Template talk:Skill

From GodWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Awesome work!

This looks wonderful! I'll kick the tires a little over at Special:ExpandTemplates (which I'd meant to mention as another invaluable testing tool), but on first glance it seems great to me. I have two — OK, three — minor suggestions:

  1. Accepting |category= for the skill type might be a bit confusing, since "category" has a specific meaning on the GodWiki. (IOW, if a user sees a |category= parameter, will they think they're supposed to fill in a wiki category name like "Category:Transportation skills"?) Might be better to avoid overloading that specific word.
  2. Because of the previous, and regardless whether you keep |category= or not, I would definitely use "Type" as the display label for the row. Or something else, like... well, any word other than "Category", really.
  3. Since every Skill box will always have a CategoryType, but they won't all necessarily have a Description, personally I'd place Type before Description in the row order. It's a bit disconcerting, I've found, if rows seem to shift around from article to article. It tends to be less jarring if all the required ones are at the top, and they always stay in the same order. ...Another option would be to make Description a required field, and display Unknown if it's left blank. Then there's no reason to change the order. Up to you!

It really does look great, though. Thanks! -- FeRDNYC (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Since every Skill box will always have a CategoryType, but they won't all necessarily have a Description, personally I'd place Type before Description in the row order.

Not that you could tell from {{Equipment}}, where I now see that I failed to follow my own rule. So, maybe ignore that one. (I think what happened there is, Description used to be required, but we decided to make it optional... and I either didn't think to change the ordering, or decided to still keep it at the top. For reasons, possibly!) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Well it was probably the easiest infobox to made since there is only one parameter and I literally copy-pasted from {{Equipment}}, that's why label's order is the same.
1.2. Your first two points makes sense, and that was actually what I wanted to put in the first place. But when I was trying to find why my template wasn't working I put category instead of type to try if it fixed things (spoiler: it didn't) and forgot to revert to type. Now done.
3:For your last point, I'd say we just have to decide.
  • Does the order need to be roughly the same in every infobox template. (Logic would say yes but that's debatable).
  • If yes then which order? It's either the first parameter or the last.
For template like monster, it doesn't seems to make sense having the description before class/habitat. So my guess would be description to be the last parameter but still before bonus paramater like Boss-monster like it is right now on {{Monster}} ones. That would mean to switch both skills and equipment template label which is not really hard to do. --WardPhoenix (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually noticed that {{Artifact}} doesn't have it exactly in last position either. Could be affected by a switch to? --WardPhoenix (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, you know what I think happened? (I could go searching for the old conversations, but meh. I remember it well enough.) Originally, way back when, the Infoboxes on the site had a lot of required fields (relatively) — most of their supported fields were required, in fact. And that made sense, back when there were fewer fields period, the boxes didn't have default images (so most had no image in them whatsoever), and the infoboxes themselves were designed as pretty spartan-looking tables. An infobox with only one required parameter, like {{Equipment}}, would've looked horrible if that's the only thing someone filled in.
But then I did the {{Infobox}}-based redesign, which made the boxes themselves much more substantial and added color differentiation. I also took the default-image feature that I built for {{Equipment}} and implemented it on the rest. Suddenly, we didn't really need all these required fields just to keep the box from getting too small, and showing Unknown for a missing parameter started to feel kind of silly, compared to just omitting it entirely. So, consensus (among the 3 or 4 of us who discussed these things) shifted towards relaxing the field requirements.
So, I would say now that {{Equipment}} is wrong (and I'm about to go change it): |worn= should remain at the first data row, since it's the only required field. {{Artifact}} and {{Monster}} both actually do require their |description=, nevertheless it comes at the end of their required fields list, with the others above it. I think is a good idea, in part because it hopefully discourages people from filling |description= with a caption for the infobox image, something they have a tendency to do. There's a dedicated |caption= field for that (which goes right below the image), it's not the purpose of |description=. So I figure if |description= doesn't show directly beneath the image, it'll help break that assocation. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually noticed that {{Artifact}} doesn't have it exactly in last position either.

It's at the end of the required list (as there are only two required fields), which was the behavior I intended / was arguing for. I definitely feel required fields should stay at the beginning, with the optional ones populating beneath them as needed. So it's {{Equipment}} that was doing it wrong, by inserting non-required fields (Description) above its only required one (Worn). An error I've now corrected. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I still find weird to not have some thing in a same order (yeah, i know I like when things are TOO ordered). Right now, in {{Equipment}}, it looks weird IMHO to have the description between worn and durability, and same about artifact which i think should have monster and value before description. To me it's not really about having an order based on either required or optionnal label but more about the information in a coherant order (whatever it is). But again this is only my opinion. --WardPhoenix (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "not have some thing in a same order". I mean, most of these templates don't have the same fields, period. Durability only exists in the {{Equipment}} infobox, so they can't really be in a "different" order anywhere else. Description is really the only field they all have in common. (But not all of them require it, and the arguably-more-important fields that come before it will differ between them. As they should, or we'd only need one template.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

To me it's not really about having an order based on either required or optionnal label but more about the information in a coherant order (whatever it is).

Oh, no, see, that I agree with, but a big part of that coherence is precedence.
The best way to get a feel for it, I think, is to go around to a bunch of articles of one type, ones that all use the same infobox. Let's take Artifact as an example:
  • Every Artifact infobox will have an image, a type, and a description, because those are required and/or defaulted fields.
  • Many will have a value, because it was something some people were really diligent about filling in — if nothing else, any Artifact article could have a value.
  • Almost none of them will have an Associated Monster, simply because there are hardly any artifacts with associated monsters. So, the potential set of infoboxes where that field could ever be used is just a tiny percentage of the total.
  • And then only activatable artifacts might have the activation parameter block, which is kept together and displayed specially at the end. (I experimented with normal fields under the monster-type blocks, when I first coded them, and it looked HORRIBLE so I'm definitely never doing that!)
If you take the Artifact articles that way, as a cohesive unit, then — purely IMHO, of course — the infoboxes remaining consistent for as long as possible through the upper areas, and only changing what they display in the last few rows, feels very comfortable, you get used to the order of the list and know what to expect. (So I probably just screwed some people up, changing {{Equipment}}.) *shrug* That's my take on it, anyway. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
They basically have all the same field but named differently. What I am basically trying to say is, IMO, order could be:
  • Image
  • Caption
  • Type (separated from metagame information to put it in first)
  • MetaGameInformation (Durability/Value/AssociatedMonster.)
  • CreativeInformation(Class/Habitat/Motto - have no metagame value)
  • Description (separated from creative information to put it in last)
  • Special (Boss-type/Pets-type/Beastie-type/ActivatableCost and Effect.)
{{Monster}} go directly from caption to CreativeInformation because it have no type or meta-game information outside of the special panel which is at plum bottom (and should remain there).
{{Equipment}} meta game information are type and durability followed by a description which have no metagame value
{{Artifact}} could go type then metagame information (Value/Monster) then description (and then special if activatable) instead of mixing creative and meta information as it is right now
{{Town}} have Home milestone and Map code as metagame info which are placed before feature and motto which are creative information without metagame value
I hope that all that talk make it easier to understand my point xD (maybe I should have started with that actually...). Again this is nothing but an opinion.
By the way, I don't think the change on {{Equipment}} have any impact, since the order we use when in article doesn't change the template (I could write my template skill in a skill article with description before type and type would still appear before description on the infobox).

--WardPhoenix (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)