Difference between revisions of "The re-PSUPedia talk:Manual of style"

Revision as of 22:40, 8 September 2007

To help save space and make browsing this page easier, older discussions will be archived here.

Open polls

There are currently no open polls.

Slight modifications to the weapon template?

• There was mention a while back about a few minor things on the weapon template that might be altered. I can't seem to find where it was, however. Anyway, one thing I was wondering about is the drop box. In the Deva-zashi template given on our example page, monter is used, when, well... not everything these items can drop from should be classified as such. (I believe I brought up the example of there being newman, beast and CAST enemies in-game that aren't exactly monsters since they aren't infected by the SEED-Virus or something. They're simply acting out of their own zeal and free will.) Anyway, I'd like to suggest changing monster to enemy. I've actually already done that with the weapon pages I've created, but if we decide to keep it as monster, I'll change them back myself. I know this is ridiculously minor, but I felt it needed to be mentioned. <_<; EspioKaos 23:40, 8 September 2007 (BST)

New line shield table proposal

• Here is my proposal for a new line shield table. I took out a number of columns that I felt were unnecessary, such as the element (for ones that can only be a specific element, this can be detailed in individual articles) and the Att, Acc and Tech columns, which can also be detailed in individual articles. (I guess these are the "hidden" stats from set bonuses and line shields made for specific battle types?) Thoughts? EspioKaos 04:19, 7 September 2007 (BST)
  • Erm... anyone? <_<; EspioKaos 06:24, 8 September 2007 (BST)
    • Personally I consider the element - both NPC and synth limitation - to be one of the defining characteristics of a Line Shield. The Att./Acc./Tech. values not so much, but still directly useful information when looking up a table of Line Shields. I do however like the condensing of slots a lot! As for the comments, I believe set bonuses (with link - nice one) and Type limitations should be the focus, but not drop locations for every other shield that "might not be easy to find". - Miraglyth 11:30, 8 September 2007 (BST)
    • I have to agree with Mira on the element, it's an important part of the data. I too like the way you've done the Slots. The stuff such as bonuses to Att and Acc can be detailed in the Comments column. Other than that I think it looks better than the current table. - Mewn 16:35, 8 September 2007 (BST)
      • OK, check out my second table. I added the element column back in (also created temporary templates for each element color -- we can fine-tune the actual colors later). What I'm going for is using the neutral green to identify a line shield that can be synthesized with any element you want. Any line shields that can only be one specific element will have that element listed. EspioKaos 16:38, 8 September 2007 (BST)
      • That looks fine to me, certainly less cluttered than the other table. - Mewn 18:33, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Weapon Type Names

• No objection, but just to clarify - Mewn's renaming of "Bows" to "Longbows" and "Grenade Launchers" to "Grenades" :| is to fit in with the weapon types listed at the "License" missions, right? - Miraglyth 23:38, 4 September 2007 (BST)
• Yes, you're right. I feel we should maintain some consistency, and Throwing Blades already got renamed to Cards by Espio half a month ago. I suppose I should point out that the Bullet License missions uses both 'Longbow' and 'Long Bow', but since I've never seen it spelled with a space, I assumed the former was the correct term and the latter was a typo. - Mewn 23:57, 4 September 2007 (BST)
• Works for me.  :) EspioKaos 04:19, 7 September 2007 (BST)

Misc. item tables

• I've been playing around with what our possible template for non-stat-based items could look like. Just like with the weapon tables, I've categorized each remodeling ticket by its star rating, followed by name. The next column lists prices, which is more or less filler. Same thing goes with the description column. The version column is needed since we already know that there will be AotI-exclusive tickets. The comments column I kept and used just like with the weapons. Personally, I'd like to stick with keeping information like the item description and price within individual item pages, but without that stuff in this table, everything looks so thin and bare. Any ideas? EspioKaos 05:37, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Capitalization

• I'd like to get a little discussion going on this subject. While I've listed most "odd" instances of capitalization in-game (TECHNICs, CASTs, GUARDIANS Colony, etc.), I think we should talk about how we'll capitalize things like healing item names (should they be considered proper nouns?). Thoughts, opinions? EspioKaos 17:17, 21 August 2007 (BST)
  • I think item names should be capitalized as proper nouns, if for no other reason than it looks better to me. - Mewn 17:34, 21 August 2007 (BST)
    • I've been torn between both sides for a while, but after looking at how odd things like scape doll and moon atomizer look without capitals, I've found myself leaning more toward considering them proper nouns. Of course, I still think that individual item categories (recovery items, shotguns, line shields, etc.) should not be considered proper, and thus should not be capitalized. EspioKaos 18:48, 21 August 2007 (BST)
• On the recent capitalization swapping of the line shield and photon arts sections, I think it should be pointed out that both are considered standard nouns in-game, so no special capitalization is required. For example, check out the line shield descriptions. You'll see "a mass-produced line shield" or "a super high-end, custom-made line shield" (man, they really like their hyphenated words). On photon arts, I'm fairly certain that the menus do not capitalize the word, but I'll have to double-check that next time I play. EspioKaos 18:01, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Unit tables

Rank	Name	Maker	Tech.	Ment.	Ver.	Comments
1★	Cara / Force		20	0		--
	Cara / Mind		0	10		--
Rank	Name	Maker	Tech.	Ment.	Ver.	Comments
6★	Te / Force S		100	-50		--
Rank	Name	Maker	Tech.	Ment.	Ver.	Comments
9★	Te / TECH PP Save		-30	0		Lowers PP usage and TP.

This is the general idea for unit tables. Of course, we'll swap out Tech and Ment with Att, Acc, Def, Eva and End where applicable. Anything else we should add? EspioKaos 03:07, 18 August 2007 (BST)

Just wanted to add that I've done the initial conversion of the tables for both online and offline. You can find it here, I'll keep it updated with any suggestions/changes until the format is finalized. Propagandist 04:56, 18 August 2007 (BST)

• Excellent work!  :D Two things. First, a few of the offline S-rank units are identified with the A-rank green. Minor, I know.  ;) Second, in a few of the comments sections, it might look better with commas or semicolons separating two descriptions (Hard / Power Charge, for example). Or maybe line breaks. EspioKaos 05:06, 18 August 2007 (BST)
  • Thanks, I wasn't able to check on those as I was at work. Now that I'm home, I'll go through and double check all of the units to make sure it's accurate. I've also a few ideas for the comments that I want to try out. I'll note any major updates on this talk page. Propagandist 05:45, 18 August 2007 (BST)
    • So, how we doing on this? The adjustments you've made look great, and really, the only other thing I can suggest just has to do with capitalization of a few things in the "comments" column. To be honest, I think we're ready for approval and all.  :) EspioKaos 17:23, 8 September 2007 (BST)
      • It's essentially done, I'm not entirely sure all of the units are accurate but that can be cleared up when it is put out on the main page I guess. Let me know and I'll put it up (of course, you can do that too I guess).Propagandist 23:05, 8 September 2007 (BST)

Mission info articles

This is what I have in mind for individual mission articles. Of course, fill in the enemy and drop sections with actual information. Opinions? Suggestions? EspioKaos 00:08, 17 August 2007 (BST)

• I suggest an infobox (à la Wikipedia) to the side showing at least the following things:
  • Mission name (maybe JP name as well, since there is a large difference between the two in many cases)
  • Start Counter
  • Destination
  • Area(s) that the mission takes place in (e.g. Mad Creatures takes place in Raffon Meadow, Mad Beasts in Raffon Lakeshore etc.)
  • Type of mission (Free, Story, Co-Op, Party, Event)
  • Available ranks
  • Elements represented in the mission. - Mewn 12:03, 17 August 2007 (BST)

I'll see if I can take a shot at making a design like this when I have a chance. (Sometimes tables just don't come out like I want, though, so no promises. XD) EspioKaos 03:36, 18 August 2007 (BST)

Synthesis board suggestion

(Copied from the scape doll talk page.) I really hate questioning something that we're trying to set as a standard, but I think this might be a valid point. While working on the scape doll's board info, I realized that the rarity of the board and the rarity of the item are different. While I don't think this is a common occurrence, I think we should address it before we begin a mass implementation of synth board tables, especially since the board rarity is never mentioned anywhere. I suggest changing the title of the table to the board name and then changing the current board name cell to indicate rarity. Like so:

I think we should do this, unless we're going to make individual pages for each board. Actually, that's something else. Should we do that, or just make a synth board redirect to the page of the item it creates? EspioKaos 18:40, 13 August 2007 (BST)

I'd be all for individual pages for boards, but the simplicity of putting board and item on one page is clear to me as well. --Beatrixkiddo 23:17, 13 August 2007 (BST)

• I have to admit, I'm not much a fan of this style. Why?

Seems a very strange way of arranging it to me, and not particularly conductive to finding out the desired information on a synthesis quickly. Additionally, there's a lot of "style="background:sixcharacters"" expressions in there which - while easily eliminated by a template - would surely be better off made header cells (start with ! instead of | ) and then just make the "title" cell darker manually.

If I may pitch in a couple of ideas:

Actually, the code for the second one isn't edit-friendly at all. But some might prefer the look so I'll leave it there. - Miraglyth 00:07, 14 August 2007 (BST)

• • I like how the vertical version looks. One problem, though: what to do with the empty cells for boards that have less than four materials? Also, I still favor the idea of keeping the title of the table the name of the board it's about. EspioKaos 16:24, 14 August 2007 (BST)
• I do too, come to think of it.

The "number of materials" thing could do with exploration. By nature, all weapons require four (Photons, Ores, Metals, Wood) and some line shields require four (Photons, Ores, Materials, sometimes event drops). Then there are Food and Item boards which take two (Natural Materials, Chemicals), Decoration boards which take two (Special Materials, Wood) and finally Grinder / Material Upgrade boards which use just one (Grinder bases and the materials, respectively).

It's the last two that bother me, since those won't fit into the "vertical with oddly-grouped" setup either. - Miraglyth 18:35, 14 August 2007 (BST)

• • We could always take the route of unique tables for each type of synthesis board, but do what we can to make them all have the same general feel. Maybe? I'll give some more thought to it to see if I can come up with another design. EspioKaos 19:10, 14 August 2007 (BST)

Closed polls

Please see this page for the archive of closed polls.