Sundering

Forum: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion
VisualWikitext
Line 142: Line 142:
  | To =  
  | To =  
  | Text = I agree that'd be a good way to handle creatures with multiple versions. For the creature class pages, I'd suggest that since an abundance of lore is the exception, we keep the layout as is, however for those few types with more than 2 or 3 paragraphs of lore, to have 2-3 paragraphs of abbreviated lore on the class page with a link to an additional page where the lore is expanded as you suggest. My preference would be with <nowiki>[[<Creature Class> Lore]]</nowiki>. Besides the frequency issue (maybe 10 of the 70+ classes have lots of lore available) it's also because of layout concerns, the ToC and image would cramp the table without the text there. --[[User:Tlosk|Tlosk]] 17:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  | Text = I agree that'd be a good way to handle creatures with multiple versions. For the creature class pages, I'd suggest that since an abundance of lore is the exception, we keep the layout as is, however for those few types with more than 2 or 3 paragraphs of lore, to have 2-3 paragraphs of abbreviated lore on the class page with a link to an additional page where the lore is expanded as you suggest. My preference would be with <nowiki>[[<Creature Class> Lore]]</nowiki>. Besides the frequency issue (maybe 10 of the 70+ classes have lots of lore available) it's also because of layout concerns, the ToC and image would cramp the table without the text there. --[[User:Tlosk|Tlosk]] 17:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
}}
{{Post
| Indent = :::
| To =
| Text = I've completed the Aerfalle changes. Please see [[Lady Aerfalle]]. Feedback anyone? --[[User:An Adventurer|An Adventurer]] 20:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
}}
}}


Revision as of 20:49, 5 August 2009

Related topics: Recent Changes, {{Post}}

The Forum is a central location for discussions that would be of general interest to other contributors. This also includes putting a link here to very specific discussions that are carried out on the talk pages of articles. The general idea is having one place to check for recent contributor discussions. The wiki is growing and there are now many contributors helping cover more topics than ever. The forum should help avoid missing reading and participating in discussions about standards and practices as the wiki continues to evolve.


If there is a particular contributor that you want to reply to a concern, post a link to the Forum or the article's Talk page on his or her user page (so he or she will get a New Messages highlight when they log in/post again). Two or three-way discussions can be hard to follow when they span more than a single page. Also, if you add this page as a Watched Page it will show as bold in the Recent Changes list. If your post will only be of interest to a single person, feel free to post on just that user's talk page. Discussions will be organized by month, though they may continue past the month they were started and will be archived on the talk page for this article after two months. 

{{Post
 | Indent = :
 | To = 
 | Text = 
}}

July 2009

Thug Events

Please see Talk:Old Ghosts --An Adventurer 23:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Spells

To: Tlosk
Nice work with the spells and the new design. Some questions about it:

I noticed all spells are being created as links. But if the previous spell system is going to be used, all of those links will just be redirects to the main spell page. Do you have plans to bring back individual spell pages, and merely place a link to the main spell page on individual spells?

Foci components are not listed, and old comps are only base comps with none of the tapers (even non-personal) included. I understand that due to page width only so much info can be displayed, but I do think this info should still be available somewhere.

One major thing I noticed is that there is no learnable/not learnable column. I think this is very important to have.

My overall suggestions would be:

  • Replace "Base Components" with "Learnable"
  • Eventually, create individual pages for all spells, where full comp listings and correct spell words can be listed for non-standard spells.

--An Adventurer 15:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

To: An Adventurer
This is the first of three stages, where I get the bulk of the data in place using tools. The second will be editing individual spell pages, most will be redirects categorized as creature spell, unlearnable spell, etc. Some will have their own page when they have additional information that's important (related quests, etc). Ones with their own page will have a prominent link to the list page for stacking info. Also in the second stage I'll be deleting the generic Cantrip pages (all spells of a given effect are now listed on the same list page, and the individual spell redirects will be themselves categorized at cantrip, this way they will show up individually by name on the category page).

After initially including tapers, I discovered that there are discrepancies in game and in fact there aren't nonpersonal tapers (colors in the supposedly fixed taper position that differ from those given in the portal.dat info). Those can be added if anyone wants to though (the {{Spell Formula}} template allows you to just insert tapers or empty spaces as desired). Since it's no longer possible to enter component information to learn a new spell though it's not something that I'll be doing myself.

The learnable information will be added in the third stage (this data is metadata so will have to be done by hand for each spell), I'm toying with the idea of linking to scrolls (with the respective icon) for those, and making special icons for monster only, item only, or quest learned that would each link to something appropriate for that particular spell.

There's about 5000 spells so I should be done in another day or two. The tables and rows are templates to make adjustments as painless as possible so if you think of any more suggestions let me know. --Tlosk 15:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also we'll need to overhaul the Spells page once this is all done and I was thinking of making a prominent section there about focii and prismatic formulas instead of repeating them on every single spell. --Tlosk 15:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I should add that I have no objection to having individual pages for each spell, but at least for the interim we'll have all spells link to something that gives a description. I primarily made them links to aid in making the redirects, so there are links to spells that do have pages, and because I thought it looked nicer. --Tlosk 15:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

To: Tlosk
I have a suggestion, although it would not need to be done right now. Part of the reason I added (Spell) to every spell listing was because there were also cantrips to list on a different page. Now that cantrips and spells are listing on the same page, that distinction is no longer needed. Now - there are still cases where we need some form of disambiguation, for Example strength is a spell and an attribute. I would suggest that, for every spell, we replace (Spell) with Spells or Spell Category. So Strength (Spell) becomes Strength Spells or Strength Spell Category.

Another idea would be to keep (Spell) only on pages that require the disambiguation (like attribs), and drop it from every other one. Sword Mastery, for example, does not need the (Spell) since it already has the Mastery word to distinguish itself from the skill and the weapons. --An Adventurer 15:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I like Spells for a suffix, makes it more general and reflective of the diverse spells in some categories. And gets away from the title ending with parentheses issues. Although having the parenthetical suffix does make it come up first in the autosuggest drop down when searching. I'd be fine with either. If we decide to change them I can move the pages one by one while doing the redirects/categorizations. --Tlosk 16:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Another suggestion. On each page there is currently the following code used to display the TOC and an image: 

 {|cellpadding=5
 |-valign=top
 |
 __ToC__
 | [[File:0x0600115D.png]]
 |}

I would suggest that we convert this into a wiki template, and create one template for each school. Each school would use a different image. Along with the image and TOC, the template could contain a [[Category:Spell]] and [[Category:<School> Spell]] so that all spells will be categorized. EDIT: Templates named {{Creature Enchantment Spell}}, {{Item Enchantment Spell}}, {{Life Magic Spell}}, and {{War Magic Spell}}.

I'd suggest the following images:

Creature - Item - Life - War

--An Adventurer 00:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To: An Adventurer
That's a good idea, I made a single template with a school switch, {{Spell List Header}}. Edit: I added icons to indicate whether the spell is learnable, creature only, item only, or retired also. Willpower (Spell) and Feeblemind (Spell) show the changes. --Tlosk 16:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

New Version of Wiki Swiss Tool

Version 1.05 is now available for download of the Wiki Swiss Tool. Although it was mostly finished back in January I was waiting until we'd finished updating the templates to release it. It also now has the ability to easily update templates to the current versions on the wiki anytime by copying the text at Wiki Swiss Tool/Page Templates and using the update button on the tools tab.

If anything doesn't work as you expect it to, or you think of something else you'd like to see it able to do, just post here or on the talk page. --Tlosk 17:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

creature/NPC pages and lore

I've been wondering if we should handle pages for lore and in-game information differently. Currently the rule is that if for example an NPC/Monster is also a notable lore character, the lore character description would go on the same page as the in-game stats. I think this might be better if the main page is a disambiguation.

For Example, the Lady Aerfalle would look like this:

See:

There would be similar pages for other notable characters like Asheron, Borelean, Elysa, Nummy, Rytheran, etc.

I also think it could be useful to split creature class pages up into stats and lore. While some creatures may not have a lot of lore, others like Shadow, Virindi, Tumerok, Lugian, Burun, and Undead have tons of information, and certainly deserve their own "Heritage" page, like those I've been working on for Isparians and Empyeans (see: Sho and Falatacot)

As for how to split up creature class pages, I would suggest leaving the current ones in place as the stat page since they are linked to the most, and the first place someone would search for when looking for stats. On those pages we would place a link to the lore page. It could be something simple like Drudge Lore or Drudge Bestiary Entry.

Thoughts?

--An Adventurer 16:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that'd be a good way to handle creatures with multiple versions. For the creature class pages, I'd suggest that since an abundance of lore is the exception, we keep the layout as is, however for those few types with more than 2 or 3 paragraphs of lore, to have 2-3 paragraphs of abbreviated lore on the class page with a link to an additional page where the lore is expanded as you suggest. My preference would be with [[<Creature Class> Lore]]. Besides the frequency issue (maybe 10 of the 70+ classes have lots of lore available) it's also because of layout concerns, the ToC and image would cramp the table without the text there. --Tlosk 17:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've completed the Aerfalle changes. Please see Lady Aerfalle. Feedback anyone? --An Adventurer 20:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Template Subcategories

The number of templates has increased to the point where making subcategories in the near future will be helpful. Discussion here.

Containers/Chests

I would like to look into the Container Template, but to me it is still unclear how to make the subcategories. At the moment, both the Packs (i.e. those containers that toons can hold in their inventory), and the lootable chests (for quest items, and/or randomly spawning loot chests) are categorized under "Container". However, a (lootable) chest would, imho, require a different template than a Pack. Also, there is a (sub) category "Chest", and a (Sub)category "Pack". Personally, I'd prefer to have lootable (quest) Chests rather as a subcategory under "Object", since many do have fixed locations. For now, I'm gonna put a few proposals in the Discussion of Containers to see what you think of it --Sanddh 16:46, 21 June 2009 (CET)

Subcategorization isn't exclusive, it can be a sub of both. Though on the List of Categories it probably only needs to be listed under the most logical one. --Tlosk 19:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Quest Item Category

To: An Adventurer
it sure would be nice to just have a 'Quest Item' category instead of just dumping them all into 'Item' - what do you think? --RyanR 22:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it could be useful, if for nothing else than to have a category to put all those items in besides item. One issue though would be what exactly would qualify as a quest item. I would suggest that for an item to be tagged as category:Quest Item, it would need to only be used in a quest. Any item that has the ability to serve any other purpose, even if it is only really used in one quest, would not be tagged as category:Quest Item.

For example - the olthoi soldier pincer would get tagged as category:Quest Item. It only has one use, and that is in the pincer quest. A wood golem heart, although used in multiple quests, has the basic use as a trophy, and would not be tagged as category:Quest Item. A piece of wieldable equipment (example:Lou Ka's Yaoji), even if only used in one quest, would not be tagged as category:Quest Item. A text used as part of a quest would not be tagged as category:Quest Item.

--An Adventurer 02:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at what's actually in the Item category (and not in a subcategory), almost all of the items could be described as quest items of one sort or another. Another way of looking at it is to say that the Item category already is the category for quest items (currently lots of items are double classified as a subcategory and as an item, but this will be cleaned up as we slowly convert existing entries to use current page templates).--Tlosk 16:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Template Revision Progress

General Issues:

  • Updating all templates for next release of Wiki Swiss Tool.
  • Moving from format heavy page templates to variable based page templates (will aid data entry speed and provide flexibility in updating formatting in the future).
  • Live images fixed to not overlap in small browser windows and not appear at all if no image specified.
  • Move template links listed below up the chain as progress is made.

NPC Template

Revised and Reviewed: (final inclusion candidates)

Under Review: (Updated and needs improvement feedback, sign the end of each template once you have reviewed it and have no further suggestions.)

Under Revision: (Currently being updated.)

Needs Revision: (Not currently being worked on.)

Needs Creation: (Does not exist in any form yet.)

Instead of making a unique template for rares, I added an optional line to the {{Intro}} template. Adding Rare Number = makes a link displaying the rare number on the far right. For example, Mirrored Justice.

I was able to construct the Armor Template so that it can handle all the different types of armor, so the clothing, robe, masks & guises, and shields have all been folded into a single template. --Tlosk 11:26, 19 February 2009 (CST)

I'd like to bring spell templates back into discussion. Currently we have some copy/paste tables that I put together, but no wiki templates. And the tables were pretty much just my work without much input from others.

The current copy/paste table template is here: Standard Spell Template with examples here: Armor (Spell) and here: Blood Drinker (Spell)

One important thing is recently someone (I am blanking on who it was) harvested all the spell data from the .dat files which gives us categories and spell difficulty and other information we may not have had. I think some of this could be added to the templates. I think difficulty would be a great addition. So I think there is still room for improvement on both the Standard Spell Template and the Cantrip Template before we possibly turn them in to wiki templates. --An Adventurer 11:11, 12 May 2009 (CDT)

Yeah that list is really cool, especially with all the creature only spells. But the stacking info is invaluable, that stuff was a major pain to track down and test in game for all the combinations. I've got a few ideas I'm working on and will post them as soon as I'm done.

May 2009

Server Pages & server specific info

This is sort of related to the discussion of general vs personal pages below, but I thought it should have its own discussion.

when I first put up some guidelines for restricting personal pages, I did so because someone had created a page for their allegiance. My reasoning for this was because 1) I thought allegiance pages were mostly irrelevant as general info, 2) I didn't want allegiances from different servers with the same name competing for a common name (like Defenders of Light or some other generic high fantasy sounding guild) and 3) I didn't want actual in-game factions, existing or in the future, to have to compete for the same name as a guild.

Now more recently, there was a discussion on personal vs general pages, started because of Connor the Craftmaster's posting of his adventures as their own page. That discussion so far has concluded that personal pages for entertainment, such as connor's adventures or my fan-fiction, should be placed on the author's user page, under the format User:User Name/Article (example: User:An Adventurer/Character Back-stories).

This gave me the idea that we could do the same thing for server pages. For example: the page Leafcull would be a general description page of the server. The page Leafcull/Allegiances would be a listing of allegiances on LC. the page Leafcull/Allegiances/The Trues would be a guild specific page for my current allegiance, The Trues.

I think this would be a good solution for resolving possible name conflicts. I have no opinion on whether or not the info would be useful though. What does everyone else think? Would allegiance pages be good information to have up?

--An Adventurer 18:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I think the wiki is served by recording not just objects but to record history of the players and allegiances also. --Tlosk 18:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

General versus Personal Pages

Discussion here: Asheron's Call Community Wiki talk:Policy

Mediawiki 1.14 Update completed

A list of changes and new help pages is in progress here: Mediawiki 1.14 Changes. Please post there if you find any bugs or glitches (for anything serious please post on my talk page. --Tlosk 14:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Filtered Whatlinkshere Results

For a while now I've been trying to figure out a way to get more specific Whatlinkshere results, ideally we could filter results by category however I've been unable to discover any way of doing that currently. I have however come up with a partial solution for at least some types of items that would be easy to implement and could be changed if needed without lots of cleanup edits.

I realized that it's possible to make invisible links on pages (a link that isn't actually displayed, but will cause the page to show up in the whatlinkshere list) and that you can also have a whatlinkshere link to a nonexistent page, which allows us to specify a page for a specific type of links we want to filter for (just Shopkeepers, just Creatures, just Locations, etc).

These special links can automatically be included in component templates. For example, to get a list of just shopkeepers that sell a particular item, we can place this: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Sold By|<nowiki></nowiki>]] inside the {{Inventory Item}} template since it is only used on Shopkeeper pages. This would automatically create a link to each item for that shopkeeper of the format Item/Sold By which would then be used in the {{Sold By}} template which would be modified from a straight whatlinkshere link to [[:Special:Whatlinkshere/{{PAGENAME}}/Sold By]]. So instead of including all links (like recipes and patch pages etc, it would only list shopkeepers.

I was trying to think what else we could use this for and so far I've come up with:

  • Items included in recipes.
  • Creature locations (I will need to make a component template for creature lists that will be closer to item lists). (I'm leaning towards being able to specify the type of location as well, so we could get separate lists for dungeons and landscape locations).
  • Trophies (may not be possible without changing the template in a significant way).

Are there any other ones that would be good to include? Also input on whether to include this for just item types that generate big lists and skip smaller ones that could be ready through quickly, or to do this for them all.--Tlosk 11:17, 10 May 2009 (CDT)

That's a very clever solution. I was going to suggest looking at the Semantic MediaWiki extension, but it appears that it doesn't support to-many relationships (like the shopkeeper selling multiple items). --Widgeon 17:29, 11 May 2009 (CDT)

I'm not sure I understand exactly how this will work, but if you say we can just modify the templates and it will work, then it sounds good to me. I agree with the things you listed. I would divide creatures into 3 types instead of 2: Dungeons, POIs, and general landscape - the listings found in Geographic Area and Town pages. --An Adventurer 18:10, 11 May 2009 (CDT)

Yeah it's kind of convoluted, but thankfully the implementation is transparent and a poster doesn't have to do anything different. However once implemented it will break existing vendor/recipe links so I'm going to wait until we finish updating existing entries with the new templates to turn the key so to speak (in the meantime we'll just get the full list of links like normal).

But so you can see it in action, here's a hardcoded example:

Old style (all links) for Stout: This item is sold by one or more shopkeepers.

New style (just shopkeepers) for Stout: This item is sold by one or more shopkeepers.

This first one finds all pages that link to "Stout," but the second one just the pages that link to "Stout/Sold By" and that's only the pages using the new shopkeeper template.

--Tlosk 20:11, 11 May 2009 (CDT)

10th Anniversary Event Preview

I think we should create a page dedicated to information about the 10th anniversary event. It would be similar to the 100th update preview page we had.

I would want it to be more than just re-posting articles and statements from devs. For example, we have a thread about the teaser video they posted with more than 140 replies and a great deal of information posted by Sev. It'd be useful to have a few simple statements about this new two-handed weapon skill to sum up the 20+ dev posts about it.

Frelorn also hinted that there might be a special test server for this patch. More information about this, all in one place, would be helpful as it is released. In the event there is another test server I would probably want to treat it like we did for shadowfell.

Thoughts?

--An Adventurer 13:55, 6 May 2009 (CDT)

Definitely, I'm sure we'll get a ton more info as the event gets closer, and we should add a link on the main page again like we had for the 9th preview.--Tlosk 11:17, 10 May 2009 (CDT)

I'll start a page here: Asheron's Call 10th Anniversary Event Preview --An Adventurer 12:11, 12 May 2009 (CDT)


Archived Forum Posts

See Talk:Forum

Retrieved from "http://sunderingac.com//index.php?title=Forum&oldid=182914"