Template talk:NPC infobox/Archive 5

Add damage type parameter?

Since many foes use the same type of damage with their attacks, i think it might be a good idea to add a line for their damage type. It's pretty obvious for some foes such as the Stoneaxe Heket, but there are also foes like Spectral Vaettir dealing earth damage, or Warriors like Trolls or Ettins where you can't see their damage type since they do not wield a normal weapon. —ZerphaThe Improver 12:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like such a thing. There are some odd ones though like Mountain Pinesouls. Manifold 18:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Damage type is not inherrent to NPCs. It is caused by the weapons they wield and the skills they us. Should list that instead. Backsword 18:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Since this infobox is used for non-combatant npcs, i would prefer to leave such information out of it. The body of the page should be good enough, same as with armor ratings.--Fighterdoken 18:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-combatant NPCs? It seems to be used by all NPCs. I think an optional damage type line would be a helpful addition. -- Kirbman 06:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox parameters are generally used for things that could apply to just about any page that uses it. Damage type, like health would not be figure-outable for a large number of NPCs. There is the NPC statistics template for further information about an NPC, which is currently only being used for armor ratings. I'll also plug the fact that we have a number recorded damage types ready to go, although finding the specific type of physical damage is a huge pain (the downside of Bladeturn Refrain's change). Manifold 14:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

More professions

I don't want to risk breaking something, so could someone up the number of possible professions to 6 please? White Mantle Sycophants and a few other WiK foes have more than three. Manifold 18:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Health parameter?

Is this really necessary? Especially as a required parameter? -- Wyn talk 12:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It was brought up previously that if we ever wanted to record enemy health totals we could use Template:NPC statistics. I don't think the infobox is really the right place for it. Manifold 14:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I think it is very important. I think it looks better in the template then written as a note. I mean they have health bars but the scaling changes according to overall health. If it is important enough to have it in the game then I think it should be here as well.----Xtreme 15:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

One problem with that is that most monsters have the standard HP scaling of lvl*20 + 80 hp, and since that is the norm, we don't really need to list it. --JonTheMon 15:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

well then in the template make 80hp default----Xtreme 15:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to document it too, Xtreme, but the infobox is used for friendly NPCs too, which are much harder to test and probably less interesting. The Template:NPC statistics is currently only being used for armor ratings, but could be expanded into "statistics", including health and energy. Manifold 15:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would be great idea to have it in there just like the level however you can always make it an option then rather than required. I think it should be required since all NPC's have health but an option to have it hidden is possible as well.----Xtreme 15:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the infobox is the wrong location for that. If we start to add health to it, we can't just end there and would have to add other data there as well. And the infobox already holds enough information. poke | talk 17:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Where would be the proper spot for it then? Notes? Can we just add a heart with a number beside it on all the pages instead of having it under notes?----Xtreme 17:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Or a health bar with the number inside it?----Xtreme 17:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I think adding it to the statistics template would be more appropriate. -- Wyn talk 17:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The "Armor Ratings" section would be renamed to something more general. Manifold 17:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Render Parameter

Due to the numerous discussions about rendered images vs screenshots, I made a mock-up template with a rendered variable that doesn't intrude upon the page. It can be seen here. I made this is response to this conversation, and is also directly related to this other template I made for the Weapon infobox to solve the same issue. This and the other template I made can be placed over the current template, and wont break the pages its used on. It would only need a person or a group of people to go about adding in the new image and variable into the template. What Im wondering is should this be used? Many people comment that renders are great because they look clean, and the images can be used elsewhere and allow for transparencies. However, Screenshots display the said NPC within the world, and generally will have minimal errors due to the "rendering" process. I personally think that both have their merits. What the true question is then is should the additional images be allowed? It would essentially double the number of images per NPC, requiring the current rendered NPCs images to be reverted and the render re-uploaded as a new image.--Neithan Diniem 05:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that a lot NPC have already renders and in those cases all screenshots were deleted, and given that NPCs are not just enemies and for any friendly NPC it makes more sense to show the render, I would rather see a screenshot parameter instead. Or maybe even a screenshot parameter, that - if set - shows the screenshot as the normal image position and the render somewhere else or just the render if it is not set. poke | talk 22:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well by now my infobox template has reached a useable state, and I am wondering if anyone wishes it to be accepted. As for the screenshots, I myself would go through and take some. Ill be working on a bit of the code, to have it display the render if no screenshot is present, and hide the render if it is. Im swamped right now though with a 3D modeling project Im working on. Other than that, its all green. If the voice actor project here is desired to be added to the infobox space, I already have the code made up for that.--Neithan Diniem 23:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Addition to box

I recently created a project where voice actors should be added to npc and hero pages. Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Voice Actors -- Wings of Blood 01:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Note, Can someone also add the code for Voice Actor and it's category addon. I believe this is a much needed addition. Please feel free to post it on the Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Voice Actors/Demo Page -- Wings of Blood 01:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Information such as that may would better under the "trivia" section of the NPCs, with links to pages created for the voice actors. G R E E N E R 05:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this need to go in the infobox. Sace is limited and obviously, most of the article doesn't happen there. In addition, this may need longer text that mismatches with the infobox style on the wiki. Historically, the boxs is used for data points of game info, dtabase entry style, and this doesn't seem to fit that pattern. Backsword 23:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

See this, should be your explanation. It doesn't clutter and it would be best that the voice actor link would lead to wiki so it would reduce the number of uneccesary pages. -- Wings of Blood 03:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to the info box, along with reason and example. I'm sorry I didn't get a couple people to agree but I feel strongly that this is important and would've only taken a long time with alot of people debating. Doesn't clutter and is easy to understand. Lucian Shadowborn 23:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't have.... the community doesn't want that information in the infobox. More than one person has expressed that opinion. -- Wyn talk 23:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, two. Two people don't represent the entirety of the community. Can you at least look at Zhed Shadowhoof and it's corresponding Robin Atkin Downes. This does not create a large workload and the other npcs that dont have voices are not affected by the change. Lucian Shadowborn 23:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You have this discussion spread over several pages... Backsword and Greener said no on this page, Pling, Jon, said no on this page, so right there you have 4, considering the number of people that are involved in the discussions, I think that's enough to say you don't have consensus for this. -- Wyn talk 23:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well personaly, i think its a great idea. +1.--Neil2250 00:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Add multiple affiliation and creature type parameters?

While at any given time, a singular NPC has only one affiliation and creature type, there are cases of multiple NPCs sharing the same name, model, lore, etc. but being of different NPCs mechanically. These NPCs are still documented in the same article - e.g., Shiro Tagachi, who is mechanically a demon up until Imperial Sanctum, where he's a human, or Sarah and Benton who're both a human and later a ghost.
Likewise, where every NPC has an affiliation, some creatures are tied to the generic affiliations of the region. For instance, Stone Elementals, which are seen in multiple regions (Ascalon and pre-Searing Ascalon), both of which having their own generic affiliations, will likely have two affiliations as a whole - those in pre-Searing tied to the pre-Searing Ascalon generic affiliation, and those in post-Searing tied to the post-Searing Ascalon generic affiliation.
As such, I'd like to propose placing multiple (2 or 3) creature type/affiliation parameters. I'd do this myself, but these infobox templates confuse me in their massive codings. Konig/talk 01:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I second that.-- Necro Shea Mo 20:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There, give it a go and see if it works :P–alistic 04:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to work. Thanks! Konig/talk 04:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Feature request: non-map images

• Request: add the possibility of adding additional sets of non-map images to the infobox.
• Current functionality: The infobox holds room for two image sets: a single primary image and up to 5 maps.
• Current kludge: Many NPCs have additional images added using the map parameters (most commonly for NPCs that have concept art, since those same NPCs usually don't need specific maps).
• Issue to be resolved: Those additional images are displayed under the header, Map(s), which is, at best, wrong.

I can see three four useful ways to resolve this:

1. Re-title the section to Image(s)/Map(s), allowing for us to five images of any kind. (Least work, but a kludge of a different sort.)
2. Add parameters for a third section of images (following the same syntax as for Maps) and labeling the resulting section as Other image(s). (Relatively easy work; probably covers 90% of any needs for the future.)
   • Option: allow for parameter to name the section (default: Other image(s)).
3. Add parameters for an arbitrary number of additional sets (using something like, Image-set title=). (Probably more work than is healthy for a volunteer-powered website, but highly extensible.)
4. Stop using the map parameter for non-maps (and go back to using ordinary thumbs/right-justified images). (This would be about as much work as #2.) (Option added 17:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC).)

Nearly any of us that fiddle with templates can handle the first option, but I think the wiki would be better off allowing for a second set of images (option #2). From my point of view, the third option is just brainstorming (too expensive and too little benefit relative to what we need). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Responding to option #2:I'm sure that adding a second set of parameters would be simple enough. Choosing a name for them would also be simple. Potential problems would be on where they get placed (above or below the maps) and whether or not this would be better than the thumbs we currently add below the infobox (or in other sections of our choosing). G R E E N E R 05:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me thumbs, mappicspace, and other places work just fine. Thumbs also provide somthing to look at too, when your reading through a boooring walkthrough or locations list. I vote leave it be.-- Necro Shea Mo 11:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not being clear: we need to do something b/c this wiki currently uses the map-image feature of the infobox for non-maps. We need to fix that, so that concept art won't be located under the title, Map(s). See Tahlkora or Jora for example. I converted to a regular image, but was reverted, with the comment, concept art are not map but many NPCs have alt images in that location.

So are you guys saying that you want option #0, which is: don't use the {{NPC infobox}} for images other than maps of NPC locations? — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I did not catch on that we were using it that way. I would disagree with Konig on that revert (though he apparently has precedence on his side), simple because the infobox labels the section as Map(s) to the reader. I've been told by many wonderful people that I have little-to-no aesthetic taste, so I cannot say if keeping images in the infobox, or as thumbs, looks better; I just prefer to have the infoboxes be as succinct as possible.

I do not want to have map= get replaced, as that could take too much work. I do not want to see the infobox get overloaded with pictures (1 NPC + 1 map + 1 concept is borderline to me). G R E E N E R 16:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a current need (or at least, strong interest) in using this infobox to add certain types of images. (See also today's edit to Murro.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Then if this is the way people want to go with it, an additional variable, with possible header, is needed. Changing the labelling on the individual pages can always be done over time, on a case-by-case basis (much as my beloved colour gets changed...). G R E E N E R 18:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think number one is all that is needed, however doing what is done currently for type/species works too, that is, where the parameter 'type' and 'species' result in the same thing, so too would 'map#' and 'pic#'. Konig/talk 21:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)