Template talk:Skill

From GodWiki
Revision as of 16:29, 8 April 2019 by WardPhoenix (talk | contribs) (Awesome work!: typo)
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)