User talk:Aquadrizzt/Sandbox/Trait Navs

May I propose set widths? :) - Infinite - talk 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes...feel free to edit (within reason ;) ) Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I still think this is an awful idea :P. I list is fine, this isn't needed. --Naut 00:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My thing for this is that you might care about other Necromancer traits, and its collapsible. Having a signet list for every single signet for every profession is pointless, because people looking up elementalist signets wouldn't care about warrior signets. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 00:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why on the GWW list version, you were able to sort by profession. Making it easier to fine the Necromancer signets. --Naut 00:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Naut I'm agreeing with you, why are we arguing? Profession trait nav bars follow different reasoning than every profession signet nav bars... Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 00:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh.. Sorry, so this is purely for userpage uses? Sorry :P --Naut 00:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) How's that? - Infinite - talk 00:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I'm confused..anyway...how do I say this. When you look for Necromancer traits, alternative traits (which are competing for trait slots) should just be a click away. It is only one professions traits, and should never be more than one. Therefore, I can (with ease) compare different Soul Reaping Traits without looking them up with the search.
For the signet nav box, the things that bug me are that

• A) it opens up a major can of worms for future nav bars,
• B) it is 87.5% useless. You might care about other signets in your profession, but not the signets of other professions.

@Infinite: IMO its too tight now...expand it a little maybe. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 00:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm? =] - Infinite - talk 00:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful :D Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 00:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) How about a background to more easily distinguish which trait belongs to which trait line? ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 00:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure how to implement that, in particular, what colors should I use? Also feel free to edit Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 00:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't put image as backgrounds with wiki coding I think, and on the colours. Didn't pling have some colours for this? --Naut 00:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Last time I edited a template didn't do any good :D Also, I am horrible at picking colors as you might have already noticed. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 00:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The only times its hard to tell is when there aren't traits in the adjacent areas, once we get all the necromancer traits it will make it easier to read (kinda counterintuitive, but it worked in my preview test) Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 02:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Didn't pling have some colours for this?" here is pling's colour schemes. Venom20 03:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Note the lack of necromancer colors... Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 00:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Trait Navs: Reloaded...

Before we go on our "NO SKILL TYPE NAVS" rampages, let me first explain why I did this.
First, with an example of why I didn't like the cross profession skill type nav bars.

1. Example is looking for Healing Signet (warrior skill)
2. Example may be interested in the other warrior signets, but they are most certainly not interested in (per se) the Elementalist signets at that particular moment.
   

So cross profession skill navs are out. We could do single profession skill navs, but doing so leads to potential problems: do we make nav bars for every "Profession + skill type?" Do skill pages become massive piles of collapsing navbars?, etc. Let's go with the decision that has already been reached for skill-type-navs: no.
Trait nav bars, in my opinion, are different. First with our good friend Example, again.

1. Example is looking at Death Strike (soul reaping minor)
2. As Death Strike competes with the other Minor Soul Reaping traits for slots, Example will probably be interested in those as well.
3. If Example is doing trait selection, which would be a logical precursor to looking up traits on the wiki, Example probably wants to compare other traits (in other lines) that compete for slots as well.
   

Generally speaking, traits could be in list form, but so could everything else. One compact, collapsible nav at the bottom of a trait page wouldn't hurt anything, and it has great potential to be quite helpful.
Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 04:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You propose, in short, navs based on Trait slot, yes? To quickly and selectively list possible traits conflicting with each other? Do we know in what way traits will conflict? The page is rather vague about it so far. I can form an opinion if you could answer the conflicting... conflict. :P - Infinite - talk 20:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

We know that traits occupy slots, major traits in the same line compete with other major traits for a slot, same with minor traits. The purpose of these navs is to give you easy access to all traits, divided by line and by type (major vs. minor) to make it easy and simple to compare and pick traits. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 20:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

So trait line navs for minor and major seperately? :D - Infinite - talk 20:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Not what I had in mind exactly...though it could work. (Aka, ill draw them up right now) Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 20:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor Necromancer is up. Tell me what you think. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 20:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) x2 OMG, NO SKILL TYPE NAVS!!!!!!1111rampage!111 : D Seriously, though, as much as I'm still not very much fond of trait navs (I won't oppose them, if people do want them), I have to say I really really like the color scheme you are using. I had seen those colors individually, in different color schemes, and I didn't like any of them, but your idea of combining them made a perfect scheme. I would like to use it for other stuff, such as the lists of skills. Erasculio 20:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, though piqued curiousity, I find the navs still being a bit... Big. I can see why a nav for all Minor traits would be desired, but I reckon the size makes splitting them up more desirable. Not sure though. Could you put up a Trait nav for all of Soul Reaping and a second one for just the Minor traits for Soul Reaping, please? :) - Infinite - talk 21:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Erasculio: see here for the complete set of colors. :) @Infinite: I shall begin work on it. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 21:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Before I voice my own opinion, what do you think of the two navs I made you add? :P - Infinite - talk 22:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually don't mind either of them. I'm still undecided which of them I would prefer to go into action (if that ever happened) but I am not against either of them. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 22:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering how practical each nav would end up to be... With every nav I'm wondering; is it too many optional links or is it too few optional links... I suppose it's more or less guessing at this point as the game is not out yet. :\ - Infinite - talk 22:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Breakdown: (in order on the page).

1. Way too big, but everything is there. (All links are useful, but they become a problem when its so big.)
2. If you are looking at minor traits in one line, you probably care about major traits too, I don't like this one. (Useless, still too big. If it's going to be this big, it should be completely functional.)
3. This one looks a little awkward to me, IMO, but it *is* ideal. (Probably best solution. Small, with useful links.)
4. This one could be useful. I'm not sure what I think. (Not enough information to be functional. Also, little substantial size difference between this and full major+minor one.) Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 07:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears we fully share opinions on them at this point. Maybe a slight recolouring could solve the awkwardness of the third nav. :) - Infinite - talk 16:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As per my edit on this sandbox, I only touched the nav in question. - Infinite - talk 16:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As per my revert, I'll let you figure out how to fix any sense of awkwardness. :P - Infinite - talk 16:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) After forgetting this for 12 days, I returned...I made the width of the [Major] and [Minor] boxes 45px, and I like the result. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 18:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)