Template talk:Creature infobox

Archive of old template discussion

New design

In an attempt to make all the infoboxes withing gwwiki look the same, I've created Template:Creature infobox using aberrant's location box design. I changed the color to a red because the armor infoboxes are using a pale yellow, but that can be changed fairly easily. At the moment locations are using a pale blue/purple, weapons and offhands are using a pale green and armor (art and bonus) is using this beige kind of color (I wanted it as neutral as possible because it's going on all the professions' armor pages). There is also a need for an item infobox so we need a color picked for that too. - BeXoR 10:40, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Looks good, but the images are coming out a bit small imo -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 10:42, 25 February 2007 (EST)

I tried a gold colour, but it was too confusing. I kept expecting the person to be a warrior. Strange that I don't associate red with eles though. - BeXoR 14:03, 25 February 2007 (EST)

This orangey colour looks okay. - BeXoR 14:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

I love it, 1000 times better than the BeastInfo/CreatureInfo box -- Scourge 02:56, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Template info and ordering

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have "Campaign" at the top? If I'm looking at a creature I don't know, I think I'd rather find out which campaign it's in first rather than what species it is. Doesn't Campaign, Species, Profession, Level seem more logical? -- ab.er.rant 23:04, 25 February 2007 (EST)

I don't know. I don't think the old one even had campaign at all. I've been leaving it always at the bottom because it was an extra info thing. If I was looking at a creature I think I would want to know its level and profession first, then its species and then where it is found. - BeXoR 04:05, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Manual campaign linking

We should just set it to "campaign = Factions" instead of having to type "campaign = Factions" imo — Skuld 08:10, 26 February 2007 (EST)

I made this change — Skuld 08:33, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Heh? Hmmm... I always thought that doing campaign = [[Factions]] was better given that all the fields usually require you to provide the wikilink manually. -- ab.er.rant 09:09, 26 February 2007 (EST)

I've got rid of all the manual wikilinks in this, there wasn't any reason for them in the first place. I need someone a little more template-savvy to make the "none specified" bit not linked though >.< — Skuld 09:40, 26 February 2007 (EST)

The exact reason I set it not to automatic link is that now every creature that doesn't have a profession has "Not specified" linked. - BeXoR 10:14, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Can be done easily with parserfunctions. {{#if: {{{profession|}}}|[[{{{profession}}}]]|Not specified}} . BLASTEDT 18:20, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Yes... and it could be done easily if we could just use raw PHP, but that's not an option either :P LordBiro 05:25, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Why? Sorry someone had to ask... --Indecision 05:41, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Icon

Why does this need to be specified seperately? Have it default to N/A and allow it to be set manually, but make it so if "profession" is set as mesmer, the output is " Mesmer" — Skuld 08:30, 26 February 2007 (EST)

I made this change — Skuld 08:33, 26 February 2007 (EST)

It was set that way because the profession wasn't set to automatically link. But now that you've changed it to automatically link the parameter isn't needed at all. You really should have left it until the parser function was put in, because now everything will be changed back and forth even more times. - BeXoR 10:16, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Now if a creature is found with the same name and varying professions, you can't enter "Varies", because the icon output messes up. - BeXoR 10:24, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Yea, leave it for now, until we get parser functions, then we can use the #if for this. -- ab.er.rant 23:09, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Reverted

Until we have parser functions available leave the template the way it is. I'll work on fixing it or preparing it for that, but meanwhile Skuld's fix wasn't really a fix at all. - BeXoR 10:36, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Table vs Div

I like the look of the creature infobox, and the others with similar style.

I was hoping that by producing the skill box using divs (and lists) instead of tables that it might set a trend. It has been an annoyance of mine for a long time that GuildWiki uses tables for styling instead of using tables for.. well... tables.

Is there any chance that this and other infoboxes might be altered to use divs and lists? LordBiro 14:05, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Can you change the skill box to look more like the rest of the info boxes using divs? Tables don't need to just be used for table data. They have a long history in html design of being used to present any kind of information. I don't see what benefits there are from changing it over. What reasons are there? - BeXoR 14:22, 26 February 2007 (EST)

I could alter the skill box to match the appearance of the other boxes, I will do it when I get more than a moment :)

There are numerous reasons that tables shouldn't be used, but before I mention them I want to explain why tables were used by web designers. Early HTML was not built for web designers, and it lacked a lot of functionality to control the presentation of information. As web design began to flourish designers found that they had no way to control the look of their website, but they found that by doing things like placing non-tabular information in a table and using empty images to pad gaps they could produce something that looked good.

We no longer face the same problems early web designers faced. We can now easily separate the semantic markup, from the presentational CSS. The most cited reasons against using tables for controlling presentation are as follows:

• Tables are difficult to maintain. Navigating through cells and rows is a pain.
• Using proper, semantic markup (i.e. using a <ul> for an unordered list of information) is more accessible to disabled readers.
• Seperating presentation and markup reduces bandwidth usage.

Here are some good sources of information: the redesign of alistapart.com by Jeffrey Zeldman, Wikipedia article on tableless web design, examples of CSS (possibly irrelevant). LordBiro 17:35, 26 February 2007 (EST)

I might avoid tables if there's a good example of how to build an infobox using only divs and lists. -- ab.er.rant 21:41, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Is Template:Skill infobox a good example? Also, I recently redesigned my draft for the skill box to match the other designs, see User:LordBiro/Skill box draft 3. The idea behind these is that style information would eventually be in the MediaWiki stylesheet meaning we could use the wiki-code for lists instead of the html code. LordBiro 05:49, 27 February 2007 (EST)

If you can make it work, and it's worth changing it, then go ahead, but this stuff is way over my head for now. I was planning on learning parser functions next. :P BTW, on your draft could I suggest reversing the skill icon and the little recharge, etc icons? I think it would look nicer. :) - BeXoR 05:52, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Interesting... never thought of using those dd and dt tags before, heh. Shows how much I'm dependent on table and tr, td. I'll look into converting the region and location infobox soonish. -- ab.er.rant 06:28, 27 February 2007 (EST)

I suppose by using Div we no longer face difficulties using "|" in parser functions as it was with tables. Or are there other pitfalls ? --Erszebet 16:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Creature renders

Hi guys! Like I'm doing for the armor and items sections, I can also provide you with renders of the creatures for your creature boxes. Is this something you'd like to see? --Emily Diehl 15:53, 26 February 2007 (EST)

I think it'd be great if we can get actual renders of the creatures. They'd be cleaner and inevitably much nicer then cropped screen caps. Lojiin 16:06, 26 February 2007 (EST)

That would be excellent. Great work on the assassin armour btw ^^ — Skuld 16:19, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Not a problem! I love providing this stuff for the pages, so it's win-win. I will keep an eye on the creatures pages and add critter renders to pages with blank images in their creatures boxes. Until then, I'd say just keep on building the pages. I'll be busily supplementing them as I have time :) If there are any pages you'd really like to see prioritized for some reason, just let me know. --Emily Diehl 16:22, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Just to echo what everybody else has said, it'd be great to get clean renders of all the NPCs and enemies, a real boost ^.^ --NieA7 04:33, 27 February 2007 (EST)

They should give you a raise, Emily. ;) — Gares 16:32, 26 February 2007 (EST)

I second that Gares, thanks for all your hard work Emily. Can you get pictures of creeps like Skale as well as NPCs? -- Scourge 22:18, 26 February 2007 (EST)

If it's in the game, I can likely get it for the site :) Just build the pages and draw my attention to them if I overlook something. --Emily Diehl 22:39, 26 February 2007 (EST)

On behalf of my friend Pete, who is a Bog Skale, I take offense to calling him a creep. I can't count the times he and I sat on the sandy beach out at Watchtower Coast and just gazed at the sunset wrapped in each other's arms....I think I've said too much. :p — Gares 22:42, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Don't worry Gares, you haven't heard the stories about me and Rurik. I mean Prince Rurik.. >_> - BeXoR 22:48, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Not Undead Prince Rurik... Oh Bexor, you can do so much better than a re-animated corpse.  ;) --Rainith 22:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Great... now I can't get those horrid images out of my head... >.< -- ab.er.rant 22:50, 26 February 2007 (EST)

What, you mean Dead Spoiler Dude? - see Hundred Blades :D --Snograt whisper 23:23, 26 February 2007 (EST)

lol wut!? - BeXoR 23:27, 26 February 2007 (EST)

What's all this then?!? -- Scourge 02:02, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Somewhere along the line this discussion became terrifying. File:Terrified icon.jpg --Dirigible 02:09, 27 February 2007 (EST)

lol! File:Terrified icon.jpg! :D!!! - BeXoR 02:22, 27 February 2007 (EST)

lol LordBiro 05:51, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Profession color revisted

Okay, I'm not suggesting that we change the color of the whole box based on the profession of the creature. Please, before you comment, make sure you read that first sentence, carefully.  :)

Now, what if, just the background of the profession field in the box (where it has the profession symbol and says the name of the profession) was shaded with the light/background color (or the lighter color that Bexor and Anja came up with for the armor articles)? This would keep the majority of the colors in the box as either the orange color it is now or the white background color, while still giving a subtle nod to the profession of the creature (and throwing a bone to the people, myself included, who would like to see the profession color in the box). If there is any sort of agreement on this, it would really have to wait until ParserFunctions are installed and working, otherwise it would be too much of a pain to bother with IMO. --Rainith 01:09, 28 February 2007 (EST)

I'm holding off making anymore changes til parser functions, and this is kind of crippled without it. But yes, I think it's an interesting idea. The profession icon is very small so you don't get the information blared at you anymore. - BeXoR 01:16, 28 February 2007 (EST)

*throws a bone to Rainith* :p ;) A possible idea, although I'm wondering if some of the prof colors would go well with that orange look. -- ab.er.rant 02:55, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Also, remember that they're going to be reformatted to not be tables anymore, so you'd have to ask Biro if there's limitations with the new stuff he's doing. - BeXoR 04:36, 28 February 2007 (EST)

As most of you know, I'm not a fan of changing the reference colours to denote which profession a certain article is talking about, because this information is secondary to what the article is, i.e. a skill, a weapon, an NPC.

Rainith, I believe you are aware of the redesign of the skill box that I'm currently working on with the profession icon in the background. Would this be suitable for the creature infobox? LordBiro 05:58, 28 February 2007 (EST)

At the moment isn't it in the top right? It would have to be moved to the bottom right. Could you link us to it? I think it is a viable alternative though. - BeXoR 06:00, 28 February 2007 (EST)

The original image was going to be Image:Monk-faded.jpg. A preview of it's appearance is here. Monk-faded is cropped as I thought that, if I was only using it in the very top right of the box, a complete image would be a waste of bandwidth. Since then I've decided that a slightly larger icon would be needed, so I'm planning on uploading a new version some time soon. LordBiro 06:12, 28 February 2007 (EST)

If it gets used in the creature box its gotta be on the bottom cause the creature pic is at the top. I think it looks very interesting though. - BeXoR 07:30, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Biro, I believe either I didn't explain myself sufficiently or you saw the title of this section and a red haze fell over your eyes and you don't remember what happened after that, but for some reason, everything in your flat is broken/shredded now.  ;) I was not saying we should change the reference color of the box, let me repeat that, in bold, in hopes that it isn't missed I was not saying we should change the reference color of the box. I was only asking to change the "cell" which has the profession icon and lists the profession from white to the "light" color for the profession. Below are two examples (I'm willing to make examples for all class possibilities if people need to see what they would look like.

I don't know how/if this would work if we changed from tables to divs or whatever it is called. As for what you did with the skill box, I'm not sure how that would work with these boxes, I can't really picture it, even knowing what your skill box is looking like. --Rainith 22:17, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Rainith, I was fully aware of what you were suggesting, I can see now that my response was confusing. I was only intending to reiterate my point in agreement of what you said in your post. I'm sorry I was not clear about that.

I meant to suggest the use of the profession icon in the background as an alternative to your suggestion, since I am planning on doing this with the skill box, although this doesn't mean I have a problem with your suggestion. LordBiro 04:34, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Reset Indent:

I like the examples Rainith gave, but I would like to see how Biro's background icon looks in a creature box. I think we all can agree that what's better looking for one type of box may not be the best for another. I'm just hypothesizing here, but I think the information in a creature box might hide Biro's background icon while in the skill boxes there is enough room to display the icon almost completely. — Gares 10:37, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Examples

Abyssal
Species	Shadow Army
Profession	Warrior
Level(s)	28
Campaign	Core

Lion
Species	Animal
Profession	Not specified
Level(s)	5, 12
Campaign	Nightfall

I think it looks okay, except that I'd rather the box just be white if the profession isn't specified. Can this effect be replicated when the template is changed over to divs? - BeXoR 02:33, 2 March 2007 (EST)

The examples look great to me, especially with the plain render on a white background. Personally I like the grey for an unspecified profession - that colour band should serve as a very quick, visual representation of the creature's profession - if it's white it just looks like it hasn't been created properly, rather than suggesting a null profession. --NieA7 08:15, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I feel the opposite way. To me the grey makes it look like there is something wrong with the box. It the box is used for a Collector or other NPC, the grey doesn't apply, because in that sense their profession isn't "None" (as the grey color is meant to be used for). - BeXoR 08:20, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Well if there's a specific info box for collectors then everything using that box is by definition a collector - no need to differentiate. On the other hand, if we use the monster-info box then NPCs can be left white while monsters with no profession get grey to differentiate - the grey denotes something as missing, as opposed to the white where everything is as it should be. It could do with being a slightly lighter shade of grey though. --NieA7 08:26, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Try #EEE then. And I thought everyone wanted just the one infobox for all npcs/monsters/etc now? At least that's what I understood from the discussion on the old template page. I don't see why we need a separate infobox just for collectors if we can just add an if function in here to get the same result. - BeXoR 08:42, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I'm fine with the gray. The wording makes it clear. Or change it to "None". The problem is the icon. We need another icon which doesn't imply "wrong". Also, for NPCs, this time around, I'd rather the "Type" go with a header of "Type" instead of "Profession". A "Collector" isn't a profession in GW sense, it's an NPC type. -- ab.er.rant 08:47, 2 March 2007 (EST)

We can do that when we have parser. :) Maybe we can ask Biro for an icon that's just a greyish-white circle (similar to ). That's kind of generic right? - BeXoR 08:59, 2 March 2007 (EST)

- just temporary example. Would need a larger version if implemented. - BeXoR 09:05, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I realise this is the wrong place to discuss this, but I think the discussion has arrived here logically. If a system were implemented that used the large faded profession icon, what should we have for no profession? LordBiro 18:11, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I think I answered your question above - whatever icon is used for none, would need a larger version like the other profession icons. An X or a ? don't really fit when used in terms with profession which is why I suggested a plain circle. - BeXoR 18:55, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I like Bexor's mock up grey circle. Or maybe a null symbol. --Rainith 18:57, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Yea, I think Bexor's suggestion will be fine. -- ab.er.rant 21:57, 2 March 2007 (EST)

. -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 16:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Categories?

Is this template going to auto categories the monsters by species? possibly including a if statement "if is boss then category:<species> + bosses", etc --Jamie 08:30, 2 March 2007 (EST)

All of the infoboxes will autocategorise, but only when parser functions are installed. - BeXoR 08:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)

gotcha --Jamie 08:53, 2 March 2007 (EST)

NPC box?

Do you guys think there should be a different template used for NPCs? For examples like Banoit, you can see that humans are taller than they are wide, therefore they will not scale to the same proportions as a regular creature. If no, do you guys see any way to work around this issue other than to intentionally leave a large amount of white space on each side of an NPC render (so the width will scale the height accordingly)? --Emily Diehl 18:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

couldn't we add an npc field to the template that adjusted for image size with parser functions? -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 18:59, 9 March 2007 (EST)

This was discussed to a limited degree on this page already, although it has now been archived. Template_talk:Creature_infobox/Archive. I'm in favour of having a Creature box and an NPC box, although I'm less bothered about the proportions of the image. LordBiro 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Ow, a bit of coincidence I saw this in recent changes. Some of you already know I merged the old GWiki formatting guides into 1 NPC formatting guide (temporary proposal here). This proposal is reaching it's final stages. The whole starting point of that article was treating both hostile and non-hostile creatures/characters as "NPC" (which they technically are -- Non-playable/player characters). So I was going to ask if it's possible to rename the existing "Creature Infobox" to "NPC Infobox" or something. Or is it better to keep the existing "Creature" box and create a "Human Infobox" with the same parameters, only different image scaling or something ? In the beginning I thought it would be nice to have 1 box for the whole package. --Erszebet 20:19, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Humanoid infobox, for creatures that stand upright -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 20:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

or 'humanoid = yes/no' -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 20:57, 9 March 2007 (EST)

You can manually set the image, and specify the size of it. I thought the idea of having the one box is to specify all that extra stuff with parser functions and keep it all in the one template. - BeXoR 22:56, 9 March 2007 (EST)

That's the idea... we don't need extra boxes -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 23:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Then we might as well just have one infobox and the first parameter could be "skill" or "NPC" or "creature" or "weapon". :P

Of course, I realise that is a different thing; there are similarities between NPC and creature data, I just want to make it clear that I think saying things like we don't need extra boxes is ill-thought. (Sorry FireFox, I don't mean to pick on you directly here!).

I think there is a valid argument for separating NPC and creature info, and therefore using separate templates with distinct colours. I can personally see the use in distinguishing friendly Prince Rurik with unfriendly Undead Rurik, since the two articles wish to inform the reader about different things.

• The NPC article should provide information about the character and their history.
• The creature article should provide information about how to defeat this character.

Personally I think that this is reason enough for two distinct templates and policies. What do you think? LordBiro 03:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure where you're going with this ? "Creature" or "human"; both have name, image, species, prof., level, campaign... What are these differences to justify another infobox - other than giving it a different colour ? The reason why Rurik has 2 articles is because he's named differently as a friend / foe: Prince Rurik <-> Undead Prince Rurik. Otherwise they would be placed in 1 article (although I can see why Rurik would make an exception). The only real purpose the infobox colour has is to make the box 'recognizable' so to say. And if you're going to have 2 separate infoboxes for creatures and humans, then why have 1 merged formatting article for them in the first place ? Sorry, but I love to KISS to much to be convinced :p --Erszebet 18:57, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I agree with Erszebet. I say keep things contained to one box, anything that needs to be changed can be done with parser when it's installed. - BeXoR 01:10, 11 March 2007 (EST)

I don't think you can make an argument that having one template with ParserFunctions to determine differences is more simple than using two templates without ParserFunctions, Erszebet. I also said in my comment that if we do decide that NPCs and creatures are two distinct things (which I still maintain they are) then we should not have 1 merged formatting article.

As you say, Erszebet, the reason for having different coloured infoboxes is so that a reader can make an association with every article of that type, and a distinction between articles of a different type. I would say that allies and foes have enough of a distinction between them to justify a separate template, colour, formatting article etc. even if they do have similarities in data.

If you don't agree with me that's fine, but please don't say that this way is less simple :P LordBiro 07:56, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Deciding on whether we should differentiate hostile and non-hostile infoboxes also implies we need to decide if hostile and non-hostile versions should appear on separate pages. Consider characters like the Luxon henchmen, Markis, Confessor Dorian, and others that appear both as allies and as enemies. -- ab.er.rant 23:53, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

As I said above, I do think that friendly and hostile articles of the same character shoul dhave different articles, although perhaps I wasn't explicit enough. LordBiro 06:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(reset indent) Yeah, the situation isnt ever as clear cut as it seems. I think we should just leave it the way it is, so that there's not a multitude of colours throughout the wiki. Which is another thing I was meaning to ask - the location and mission boxes are slight variations of lavender. I think that the similarity in color is a bit silly - either they should be the same colour or different colours. And if in fact it is my fault that color got chosen (I think I was messing with those boxes earlier) then my bad. - BeXoR 01:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I accept that I am in the minority here :)

I also agree that the mission and location colours should be clearly different, but I don't think this is the place to discuss it ;) hehe LordBiro 06:05, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Turns out it WAS my fault anyway. - BeXoR 06:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Hehe, it always is BeXoR :P LordBiro 06:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Map

If someone who knows how to use parser functions makes the map an optional parameter (perhaps map = 1 produces {PAGENAME} map.jpg and map = 2 produces {PAGENAME} map alt.jpg) that would be appreciated (are there situations where more than 2 maps are needed?). Also if someone could look at Template:Item infobox and add a parameter to show or hide the render image (render = yes/no) I would appreciate that too. - BeXoR 11:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps you take a look at Template:Weapon_infobox for the changes User:Anja Astor did - she hides material sections for unique items. Same way should be possible here. - MSorglos 11:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay but don't kill me if I break it. :S - BeXoR 11:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

It didn't work. :S - BeXoR 11:36, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Boo! Let me try. I'll see if I can steal this from Barek. --Dirigible 11:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. :D I have been avoiding learning about this stuff. :P - BeXoR 11:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you have to create Template:Creature infobox map1 and so on for this to work. - BeXoR 11:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I made those so it should work. Is it meant to show them as being used even if they aren't showing in an article? o_O - BeXoR 11:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Sweet, it worked!

(Edit conflict) Yeah, that's normal. At least that's how it is on GuildWiki. --Dirigible 12:03, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Yay! :D Good work. ^_^ - BeXoR 12:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

(ri) You don't HAVE to do it that way, but it sure is less confusing ^^ {{pipe}} all over gets.. weird :P — Anja 12:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

If you can make it work the other way, then please do. :) As long as it works that's all that matters. I would prefer proper use of parser functions than working around it. :P - BeXoR 12:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd say that way is working with parser, my way is working around, having to use {{pipe}} and stuff to get it to work :P — Anja 12:24, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Well is there a way to include those extra map templates into this one, so that they don't have to be separate? I added a type parameter for NPCs like armor crafters. Do you think we can take out the No profession variable? Because there isn't any creature with no profession, where instead we could put a type (like a Lion would be type = Animal). - BeXoR 12:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

FYI: The usage for "map1" should indicate that an image size should be included (128px or some other). The to get around this is to modify how the map is included (ie: remove the brackets as part of the parameter). Also, is the map1-text also meant to be small, or only the default text? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Did I do it right? - BeXoR 12:57, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I didn't look close at the code, but it seems to work.

To be fair, I did want to point out why this wasn't done on GuildWiki ... it results in an inconsistency in formatting of parameters. The creature image/render, if over-ridden from the default, is coded to require the brackets and image size. The map images now require that the brackets and image size be left off. As long as everyone's fine with this inconsistency, then no problem ... but I did want to point out why it wasn;t done over there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I can work on it more later but I'm on dial up and I'm getting randomly disconnected. If you want to change it then go ahead. - BeXoR 13:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The infobox seems to be messed up ? How can you add multiple professions with the icons appearing ? Also, "campaign" doesn't auto-link. --Erszebet 06:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Multiple professions will have to be worked out by someone who knows about parser. If the profession varies it can be easily listed in the article under separate instances of the npc (skill bar will be different as well). Campaign doesn't auto link because some creatures can be in more than one campaign, but not all, and I'd rather not have to add a campaign1, campaign2 and campaign3. - BeXoR 09:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

To make several professions AND icons appear you would need a huge amount of code, to my knowledge. If you don't want to put in all the links and image names yourself. Maybe we should work out an infobox design policy/guide, so we can have them all to the same standard (and more importantly, have a space to discuss design and help eachother out designing them. As it is now, all discussions are scattered on different talk pages) — Anja 10:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Yea, it should take a fair bit of tweaking to get something like that up. For the campaign link, like I mentioned a while ago in some page I can't remember, either everything autolinks or everything doesn't (I support no, since there are always special cases). Makes things much more consistent. -- ab.er.rant 12:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Autolinking is mostly used in those cases you also use auto-categorisation, I guess. Do we want autocategorisation? I tried to implement it in the armor infobox and now I hate it, so my opinion is, get rid of it :P — Anja 13:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Indecision is working on autocat for item and wepon infoboxes. The links to him examples are on my talk page. - BeXoR 01:09, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Why do you hate it Anja? -- ab.er.rant 01:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

(ri)Because it's so complicated to get it to work in all small cases, and what's the point of automating if you still have to correct and add things manually? Like in the case with armor, we want categorising to be like [[Category:Monk armor|Wanderers ascended]] at Monk ascended Wanderer's armor, but it's name to still be just Wanderer's. Then we would need a totally separate parameter just for saying "it's should be sorted under this name in the category". It's just as much work as typing out the categorisation in a link as we do now. I have more examples, but I think you get my point :) I don't hate autocategorization as a principle, I hate to make it work nicely. — Anja 04:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Question about ParserFunctions: do we only have 8 functions (if, ifeq, switch...) available ? --Erszebet 10:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)