, I've decided to just create another one. -- ab.er.rant sig 08:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Monster and Polymock skills

Should we include some kind of icon override for skills which share icons with other skills, such as the polymock skills and many monster skills, or just upload duplicate images at Image:Polymock Power Drain.jpg, Image:Spectral Agony.jpg etc.? -- Gordon Ecker 08:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just duplicate them I would say, since previous requests for a "icon" parameter seems to have been mostly ignored. -- ab.er.rant sig 11:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Icons may change. New version may be uploaded. We never know. It's better to keep them separate. Just imagine that someone in the team gets free tiema and starts making all the missing moster icons or something. MithranArkanere 00:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Skills with same names

I couldn't find any help on what to do with skills with the same name, mainly with their 'name' parameter. This problem arouse with Energy Blast and Energy Blast (golem). Should I tag the golem skill name parameter with 'Energy Blast (golem)' thus showing an incorrect skill name in the skill infobox or should we create a parameter so that the icon can be named differently in these cases? -- Gem (gem / talk) 01:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I added an optional image parameter to allow specifying an alternate image name. This should also make it flexible enough to use for imaginary skills in user space. --Rezyk 05:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Blessings parameter request

While I was working on these skills for Gem's project, I realized the current Skill infobox doesn't deal very well with Blessings. So I came up with the idea of adding a Gold cost parameter for use on Blessings articles, this way it'll look neater than a "This blessing costs 50 gold." note. I also noted that the 'special = Bounty' parameter in Blessing of the Kurzicks displays "Bounty skill" in the infobox. Can we fix that too? User Ereanor sig.jpgreanor 17:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just read Template_talk:Skill_infobox#Special, forget my second comment, I'll go make the redirect.User Ereanor sig.jpgreanor 17:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional skill infobox parameters

As some may have noticed, I've expanded the Assassin skill line with some new variables. This is a little bit in anticipation of trying to get the List of skills by related subject to be generated by DPL.

At the moment, I've added the "requires" parameter in an example already, shown here (it uses this template). The other parameters have no real function yet.

I've created tango hex and tango enchantment icons and I'm trying to find the courage to create tango icons for "requires lead attack", "requires off-hand attack" and "requires dual attack". I'm hoping to be able to match LordBiro's style for those, but I'm not him of course. :-)

For the hex and enchantment icons: I like the hex one most, and the enchantment icon looks a bit too faint to me, but it DOES use the colors that Guild Wars itself uses (i.e. a bit lime-ish). However, I do appreciate feedback on those icons.-- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 11:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The hex colour is a bit too purple. See here - it's more pink in game. Other than that they look very nice. :) - BeX iawtc 11:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I modified the hex icon to the same colors as the ingame colors. I hope this is better. I also added the "requires lead", "requires offhand" and "requires dual" icons. I'm not really sure what to think of them in respect to the rest of the icons. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 22:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I think tango-ing them would make them confusing. They look very much like the in game ones, which makes it easy to figure out what they are for. I think they all look lovely though. :) - BeX iawtc 02:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Maintained Enchantment Category

Could you add something to the template that will categorize it into "Maintained Enchantments" when it has an upkeep cost? 80.242.149.110 00:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Echo

For example on the Mending Refrain page the skill infobox has a link to Echo where it should be linking too Echo (skill type). Could this be changed in this template one way or another? Otherwise we will have to change all the skill infoboxes with the skilltype echo. And it also looks kinda bad when you have to say "type=Echo (skill type)". I have never touched a template before and am not sure if the community is in favor of the change so that is why I am posting it here first. - Damadmoo 15:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

fixed :) poke | talk 15:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow. That was fast. Great job :) - Damadmoo 15:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bullet points

Are these necessary due to DPL, or can we get rid of them? I really don't like the way they look. -- Gordon Ecker 07:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by bullet points? poke | talk 15:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused too! LordBiro 18:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The only seem to show up in internet explorer. They're to the left of the cost, activation and recharge numbers. -- Gordon Ecker 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Some rules were omitted in the recent changes made to common.css. LordBiro 09:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, IE seems to need both values on list-style</code.. I fixed the <code>.hidelist class as well.. poke | talk 10:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Update request

  1. Not listing attribute for no profession skills: they can't have any so it's useless info, and objected to by many.
  2. Auto categorisation based on cost type:Energy or Adrenaline. None for signets, I guess.
  3. Set campaign to core, rather than none, if omited, as this is a value all skills have.
Backsword 09:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Not much response... Backsword 03:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose no one really cares. If no one cares, why not just change it then as their is no obvious opposition to a change. — Eloc 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. AFAIK, there are no non-profession skills that aren't already accounted for.
  2. Nothing to comment on.
  3. Again, no comment.
Go ahead if you wish. — Galil Talk page 21:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer to continue the discussion on the formatting page first.. poke | talk 06:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Just on a related note, I've found that you can't get the PvE-only tag to show up in the box unless the attribute line is filled in. This impacts all the Celestial skills, for example. Is this related to 1) above? -- Hong 04:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed that problem on my Skill infobox sandbox. It's not hard to do. However, since my sandbox has a number of other 'features', you can't really copy it right away. And I don't want to cause a wiki slowdown at this moment by editing this template. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 17:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Poke, I'm unaware on any dicussion there that would render any of my three points irrelevant. Could you be more clear on what you are refering to? Backsword 07:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
To answer your question, I don't have any objections to the changes proposed here. I just wanted to throw in that I would prefer to finally clear the whole "How to deal with skills, effects and all the other ideas of skills" discussions. But for now, go for it ;) poke | talk 17:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)