Template talk:Skill box

Archive #1

Auto-categorization of skills without concise descriptions

 * should still be displayed when not specified, to better help users notice it instead of relaying on categorization. The "return to" link seem redundant to me, since the skill box's name field already provides the link. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 21:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, I just did it for easier return after checking it. you can remove it if you want. &mdash;[[Image:MaySig.png]] Warw/Wick 21:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of displaying "" then, could something like "Information missing" (or whatever along those lines) go as the else part? -- Brains12 \ Talk 22:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would prefer something that informs the user of the variable name so they don't have to go to a different page to look it up. Not everyone remembers the exact wording/capitalization/dash-vs-underscore used in the template parameter names. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 22:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, template:skill box draft currently has some other low-priority changes pending (I want to wait to incoporate more changes at once, to minimize the job queue which is at about 20,000 right now.  So when War's proposed changed are finalized, it'd be nice to do them together. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 22:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (update) Template:Skill box draft has been updated with the auto-categorization. I'm now waiting for any other proposed changes for the skill box before pushing it live (including possible alternate text to display when concise description is not specified). -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 00:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So whats up with this: Category:Skills_missing_concise_description&mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 02:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * do you mean why is it red, why it has so few stuff in it, or what the entire issue is about? -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 03:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Touch Skills
The concise descriptions are noting touch range in the skill type, and not in the description. Maybe we should add a "touch = yes" parameter that would change for instance "Elite Skill" to "Elite Touch Skill"? &mdash; Poki#3, 13:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Arg, lemme think about it before I form an opinion. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 23:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add the parameter in for now. However,the skill box itself will not display it.  The parameter is there so that other skiill templates (qr etc) have the ability to do so, especially ones that will pair with concise descriptions. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 23:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think individua skill templates should specify "touch = yes" in the same way elites are specified, but I am currently against specifically including it into the skill box itself.  I am modifing the box to check for touch= for autocategorization purposes though. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 23:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of something exactly like the "elite = yes" parameter. It wouldn't be a big problem to add that to skill templates, since it looks like we only have 42 touch skills. &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

An alternative would be to add a "Range" parameter. Values could be Normal, Half, Touch, Melee and Self. - Most spells and bow/spear attacks would be Normal range; - Half-range spells and bow attacks (like point black shot) would be Half; - Touch skills such as blood ritual would be Touch; - Regular melee and melee weapon attack skills would be Melee; - All Stances, rituals, self-targeting skills such as fire attunement and elite forms, and PBAoE skills like cyclone axe and star burst would be self. Also "None" could be used in place of "Self" if that was deemed more appropriate. --Dracaena 07:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's overkill :/ But anyway, are we going to do this? Because I really want to add the concise descriptions to some skills, but I can't because I'll be ignoring touch range :/ &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 10:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We definitely need something for this, either using "touch=yes" and "half-range=yes", or using "range=xxx". The range parm has the potential to be more widely useful, but it would be a lot of work to add it to every skill.  The touch/half-range parms would be much  easier to do (only have to add to certain skills), and for this template we could just add the following between the Elite check and the type check:


 * So that, say, Star Burst would show up as "Elite Touch Spell," just like the in-game concise description shows it. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 06:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Profession icon...
The small profession icon is touching the profession name sometimes (if the profession name is long, and the skill type is short). See Dark Aura, Arc Lightning etc. &mdash; Poki#3, 23:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Flush your cache and let me know if it is better now. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 01:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's ok now... EDIT: Well... not always. &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 10:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bold text
Is ugly. (I mean the energy cost and those things). Drag nmn  talk cont  19:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Using this template for non-skills
I was wondering about the implications of using this template for things that are not technically skills, e.g. Environmental Effects, Conditions, and Disguises. It's already being used for a few, like Lucky Aura and Chains of Enslavement. I'm wondering this because in my search through gw.dat for concise descriptions, I found that all skills, effects, blessings, conditions, etc. are treated essentially the same by the game engine in that they all have a name, a description, and a concise description. Since I'm pretty sure we'd want to document these concise descriptions, it would make sense to use this template. However, I'm a bit hesitant to change up existing articles for this - especially the Conditions pages, which have looked the same for over a year. On the other hand, most of the env-effect pages need some cleanup, and this could help...

Bah, I don't know. For now I'll just finish adding concise descriptions to things that already use the template. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 07:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a good idea to come up with a similar template for enviromental effects. Similar but it does't need all the same info and it could be a different color and trigger different categories. 69.122.146.84 18:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's probably the way to go - especially since, as you noted, they wouldn't need even half the features this template has. I'll get concise descriptions on the rest of the "real" skills, then start working on that.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 01:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I got one mocked up: User:Dr ishmael/Effect box, see it in action at User:Dr ishmael/Test Effect. I suck at design, so I dunno what sort of color would be good for the header row.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 06:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

TOC
If you add NOTOC to this page, will it remove the table of contents from all skill pages? --Macros 04:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. The TOC was intentionally placed there.  You'd have to dig back on the original discussion.  I don't even remember which side of the argument I was on anymore... -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 04:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find the original conversation, but I assume most people involved aren't active on the wiki anymore. The TOC box is right in the middle of the template, and it's really ugly. Could we have some sort of revisit to determine if we should keep it? --Macros 05:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with debating the position of the TOC. I am against unitarially removing TOC from all skill articles (but that might mean no TOC by default and give TOC on special cases).  I also think I have a better work around against the issue that originally placed the TOC there.  Go to 800x600 resolution and take a look at, say, Backfire with TOC collapsed to appreciate the original issue that made Fryen put the TOC where he put it. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 05:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do we need a TOC? Skill articles are ridiculously short. And 90% of the content is the same for all of them (Acquisition, Notes, Related articles.)
 * If we can't have it that way, then could someone make a few test pages showing the TOC is different places? Then we could vote on the best one. --Macros 05:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the problem with pages like Backfire. Would there be any way to condense the attribute box for 800x600 only? Though, that page looks ugly with AND without the TOC, but maybe that's just because I never use 800x600 :P --Macros 05:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Essentially every attributed-skill will have the same problem. I think the next larger standard resolution also has problems too.  I have a solution, but the solution involves putting a blank space where the current TOC is.   Anyways, some skill pages do get a bit long.  Thus I do think having a TOC helps. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 05:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the TOC was always below the description, but above the progression table (like in one of my skills) and not at the very top. Didn't you accidentally break something during one of your updates Pan? ^^; &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 09:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Poki you came intot he conversation late. Backfire is now on a testing version of the skill box.  Go pick a random other attributed skill to look at d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...anyway, why change the TOC? :/ It's fine as it is... &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 17:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree with Macros here that the current TOC position for the skill articles is arbitrary and unconventional. Typically it should be either at the top of the page or before the first heading.  The reason why it was placed between description and progression was just to fill up empty space, and thus I am proposing an alternative that would also satisfy the "filling up space" goal while adhering to more natural expectations of TOC positioning. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 18:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO the most important thing on that page is the skill description, so that should be at the top. It definitely looks bad that the icon and other data on the right is at the top, and the actual description is sometimes below that. I agree that it should be on the top for almost every page, but skills are an exception. &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|19px|My Talk Page :o]], 18:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The TOC links to the Description as the first and foremost item, so I consider that a sufficient compromise to honor "Description" as the #1 important item on the page. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 19:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)