User talk:Dr ishmael/Feature pack

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Personality templates/images[edit]

Currently the images are saved under:

  • File:User Aspectacle charm.png
  • File:User Aspectacle dignity.png
  • File:User Aspectacle ferocity.png
  • File:Ferocity.png

clearly files used in the mainspace shouldn't be user images, so there is the first problem.

currently we have at our disposal:

I don't have any preference on the icon file new name, but I reckon we could make the bottom 3 templates use {{dialogue icon}}.

similar two offenders on the main page.. every time I load the damn page I see File:User Alfa-R bg left.png/right... -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 21:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The only two things that matter to me are replacing Template:Ferocity with something else so that it can be converted to an attribute icon template, and moving the existing File:Ferocity.png so it can be replaced with the attribute icon. If you want to rename the other icons or reswizzle how the other templates work, that's frosting on my cake. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 22:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright.. slowly patching thoughts together. If you felt upto replacing all instances of the three struckout templates with the dialogue icon alternatives, that'd be awesome (bot n all). Template at ferocity should be freed up after that. I reckon I'll have a go at redoing the dialogue template to not use map icon (too wierd imo). "File:Personality (charisma/dignity/ferocity).png" sound alright? or too clunky? -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 22:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
File:Personality - Ferocity.png (/Charm/Dignity) sounds good to me, or even without the dash would be fine too.
The reason that everything ultimately goes to {map icon} is because we needed a single place where we could apply uniform formatting for inline icons. After a couple weeks of discussion with no one taking action, User:Yandere stepped up and performed the consolidation, picking {map icon} because it already contained the greatest number of icons. We kept {dialogue icon} as a soft redirect to have an intuitive interface - if you're writing out dialogue, it doesn't make sense to call {map icon}.
TL;DR don't undo the icon consolidation, but leave {dialogue icon} and its ilk as soft-redirect usability interfaces. I'll probably create a {personality icon} in the same vein and use that as the replacement on userpages. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 22:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting mixed messages when reading the Personality page - is it Charm or Charisma ingame? -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 23:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
In character creation, it's filling-in-a-blank so they use the form "charm" because it fits better in that sentence. In dialogue option (first screenshot on the page) the mouseover tooltip says "Increases Charisma", and in the personality tooltip (second screenshot) it's called "Charisma", so I'd go with that for the filename. The icon template should allow both values, whichever of us ends up doing that. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 00:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
smacks head off bench. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 00:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
a thousand edits later. {{Ferocity}} can be deleted when the time is right. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 01:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

ready up skill balance changes[edit]

do we want to make a sub page for the skill changes as well? Edit: I know some of them were on the fourms at one point so they might be already documented some place but no by meh.-User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 23:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

They've only teased a portion of the non-bugfix changes, so there are plenty of changes that we don't know about. The traits were different because they revealed all 30 of them today, so that batch of knowledge is essentially complete (other than the details of exact in-game descriptions and skill facts). My gut feeling is no. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 23:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

megaserver[edit]

any ideas as to what pages need to be updated with that change? off the top of my head I can think of world probably the instances (ie starting zones pvp lobby and major cites) need to be change to indicate that they use the mega server tech. -User Zesbeer sig.png Zesbeer 20:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

All world boss events.--Relyk ~ talk < 20:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Not yet, because the changes will be only for areas level 1-15, pvp lobby and cities. --W.Wolf (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
All world boss events (1-15).--Relyk ~ talk < 21:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain the world boss schedule is being implemented for all bosses, not just the 1-15 bosses. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 22:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I just thought when they would expand that system to the entire game later in 2014, they would introduce the boss schedule, but yes, you are probably right!--W.Wolf (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Vault box - wardrobe[edit]

Obviously one of the interesting things is going to be that the wardrobe update plays merry hell with how we treat the appearance of armor/weapons. I haven't got a quick fix, because there won't be one, but I've been putting together a pretty (imo) template that we could get the wardrobe part of the vault box documented with.

User:Chieftain Alex/sandbox2 - the beginnings of an example
User:Chieftain Alex/sandbox3 - the cell template

click the "here" link in the text on sandbox2 to pop open all the items that unlock the skin. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 23:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I already said something about that (albeit in an out-of-the-way talkpage) over here. The best solution (not easiest) will be to add a skin parameter to armor, weapon, and (sigh) trinket infoboxes (back items really shouldn't be in that infobox, mechanically they're not trinkets). Then, for any non-unique (cultural/dungeon/gem store) skins, we make a page for the skin where we do basically what you're doing - list all the items with the skin. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 23:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
hmm why haven't we split the back items into a new {{back item infobox}}? then we never meet this ugly fit-all-the-weak-items-into-one-infobox problem again (pretty sure this has come up in quite a few conversations) :P -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 23:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright, why do we have List of ascended trinkets#Back items if they're not trinkets? -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 22:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It used to be called "equipment" instead of "trinkets". But honestly, it's because no one's bothered to split them. Trinket is actually incorrect, too. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 23:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Trinket and back item have been corrected. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 00:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Nice little rewrite you did there. I'll implement the back item infobox (for OCD sake about not being a trinket) some time later this week. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 23:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I can't recall where I saw reference to a skin infobox, where was it? It might be beneficial to use a slightly different colour of infobox to help distinguish between skins and items.-Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 20:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

PvP locker[edit]

The locker is being replaced by the wardrobe isn't it?--Relyk ~ talk < 01:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "replacement" because the functionality is quite different, but yes, the PvP Locker is going away, we are getting the Wardrobe, and these are happening at the same time.
About your edit to the page: Property:Has appearance is used to link an item to an image that shows its appearance. We should keep that working how it is, except that in the new paradigm, it should link a skin to an image. Then we need a new property Has skin to link an item to its skin. That would let us use the property chain Has skin.Has appearance to go from an item to its image. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
We still need to link to the skin... So we generate 'Has appearance' with File:{{{image|{{{skin}}}.jpg}}}, which we need if we want to override the appearance and require a file page for galleries. If the skin name matches the item name, we can generate the skin and appearance property by default.
I was thinking of the skin being an image property so we can generate skin galleries, which is something people really want. We would end up with duplicate 'Has appearance' for items sharing the same skin. The query would work if the skin itself has a page so we can query for its appearance, but that requires a page or a subobject. We can use the file page for this since skins can be mapped to an image. We need to set a property or category on the image file for File:{{{skin}}}.jpg so we can view each unique skin. So we can categorize the image files for all the item skins in [[:Category:Item skin images]] and the use the query [[:Category:Item skin images]] for the gallery. We would need Property:Has skin type on the file page because trying to filter on item pages, we would still end up with duplicate skins when multiple item pages of the same equipment type have the same skin.--Relyk ~ talk < 03:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Any non-unique skin should get its own article so we have a place to list all the items that use the skin - that is also something people are going to want to see, and it shouldn't be hidden on a file page. Unique skins will be doubled-up with the item on the same article. Unfortunately we already use Property:Has skin type for consumables that apply skins... we should probably rename that so we can use it for skins. Then the gallery query would be on Has skin type instead of Has weapon type. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 03:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's enough information there for articles, you have an image, an icon, and a list of items using the skin. You could achieve the same by putting an "Items sharing this skin" section on the individual item pages, which I think we want to do anyways.--Relyk ~ talk < 04:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Fishman. It's not just about making sure the info is documented, but making it accessible. A page which clearly breaks down the appearance and acquisition is more helpful and easier to access than a walled garden connecting a bunch of skin sharing items together. It's all about the skins. Items are secondary. Psycho Robot (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)