Gswiki:Village pump/Archive 004

The official GemStone IV encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

New Profession Template

Hey all, I was prerusing WP and found an awesome navigational feature: navigational templates. So I shamelessly stole it, and have made one for Wizard and am currently making one for Professions. The biggest complaint that I (and others I've had) is that KP is really hard to navigate, so this make things a lot more fun and exciting, and yeah, maybe even more user-friendly. Maybe we could even define styles... In any case, here's the wizard template as I've got it now:

Wizard Profession - edit
Spell Circles: Wizard Base Spells | Major Elemental Spells | Minor Elemental Spells
Professional Highlights: Bolt spells | Call Familiar | Enchanting | Charge Item
Popular Archetypes: Pure Mage | War Mage | Charging Mage | Enchanter

Let's talk about it! justin talk 13:05, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

I think it looks sexy! Also, super-functional. Good work! who is Ulthripe reads this 19:25, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

Use of {{delete}} Template

When using this template, do not replace the entire article's contents with it, but merely add it to the heading of the article. Thanks. - Oliver Talk 14:40, 22 August 2006 (EDT)

Treasure System

Would anyone object to me putting all the information I've collected over the years on gems and such in here? I'm thinking of listing every gem type in seperate articles, as, there are a ton of them and putting every gem in one article might make it a bit cluttered. I don't mean, though, that I'm going to put say, blue sapphires, pink sapphires, and yellow sapphires in seperate articles, but one article for, say, all sapphires. Granted, there are enough unique gems to where this will make a lot of different pages, no less. Ideas, comments, objections? I've a lot of information on this stuff.

Additionally, I'm curious if I should add an article on the entire treasure system, detailing on how the value of the items found changes based on how often the area is hunted. This information would include skins, gems, boxes, etc. Granted, I admit that my research on these subjects is limited, and most of it is speculative. -Andy talk 17:36, 9 July 2006 (EDT)

Can't object to the addition of content! I agree each article name should be the basic noun (sapphire, diamond, emerald, etc.) and the page itself should list the variable adjectives (much like the format we decided upon for creatures) and the values/areas they can be found, and whatever else.
On the treasure system, an article should definately exist. Currently, I've been referring to the Treasure Mechanics saved post, so be sure you == Related Links == it. I would suggest a list of the types of items which can be recovered through the treasure system in such an article (Gems, Silver, Boxes, Magic items, etc.). who is Ulthripe reads this 18:28, 9 July 2006 (EDT)

Alright, I added a page on sapphires, with a gem template. I came up with two formats for it, which I put on the Krakiipedia:Sandbox, but since I liked the second format better (it looks cleaner to me when you've a huge list of gems, like there are in the Sapphire article), I went ahead and switched them over. Clearly, there were a number of edits to get the format right, as there often are with templates, and I doubt I'm done... the use of the <br> tag means that there is more space between gems with longer descriptions, which I intend on fixing with a table with a set height at some point, if I can get it to look right. -Andy talk 23:21, 9 July 2006 (EDT)

New Spell Templates

Check out articles 401 and 415. I've created two new spell templates which I think are necessary because each type of spell (attack/defense/utility) has different basic features, therefore requires a unique template (utility template to come, its gonna be blue). I'm not in love with the colors or anything, I simply thought it important to differentiate each spell type by making it obvious at-a-glance. Irvine had the interesting idea of color-coding each spell by its circle, which I'm not against, but I would have to find another way of visually differentiating each spell type. Anyways, please do share your opinions, I'd like to hear them (especially Ollie's). who is Ulthripe reads this 07:37, 30 June 2006 (EDT)

I don't see how this is better than the existing spell template. There's nothing about the colors tha makes anything obvious at-a-glance. If anything, it makes it more confusing, requiring visitors who are not familiar with what the colors mean (or even that they mean anything) to take extra effort to figure it out. The text presented in the existing spell template is more than sufficient in providing all the important basic information about a particular spell. Anything else is handled by the spell description. It also seriously disrupts any attempt at cohesive visual style of Krakiipedia (I'm not a fan of the inconsistent table coloration within some other articles, either, and am planning on doing a review and developing a single unifying table design.) Also, in the future, when proposing changes like this, do not make changes the existing articles to illustrate. Use either that article's Talk page, or the Sandbox.
Oliver Talk 10:57, 30 June 2006 (EDT)

I do, however, like how he lists attack spells as warding spells. And, your last statement goes against the general "Be Bold" policy that we've been holding to, and personally, I disagree with that entirely. -Andy talk 13:01, 30 June 2006 (EDT)

If you'll take a look at the Help:Style (spells) you will note that including the type of attack (be it bolt, warding, or what have you) is already a part of our style specification. I'm not entirely sure what "Be Bold" policy you're refering to. Our style and layout guidelines are not set in stone, but neither do I agree that a change like this has any real positive effect, or that there is any issue with the current spell templates. The existing spell template already clearly states what type of spell is being described. Using a color-based system unnecessarily complicates something that is already presented in simplest terms. Is there some underlying issue that this change would address that I'm not seeing?
Oliver Talk 17:16, 30 June 2006 (EDT)

I'm not a huge fan of the specific colors used, but that's just me. I don't mind the fact that there are colors, but again, it's really not that useful. The color coding is more useful for interpreting information at a glance. Say you have a whole list of the 400's, and you want to color-code those with a nice legend beside it, bravo. But here, I'll say that it doesn't really add anything, since you'll likely never see two of those tables on the same page. Then again, I'll say bravo for making the pages, though making the page you made link to .../wiki/401 would be great so it was easier to link to. Smooches, ALKALOIDS 17:27, 30 June 2006 (EDT)

Be Bold! That's what I'm referring to. In any case, I believe that U is right in saying that different types of spells should be listed seperately, as not all bits of information are really applicable to all spells. For example, the duration doesn't really apply to most attack spells. Only those with a duration would have a field for being stackable or not. Having a seperate field for being stackable or not reduces the overall length of the duration field, does it not? But then, I don't work on spells, generally, the only exceptiong being 1625... which doesn't really fall under most spell classifications. I don't mind the color coding, myself, and I was particularly annoyed when someone felt the need to remove the colors from my table on the herb page. Though, I also tend to lean towards more subdued colors. -Andy talk 19:26, 30 June 2006 (EDT)
As I've said many times, this is not Wikipedia. Their policies do not hold sway here. In any case, the policy refers to updating articles on a content level, not reformating their visual style to a point where they go against the established style guidelines for the wiki. This change should have been proposed and discussed before being actively persued. - Oliver Talk 11:56, 4 August 2006 (EDT)

The improvement I attempted was to account for each type of spell being fundamentally different in its attributes. As Andy said, "not all bits of information are really applicable to all spells." For instance, attack spells wont have a "span" and defense spells shouldnt have a "range." I can agree with your policy of keeping things simple as to not confuse the casual reader, but each attribute of the spell (such as whether its stackable/refreshable/block duration) needs to be on there. To me, an important part of a template is that it requires the user to enter all of the necessary/desired information or makes it obvious when that information is missing. It bothers me that some attack spells have an attack type (bolt/warding/maneuver) listed, while its left out of others. The whole colors thing I'm not married to, and I can even agree it sticks out like a sore thumb. Anyways, thank you all for the comments, prototype 2 coming soon. who is Ulthripe reads this 06:43, 1 July 2006 (EDT)

I agree that enforcing the inclusion of all pertinent information is beneficial. but this essentially boils down to a change in KP guidelines, which should not be initiated lightly or without discussion, and certainly should not be applied without either. Arbitrarily creating new templates to replace old ones and rolling that change through articles does no good for KP. It creates inconsistancy between articles and between the style guide and what is in practice. - Oliver Talk 11:56, 4 August 2006 (EDT)

Well, in U's defense, him, Justin, and I did discuss it prior to U adding the templates. I even helped in their creation. I appologize for leaving you out of the loop. -Andy talk 20:59, 4 August 2006 (EDT)

Also, of course, I'll just throw in that 1) U did nothing more than create the template then offer it up here for discussion 2) this has had a VERY thorough discussion and was most certainly not "initiated lightly or without discussion" and 3) it was me who got sick of waiting for U to "finish" it and decided that, since I wanted to make pages for some more defensive spells, and that while not perfect, the new template was agreed upon my several of the most contributing editors here as being superior, I would go ahead and go through systematically (though sadly not all at once) and apply it to the defensive spells, and maybe others soon. That is a retardedly long sentence and my head is spinning now, so I'm sure I screwed up at least a thing or two in there grammar-wise. I guess this - to me at least - looks like a case of something being user-initiated, user-discussed and agreed-upon, and user-implemented without your express consent. Imagine. justin talk 21:46, 4 August 2006 (EDT)