Template talk:Weapon infobox/Archive 1

So...I was being a little human "bot" and I was just starting to do Oscar's weapon list when I noticed that a shield doesn't necessarily have damage, it more likely has defense. All weapons are given a "power" so should damage in these info boxes be replaced by power and defense added as an if statement. In addition, instead of having to say "Greatsword (two handed), Sword (either hand), etc." could we have a switch that looks are the weapon type and assigns Main vs Off vs Either vs Two Handed appropriately? Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 04:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No, all shields both have a power stat and a defense stat. (Think Shield Bash.) But yes, I have not yet implemented a defense option in the weapon template so I will just create that now. :) - Infinite - talk 09:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How 'bout power? It really should be power... Aqua (T|C) 00:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Anything which reflects the information best. :) - Infinite - talk 14:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I went through all the weapons which were in a weapon category, except enviromental weapons (ewees?), making their weapon infoboxes work yesterday. I also gave the weapons in the Simple Weapon and Ghastly Weapon sets weapon set parameters. It didn't actually do anything (at the moment), but they are there if someone wants to edit the template for them to do something. Thering 09:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know if we can stop this page being categorized into axes, short of removing the example? I thought maybe make a dummy input that shows up as axe on the box, but doesn't categorize the page, but I don't know if there is an easier way Thering 19:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I added a condition that categories only apply if in mainspace. In the example infobox at the bottom, the position of the "value" line is bugged - I'm not sure what's wrong with it, so could someone else fix it please? pling 18:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any bug with the "value" line, and noone's changed the template since your last edit (which was before your talk post). Is it still bugged for you? Thering 00:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

May it's just me being pedantic, but ranges are written with en dash and without spaces (e.g. "300–400" instead of "300 - 400"), so I've changed that. Alfa-R 11:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Pedantics are always good. :) Thanks for catching that. Aqua (T|C) 23:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixes

This Template needs some fixes as it does not look like it should look like. The lines are a bit messed up and not syncronized. Can someone please fix that? --Wubbbi 22:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to illustrate your point with a screenshot of what you see? - Infinite - talk 23:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this. Power is not in line with the numbers and everything is a bit messed up. Using firefox 10.0.2 on a 1024x600 netbook.--Wubbbi 23:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a font setting on your side; on default settings I can not encounter this issue anywhere. :\ - Infinite - talk 23:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm ... what is the default font in this wiki? I will check that. --Wubbbi 23:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There should be a setting in Firefox that automatically uses website-specific fonts. I would have to check what font the wiki uses. - Infinite - talk 23:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Same weapon, multiple stats

During adding items and drops found in press videos I found a weapon can drop but have different stats. The one I came across is Mighty Bow. The original page had Required Level 6, Power 163-179, Power +12. I found a drop, same weapon name but, Required level 1, Weapon Str 141-166, +9 Power. Either they changed stats or weapons can drop with varying stats depending on player level or level area. My guess would be the latter. But I am not sure how to enter this on the weapon page. On the template put "Varies" for stats and on main part of page list stats for different levels found? Kenrid 22:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Strength, not power

The main stat for weapons is now weapon strength, instead of minimum and maximum power (reserved term for the character statistic). Should we change it now, or wait and see new information from next beta event? --Leonim 22:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I get a link to a current video? Aqua (T|C) 22:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Here you are : Guild Wars 2 - The Mists PvP Vendor (source: Curse Network on the 20th of February). Weapon description around 2:30 in the video.

You can find other material references on the soft trinity project page. --Leonim 22:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll change it momentarily. Aqua (T|C) 22:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Condition parameter = Rarity

Should probably be renamed to rarity so we don't have two different names for the same thing, as Template:Item infobox uses rarity, which sounds more fitting. How do you find all pages that use this template anyway? :D --zeeZ (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Here you go :) Eerie Moss 11:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Eep! So the condition parameter is not for condition damage? Torrenal 05:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Overhaul

Continuing with the idea of improving the infoboxes leave the Example and corresponding Infobox. Comments are appreciated. Thanks Lasha 11:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This pertain to the armor infobox as well, but I really don't like the header color changing as a replacement for rarity. It's not easy to parse, it doesn't make the information nicely available (and it obscures it in a way that means that people have to "learn" how to read the wiki, which is a big no-no) and the colors often clash with the borders. It just looks bad.

On the "upgrade" slot, I'm not really sure if I'm a big fan, I guess you could make a bunch of sub ones with stuff like "upgrade: Major Sigil of Ghostslaying (from Churl); Superior Sigil of Ghostslaying (from Reeva)". However, it might be the information where the amount of information warrants a page section, instead of just an infobox section.

I do, however, like the reordering of the infobox sections, and I'm not sure how I feel about the section divider between "stats and costs". Aqua (T|C) 20:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Screenshots?

Will we be including screenshots of the actual weapon skins? See also: :File:Carving_Knife.jpg

This would imply allowing for both a screenshot of the skin, and the inventory icon. Torrenal 06:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It will probably be included eventually, but the naming convention of the screenshots would have to be more specific. Though it would be cooler if we could have extensive galleries for weapons (not just one side-shot), just like we'll have them for armours. - Infinite - talk 07:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

We know we have weapon icons. We know we have weapon skins. If we can assume that the two are both linked to the weapon name, I see little reason to omit it from the weapon template. We may not have many weapon screenshots....yet, but if we create the spot for them, they'll fill in much faster, and if we create the spaces early, we won't have to go through the pains of renaming scads of images. Torrenal 17:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with having <weapon>.png as the icon, and <weapon>.jpg as the "photo". The gallery would be .jpgs and each one would just add some qualifier after the weapon name. —Dr Ishmael 17:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have there (be it a minor one) is that people would need to convert a screenshot of the icon from a jpg to a png to submit icons. Well, that, and 'foo.png' does not distinguish itself from 'foo.jpg' other than both are about 'foo' -- I could see confusion from the uninitiated. Torrenal 18:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Whilst it would be convenient to utilise both extensions to have a uniform formatting for items (.png for icons, .jpg for skins), I think we should be a little more specific with file naming. If someone accidentally uploads the skin file to .png (before the icon is uploaded), we'll need an admin to sort out the mix-up (the screenshot would have to be removed from the file history). It would probably be just as annoying as having to reupload icons uploaded with the .jpg extension. - Infinite - talk 22:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Formatting page created

I've stubbed up a __very__ crude formatting page, please use it and its talk page to discuss both the template and the page content. Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Weapon formatting

The main points in having the page is to give users a template for creating new weapon pages with, give advice for doing so, and record decisions on the page design Torrenal 05:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for new infobox

I have a suggestion for a new infobox. Here is an example of the infobox in action. Ignore the color of the infobox header (I don't know how to find the wiki css to copy whatever it is). I would like to focus on what is being shown in the infobox there, as opposed to the infobox here:

• Following a model more similar to the skill infobox, things about what the item is are described inside the infobox itself. Things that the item do (its effects) are listed in the main article, below the description. The item effects, similarly to the skill effects, have been divided into four topics: a description, base stats (in this case, strength), bonus given, and upgrade slots. All of those have a linked icon, again similarly to the skill effects. For the records, the icon for weapon strength is a placeholder until someone makes something better.
• Recipe and item infobox are merged into the same thing. This solves the issue of having confusing information - currently, the recipe infobox lists the required character level to equip the item as if it were the required rank in the discipline to craft the item (see the example linked above). Having everything together in a more clear fashion avoids this kind of confusion. The issue of adding multiple items to the same article (if someone wants to add all variations of the Crude Staff to the same article, for example) is solved by making the infobox independent of the page name; since the multiple variations of the Crude Staff have different level requirements, weapon strength, bonuses and recipes, it's only fitting that they get different infoboxes as well.
• The infobox shows not only weapon type, but also item type. As obvious as it may sound to most of us that a staff is actually a weapon, IMO it's worth mentioning that kind of information within the infobox, which this one does automatically.
• The infobox has been set to make information easily available to DPL lists (or, with a few adaptations, to Semantic Wiki lists). This way, weapon recipe lists such as the ones seen here could be made automatically, instead of having to be done manually as they are right now.
• Lastly, this is an item infobox, and not just a weapon infobox. The idea is for it to work for all items, not just weapons.

It's not completely ready yet, but if people are interested in the idea, I would like some feedback before finishing it. Erasculio 13:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

looks like a crafting info box, to be honest. Add that it displays level specific attributes for the weapon level. If tailor and jeweler are anything to go by, the weapon will be available at multiple levels, with different attributes. Have a look at Lapis Silver Earring of Heartiness. It looks good, it really does, but I think we should answer other questions before we get too mired in templates that we may need to heavily modify or even discard, which honestly is where crafting is at right now.. Crafting info: have a look at the Iron Ingot. Makeable by 4 professions, at least (crafting template maxes out at 4, so a 5th profession would be lost from the template). A long time ago, I learned that something being possible does not make it a good decision (soap box cars can go on roofs, but should never be on roofs. Also learned from that that casts itch). Do we want to combine all the item type templates into a single large template? Sure, it's easy for the editors setting up pages, but maintenance will be more difficult because of the added template complexity, You also risk a break in the template breaking all the pages that use it. Don't get me wrong, it looks good, but I think it may be early for such a template (I feel the same about all crafting & weapon templates, to be honest) and from a design/reliability standpoint, too much complex mixed with very generic. Torrenal 14:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Iron Ingot. It would be easy to allow all eight disciplines to be added to the same item, if there were an item craftable by everything. Erasculio 15:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of combining recipe info in the infobox. First of all, it's not info about what the weapon is - it's info about how the weapon was created or "acquired", and "Acquisition" should be a section of the article text, not part of an infobox. Second, it doesn't fit very well - a lot of ingredient names are long enough to wrap, which ruins the visual aesthetic of having the ingredient icons all lined up together (granted, this happens sometimes in {{recipe}}, but not as often, and we could widen that template without breaking aesthetic with similar templates/tables, whereas this is an infobox and all infoboxes are the same width). —Dr Ishmael 19:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you can offer a link inside the infobox to recipes, so instead of displaying the list of ingredients, you can click the link (either it takes you to a new page or to an acquisition section in the same article, depending on other decisions we make). I would also combine the discipline into the same line. The parameters would be recipe = [article title] and discipline = [discipline] and would present as something like Recipe <br />(Discipline). That allows the infobox to accommodate crafted, "vended," looted, and reward items (and could be generalized to the other item types, too). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference between crafting recipes and other acquisition methods is how we don't use an infobox to show where an item can be bought, but we do use an infobox to show crafting recipes. As item articles are right now, we have two big infoboxes with somewhat redundant content - using the same example, the Mighty Crude Staff article, we see the name of the item in big letters being repeated twice, together with the item icon; not to mention how the page is dominated by two infoboxes, with one of them having almost no content (the item infobox itself). The question here isn't, then, if we want to have the crafting information in an infobox - the current articles say a "yes" to that. The question is, do we really want two infoboxes instead of using a single one?

The advantage of having the recipe in the infobox, then, is not only having a single infobox for a given item, as opposed to the two infoboxes currently seen in some item articles, but also being able to add this information in a single template and thus be able to gather it into a DPL list in an easier way. Linking from the infobox to an article with recipes would likely still allow for automatic DPL-based recipe lists, but it would be significantly more time consuming to make it.

But regardless, it appears people didn't like the idea. Pity, but I'll continue to work on it in case the final result is seen more favourably. Erasculio 23:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Only four people have offered opinions: yourself (presumably in favor), Torrenal & Ish (don't like the combo idea), and myself; I'm agnostic actually — my post was an alternative suggestion, not a comment about the idea. I happen to dislike the double-infobox that we use, but I'm also not sure that non-crafter players care much about seeing a list of ingredients in the primary box.

Another way of combining stats + recipe would be to display two distinct physical boxes, even if only one infbox is used. I've created a terrible-looking example to illustrate the idea (obviously, it should look more like Eras' weapon box split into two color-coded bits, not necessarily the same size).

Keep at it please — I'm very much in favor of a less cluttered approach. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with combining the recipe info is that in some cases, the recipe name does not match the final item name, see Garnet Stud of Might, and this distinction is important in order to help people find the recipe in their recipe list - if the wiki says they can craft a "Garnet Stud of Might" but they only see a recipe for "Garnet Stud," there's no obvious connection that it's the same thing.

If we modified {{recipe}} so that it didn't look like an infobox, would that be acceptable? I don't really like the current presentation very much, myself. —Dr Ishmael 03:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It the recipe template didn't look like an infobox, this issue would be solved as far as I'm concerned.
Just out of curiosity, though, I was trying to find a way to fix one of the issues Ishmael pointed above - how some material names are too long, and thus they force a line break, disrupting the arrangement of material icons as a single column in the recipe section. After trying to find a way around this, my only solution was to stretch the infobox so the full material name would fit, which would require a rather large infobox considering some of the materials we have in GW2 (such as the Bronze Chain Chest Panel). I decided then to try an alternative infobox design - an horizontal one, as opposed to the vertical infoboxes we have been using. What do you people think? Too big? Too much empty space at the bottom right? Erasculio 01:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Takes up 55% of the width on my ipad. Try that on a phone and the user will be scrolling left/right. Infoboxes are vertical for a reason. I've no objection to discarding the recipe infobox in favor of a table or even plain presentation -- except perhaps on a page that is unique to the recipe (I'm still undecided about even having those) Torrenal 01:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection to recipes looking like infoboxes — they are meant to be concise presentations of basic facts, exactly what infoboxes are designed to do. However, there's no reason they have to be designed like the weapon/armor infoboxes. First, we could distinguish between prefixes, suffixes, component, and product parts of the name. In Erasculio's example, we'd have have "Bronze Chain" and "Chest Panel" on separate lines | "Jute" and "Chest Padding" | and "Vital" and "Jute Insignia". So it might look something like... this (assume that the ingredient text would indent relative to the icons); the name of the armor isn't particularly long, so it doesn't have to be split in my example, but it could be done as easily as for the ingredients (we'd require an article with a list of component nomenclature). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That's worse than Erasculio's original implementation because you are forcing line wraps in the ingredient list, which make it look really cluttered. —Dr Ishmael 12:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Compare Bronze Rifle and Jeweler Recipes - Copper Base. Be sure you look at them on a handheld or 1024x768 screen, where the rifle infoboxes do not wrap properly. Torrenal 13:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not having read all of this, I shall provide my opinions anyway. I actually prefer the looks of the infobox as is. The proposed one is much too big. Do we really need a header that big? Is there any point with the white bar above the header? Is a 60px icon really necessary? If you want an icon that big, why didn't you just leave it at its original 64px for better quality? Is recipe really necessary in the infobox? I am all for keeping much information in the infobox, but we need to remember it's supposed to be used for quick info. It's not to be used as a wiki article all by itself. — Rhoot 14:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I again offer my version of Infoboxes with statistics. Lasha 15:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I like your 'without color' ones aside from a few things.

1. What's with the horizontal line going through two of them?
2. I don't like the rune infobox. It contains way too much information to be useful. Can you imagine having information filled for all three sections? It's gonna be massively long.
3. The vertical line is shifted in a weird way, but that's probably not intended. The vertical line is also split in half which looks as if it was intended, but does not look good. Would possibly look better if the shifting wasn't there.

— Rhoot 00:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

wind the clock back 4 years. What's the price of your average minor rune? Major rune? 100g. The 100g rune does not belong at the TOP of an info box. Not above the 4k rune. Naw, leave the major and minor runes off. Sup runes only, please. Torrenal 05:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the Infoboxes. Sorry, with the changed of main theme. better now? Lasha 10:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) There's one way to adapt TEF's idea and solve the issue with the materials name breaking the icon columns - take a look at the second infobox here. Erasculio 12:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but my reaction to that is "yuck." Anyone unfamiliar with the crafting system is going to have no idea how to read that. Also, the labels in an infobox are supposed to be uniform across all articles that use the infobox. —Dr Ishmael 14:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And Lasha, your infoboxes still have that weird shifting, but it's a CSS problem so I'll take it up with Alfa-R. The only problem i have with them now is way too much information in the rune infobox and some template errors due to whitespace. It inserts empty paragraphs every now and then and splits the list of stats. Also about the proposed weapon infobox, aren't sigils on weapons replacable? If so, do we really need to put them in the infobox, as they're not part of the weapon? — Rhoot 16:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Certain weapons have 'un-replaceable' upgrades/sigils. For example the Seraph weapons: Seraph Axe. I would also make the suggestion that we somehow add the ability to add different tiers to the infobox. For example, there are three separate tiers to that Seraph Axe, each with its own stats, costs, and level requirements. Phoenix Avenger 03:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Fallback images

I need help correcting the fallback image to avoid this scenario (check the sigil in the description). I'm too out of tune with the complex wikicode to make it work :(

Situation: The article for Major sigil of undead slaying exists, but has no icon. The infobox for the sigil has a fallback to Skill.jpg, but it doesn't work here, since by writing out the name of the sigil you automatically overrule the fallback image. We need some kind of check if the file exists, I think? - anja 11:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Should be fixed with my last change. I will incoperate this change in the Accessory and the Armor infobox as well. - Yandere 15:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Great, thank you! - anja 18:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(Hidden) Weapon gallery

I added this based on the similar functionality found in the NPC infobox. We can strip the single image gallery tags from weapons (and this can potentially be added to the armor infobox) if people are ok with this. I don't want start making large changes if anyone has a problem with this. It defaults to <page name>.jpg, which should be reserved for the primary screenshot for items anyway (.png for icons.) — Rari 18:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

At the moment this looks really broken, because the Gallery thing appears right outside of the boundaries of the webpage. I really don't know what you plan to do with that, but I think my English got a bit tangeled up, so could you explain for stupid Germans what you are planning to do with this Gallery stuff? - Yandere 18:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your meaning. Where are you seeing it that it looks broken? It looked fine in all of my testing. — Rari 18:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is hard to describe I made a screenshot, that will make it clear:

- Yandere 19:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for the screenshot Had a /div out of place - it was only showing up oddly in firefox (not in chrome or internet explorer though.) This is meant to provide immediate and standardized article-level support for gallery screenshot images. — Rari 19:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah nice! Does this link to the set page or will this be a direct link to the File? A fall back image would be nice. - Yandere 19:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Its a direct link to <page name>.jpg if it exists, or gallery1-5 if provided. Now if no image is available, it will say no image is available and provide a link to add one. — Rari 20:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Very very nice... I tought about adding this to the armor section to, but it is probably more interesting to see full armor sets. What do you think? - Yandere 20:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This would work just as well for armor. Like weapons, sets have overview pages where set galleries can be stored. I haven't added it because I wanted to make sure people were cool with it (and weapon infobox was a good place to test it with all the weapon image shenanigans today.) Also, Armor pages have "tabs" at the top for galleries, but I haven't seen them used. I did try to use them for the pants sold by Bronson (Bronson's Bone Leggings for example) but I don't think that's nearly as effective.— Rari 20:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add a suggestion for the main image to not be hidden. My primary reason for going to most item's pages is to see a screenshot of it, so needing to always open the gallery just to see a single image gets annoying. Siliron

Adding a dungeon option

Since some armors are aquired through certain dungeon runs, one could easiely add dungeon parameter for display and automatic categorization. - Yandere 20:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleting the toy option

Well, simply because toys aren't weapons, and vice versa :P - Yandere 20:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Acquisition parameter

Any thoughts on this? I think for making this template more DPL-y it would be helpful to know whether a particular weapon/skin is acquired with karma, crafting, drops, coin or dungeon tokens.

Specifically, I want to make gallery pages for the various weapons and being able to do it through DPL, including acquisition details, would make the whole thing DPL-able (I believe?) rather than having to manually maintain it. --91.74.205.113 19:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

^^ Me. Didn't realise I wasn't logged in. --Eerie Moss 19:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Gallery

The current gallery system (hidden by default, have to click show) looks more like a gadget than a real feature, the only use I can see for it is to avoid displaying a long box on a short page. Other than that it makes browsing for skins tedious (go to page, click show, go to page, click show, etc) and it also confuses some people. Did I miss a point making it a necessity? → ИecK ☡ 12:52, 26 October 2012 (PDT)

#(Hidden) Weapon gallery seems to be when it was introduced, based on the NPC infobox functionality. I agree with you, it's unnecessary (and an annoyance), so I'll go change it. pling 16:01, 26 October 2012 (PDT)

Ah sorry missed that section of the talk page, should have added it there. Thanks for modifying it, would do myself but a bit wary to mess with a template ;D → ИecK ☡ 16:33, 26 October 2012 (PDT)

Adding Item Codes?

Would it be possible to add in a spot for the in-game item code to the info box? Optional of course, but it would help the wiki be more complete and competitive with sites like GW2DB for information. -Nefara

Talk:Chat link format--Relyk 00:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Superior/Major/Minor "fix"

I'm thinking about the stringfunction bit I added yesterday to direct rune pages to the "base" page (without the minor/major/superior bit in the title). Although the majority of sigils do have multiple versions and are kept on the same page (and so this introduced code reduced the number of links to redirects), there are a few sigils that only exist in the superior form - e.g. Superior Sigil of Intelligence. I didn't account for these - and as a result "Sigil of Leeching", "Sigil of Purity", "Sigil of Undead Slaying" and "Sigil of Nullification" have popped up in the wanted pages list.

There are a few remedy options:

• Introduce redirects on these 4 pages.
• Improve the code to detect if it is linking to a redirect, and if so, use the initial input {{{uslot}}}. (probably needs dpl -> too intensive)
• Revert my change.

Thoughts? --Chieftain Alex 16:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirects imo, just like what you did for the weapons with pre-fixes/suffices. Redirect Superior Sigil of Intelligence -> Sigil of Intelligence. --Shimpchip 16:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Tried the dpl option, for some reason it wouldn't work properly on a lot of pages (even with my massively stupid edit inbetween). Redirects it seems. --Chieftain Alex 16:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I admit I hadn't researched Category:Sigils properly, it turns out there are quite a few runes with individual pages for minor/major/superior.

{{ #if: {{#vardefine:uslot|{{#dpl:|namespace=|titlematch={{{uslot}}}|format=,%PAGE%|suppresserrors=true}}}}{{#var:uslot}}
  |<!-- not redirect-->{{#var:uslot}}
  |<!-- is a redirect-->
   <!-- so TRIM out rune-term, then check redirect -->
   {{#vardefine:uslot|{{#dpl:|count=1|namespace=|titlematch=%{{trim|{{#replace:{{#replace:{{#replace:{{{uslot}}}|Minor |}}|Major |}}|Superior |}}}}%|format=,%PAGE%}}}}{{#ifeq: {{#var:uslot}} |
    |<!-- no result, so diplay the initial text -->{{#vardefine:uslot|{{{uslot}}}}}{{#var:uslot}}<!-- but save the result for next usage of result on page -->
    |<!-- link to trimmed version--> {{#var:uslot}} }}
}}

But two dpl calls is even worse than 1. --Chieftain Alex 17:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Categories of equipment by rarity

Hi,

Today, I tried to find out all the exotic greatswords, but I couldn't, so I created an account and started to add categories children of this one: Category:Weapons by rarity.

I'm told that this doesn't need to be done manually since it can be added directly in the infobox. I'm also told that this is the kind of modifications that has to be discussed as there are apparently other means to get to that information.

I come from the world of Wikipedia (especially the French-speaking one, but the English-speaking one does the same thing) where adding new categories like this is not really a problem. Since categories are supposed to group stuff that share a common property. I found that grouping equipment by rarity is a problematic that the categories easily solve, so I did it this way.

Also, I started this because I couldn't find any page where equipment is sorted/filtered by rarity like I'm now told. But if such a page exist, I would really know it, because I often look for that kind of information.

So, is adding these categories acceptable, and if yes, can anyone implement it as I don't completely understand the scripts used (it seems like there are internal variables, which I'm really not familiar with)? If it is acceptable but doesn't belong to the infobox, please let me know so I can continue my work.

Frór 01:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll voice my opinion that I'm not against this happening. I'd imagine it could be useful, especially if we don't have lists somewhere of all of the weapons by rarity. Not to mention, this seems like exactly what we'd have the categories system set up for. —Jyavoc 01:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the three main ways to implement something like this are: add the category manually, add the category through the infobox, use SMW properties and queries to generate a list of items you want. The first is, well, manual, so that's not cool. The second is fine, and we can make pages like "List of rare greatswords" to pull pages from that category. However, the third option would allow us to make those pages "List of ..." without the need to use/clutter categories. --JonTheMon 02:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Ishy is already working on the third option, so there should be some examples available soon (or actual implementations). --JonTheMon 02:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) We need to get away from the categorical mindset and start using SMW. Creating cross-reference categories like "Exotic greatswords" (i.e. "weapons that have the typegreatsword and the rarity exotic") is completely unnecessary and bloats the category space. Instead, we can now use simple SMW queries to get the same results.

So, to do this with SMW, we use the simple query {{#ask:[[Has weapon type::Greatsword]][[Has item rarity::Exotic]]}} to produce the same list (or it will in a little while after the job queue clears). You can also go to Special:Ask and build a query using the form there, here is the form version of this query. When we get the Semantic Forms extension installed, it allows the creation of custom query forms that we can tailor to specific applications, like generating lists of weapons by various properties. —Dr Ishmael 02:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Why would the category space be bloated? It's exactly meant for that purpose: it only takes a look at Wikipedia to see that! Plus what's really redundant is these "list of..." pages as they do statically exactly what categories do dynamically. Smw is a wonderful tool too, but it's not as popular/known as the categories which are understood by every average MediaWiki user. Frór 02:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ishy has a point, but so does Frór. I'll back out of this discussion as I don't seem to be taking either side. —Jyavoc 03:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You are actually abusing the use of categories and creating redundant categories because the weapon and its rarity are already associated together. The "list of" pages can be generated dynamically with dpl using categories and templates, which allows you to create a list that you can sort by name, type, level, rarity, value and other properties. See User:Relyk/weapon for example. We simply have to query the template for the information (which does the categorization in the first place) or the better implementation of using SMW to make queries.--Relyk 03:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

As Relyk alluded to, the "List of..." pages are not simple lists, like a category. They include additional information about each entry, usually in a tabular form, so that readers can access and compare these details all at once for a set of related articles. The semantic query I gave above is a simple list, but that's only because I didn't want to make my example too complex. It's very easy to include additional outputs in a semantic query. —Dr Ishmael 04:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Except there are many weapons where the rarity is listed as varies because there are a bunch of weapons with the same skin (and base name) but different stats, and for those weapons you won't be able to use the infobox to query the rarity. --Chieftain Alex 08:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, but those are only fine/masterwork (maybe rare?), and very few people will be interested in comparing stats on non-L80, non-exotic items. —Dr Ishmael 13:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of Adamant Guard Dagger. (lvl 80 exotic, bunch of other names for the same skin wep) ... I guess you'll say "split it". --Chieftain Alex 17:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are those on the same page? The other weapons have distinct names, they should be on their own pages. —Dr Ishmael 17:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So what would you have the infobox values fill out on weapons that are of pretty much the same name, but with multiple stats? (Iron Hammer, Ebon Vanguard Axe/Lionguard Short Bow, Aureate Highlander Greatsword etc) --Chieftain Alex 17:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

We can calculate the strengths and stats based on level, rarity, and weapon type. The weapon type cannot vary otherwise the article name would be split, so it's a subarray of level and rarity. Have a template take the level and rarity argument and return the strength and appropriate values for variables. The weapon infobox template would have a parameter to accept multiple versions of a weapon if it exists. Doesn't seem like too much effort since all other weapons can be treated the same.--Relyk 07:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

@Alex: Anything that is a specific weapon (or any equipment) should be a single article with this infobox. On the other hand, anything that can drop at multiple levels with multiple possible prefixes should be documented as only a skin, and we need to come up with a different infobox for them.

@Relyk: Expanding the ranges of a skin into a table wouldn't be very useful. Theoretically, the level range can be 1-80 (since a portion of drops are scaled up to your level) for any skin, so you'd be generating a huge table just for that skin. —Dr Ishmael 13:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) 3 different pages for Ebon Vanguard Axes? --Chieftain Alex 14:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. —Dr Ishmael 14:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Another "Property"

Perhaps if we add another property to store which sigil weapons have, then we would be able to create full tables of weapon stats via queries. --Chieftain Alex 11:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, though I'd refine it to just having a property for Has upgrade item instead. This would resolve the issues with differing weapon suffixes from the same weapon, at least as far as SMW goes. Eearslya 17:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Item code

shouldn't all infoboxes include a parameter for the item code? 75.37.23.222 03:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Chat link format, already under consideration--Relyk 03:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-link weapon type

Being not familiar with SMW... can someone try and put back a wiki-link for the weapon type? -- ab.er.rant 15:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why the same format as in the semantic mediawiki example doesn't do the same here >< Chieftain Alex 15:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Property:Has weapon type was set to type string for some reason, even though the allowed values are restricted to the valid weapon types. I changed it to type page, and the individual weapon pages will update as the wiki goes through the job queue. —Dr Ishmael 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Binding - souldbound on craft => acquire/use?

Which one would be right? Example: Experimental Skritt Musket - only huntsmen can craft it, but once it's crafted, it's also bound to you.--Cyberman 17:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, a second later I find a decision - in the crafting menu it even says "soulbound on acquire" - meaning the weapon page needs to be changed...--Cyberman 17:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Gallery

While it's a good idea to stick in the infobox, can we somehow avoid using a {{clear}} so the next section isn't stuck 5 miles down the page with the gallery expanded?-- _talk 01:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Less data to enter is great!

Congratulations on simplifying the data entry! May I throw in a couple of suggestions?

• Listing the required infobox parameters separate from the optional ones in the usage section.
• Weapons/armor/jewelry that don't have a prefix, but just a name. How to make it simpler for the editor to figure out the prefix? A little dialog box?
• Ultimately, when creating a new page, offer a few buttons/links for article type: armor, weapon, trinket, food, other item, event, NPC, location, etc... and pre-populate the page with latest code and formatting. I'm new and find myself frequently looking for examples in existing pages, some of which aren't current or aren't good examples. Even the Formatting Guidelines seem outdated.
• Entering dialogue sections (with their numerous icons and indents) can use some help or even automation.

Keep up the good work! --Alad 07:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Bullets 2 and 3 can be managed with Semantic Forms, whenever the wiki upgrade finally happens. —Dr Ishmael 12:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Particle effects

Some weapons have particle effects, some don't. Would it be possible for someone to add a parameter so that such weapons could automatically be included in something like ":category:weapons with particle effects"?

Some effects are barely noticeable; some are obvious. Although the difference can be subjective, perhaps it might be helpful to players to offer three choices like no effect, subtle effect, and highly visible effect. 75.37.19.161 19:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Damage type

Damage type is a property of Bolt, Incinerator, Rodgort, Frostfang, and Fiery Dragon Sword. It should be added. Manifold 01:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

4 weapons (and 1 skin) out of 12,000 weapons in the game. That really isn't worthy of adding to the infobox. —Dr Ishmael 01:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I think it'd be worth it if it was just one weapon. As it is now, the infobox doesn't accurately reflect every property a weapon can have. Only a few dozen items are unique, but we include that on trinkets. Manifold 01:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Uniqueness is an important game mechanic. Damage type doesn't do anything mechanically, it's purely visual. —Dr Ishmael 01:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The descriptions found on some items aren't important either, we include those. What makes visuals less important? We have lots of information that is not about mechanics. And triggering a special death animation is a mechanic. It says "(Fire)" right on the weapon tooltip. Every other piece of information is represented or linked to, except damage type is inconsistently described in the notes or graphics section. It should link to a damage type article we need to make. Manifold 03:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Weapon stats → subobjects

I'd like to move all the semantic "stat" bits of the weapon infobox into a subobject. This would mean that pages such as Nightmare Mace would have 3 subobjects (Nightmare Mace#Magi's Nightmare Mace, Nightmare Mace#Rabid Nightmare Mace and Nightmare Mace#Rampager's Nightmare Mace) - similar to the subobjects created using {{Craft table}} on pages like Destroyer Sword.

As a needed measure to implement this, we'd have to remove the smw properties from Template:Item stat to stop it plastering smw properties everywhere when we use the prefix template.

This would mean we would finally be able to query for stats of weapons without rogue results cropping up with 9 attribute bonuses and more. -Chieftain Alex 20:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

And I meant to say, we'd need a similar template that creates subobjects and displays a short table to be able to display multiple prefixes. -Chieftain Alex 20:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

We wouldn't remove that in the infobox. It works fine for unique items and any weapons we disambiguate. The stat bits should have a varies flag to refer to elsewhere on the page for individual items, as we've kind of been doing.--Relyk ~ talk < 20:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I proposed something like this on the armor template, is that like what you wanted to do? Psycho Robot (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

very similar. I conspired to produce User:Chieftain Alex/Templates/Weapon infobox (outdated code) a while before it though. -Chieftain Alex 01:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ucfirst for weapon sets

Can someone add the ucfirst modifier to the weapon set parameter? Right now if you put a lower case parameter, it shows up lowercase on the output, like in Ceremonial Scimitar. I figure its best I not do it myself for fear that I will break something. Psycho Robot (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Disable stat and uslot display

Can someone add a parameter to weapon, armor, and trinket infobox to disable the attack strength, attributes, and uslot from the display at the top of the page? The reason I ask is that W.Wolf is converting the pages to use {{Fm table}} and in that case it would be best if the only thing that displayed at the top was the flavor text. Psycho Robot (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

most of this isn't really necessary once you remove the duplicate bits from the infobox. Depending on how people feel, it might be worth turning off the "Unused Upgrade Slot" beneath the flavor text. -Chieftain Alex 09:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Only show the uslot if rarity is set? That sounds like it would work. —Dr Ishmael 17:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

O I see. And if I set up sub objects for each of the versions in the table, would it wind up returning three objects on that page: two complete ones derived from the table and one incomplete one derived from what was left in the infobox? Psycho Robot (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)