Formal Proposal
- I am satisfied with the template as it is and I'd like to see it implemented quickly, if possible, so we can start on tidying up the enemy articles. As a result, I will be formally proposing a final version of this on the Manual of Style discussion page sometime tomorrow as the 'enemy template'. If anyone has any more comments, criticisms, counter-proposals or objections, get them in ASAP, please. - Mewn 19:29, 13 September 2007 (BST)
Alternative drop table layout proposal
- Hmm.. that's good, but it could be improved upon a lot, I don't like having the special drops at the top. Perhaps I'll make a second proposal, taking the best from each of our tables.
- Space for 5 special drops might be overkill, but I'll just consider it as future-proofing. I consider Vahra and Vahra Merha to be different monsters, so drops from 50 onwards can be listed on Vanda Merha's page if this is accepted, but still, I'd like to hear people's thoughts on that. If enough people disagree the drops for both forms can be listed twice. I just find it redundant. - Mewn 18:42, 11 September 2007 (BST)
- I agree that they should be considered different enemies. EspioKaos 18:56, 11 September 2007 (BST)
- I prefer to see all variations of a monster on a single page, simply because I won't have to go through multiple pages to find all information on a certain enemy. Call me lazy ;) And to me they're just the same monster that's wearing different clothes at high levels. Au+ 09:21, 12 September 2007 (BST)
- I love it! Has this been accepted as the standard yet? Is there a shortcut template for it? :D Alkaven 20:39, 11 September 2007 (BST)
- Not just yet. Ideas and proposals for it only just started today, so it's getting there. ;) EspioKaos 21:37, 11 September 2007 (BST)
- ... But... I wanna use it now... Can't I just start using it, and then... we can like... Decide on it later? :( Alkaven 22:01, 11 September 2007 (BST)
- It's still a WIP, really. I'm waiting for more comments, criticism etc. so I can tweak it and make it better. Sometime in the next few days when I'm satisfied I'll formally propose it as the standard. Unless someone raises objections it'll be accepted and then we can use it. I don't want it to be used just yet because if significant changes are made (or another standard altogether adopted), it means a lot of work is wasted.
- As for templatizing it, I'm not good at programming templates, I'll admit, and I'm happy just to use an existing article (or maybe a special template article) as the framework for another article. It's easy enough when you learn wikisyntax, there isn't anything particularly complicated in the article imo. - Mewn 22:06, 11 September 2007 (BST)
- Well... I'm an experienced web/software developer. I don't think I have access to the wiki templates, so I can't attempt to do anything with them. Otherwise I would make one of this. I can't see turning this into a template being a bad thing because it would definitely make it easier to make changes later. :) Alkaven 22:12, 11 September 2007 (BST)
- Templates are just regular pages, really. Anyone can create and edit them so long as the specific page hasn't been locked (which is rare here, most vandals gave up a while back). You just have to create them under the Template namespace (e.g. Template:Monster Infobox). If you want to try making a template, be my guest. - Mewn 23:08, 11 September 2007 (BST)
- I would like to attempt to create a template of this then, simply because it would be a lot easier to manage. I'll see what I can do in a small amount of time, then you can all test it and such. I feel a bit confident about how it works now. Alkaven 17:10, 12 September 2007 (BST)
- Might I suggest the following?
Just throwing this out there for the sake of a possible alternative. I'd be fine with any of the possibilities. --Qwerty 06:01, 12 September 2007 (BST)
- Well, that'd be useful, sure, but I'm not really keen on it. It means more work for anyone using this template to write up monster articles, and it's not really necessary when you can look at the sightings table and see what level the monster appears at quickly. In short, too much bother for too little time saved for the user, in my opinion. What do others think? - Mewn 15:54, 12 September 2007 (BST)
- It does look good, but I agree with Mewn. With the sightings table right below the drop info, there isn't much need for the missions column in the drop table. EspioKaos 16:11, 12 September 2007 (BST)
- Perhaps the suggestion was meant to include dropping the sightings table if the drops depend on location moreso than level. I'm not sure myself, honestly. If drops appear based on location and rank, I would say the above makes sense. But if drops depend on the monster's level, then I would agree that the above isn't really necessary. However, I much more prefer the way the "Special Drops" is positioned in the above table. It seems cleaner and it solves the "5 special drops might be too overboard" problem. ;) Alkaven 17:10, 12 September 2007 (BST)
- Level drops from enemies are just that - based on the level of the monster. The location doesn't matter for either level or special drops. As for the location of the Special Drops, I'll knock up another table with them positioned below later, but I personally prefer them to the side. - Mewn 18:07, 12 September 2007 (BST)
- Aha! I noticed one thing missing. Some sort of 'flag' that indicates whether the monster is a "Boss" or not. It's also missing stat bonuses for staff and boot (assuming sword and shield represented the icons by their name. Staff and boot represent TP boost and EVA/ATA boost I assume) Alkaven 04:06, 13 September 2007 (BST)
- A 'boss' flag can be added easily enough. There is a reason I didn't put stat bonuses for staff and boot in, and that's simply that I don't know them. I'll try fitting them into the table in the event they will be discovered though. Oh, and that table I said I'd do earlier...
- I prefer it to the side, still. Mostly because the width of the columns is uneven and I don't want to mess around with fixed widths. - Mewn 17:03, 13 September 2007 (BST)
- Why couldn't you just expand the "Special Drops" section downwards if there is more than one special drop? Like so:
- This way, the un-even column widths don't muck anything up, there isn't a static limit of 5 special drops, and the higher level drop details on the right still show. :) On top of that, the label columns are tight and wrapped nicely around the level range displayed, which is great of left-to-right real-estate. Alkaven 01:35, 14 September 2007 (BST)
- IMO this would get kind of ugly with enemies who actually stay the same below and above 50. For example:
Really wide columns with centering and lots of white space look ugly. :/ --Beatrixkiddo 05:55, 14 September 2007 (BST)
- Looks like the same amount if not less white space vertically when it's on the side. :\ Variable height or look-and-feel. I was under the impression this wiki was trying to deliver organized and functional information and data to players, but it seems I was mistaken. I'm sorry. Alkaven 07:18, 14 September 2007 (BST)
- The sarcasm isn't necessary, and it's downright irritating. This is an attempt to improve the wiki, not to take cheap shots, and I won't tolerate any further sniping. I'm sure you can get your point across in a manner that isn't incendiary.
- Now onto your table - it works, but I still prefer the one to the side. I have to agree with Bea that having the special drops underneath looks bad when enemies have drops from 1-100+. - Mewn 13:36, 14 September 2007 (BST)
- ??? I wasn't really being sarcastic. I was seriously under the impression this was a fairly trivial concept. So far, the reasons for having it on the bottom have been: "It's functional, and expandable", while reasons against are: "It looks bad". So far, more people have sided against because "It looks bad", so how on earth can you say I was being sarcastic? You've seriously misunderstood me. I've worked with companies that expect me to adhere to their standards, and sometimes that standard is: "We want it to look pretty, not expandable". I assumed that was the standard for this wiki. I apologized for not understanding that sooner. In fact, I'd be even willing to make sure all of my contributions look pretty first before even considering what information I'm adding in, if that's the standard. I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I didn't mean to sound sarcastic. Alkaven 17:13, 14 September 2007 (BST)
One quick thing
- Forgot to say it before, but enemy, please, not monster. ::runs:: EspioKaos 16:12, 12 September 2007 (BST)
