Template talk:Skill box/Archive 1

The div style="clear:right;" is unnecessary I believe. If there are colisions with progression bar, we can plug it into progression. I don't see any other reason the clear:right is placed there. -PanSola 06:43, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Blah, forgot the sectioning would be above the clear right if I put it inside progression template... -PanSola 06:47, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Can you argue for the fake section please? Your reasons for it are entirely opaque to me. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 06:51, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * So ppl avoid hitting that edit link altogether. I'm constantly underestimating how many ppl don't read directions so... -PanSola 07:09, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * But that is a matter of policy and we have enough eyes watching over the recent changes list to catch that quickly. After all, if someone breaks the skill box template, it will be noticed in a matter of seconds. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 07:13, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * What is a matter of policy? I can't think of a reason WHY we would want that edit link there. o_O" -PanSola 07:14, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * That people shouldn't use the edit link there is a matter of policy. It is easily enforced, and your tinkertoy sections break the uniformity of the site. In particular, not all stylesheets follow a section heading with a horizontal rule. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 07:24, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't see it as a policy thing, but rather as an intention thing. We don't intend an edit link to be there.  People who see an edit link there and click on it intend to edit the article, not the template. Thus the edit link serves nobody. Though you have a very good point about the stylesheet.  Is there any other way to create a pseudo section that would work? or anyway to only disable edit subsection of the included document but doesn't affect the including document?  I'm still undecided which is the greater evil, but if there is a third way out I definitely welcome it.  -PanSola 07:33, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * How about now? &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 07:50, 4 May 2006 (CDT) Hmm... Didn't work

Should there be a colon after "campaign?" --68.142.14.94 20:39, 10 May 2006 (CDT)

Template:
Is this a mistake? Skuld  07:04, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
 * It's not a mistake. -PanSola 07:14, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

Elite skill icon
Thought we could use one for the new skill box. I'm sure this would fit nicely next to name or skill type. (T/C) 00:41, 24 May 2006 (CDT)
 * OMG I miss that icon from so long ago. I'd love to use it, but new players will not recognize it, so not sure if it is wise to introduce it... - 01:03, 24 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Well it doesnt mean we have to take away from the wording or icon labling it as an elite skill. [[Image:Chuiu Me Icon.png]] (T/C) 17:10, 24 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm in favor of it. It's pretty easy to see at a glance, unlike the yellow skill icon border. -- Gordon Ecker 04:29, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

nbsp
Internet Explorer doesn't display empty cells properly. Specifically, it doesn't display the borders of empty cells. Could someone alter this template so that if stat1, stat2 or stat3 is blank then the collesponding cell has  & nbsp;  (without the space) in it instead of being empty? -- Gordon Ecker 18:51, 29 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm not entirely sure what you're asking since there are no/aren't supposed to be borders between the various stats. For example, the mockup in the section above looks the same in IE and Firefox (besides IE's broken PNG transparency).  If I've misunderstood, could you name a skill which looks wrong in IE?  --68.142.14.19 19:11, 29 July 2006 (CDT)
 * The skill box template has 2 forms, the box form produced by, designed to be used in skill pages, which works fine, and the horizonal one called as  , designed to be used as part of a table in skill quick reference pages, which has the border error. You can see the border error on the Monk, Mesmer, Paragon and Dervish skill quick reference pages. -- Gordon Ecker 04:23, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I guess the template usage is confusing, but you were asking about Template:skill bow row. Pan fixed it. --68.142.14.19 06:04, 31 July 2006 (CDT)