Template talk:Specializations nav

i dont like the color its to much like the necromancer.--Icyyy Blue 13:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

true. --The Holy Dragons 14:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That's because the necromancer colour IMO is wrong. Venom20 14:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A color discussion has already more or less boiled down and settled and updates should be applied soon. :) - Infinite - talk 16:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Temporarily boiled down is more like it. At least until all the professions are released. Venom20 18:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be trait lines, not trait lists? Alfa-R 06:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename

It's funny that I read Alfa-R's comment from 2012. This isn't a list of traits, it's a list of "trait lines", but these are gone and are now called "specializations", therefore this doesn't list traits, but specializations. I suggest we change the name as it's becoming difficult to be consistent. Traits shouldn't prevent us from being concise and logical at this point, it's fine as a page and being linked in each trait article, but this isn't a list of individual traits. – Valento ^msg 11:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

And "trait lists" don't make sense either, we're not grouping individual traits in a list, but the specializations instead. – Valento ^msg 11:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This template provides navigation between trait lists, thus it is a trait lists nav - the core specialization pages have no other purpose than to list the traits. The only thing different now is the elite specialization pages, which have more than traits, but they still contain trait lists. —Dr Ishmael 12:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There's already a name for a "trait list", it's called "specialization". – Valento ^msg 12:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"trait" "list". List as in, a wiki list. -Chieftain Alex 12:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I still see no value in splitting a "traits list" from "elite specialization list" or "specialization list" as they're much more tied now, but it's up to you. – Valento ^msg 13:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

And again, it doesn't list Soothing Mist, Aquamancer's Training, etc, as these are traits. It lists specializations, such as Water, Fire, Air, so a list of specializations not a list of traits. – Valento ^msg 13:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No, that's what Fire and Deadly Arts and Arms do - those pages are trait lists. They just happen to also be pages for the specializations. But that was true before Tuesday anyway, because before then, they were also pages for the trait lines. —Dr Ishmael 13:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you disconsider elite specializations, core specialization is just a fancy name for "trait lines". A specialization is a list of traits, I'm just saying that that list of traits has a name, just like a summary is a list of page references (with page number, and a description), and yet, we wouldn't name it a "Page references list". – Valento ^msg 14:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

But calling it "Specializations nav" is also incorrect, because the left-hand column is not specializations! —Dr Ishmael 15:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

While it makes sense, it still doesn't quite fit because elite specializations don't link to a list of traits, but the full elite article. Oh well. – Valento ^msg 17:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Current revision

features broken css + lacks a border around the outer div :( -Chieftain Alex 08:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Template:Skill lists nav?

First of all, I'll state my reasoning. Look at the page for Dragonhunter: it's basic information about a specialization, a list of skills and a list of traits at the same time. If you're looking at List of guardian skills, there should be a link to Dragonhunter, because there are also skills that guardians can use there (when HoT launches, anyway); and if you're looking at List of guardian traits, the same applies. We could put Dragonhunter and the other elite specs to both navboxes to accommodate that, and add both to the pages like Dragonhunter. It would be a bit crowded, but fine, it would do. That is, until we get more elite specs in the future. When we'd have, say, 4 elite specs per profession, it would no longer be just a bit crowded, it would be unusable, the bottom of the elite specs' pages would be filled with duplicate links. So that won't do.

Another solution would be to split the elite specs' pages into 3 pages each (basic info, list of skills, list of traits) just like the core professions are currently structured, and put only the respective navs on each page. However, in my opinion that would lead to pointless fragmentation of information; moreover, the basic info pages would be too short and they'd basically end up as just a list of links to the other two. I wouldn't consider this a good solution either.

The only solution that I can come up with is to merge these two navs and allow easy inter-navigation between skills and traits. The elite specs are a hybrid of both and it's really hard to separate them otherwise, so it makes sense to me to use these common grounds between the two together, especially as their list will only grow with time.

So, this would be my suggestion. Thoughts? 22:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we append the Dragonhunter skills onto the bottom of List of guardian skills, along with all future skills? We can then keep Dragonhunter as solely for traits, like all of the other specialization pages. G R E E N E R 23:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of that idea because: 1/ at first glance it would seem like all the various skills from all the elite specs for a profession (in the future) are available at the same time; 2/ the skills are a part of the specialization to begin with and should be at the very least accessible from that page; and 3/ by that logic, we should append the dragonhunter traits to List of guardian traits as well. But I suppose that it would also be an option. 23:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit: On the other hand, it could potentially help with choosing an elite spec in the future, with it being a comprehensive list of all non-racial skills you can have access to, as opposed to browsing between the specs' pages, but I'm still not so sure about that... 00:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The "List of X skills/traits" pages should always list all skills and traits, respectively - that's, like, their entire purpose for existence. ;) We already duplicate traits and skills across multiple pages, so I don't see any problem with expanding on that. —Dr Ishmael 01:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

People not using an elite specialization don't need additional information about elite specializations on the page. Since the elite specializations need access to the content unique to the specialization and the core profession, then we either stick the core profession skills/traits on the elite specialization or the elite specialization on the base profession list. We can try the first section of the elite specialization article being the unique skills and traits, then duplicate the skill and trait table for the base profession.

We stick a specialization nav that links to the base skill and trait list along with the content for the specialization. I don't think navigating between specializations is particularly useful since you can simply navigate between professions.--Relyk ~ talk < 03:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your suggestion, so let me reiterate mine. I'm suggesting that skills for elite specs appear on both the spec's page and the profession's skill list, while traits also appear on both the spec's page and the profession's trait list; this mirrors what we already have today, where e.g. the warrior's greatsword skills appear on both the weapon's page and the list of warrior skills, and traits appear on both the core spec's page and the profession-level list. —Dr Ishmael 03:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I guess we'll put the elite specs on the lists of skills and traits then. I'm slightly afraid that those pages will be a bit too cluttered (List of engineer skills already is) and the fact that you don't immediately have access to all of the skills on the page will be quite hidden and indecipherable, especially for new players, but I suppose that a list of all guardian skills should indeed list all skills guardians can possibly use (except for racial skills).

But my point that I think these two navs should be merged still stands. When I'm looking at one of the lists for a profession, I very often also find myself looking for the other one, because skills and traits are so closely tied together, but it's surprisingly difficult to navigate from one to the other. Since before launch I wished these lists were interlinked in the navs, I just never got around to suggesting it. If the lists will feature the elite spec stuff, what about splitting the specs from that nav and using something akin to this? 12:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, would it be better to put an Elite specialization skills section to the bottom of the list pages and then just dump it all there, or to add a new Specialization column to the skill tables and weave the information into the appropriate sections? Because the more I think about it, the more I'd prefer the second approach, it sounds a bit neater and more readable to me... 21:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Reducing bold and allowing for expansions

The current version of this table has too much bold for me. I can't get my eyes to leave the column divider as anything to the far right seems so unimportant.

I think if we change the elite specializations to italics, and push them to the right, players can have a better view of the core specializations, along with what's been added (since they are just additions). Plus, we have room to expand to the right. User:Greener/Sandbox2. Note that this doesn't change the fact that it looks like someone took an information shot-gun to the table, but I guess that's due to none of the names sharing a common width. G R E E N E R 14:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm definitely in favor of that. 15:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Upstaged by an m-dash... Removing the mention of "traits" may be nice. I've still not figured out when to use that word, considering the trait pages aren't linked to and they don't use the table. G R E E N E R 15:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess it's time to change my mind and suggest moving this to Template:Specializations nav.

I like Mora's version with the em dashes - that almost makes the italics redundant.

@Greener re: inconsistent name lengths, I had made a small attempt at alleviating that by abbreviating "W. Survival", but someone changed it back. I suppose no one else like it either, because it didn't get changed back. —Dr Ishmael 16:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What about something that we already have, but with a bit cleaner and distinctive columns. Like this for example. Venom20 16:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Venom, I think keeping the elite specializations on the right allows for future growth. Even a separate column for the elites may be too much.

That simple dash may be enough to mute the monotony as the eye wanders across the lines, and stops it from being the just a box of words. I wonder how long the ranger's line will get if their next specialization is taxidermist. G R E E N E R 17:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm to blame for the bold typeface. We could just have a different nav for each profession...

Warrior specializations

Strength•Arms•Defense•Tactics•Discipline•Berserker (elite)

and leave the users to find the other professions specializations (each profession page has a specialization section). -Chieftain Alex 17:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel most readers would be looking for specializations related to that profession, and other professions as sort of an afterthought. So something like:

---

Revenant traits

It would (needs trait numbers to display traits correctly) display the traits along with the professions' specializations, and has other professions included but not excessive clutter by being hidden. —Mora 17:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alex, I like that idea, especially if we can put it above another nav box with a general list of things for each profession. E.g.:

• Guardian: Weapons - Skills - Specializations
• Warrior: Weapons - Skills - Specializations

@Mora, that look beautiful! But wouldn't the information hidden in those trait icons just be represented on the page a person is currently viewing (i.e. the list of traits is on the same page that your template is iconically listing the traits)? G R E E N E R 17:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the m-dash option as you need to scan the line for such an item (ie specialization). Yes it's at the end of it, but it is not in the same location for each class. Thus you either need to scan the line, each line separately, for the desired item from the left side (same starting point for all classes) or from the right side (first item to locate, but starting point differs).

@Alex, I like the simplicity, but I'm not sure that there is enough information in such a nav to even warrant a nav in the first place?

@Mora, that is fantastic eye candy. You did a nice job. But with that much information, why wouldn't the user just go to the revenant's page in the first place. Or if they are using the nav, why not just read the details on the page to begin with. I believe there is too much information offered in that nav.

@Greener, Future growth? The elite specs are future growth. That is essentially the nature of this topic. There is no way to know if there will ever be more lines added, or what will happen to the lines in the future. I think the table should conform to what we currently know (ie current specs) and what we know for certain is coming ahead (ie elite specs). Any further trait lines or elite trait lines or super-mega mastery trait lines, or whatever comes next would most likely lead to its own unique discussion on expansion.

A nav should have sufficient information to assist in navigating the various pages associated to the topic at hand, without eliminating the need for those pages. There shouldn't be so much information that it is essentially a page itself, but it also shouldn't be so little information that it removes the need for a nav. The nav should also be structured in such a way that all information be seen or located without the need for interpretation or searching. Venom20 18:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Venom20: And with the removal of the m-dash, we've come full circle to a design that was rejected due to too much whitespace...

As others have said already, Mora's design is nice and all, but completely unnecessary. We could make one without the upper part for a single specialization, but it seems like overkill to me to hide the rest.

However, I don't think that too many people will come from, say, Strength to Druid, so what if we'd make a compound nav for each profession, something based on this:

Warrior

18:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm a proponent of a continuity of navs. Would your design satisfy the needs of most users if placed at the bottom of each linked articles? If so, it's another option I support.

And sorry I wasn't more clear, Venom, I did mean the future growth of more elite specializations. I just didn't like the idea of that table growing outwards from the middle as new specializations were released, that's all. G R E E N E R 19:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The more I look at it, the more I think Noxx's suggestion hits the nail on the head. "I don't think that too many people will come from, say, Strength to Druid" is also ringing more and more true in my head. G R E E N E R 22:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I guess mine was more aimed towards linking each individual trait page with a nav to show the other options in the specialization without going back to the list page each time.

That's getting really close to just being a warrior quick links nav; it's just missing weapons to include nearly everything warrior related.

Maybe have a profession specific one on each of the warrior specializations, then have a separate one on the overall list of warrior traits that just links to the other professions' full list, like {{skill lists nav}}? Since the full lists already include each individual specialization, I don't see the need to link directly to Fire from the list of warrior traits; list of elementalist traits includes it. —Mora 19:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Warrior specializations

---

Specialization lists

Soldiers	Guardian	Revenant	Warrior
Adventurers	Engineer	Ranger	Thief
Scholars	Elementalist	Mesmer	Necromancer

@Greener, I assumed that's what you meant. I too agree that growth from the inside out is not the greatest of options.The difficulty here is what to do with the whitespace generated by having abnormal lengths of the traits (ie the ranger's lines are much longer than the elementalist). To that end, the unavoidable whitespace generated by a nav with two such lines should be at the far sides of a table. for this reason, I created this table

---

Specializations and lists of traits

I agree that there is whitespace around the words on the right-most side of the design. But this whitespace is unavoidable, look at the current version. This can be dispersed by centring the traits, but this I feel this looks far less aesthetically pleasant. The only other way to avoid the whitespace is to create a nav that only contains a single profession's information. This eliminates the space conflicts created between several professions. Venom20 20:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

But all that whitespace in the middle of yours is even worse. —Dr Ishmael 20:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually really like Mora's second version, with one nav just for trait lists and then a separate nav for each profession's specs. In fact, perhaps we could still add a hidden part with the other professions from the first version, like so (V3)? 22:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Complete rework

Going off of User:Greener/Sandbox2#Combo tables

• Use Alex's design of a Specialization Nav box for each profession.
• Rework the Profession Nav to include more links. Old version: {{Professions nav}}

Usage:

1. Add the Specialization Nav and Profession Nav to all specialization pages (e.g. Strength)
   • Allows for quick flipping between the specializations for that profession, which I believe is the main desire for users.
   • Allows for the user to click over to their profession's skill list, full trait list, full specialization list, mechanic, and profession overview.
   • Allows for the user to back out entirely and delve into another profession.
2. Add the new Profession Nav to the bottom of Specialization
   • Replaces the need for the current Traits Nav
   • Loses the list of links which is already completely linked on that page.
   • Can act like a minor TOC as the profession specialization links will send the reader back up the page.
3. Use the new Profession Nav on the profession pages. (e.g. Warrior)
   • Allows users to get more in-depth if they wished, rather than having to click first on another profession, and then hunt for another link on that page.
4. Add the new Profession Nav to the bottom of the List of Profession skills pages (e.g. List of warrior skills)
   • Allows users to jump between the skills and traits for their profession.
   • Allows users to to back out entirely and delve into another profession.
   • Does not negate the Skill Lists Nav (which carries the race and downed skills), with minimal overlap.
5. Add the new Profession Nav to the bottom of each Mechanic page (e.g. Burst)
   • Ties the mechanics to the professions and other aspects of the character better than the current {{skill types nav}}
     • Will possibly want a rework of the skill types nav. Change the focus away from the professions to the skill types and skill mechanics. Quick version seen here.
   • Allows for the user to click between the profession mechanics of different professions
   • Possibly gives a home for all new elite specialization mechanics (just add the details to the one page). Haven't looked to see if this will be a good idea for all new mechanics, but that's another discussion.

Please feel free to add any pros and especially cons to the above. G R E E N E R 21:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a pet hate for pages with more than one nav :/ -86.131.76.144 23:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Why? It makes perfect sense when you have a tiered hierarchy like this. At Wikipedia, an article on a US state has a nav for topics relating to the state, and a nav for all of the US states and whatnot (with even more navs as necessary, see w:Arkansas#External links). For us, a page about a profession could have the current nav that links to all the professions, and we could add a "quick links" nav that lists related topics (specializations, weapons, skill types, etc.). Thus you can navigate both at the current level of hierarchy and at the next lower level of hierarchy. —Dr Ishmael 00:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well if wikipedia does it ... Venom20 04:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You're dumbing down my point. I didn't just say "WP does it, let's do it too!" I explained how it fits to our situation and why it makes sense for us to follow WP's lead. —Dr Ishmael 13:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, first of all, I'm perfectly fine with using more than one nav per page. It allows us to structure the navs easier by breaking them down to separate pieces which can also be used independently without bringing the rest of the nav we might not need along. Besides, we could always collapse the entirety or just a part of a nav's body, as the already mentioned Wikipedia does as well.

Regarding Greener's suggestion: I'm definitely in favor of merging some of these small, overlapping navs. I still haven't changed my mind about the skill and trait list navs since last time, and now that you mention it {{Professions nav}} would then end up unnecessary as well. Now, what I don't like about that version:

• The Specialization links in the Professions nav, as they all link to the same page; sure, to different sections, but all those links won't really save any time navigating. Furthermore, the Traits list link next to it fully overlaps with it (at least it will once we add the elite spec traits there).
• The Profession mechanic links in the same nav. It's too non-descriptive and it disregards anything the elite specs add. They're also described on the skill list pages, and when it comes to navigating between them, we also bring in the discussion of skill types nav. I personally think that this does warrant a separate nav... well, maybe.
• Racial, downed, drowning and pet skills aren't linked to from the nav (obviously). All of those beside the racial ones could just disappear, to be honest, we don't also link to Healing skill anyway. But we should still somehow link to the racial ones, and using both the new profession nav and the current skill list nav does seem like a waste of space to me.

So, now to the more difficult part: suggesting an alternative. I had some ideas before, but V1 is just way too complex, and V2 doesn't really work as a Professions nav either. I'd say that the point to start from are the specs; they don't need to be too visible in every nav, because the core spec pages are mostly useless for readers when they can read everything on the trait lists (similarly to skills which people will probably rather read on the full skill lists than on pages like Shout or Elite skill), yet the elite specs' descriptions should be easily accessible, since those are not in any way replaceable by the trait lists.

If I leave the profession mechanics out and expand on the separate spec navs per profession concept, this is what I come up with (V4). The distribution of navs across the pages would be similar to yours (such as Strength using both the Specializations and Professions nav), while all skill lists would use both Professions and Races navs. (Would it be possible to collapse the other one at first?)

If we'd link to the mechanics in the same nav as you suggest, I'd at least like the table to have a header and list the mechanics by their name. The question is if all the alternative mechanics in the future won't end up dominating the nav... 17:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Good points, I'll try to respond to them

1. Re: Specialization links all linking to the same spot. I agree it's odd, but the Specialization page is looking good right now, and if a user is anywhere else on the wiki, that link will take them right where they want to be (e.g. the warrior specializations). I disagree about the Trait links overlapping, as there's a difference between the summary of all the specializations, and the in-depth look at the traits.
2. Re: Profession mechanics. I think these need an overhaul in general. There's a difference between "how the profession works" (i.e. the Profession Mechanic including Adrenaline, Burst and Primal burst), and what type of skills a profession can have (i.e. Primal burst). I'd like to see the mechanics sorted out. We could definitely list them out as you suggest; I'd have no problem with that, though you're also right about the potential over-growth.
3. Re: Racial skills. Keeping track of these has been a pain, and have disappeared a few times in my iterations, but I don't like things appearing to be extinct. I like the simplicity of {{skill lists nav}} as a catch-all. There is some overlap with my suggestion, but I think that's inevitable no matter how its parsed.

I like many of your tables as well, and I believe this is one of those cases where we have an abundance of options and directions to go in. Sadly the Mathematician side of me say, "Okay, multiple solutions have been found, job well done!" I normally leave the choosing and application to others. G R E E N E R 19:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm generally fine with multiple navs per page, as long as each fulfils its own role, for instance when one delves deeper into a topic (Specializations nav) and one shows it in context (Professions nav). I really don't like the idea of overlaps between them, though, because at that point they kind of both fulfil the same role, at that point it's more of a failure in their design. If we move the links to skill lists into the profession nav, but still end up keeping the old skill list nav around, we've successfully duplicated the navigation for no real reason. The overlap isn't small, it's 3 lines of the current nav, a half of it, that seems to me like it crossed the line. If we extract the profession skill lists from the nav, we're left with racial skills (which could be covered by the much smaller Races nav), downed and drowning skills (which we don't need there at all, since they belong more to the Slot section of the Skill types nav), and pet skills (which should be on the ranger skill list anyway).

However, you make a good point regarding the specializations that they might have a purpose even with traits next to them. How about a compromise like this, then? I definitely prefer wide and short navs to long and narrow ones, especially when stacking them with another nav on the specialization pages, but that's just a minor issue... 20:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I love what you did with the races, and yes, 50% is far too much (I didn't catch that, even after putting them side by side!). Using your Race Nav over top of {{Playable races nav}} works for me. I still can't stand how my Skill Types Nav looks, and that may be because I'm trying too hard to pull it away from the professions, and that's giving it too little structure. G R E E N E R 20:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(Reset indent) After being encouraged by Greener, I've made several mock-up pages showcasing my current idea for the navboxes in practice:

• Profession (narrow alternative)
• Race
• Specialization (alternatives: with wide professions nav, narrow professions, Alex's simpler spec nav + wide professions, Alex specs + narrow professions)
• Trait list (narrow alternative)
• Skill list (alternatives: narrow, including racial nav, narrow + races) – also includes the golden line for elite spec skills from this discussion; it's by no means necessary, but it is an option
• Racial skill list (narrow alternative) – unfortunately, even if profession skill lists don't include the Races nav and just link to Racial skill, there's no way to do the same thing the other way round
• Profession mechanic
• Skill type (alternatively we could disregard the distinction between professions in the nav and go with something like this, which doesn't duplicate types but is somewhat messier)

So, what would you prefer or change? Opinions, including constructive criticism, are definitely welcome! 13:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Where at all possible, if there are are two navs, could we attempt to make them the same width? The linked racial nav being the odd one out. -86.131.76.144 15:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts: (as I have zero eye for "design over substance" :D )

1. Professions: I'd still like to see the Profession Mechanics fleshed out, but right now those pages aren't ready, so a single link will do.
2. Races: Would it be overdoing things to put links to cultural armours and weapons? Pushing the envelope.
3. Specialization: I like pretty much any version, as the content is almost the same.
4. Traits: Yep.
5. Skill lists: I forgot about the races' skills again. It makes sense for all the skill lists to have links to the other skill lists, based on profession or otherwise.
6. Racial skill lists: Same as per above.
7. Profession mechanic: I'd still like to see these cleaned up and given a page for each profession, as per above, but that can all come later and for now that's a decent stand-in for information. Add a link to Specialization.
8. Skill type: *shiver* wishing I'd never looked at it. I like where it's going more than the current {{Skill types nav}}

G R E E N E R 15:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@IP 86.: Honestly, to me it looks even worse when I make them the same width, but maybe that's just me?

@Greener: Regarding the races, I really wouldn't want to bring in the discussion of armor navs to all this as well. :P Look at the navs just cultural armor uses right now... Or rather, we could technically add the links there, but is it really worth it to be able to get from guardian skills to asuran armor? 16:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

There didn't seem to be any strong opposition to this suggestion, so I decided to implement it. All the skill list pages use both professions and races navs, but I couldn't think of any alternatives that would look better. Of course, feel free to continue with the discussion in case there's some issues we have overlooked or you'd have a better idea as to how to structure the navs differently. ^_^ 12:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

templates affected...

• Template:Specializations nav - 1 fine (I have no idea if the profession-color templates match our chosen colours on GW2W:COLORS, those templates aren't usually used in the article namespace so perhaps this should be checked).
• Template:Skill types nav - 1 fine
• Template:Profession mechanics nav - 1 fine, I have restored the default width though.
• Template:Playable races nav‎‎ - 0 tempted to revert completely + use Template:Racial skills nav at the bottom of the racial skill lists.
• Template:Professions nav‎‎ - 1 I've added a link to the "racial skills" page + removed this nav from the racial skill list pages - this way i think it appears less out of place. I'm happy with the content, but couldn't we just use a vertical layout?

-Chieftain Alex 13:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I refactored this template to use #arraymap, and in the process I revamped the non-maintained {{color}} template with values from the project page. —Dr Ishmael 14:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alex:

• Template:Playable races nav‎‎ – The idea with that was to mirror the Professions nav by including the skill lists as well, but I'd have no problems with splitting them back into two navs if you'd prefer that.
• Template:Professions nav‎‎ – Both the omitting of the Races nav from skill lists and the single column layout were something I was toying with (you can also see all combinations in the mock-ups above). The reason I chose this version in the end was so that both profession and racial skill list pages link directly to each other, because I personally hate navs which are tall and narrow, and also simply because no one else expressed other preferences. But again, I'm fine with making those changes. 16:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Template:Professions nav, given that I've gone overboard with the vertical, as was pointed out earlier, I would not object to keeping to the theme. G R E E N E R 18:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)