Talk:Skill quests

I'm trying to convert my skill reward quest list to Wiki format. Help appreciated. --Tetris L 18:11, 16 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * An interesting premise, to be sure, but perhaps it would be better off as a category rather than a list? I'm somewhat concerned that such a page would become overly long and complicated... Also, manual conversion is stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. I'll see about getting a perl script whipped up to convert the (somewhat overly heavy, Heard of CSS?) HTML into wikiformat. --Talrath Stormcrush 18:55, 16 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * I agree. Just the fact that each row in the table has 5 cells out of 6 empty means that this probably should not be a table. I would suggest grouping them into a sub category of Quests called "Skill Acquisition Quest" or "Skill quests" and then within that create six sub groups for the six professions. It would be a different way of browsing the same content. I like the skill trainers list below it though. That's a tight looking table that could be added as a link in the Skill trainers category. --Karlos 20:05, 16 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Don't worry about manual conversion. I got the table as an MS Excel Spreadsheet. I'll convert it to Wiki format with some Excel script. I'll do it tonight and put it online in the current format. If it's too large for 1 page we can split it into 5 pages for the 5 professions later. In Excel this is all very quick and easy. --Tetris L 22:25, 16 Jul 2005 (EST)

Okay, I have converted the format, but I'm not happy with the result myself. This is work in progress. I agree the table is too large. I will split it and create one page for each profession. Will do this tomorrow or on Monday. --Tetris L 04:52, 17 Jul 2005 (EST)

I'm surprised I haven't seen this page before! The syntax is obviously wrong. Just for the record, I dont think you need to create a seperate  inside a table cell to color the background; you can just color the background of the cell itself. But that's not really important. I don't know if this information suits table format at all, whether it's on seperate pages for each profession or location or whatever. If it is split into pages based on profession then I vote it be shown in the form of a list. This might be what Tetris was already considering, but I just want to make it clear. 22:03, 17 Jul 2005 (EST)

Tetris, consider this: We have a "Skill Trainer" listing of all trainers in which the skills provided by each trainer are listed. We also have a "Skill" listing (sorted by profession) in which you can click on a skill to find out where to acquire it. Don't you think that between those two, that this table is well represented? I think we should focus more on making sure those two ways work. i.e. That all the skills of a trainer are listed for him/her and that all the ways of acquiring a skill are listed in that skill. These two ways are (I think) the two ways the user thinks when coming to this site, either: "Where do I get this skill?" or "What does the trainer in that outpost have to offer me?" --Karlos 04:42, 18 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Agreed. &mdash;Tanaric 17:12, 19 Jul 2005 (EST)

Great job convertin that table.

I find this table extremely easy to read and I'm not sure splitting it to seperate pages will be a good thing. Just thought I'd add my $.02. --Aladrin 03:03, 12 Sep 2005 (EST)

Color Scheme
I appreciate who ever is trying to color this, I just think the current colors are messy and confusing! --Karlos 08:44, 11 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Maybe if only the cells with skills in them were colored? --Fyren 09:14, 11 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * I did that (while not logged in) for the post-Searing section. I'll do the rest if it looks better than it was before (and better than the current coloring).  --Fyren 11:09, 15 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * No, no, no.. :) It's not just the colors, it's the redundancy of white space.. I'll mess around with this page tonight to try and show you what I mean. Words have failed me! :) --Karlos 15:08, 15 Sep 2005 (EST)

Credits
I'm lovin' this article, but the precedent here at GuildWiki is that we never list credits on articles. The theory goes that, since multiple people have worked on this since the original contributions, it's not fair to list only the original contributers. Besides, anyone wanting to know the credits to an article can check the revision history. I won't remove the credits myself, but it'd be mighty grand of those mentioned in the credits to remove themselves. &mdash;Tanaric 10:56, 4 Oct 2005 (EST)