User talk:BrianG/Build Page Redesign Proposal 1

Ideas
You know i think a "builds by proffesion" would be nice--it would be better to find a psefic build you need or if your just looking for a new build for your proffesion. Of course it yould just be a altertitive to builds by use not a replacement NOTE: it would also help to find a build if you were unsure what category it was in--Blade (talk|contribs) 12:58, 10 January 2007 (CST)

New and improved
(removed out of date sample version)


 * Hmmm, that works to fix the symmetry problem, and I like it better than my version, but it kinda goes against formatting conventions used on the site. I'll update it to this now as its an improvement but I'm still not sure its the best.  I really like how the text is reduced by eliminating the redundency in the category names though. -- BrianG 23:30, 10 January 2007 (CST)
 * what about reversing the order, so the lines would be:

etc? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:32, 10 January 2007 (CST)
 * Alliance Battles - Untested /
 * I did try that at first but then they don't line up and look a bit wavy. BrianG suggested a table to insert so I'll look into it and see if I can do that so we can keep the name first and the links second.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  07:23, 11 January 2007 (CST)

New and improved: Comments

I've changed the above sample to reflect a table but there are still some preferences to work out like the thickness of the border (if any) and the alignment of the title column. Personally, I prefer it as I have in the working sample above (align left with thick border) but I'll change it to whatever you guys want (or you can) as that thick border may be a bit intrusive on the page. Here's some sample tables to see the results.

Thick border with left align. Thin borber with center align. No border with right align.

Additionally, you could use this table format to use for the category labels. It accepts typed words and the border can be thickened to reflect depth which I beleive was mentioned as a preferance on those pages. Here's an example (without actual links though):

For a single category (no cell spacing): For multiple categories (wide cell spacing): OR (thin cell spacing)

Let me know what you guys think as I believe Barek was thinking of using icons instead and this may not be applicable at all though I think icons can be inserted in a similar fashion too.--  Vallen Frostweaver  09:59, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * Awesome, this is looking exactly like I was hoping, thanks for the help Vallen. My personal preference out of the options you listed would be: bold, left-aligned category names, and centered links.  For the border, I do think the thick borders are a bit... not intrusive, but crowded maybe.  But I've never been crazy about that type of table border so I'm biased.  I was imagining something thin and that matches the existing table borders on the page.  I'll play around with the code a bit and see what I come up with, thanks again for your efforts Vallen! -- BrianG 10:47, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * Oh yeah, and I'm sure that whatever is decided on for Barek's tags, it will easily be able to fit into a column of the table. We'll leave that pending for now on the completion of his project. -- BrianG 10:49, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * No problem and I was glad to help. I posted the suggestion on that tags page just in case though.  If you need anything else just give me a shout.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  10:50, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * Vallen, I really appreciate it. I used to do a lot of table design in HTML but not in wikicode, and I kept procrastinating on figuring it out.  It was really helpful to be able to use your code to learn how they work, and now I've got the hang of it.  I've updated the main page now with your version, then played around with it to get the tables to look like what I had in mind.  What do you think?  I decided against the bold category names, it looked better with just the column headings bolded.  The only thing I'm not happy with now is the spacing between the "PvP Builds by Category" header box and the table.  A BR seems like too much space, but without a BR, the table goes right up against the header box.  Is there any wikicode that will give a half line break or something? Or would I have to put some kind of div around the table? -- BrianG 12:10, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * Well I just gleaned a few bits of info here and there and figured the rest out myself. I see what you're talking about but regrettably, this is the extent of my wiki knowledge here.  Perhaps someone like Gem might know of a way to accomplish what you are looking to do or, if not a way, a user.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  12:30, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * No problem, its a minor concern anyway. What do you think of the tables though? -- BrianG 12:46, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * Me likey. I say it's ready for submission as is.  The space is a minor detail.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  12:58, 11 January 2007 (CST)


 * I like it as well - although we'll need to agree on the untested category names for the PvE builds. You have "PvE" in their names currently, which isn't in their tested counterparts - and some differences on the case used for some words.  That will cause some problems with the auto-categorization from the template.  I have some alternate untested category names on .  Take a look and let me know what you think. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:14, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * I was just using what was already on the page for the links. They can be changed to whatever you like or decide upon.  I was only working on the format a bit.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  13:51, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * Barek, I agree, there are still some minor naming issues to decide on. I mentioned on your page how I didn't like "PvE Other" and thought we need a better name for that since it will be the most used category, so "other" doesn't sound right.  I just put PvE here as a placeholder for whatever name is decided.  If there are any capitalization issues its probably just an error on my part so feel free to adjust.  I still want to update the color-scheme to match your icons, but I need to do that from home as I'm mildly color blind so I'll need to use an eyedropper tool to make sure I get the colors right, unless you'd like to take a crack at it.  Also, I think instead of the "AB", "CM", etc links we have in the table, I think they could be replaced by your logos, and these tables would then function as a legend for the logos.  I just wasn't sure if you were done with them and whether the code would work if I stick it in there.  Any ideas for the spacing issue I mentioned? -- BrianG 14:10, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * Barek, I see what you mean now about the categories. They didn't exist before so I had guessed at the names, but I see you have created them now, awesome.  I've updated all the links now. -- BrianG 14:39, 11 January 2007 (CST)


 * For the spacing, there should be a buffering code for the table, but I can't recall it. I'll look later today.
 * For "PvE (other)", that's just the name I put on the label - the actual category and the actual code used in the template to select it is just "PvE". The label can be changed without affecting anything else - just not sure the best one to use. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:44, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * It's looking even better with good links in there. Just keep in mind that if you use the icons from Bareks work on the other page in the tables it will expand the height and width of the table to match, stretching the whole page most likely.  Of course I may be thinking something different than you so I'll wait until you get another draft up if you decide to try it before making anymore comments.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  15:09, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * Personally, I like the clean look of the page now - no need for the faux-icons to be placed here that were designed for the untested/tested templates in my opinion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:12, 11 January 2007 (CST)

next steps
(Resetting indent) Yeah you're probably right guys. It was just an idea but in practice it will probably look too busy and increase the width of the rows unneccessarily. I'm happy with the clean look as well so I'll just keep it as is. Remaining outstanding issues for me: After these issues are resolved, I think I should move the page to a subfolder of the Build page (like Barek's page), and then put a note on the build talk page asking for opinions from the community. Let me know if I'm forgetting anything else. -- BrianG 15:31, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * 1) Minor spacing issue as discussed above - Barek, get back to me on this at your convenience.
 * 2) Fix color-scheme to match Barek's template tags - red is done now, need to touch up the blue a bit tonight.
 * 3) Are we still going to need some kind of master list category for "all untested" and "all tested"?  Or maybe split it to "all untested PvE" etc?  Or are we okay with no master list?  If we need higher level categories, where should they fit on the page?
 * 4) Barek, can you create the "PvE Hero" categories so those red links are fixed? (I think this is a great solution to the "Hero Builds" issue, as this will not require specific builds to be created, people can just add the tag for that category to existing builds if they test and verify the build works well on a hero).
 * The hero categories are already setup at "Hero builds" and "Untested hero builds"; or do you want them renamed to "PvE her builds" and "Untested PvE hero builds"? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:39, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * 3. You could add another line at the top of each table for "All PvP Builds" / "All" / "All" and another for "All PvE Builds" / "All" / "All" if you desire. I don't know if this is necessary but we kinda use that as it is now so I don't see it as a bad thing per se.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  15:58, 11 January 2007 (CST)


 * I wasn't able to find the coding to force a border - maybe I'm mistaken. I did find how to trick it to work - basically by inserting an empty table.  Instead of the BR currently used for a space, you can use this:
 * I'm certain there's a better way - but that will work for now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:10, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * Cool thanks Barek, that looks like it will work. As for the hero cats, I honestly don't have any naming preferences, so I'll leave that up to you. I thought my hero links were red but they seem to be blue now so we're good. Vallen, that would actually be a perfect way to implement master lists into the table, I like it. I'm leaning towards including this idea, but I'm going to leave it up to Barek as I'm not sure how all this category stuff works, any thoughts Barek? -- BrianG 16:17, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * Currently, all untested are also included in the "Untested builds" category, and all tested are in the "tested builds" category. I've left those intact for the templates that I modified.  Also currently, all tested PvP build type categories are subcategories of "PvP builds" category, and all tested PvE build type categories are subcategories of "PvE builds" category.  Similar can be done with the untested pretty easilly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:26, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * Right, I realize how we have it set up right now, but I don't have links for "All Tested" and "All Untested" right now, and have no good place to fit them into the design, so thats the issue. I think I like Vallen's idea then, master lists split by PvE vs PvP, thats more useful anyway I think.  I'll add the rows to the table when I work on it later tonight, and leave the category management to you.  Thanks both of you for your help, I'm really happy with how this is looking now. -- BrianG 16:35, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * Right, I realize how we have it set up right now, but I don't have links for "All Tested" and "All Untested" right now, and have no good place to fit them into the design, so thats the issue. I think I like Vallen's idea then, master lists split by PvE vs PvP, thats more useful anyway I think.  I'll add the rows to the table when I work on it later tonight, and leave the category management to you.  Thanks both of you for your help, I'm really happy with how this is looking now. -- BrianG 16:35, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Sorry I haven't commented on this, I've still not got the computer sorted out from the move so internet time is limited. I've made a few alterations to the table - nothing very exciting, just a few language tweaks to compress it a bit so it looks good for users with a medium/low resolution (it's readable at 800x600 at the moment, which is probably good enough). I've also added slots for featured untested team builds: team builds take much longer to vet as they're much harder to test, I think it's worth having them separated out. Feel free to revert if you don't like it though. I won't be online over the weekend much (if at all), so I'll just say that at the moment this is looking pretty promising. --NieA7 10:44, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * NieA7, I'm happy with all your changes, especially the compression you did by removing breaks and trimming down the text, I think it is a good improvement. The only thing I'm unsure about is the "Untested" link at the top.  I think part of the benefit of creating the untested subcategories is to direct people to make sure they are testing according to the proper arena of play.  Keeping the "All Untested" category will mean that we'll continue to deal with people who are judging builds based on the wrong arena of play.  I think once a build is submitted to stubs, and goes through a process to decide which arenas of play it will do well in, it should then only be listed in those specific untested areas.  I do realize that for convenience, someone may want to look at a larger list of all untested or tested builds, so I'm going to add "all pve untested" and "all pvp untested" and the same for tested, so that we can have a master list but still at least maintain a split between these 2 types.  I'm going to remove the untested link for now, but if you feel differently let's continue to discuss it when you are online. -- BrianG 11:20, 12 January 2007 (CST)

Colors
It would seem you got around to changing some colors. I like them. The red PvP colors pop and match Bareks icons better. The PvE on the other hand looks likt the border needs to be brighter but then you might not have gotten to that yet.--  Vallen Frostweaver  07:59, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Hmmm yeah I wasn't sure whether the blue needed updating, I was mostly worried about the red, I'm glad to hear turned out alright. I'll try adjusting the blue border to the brighter blue that Barek is using on his icon, I think the background is already good though.  Thanks for the feedback. -- BrianG 09:42, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Colors look great now. Thumbs up!--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  08:00, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Missing Categories
Barek, I've updated the page to show the "master lists" for pvp and pve. That leaves us with 3 categories that currently do not exist. I used the PvE categories that are already created for the pve master lists, leaving us to create the categories for general pve builds. I've chosen "General" for the name for now, but I'm open to suggestions on this one, if anyone can think of something more descriptive. The other category that is still needed is "all untested pvp". I'm not sure if I've described this properly, so please take a look at the page and let me know if you have any questions. -- BrianG 11:58, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * I like the use for PvP and PvE builds. For the general PvE builds, I'm not sure that I like the name "General builds", but I'm not sure of the best alternative.  I posted more over at  on this.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:10, 12 January 2007 (CST)

Categories
OK, BrianG asked for input, and I don't have much because I really like the way it looks right now. I like PvE general more than "other", and I like to color schemes and balance. I'm not sure that "untested" should be column 1, and "tested" should be column 2 though... I would think for a number of reasons that they should be the other way around. I would think that primary use of this page is to access data rather than modify or test the new wiki builds (I could be wrong).

My only input has to do with where the links take you. Generally, Category pages themselves seem a little thin. For example, clicking through to gets you this barebone list. I think it would be cool if these shells at least were had header sections which refer to policies for voting and testing, etc. I understand that these lists will be much longer when they are correctly populated, I'm simply suggesting that those pages could look much better and be more informative.

Overall, great work guys! -- Oblio (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * I agree - the current "Untested XXXX builds" category pages were just made as copies of the regular tested build categories so that they could be setup; but the untested categories should at the very least have links to the current build vetting procedures and maybe some of the other build creation related articles as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:07, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, I'm with you on that as well. I don't think we need to do any major design work but some basic links and notices would be useful, sort of like the current untested page. -- BrianG 15:22, 12 January 2007 (CST)

Also, are you going to try to fit those new "catagory boxes" onto the page at all? I'm not advocating it, just a random brainstomish idea. -- Oblio (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * I did suggest the idea of fitting those boxes into the table, but others figured they would make it too crowded and wouldn't really be needed since they are just text that says the same thing that the table already indicates. I tend to agree as well.  It could work but I think its unneeded. -- BrianG 15:22, 12 January 2007 (CST)

GW:ULC
Note: I know several who will change this instantly if/when it goes live ... the section headers should be converted to lowercase for all but the first letter (see the current Main Page or for examples of current use). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:33, 12 January 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks for the tip! I hadn't seen that policy document, and just capitalized things out of habit. I think I've got them all corrected now. -- BrianG 16:45, 12 January 2007 (CST)