User talk:LordBiro/Skill box draft 5

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Archive

/Archive

Stylesheet[edit]

Here's how to preview the new skill infobox!

  1. Copy the following code to your clipboard:
    @import url("/index.php?title=User:LordBiro/Skill_infobox.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css");
  2. Go to your user stylesheet. If you're not really sure how to do that then just go to Special:Mypage/monobook.css.
  3. Edit that page and paste the above line into it, then save it.
  4. Do a force refresh, that's usually CTRL+F5, to reload your stylesheet
  5. Have a look at one of the pages below! If you don't see a big red box then everything went well :D

Please note: This will make the current skill infobox look a little bit... wrong.

Skill articles for preview:

If anyone has any suggestions for which skills I should use then please let me know.

Discussion[edit]

When looking at the Blinding Surge example, the numbers are not really distinct. The "4s recharge" number falls right onto one of the thicker borders, which makes it a bit hard to read. I can only think of increasing the font a point or make it bolder, but I'm not sure that'll help much. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 08:25, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I noticed the same problem myself, there are a number of potential solutions:
  1. Move the text
  2. Move the image
  3. Alter the text, i.e. make it bolder
  4. Alter the image, i.e. make it more transparent
The simplest options are just moving things around. LordBiro 08:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Would a swap of the skill image and the numbers be awful? -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 08:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
No, but I prefer it this way, and as long as the image is in the right place it shouldn't cause a problem. Try ctrl+refresh now. LordBiro 08:49, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Why the huge whitespace to the right of the info..? The article gets unnecessary long in my opinion. Would be nicer if the short info and description could float beside eachother as it does now. - Anja Astor 08:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure what you mean Anja, there should be no whitespace to the right of the infobox... Or do you mean to the right of the text? I'm not sure. LordBiro 08:58, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Unless you are looking at the unstyled version? As explained at the top of this page you need to alter your CSS. LordBiro 08:59, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Ah, yes, this indeed does the trick. It looks good to me. And I think Anja refers to the space inside the box, after the descriptive texts. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 09:01, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
(EDIT CONFLICT) Doh, thanks for trying to save me CoRrRan but no, I was stupid enough not to read everything ;) Sorry Biro, it looks awesome. Just thinking about that recharge icon clashing with the elementalist background icon in Blinding Surge. - Anja Astor 09:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Well I'm not sure what Anja is referring to! But as for making the article longer, the dimensions of the skill infobox are similar to the existing infobox, except the new version is a little wider and shorter. I don't think there is too much whitespace inside the infobox, since the space is taken up by the large profession icon. LordBiro 09:06, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Hehe, no problem Anja, yeah I see what you mean. It seems the ele icon is the most frustrating so far :P I will try moving it. LordBiro 09:11, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
(EC) No problem Anja, I'll try to save everyone I can! *puts on his Superman cape and flies away* -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 09:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Hmmm ... did I do a typo at User:Barek/monobook.css? It's still showing unformatted to me, even refreshing the cache and even trying a restart of the browser. Or should I try another browser? I need to leave for work, will try that when I get home. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:56, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Just discovered that this method doesn't seem to work in IE6. It also looks like some of the CSS I've used doesn't work on IE6 either, particularly the background.
To get a limited preview in IE6 type {{subst:User:LordBiro/Skill_infobox.css}} in your monobook.css. LordBiro 11:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
It looks like IE7 had the same issue. I updated my css box with the "subst" tag that you provided, and it looks much better now! :-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
IE doesn't like media selectors in @import. Try removing the screen, projection if you want to use the import. -Smurf User Smurf.png 06:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Ah, thanks, Smurf! LordBiro 07:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
If you swap the skill image and the numbers you don't need to use a bullet list and looks pretty good.. don't you think? --VeNoM 13:35, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't think actually :P I think it looks better with the image and then the numbers. And it would still be an ordered list regardless of which way I did it, because it is a list of statistics about the skill. I don't know what browser you are using, but hopefully there are no bullets. LordBiro 16:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm using IE7, and I see bullets :( User Fox.jpg Fox (talk|contribs) 06:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh :( I've tried adding some other rules that might be more specific. I don't have IE7 on this computer, could you please try refreshing and let me know if the bullets have gone? LordBiro 06:47, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry for late reply - didn't see your message until just now as I was out skill capping before the title track changes ;) - I've added the new script into monobook, refreshed, and the pink warning template and bullet points have disappeared :) User Fox.jpg Fox (talk|contribs) 07:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Excellent :D Thanks Fox! LordBiro 07:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

reset indent
I've commented on the relevant talk page about my support for the profession icons, and as for this new skill box -- yes! Big thumbs up! I think it is a great leap forward from what we currently have, very fresh, very professional in appearance, easy to read, and distinctive. It has a "feel" of "Official Wiki" about it ;) User Fox.jpg Fox (talk|contribs) 07:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you Fox! :) There's still a little way to go, and it couldn't have been produced without the help of numerous contributors, but thanks very much :) it is very appreciated! LordBiro 07:46, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
They're all fantastic and I hope they're implemented, but one little thing - the Paragon one makes the energy cost and activation time text difficult to read. --Santax 08:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Only problem: "[class~=skill-box][class~=Warrior]" should be replaced with ".skill-box.Warrior" etc. since IE6 doesn't support the attribute selector thing. Other than that, looks good. -Smurf User Smurf.png 08:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

You're right Santax, I will have a look at the Paragon icon and try to sort it out.
Smurf, I didn't think that that did the same thing! I will give it a try now, thank you. LordBiro 08:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Don't forget the "#content [class~=skill-box]" :) -Smurf User Smurf.png 16:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

This looks really lovely Biro. I hope it gets implemented soon. :) - BeXoR 08:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there a reason the grey circle shows up on the Ele skill? - BeXoR 08:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Which do you mean, BeXoR? There should be an Ele symbol as the background on the skill! I hope that's not what you mean! If so, try refreshing, it might be a glitch...
If you mean the exhaustion icon, well, I used the same image for any profession and for exhaustion. I don't know if this is acceptable or not. LordBiro 09:04, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
It was very confusing. What about a grey downward arrow? - BeXoR 09:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, something along those lines, an arrow or exclamation mark or similar? User Fox.jpg Fox (talk|contribs) 09:32, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I actually like the current Exhaustion icon. It's the same icon used for energy, only gray - that, to me, is a good way to simbolize it. Erasculio 09:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps it would make more sense to redesign the "any profession" icon? LordBiro 09:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I uploaded a new version of the exhaustion icon (it took a little while for the cache to update):
File:Tango-exhaustion.png.
You might have to refresh. LordBiro 10:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Very good! - BeXoR 10:39, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
I love it. The mesmer looks ok but I still prefer the old triangle with eye :P The question that remains is when will this be implemented widely. Sith 12:35, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Very nice! -- ab.er.rant sig 05:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Silly[edit]

Is how I feel right now. I'm having the same problem as Barek but I don't know anything about css and this stylesheet thing. On top of that I am using IE which I know messes things up. Anyone care to baby talk me through this (as I am completely lost)? --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 08:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Vallen, I'm not sure which skin you are using, but whichever one it is you need to add @import url("/index.php?title=User:LordBiro/Skill_infobox.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css"); to it somewhere. It's not vitally important where :)
If you are using monobook (the default) then you should add that line to User:Vallen Frostweaver/monobook.css. If you do that and it still doesn't work let me know and I will try to be more specific :) LordBiro 09:07, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Ooooh! Me likey.  :) thanks. That did it. Looks great now. Only problem I can see is that each IE user would have to add this similar thing to theirs too? --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 10:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
No, this is just for the preview. Once the design is finalised I'll add the necessary code to the wiki's CSS so that all readers will see it. LordBiro 10:18, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Will it be in the monobook.css or the common.css? Smurf's GW.com skin is now under MySkin instead of monobook so you'll want to have this implemented literally across the board. --Santax 08:57, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Micro-font[edit]

I like the new layout and all, but for the love of Dwayna why have we gone back to the microscopic font!? It looks awful, makes the page actively harder to read and achieves nothing other than the creation of a load of white space, I really don't get why anybody would want it that way. I thought this had already been done to death at Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Skills#Progression_Table, where it was finally agreed to stick with the normal sized font. 0.9 is harder to read than 1. I can read 1 absolutely fine, 0.9 makes me squint. Can we please, please get rid of the smaller font size and never use it anywhere again? Please? --NieA7 08:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

The progression table does use 0.9em...... to quote the source "font-size:90%;".
This was not a decision that I made arbitrarily. Compare the following:
This style is mirrored across every infobox, and I think it looks awesome. If you want to alter the font size then I recommend you petition to have the other infoboxes changed, and I'll alter this one to match. LordBiro 09:35, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I know it does, that's the problem (or my problem at least). This is the price I pay for not manically tracking every single element of the wiki I guess, I had no idea other templates were using it. Can you explain why you prefer the small size? What do you feel it adds? The most important bit in an info-box is the information in it: what is gained by making it smaller? --NieA7 09:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, it's not too small for me :P And I guess that's the most important point. The larger the gap between elements the easier the box is to read, and reducing the text size makes the gaps more clear without increasing the size of the box. LordBiro 09:52, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm starting to feel my 27 years weighing heavily upon me ¬.¬ Anyway, having looked at the others I don't really have that much of a problem with the 0.9 in the info box itself. I think I'd argue that a bigger font makes text easier to read than bigger gaps (which are fundamentally the non-text bits), but it's not the end of the world. What looks really bad to my eyes is the progression table. Comparing the prototype given on this page to (random example) [1], I find the GW table much easier to read. Here the numbers are all squashed together, not only small but also with very little space between them. There there's a lovely large table enlarged to fit the available space, with normal sized numbers. To my mind the little progression table is a bit of a retrograde step. --NieA7 10:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
NieA - I agree with you, the 90% font IS harder to read. Default font size should be used, and if a user personally wants smaller, they can adjust the font size in their browser rather than the oposite where reduced is forced and getting back to a normal size requires a browser setting change. As near as I can tell, the 90% was used in a box somewhere on one of the first infoboxes, then that code was copied and modified for each subsequent infobox. I haven't been able to track down a discussion on those using it - one may not have taken place, I'm not sure. The first comments made on it that I saw were at the progression box. I commented a bit on the progression box - but gave up when I realized that the 90% setting had already spread like a plague accross the info boxes. As it's in so many places now, discussion on changing it (if anyone wants to fight that battle) should likely go to a central point like GWWT:CP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Personally I have no problem with the current text size - I think it looks great. I'd suggest either using your browser's zoom feature or modify your user CSS somehow. --Santax 11:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Glad someone thinks like me Barek. It sounds almost like more trouble than it's wroth for the text in the info box, I imagine getting all of that changed would be a mammoth job (not technically, but persuading people that we're not just old, blind fools who don't know how to enlarge text in the browser). Can we at least get the progression table done in a normal sized font? As far as I know the skill template is the only template with a table like that, and as it currently stands it's not nice to look at and difficult to read. --NieA7 10:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, this isn't really the place to discuss that. This proposal is only for the skill infobox, the progression template is at Template:Skill progression. I recommend you either suggest it there or on the skills formatting discussion. LordBiro 10:43, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, hadn't realised they were separate templates. --NieA7 10:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Shouldn't there be a Infobox entry in the general formatting guidelines, specifically to discuss issues like this? -- Ondo 00:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Status and Next Steps?[edit]

I hadn't seen any posts here recently, so I wanted to follow up on it. What is the status of taking these changes to the Main namespace? What design work still remains? If that's done, what's the next step? Is there any assistance required to help get this into the main namespace? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

  • What is the status of taking these changes to the Main namespace?
    • I think that the skill infobox could be implemented as is with some changes, i.e. auto-categorisation being uncommented.
  • What design work still remains?
    • As far as the images go, I'm happy with all of the large profession icons and with the new, matching Energy, Recharge and Activation icons etc. The only downside here is that I currently haven't finished the 20x20 profession icons, so there's no way we could currently alter all the profession icons on the site to match. I don't know if this is a barrier or not.
  • If that's done, what's the next step?
    • The next obvious step I can think of is moving the CSS to common.css. I'm not sure what would be next after that. Does anyone have any suggestions?
  • Is there any assistance required to help get this into the main namespace?
    • I'm not certain of that. I don't see any complications, or any serious work that needs doing. The new infobox has an elite parameter that isn't present on (m)any skill articles.
That's about all I can think of at the moment :) LordBiro 17:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Not having the 20x20 icons isn't that much of a problem, particularly when the skill box would look so awesome. :) The elite parameter has been added to the formatting guide and is being added to the pages as they are pulled into format and de-stubbed, adding that parameter is just part of the ongoing effort by many users to get the skills pages up to date. If you are happy with the way it appears and are satisfied it looks ok in IE6 then definitely go live, you've listed no good reasons not to. --Aspectacle 19:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Thoughts[edit]

I like the general layout. The position of the icon and the stats is very nice. I don't like that the background image has it's right part cut off - IMO, it should probably just be a smaller image. I do prefer the current skill template's way of showing the labels (campaign, profession, etc.) - that is, not having green boxes around them - but I realize this way matches the other infoboxes.

I also really dislike switching from the in-game icons for energy and so forth. When documenting Guild Wars one should use Guild Wars art when appropriate, IMO. I agree that it's not appropriate for the profession icons, but that's only because they don't work at the small sizes we need. That's not the case for these icons. If the styles need to match then it's the profession icons that should change, not the Guild Wars icons. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ondo .

IMO, using different icons from the game isn't such a big deal. In general, I think that the ingame icons wouldn't really match with the skill infobox that LordBiro proposes here, the style is just different. And why can't the wiki be different from the game? -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 05:18, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Personally I like having a large, cut-off image, but I can understand your concerns. If people share them I would be willing to change the size of the icons, but since I prefer them at this size I'm not going to alter them unless there's agreement.
Personally I think that using the current energy icon, i.e. Energy.png, with the new profession icons looks silly. Do you think the meaning of each of the new icons is unclear?
Current Proposed
Energy Energy.png Tango-energy.png
Activation Activation.png Tango-activation.png
Recharge Recharge.png Tango-recharge.png
Upkeep Upkeep.png Tango-upkeep.png
Adrenaline Adrenaline.png Tango-adrenaline.png
Sacrifice Sacrifice.png Tango-sacrifice.png
Exhaustion missing File:Tango-exhaustion.png
As you might guess, I think the new icons look really cool, and I think their meaning is very clear. LordBiro 06:25, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
New icons look great to me. Something's always bothered me though - shouldn't the upkeep arrow point left as it's indicating a degeneration? --SnogratTrigsig.png 06:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Hehe, yeah, that has bothered me too, but I think I've just grown used to it! Would a down arrow make more sense? I think that using an arrow pointing left might imply the opposite of upkeep! LordBiro 07:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
On the other hand, the upkeep icon may signify that you need one right pointing arrow of energy for the skill. I'd say: leave it as it is. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 07:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
You don't need energy regen to use this - if you haven't got regenerating energy, use of this skill will give you one pip of energy degeneration. But I wasn't asking for a new icon, just musing on the incongruity. :) --SnogratTrigsig.png 08:29, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Re: Profession icons ... I have no problem with these wiki profession icons. The small versions of the ranger and mesmer icons still need to be updated; but with the large versions updated to what's shown in the above example skills, I have no problem using these wiki icons. They better match the overall style of the wiki, while still being fundamentally similar to the in-game icons.
Re: the various icons for energy, recharge, etc ... I like the crispness of the newer versions; but I would like to see a darker border on them to help them stand out more from the profession icon backgrounds. An example of the problem is on User:LordBiro/Song of Restoration, where the profession color is very close to the usage icon colors, causing the activation and recharge icons to not stand out as much as they could. The simplest solution that I can think of is to darken the borders of these icons (not the thick borders of the originals, just a darker shade on the borders of them to better define their edges). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:10, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I like all the new proposed ones except the activation timer. Maybe it's just me but I think it would look better if it was slightly darker.--Valhallan 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I've never really seen what the activation and adrenaline icon should be (the clock and the hand) before seeing these new icons. Conclusion: I really like the new clearer ones. They don't look totally different to in game icons, and they give the wiki a nice style set. We will never be able to follow the in game design fully, and I don't think we'd even want to (in the case of profession icons, for example). Fresh ones that go with the rest of the wiki design is better, imo. - Anja Astor Anja Astor (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
The meaning of the new icons is fairly clear - I think the activation and recharge are a bit too similar, but that's not really the issue. The icons look good. The one and only problem I have with them is that the art style clashes with Guild Wars's art style. The wiki should look like a Guild Wars wiki - it shouldn't have its own distinctive style any more than the Guild Wars manual should be different, or the box, or the official web site. Obviously you have to account for each medium's differences - screenshots are way too low resolution for the box, and way too high for the wiki's profession icons. However, you can and should use new artwork that matches stylistically. Fortunately we already have profession icons that do a great job of this - LordBiro's earlier icons. I think using those on the skill page, as GuildWiki does, makes it look like a Guild Wars wiki. The ones proposed here make it look like a generic wiki that happens to cover Guild Wars - you could easily do any game with an icon set that matched these. I don't think that's desirable. As a side note, I'm not quite advocating the current icon set - playing today I noticed the in-game icons look to me like they have thinner black borders around the edge than those. -- Ondo 03:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
What is the colour of the bikeshed ? --Dirigible 04:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Hear, hear. "make it look like a generic wiki" - bah. The skill box is beautiful. As I said above - go live Biro. Let's stop this needless chatter. --Aspectacle 04:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, I'm confused by your last post there, Ondo, since the in-game icons look nothing like the icons currently used, lol, although I know that these ones don't either. As I've said before, the profession icons work fine in the game, but they're not great at very small (~20x20) sizes. There are other reasons, but you know. :) LordBiro 05:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
I like the new icons, too. They look similar enough to the in game icons that players would know what they mean with just a quick look, but different enough so they match this wiki more than the in game ones. We are not the game - the wiki has a different layout and etc, so it doesn't bother me that we don't share the exact same look of the game. Erasculio 09:15, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
I meant the current energy, recharge, etc. icons, not the profession ones. -- Ondo 15:33, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Activation and recharge icons[edit]

Before going live, I would like to discuss the icon borders on the various icons for energy, recharge, etc ... my post above wasn't commented on, and I do feel it's a concern. Personally, I would like to see a darker border on them to help them stand out more from the profession icon backgrounds. An example of the problem is on User:LordBiro/Song of Restoration, where the profession color is very close to the usage icon colors, causing the activation and recharge icons to not stand out as much as they could. The simplest solution that I can think of is to darken the borders of these icons (not the thick borders of the originals, just a darker shade on the borders of them to better define their edges). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Sounds decent. Lets see an example of a "darkened border" then? I have nothing to compare with. :) --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 11:44, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
I hadn't forgotten, Barek, sorry I didn't reply. I haven't produced a darker bordered version yet. Once I do I will let you know. I think another alternative might be to increase the transparency of the background image. What do you think? LordBiro 15:21, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
I hadn't thought of that, but it could work too. But would it appear too washed out then? I'm not really sure. My main concern though was just making the icon stand out when on a similarly shaded background - you're far more tallented at the manipulations of the icons, colors, and transparency levels than I, so I'll leave it to you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:52, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
I just tried a darker outline at User:LordBiro/Skill icon comparison, what do you think? LordBiro 08:33, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I think it is an improvement. - BeXoR 09:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
To say the truth, I see no difference at all. Maybe I need new glasses 0_0. Doesn't look bad to me, though. Erasculio 09:57, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
It's very obvious that the one on the left has a slightly darker border. ;-) It looks good IMO. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 09:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I like the darker one too. It's much better IMO. What about bolding the skill stats too? (ie: energy/adrenaline, cast, recharge numbers) --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 10:02, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
You're not alone, Erasculio, I don't see any difference between the two either... Maybe I need new eyes. O_o --Dirigible 10:08, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm surprised you don't see the difference :o Erasculio, Dirigible, do you think that the outline should be darkened further, or do both the light and dark icons look distinct enough for you?
I have added examples of bolding the skill stats to User:LordBiro/Skill icon comparison, but I don't think I like it. It doesn't look as refined. :/ LordBiro 10:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually, nvm, I see the darker borders. I was just looking at the wrong part of the infobox, I was looking for a difference in the background profession image. Doh. Either of those two looks fine to me. Bold stats on the other hand are a bit more readable than normal font, but as you said it does look slightly less stylish. Not sure which version I'd go with, hard compromise to make. =\ --Dirigible 10:31, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I was happy with the original version already : ) I did the same mistake Dirigible did, now that I'm looking at the little clock thing I see the difference. I like both versions, if we just kept the original one I wouldn't mind it.
I like the one without bolding more. I think it suits more the semi-transparent background image, making the entire infobox something "lighter" (and more refined, too). Erasculio 10:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I like the darker outline, that version looks great to me! As for the bolding of the stat numbers, I don't have a preference - both look okay to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:58, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Hm. The bolding does make it more eye friendly but less like eye candy. Maybe just leave it in the standard font then. The bold is a litle chunky on this pretty page. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 11:07, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I will leave it not-bolded, but if there are complaints then we know it is an option. :)
At this point, how does everyone feel about implementation? LordBiro 11:25, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I felt the bolding was easier to read. I would be happy to see this implemented asap! - BeXoR 12:15, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Do eeet! ;) --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 12:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Go go go go go go!!! -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 12:43, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I support go-live with this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:07, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Auto-categorisation[edit]

I commented out the categorisation code a while ago. Now I've added it back in to every skill. You can see which categories the template would add each skill to in the blue box at the top of each article. LordBiro 11:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Category:Spells and Category:Prophecies skills are going to be huge. Not sure how we can avoid that, though. Maybe it's not even really a big deal, but I can't help feeling uncomfortable at the thought of elephantine categories. --Dirigible 12:29, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Implementation[edit]

Man, Barek and Aspectacle are quick! I've added the CSS to common.css, so the first step is complete! You can remove the custom CSS from your skin.

I will wait a while before replacing the template, since most people won't have downloaded the new CSS yet. LordBiro 17:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Can I just...[edit]

congratulate LordBiro on a really wonderful set of skillbox icons - I have been playing GW for what seems like an eternity, but it was only on seeing the new icons that I finally realized the in-game adrenaline symbol was meant to be a fist. People shouldn't be urging us to keep the ingame/official icons, they should be encouraging ANet to use LordBiro's! So much clearer and self-explanatory. Genuinely, a revelation :D User Fox.jpg Fox (talk|contribs) 14:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

lol, you are far too kind, Fox :) Thank you! LordBiro 15:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
(edit conflict) I've always wondered that too, Fox. I could never understand why the icon for adrenaline was a chess knight :D --SnogratUser Snograt signature.png 15:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Exactly. Even the activation icon was hard for me to see before. Now it's really nice and obvious ;) - Anja Astor Anja Astor (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
A fist!? I thought it was some kind of sea urchin... go figure. ?o.o? --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 08:00, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=User_talk:LordBiro/Skill_box_draft_5&oldid=1287743"