Template talk:Anomaly

Shouldn't this have a link to List of skill anomalies? Thought ful  (Talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, it has a category page (which I added a link to). Thought ful [[Image:Thoughtful Sig.png|19px]] (Talk) 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody resize the pic and reupload it as a 15x15? I think this one is too big and looks a little out of place. --Shadowcrest 23:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Formatting
I find the restricted with combined with lack of a border confusing. Advise either adding a border or making it full-width. Thoughts? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 09:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

icon
Can we please revert to the "normal" question mark? The italicized one is too distracting. &mdash;Dr Ishmael 00:39, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you like. I'd prefer that we find a higher rez one; I find the former one, erm, distracting b/c it contrasts with the more polished look of other images.


 * I couldn't find anything that matched our icons for bug notes, historical notes, and exclamations. I'm happy to do more looking, if someone has a better resource than a random Google search. &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 00:51, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just find the font, write a big ? in MS Paint, and upload it. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 01:31, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I've added the redirect that the original GIF had. -- ◄mendel► 07:55, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Could we just use a plaintext question mark instead of an image? I still can't stand the italicized icons.

&mdash;Dr Ishmael 22:41, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

link
This template is being used in a whole lot of places besides skill articles. Is it really appropriate for it to still link to the skill anomalies page? &mdash;Dr Ishmael 22:42, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not. Perhaps Anomaly should be created? [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 00:06, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is supposed to apply only to skills? Facepalms self! I guess that's why we called it, to avoid that confusion. Oh, wait.  &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 00:11, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Using AWB's list comparer, this template is used on 147 skill pages and 66 non-skill pages. Thus, while about 2/3 of all anomalies are on skills, there is quite a significant incidence of anomalies in other areas of the game.  This template should definitely not link to the list of skill anomalies.
 * Since this is a somewhat-widely-used template, though, we should try to decide on a final solution first. Should we create an all-encompassing "list of anomalies" article like Felix suggested?  (could be done with DPL)  Or just leave out a link altogether?  This template is unique among the in-line notices in having a link at all.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 01:30, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's likely that the other in-lines don't auto-link/categorize b/c people weren't thinking of that when the template was created. So, I think these are the questions I would like to see answered:
 * Is there any reason to distinguish skill anomalies from other anomalies?
 * Is there any value in auto-cat/links for any uses of various in-line notices? (as we do with e.g. and so forth).
 * Is it useful to also have a list (distinct from a category) of same?


 * My take is: it's worth distinguishing "skill anomalies" as a subcat of anomalies, it's useful to auto-cat, but not auto-list (since the number is high). Unless you work for ANet and want to see if any of the anomalies are worth fixing, having a long list isn't particular more helpful than visiting the category page. &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:47, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Subcatting skill anomalies ain't happenin'. Unless'n you create Template:Skill anomaly after all. Doubt it's worth getting folks to mind there's two of them anomalous templates, tho.
 * Cat pages are nice to annotate and sort categories; it's a way to find them (in this case, via Category:Bugs. If you didn't want that, you could just use Special:WhatLinksHere on the template.
 * We have no other anomalies page because while it makes sort of sense for skill anomalies (listed by profession! but it's incomplete?), nobody has found it useful to list the other anomalies yet. It is practical to advertise the anomaly page that we do have; it is practical to advertise a useful page, even if it is inappropriate. If you feel you want to list non-skill anomalies on a page anyway, I'd still try going with a single anomalies page (maybe renamed?), because that means a single link; anything else means two clicks for part of the anomalies. -- ◄mendel► 04:41, September 8, 2010 (UTC)