Build talk:Main Page/redesign templates

From GuildWiki

Archives

• Archive 1 = Discussions on the design of the template changes.

Contents 1 Implementing 2 Status Update 3 Request 4 Suggested design changes 4.1 Center build type tags within their section of the templates 4.2 Update the Unfavored-builds template to work with the build type tags 4.3 Add campaign type blocks/auto-categories within the same section as the build types 4.4 Remove auto "Tested build" and "Untested build" usage from the tags 4.5 Improve appearance of the build type tags within the templates 5 Old page showing up in cats

[edit] Implementing

As stated at the top of the Ready for use? section, I'm planning on implementing this Jan 17th if no new objections are made. All comments thus far that have requested refinements have been addressed with no further comment - so I believe we're on track for Jan 17th. For visibility, links to this effort have been posted at both GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Builds and Build_talk:Main_Page, so all interested parties should be aware of it.
To implement, I'll first update the "untested builds" template and the GW:BUILD guideline. Once the untested builds are ready, I'll then update the "tested builds" template.
There's currently no plan to implement this for the "unfavored builds" tag. If there's demand for it later, we can address it once these two changes are in place. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:27, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Sounds fine to me! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 20:06, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Sounds good to me too. After you've updated the template will we have to go through and update all the builds too? I imagine so, but I can't say I really have a good grasp on the mechanics of all this. --NieA7 03:58, 16 January 2007 (CST)

The majority of the untested builds have now been updated for the tag ... now converting the "tested-builds" tag. Those builds will also need to be updated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:59, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Wow Barek, I just noticed that you had started tagging, and it looks like all untested are done already. I'll help out with the tested ones, but I have a quick question. Should the categories still be left at the bottom of each page? Or should those be removed once the tag is updated? -- BrianG 11:06, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Barek types fast, or perhaps is an AI... a "ghost in the machine" if you will. I for one welcome our new robotic overlords. Anyway, I've started updating the tested builds I work with often, perhaps I'll save Barek0110110111 a few cycles. -- Oblio (talk) 11:16, 17 January 2007 (CST)

The only categories that should remain are by campaign, as the tag does not (yet) have a flag for that. All other categories should be flagged by the template itself. A flag/auto-category by campaign can also be added later if there's demand, I'll draft something for it tonight. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:18, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Oh, also ... not all of the untested have been updated, but a large number have. See Category:Untested needs type for a list of all untested still needing a build type. Several left in that category were never flagged by the author, so should probably just be left as undefined for now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:23, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Sounds good, I assumed as much, and already got started. FYI, I'm working on the warrior builds to start so we don't bump into each other. -- BrianG 11:24, 17 January 2007 (CST)

I need to go run some errands - but will join back in later. It looks like Jyro X is also updating some. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:25, 17 January 2007 (CST)

I decided to help out, but I noticed that the team GvG builds don't really have a category. Should they be PvP Team or PvP GvG? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 11:46, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Yeah there is just one category for all PvP team builds, so I would place it in PvP Team for now. GvG I believe would be specifically for single GvG builds, not teams. We could always add a GvG Team category later if there is a need to split up the PvP Team builds further by area of use. -- BrianG 11:52, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Might be best to leave the team builds till we can double check with Barek, as it seems there is a GvG Team builds category, but no Untested GvG Teams category. May have just been overlooked. LordBiro, remember to remove the categories that you place in the tested tag from the bottom of the page (except leave the "by campaign" categories at the bottom). -- BrianG 12:02, 17 January 2007 (CST)

We can always add more. The initial list that I used was based on the available categories at Build:Main Page, plus some additional that were requested (ie: general, hero, etc). On the current build home page, there is no link to "GvG team", so if it exists now, it must not of been officially fully implemented previously. We could add those to "GvG", or to "PvE team", or to both build types, or create a new tag. --12:36, 17 January 2007 (CST)

BTW: No need to wait for me when questions come up. I helped push this along; but the community owns this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:38, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Okay, I figured that might be the case. I think you must have meant PvP Teams, not PvE Teams. I think they should go to PvP Teams, and GvG should be kept for single builds. Depending on how many team builds end up in PvP Teams, we can decide to split it later by arena. -- BrianG 12:40, 17 January 2007 (CST)

I looked at it a bit more. My opinion is that any that say "GvG team" could go into "GvG". The reason is that individual builds will be by profession, while team builds will start with the text "Team - ", so it would be self evident. Now that I think about it more; the "PvE team" and "PvP team" categories really seem somewhat redundant - no problem keeping them, but they seem like extras. But that's just me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:43, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Ahhhhhhh thats true, they will auto-sort to the letter "T". That makes sense then to sort them to GvG. I think we should keep the team cats for now and see what we think when everything is settled. If we decide to eliminate the teams cats, PvE Teams can just go to general and be sorted to "T" there. -- BrianG 12:57, 17 January 2007 (CST)

(resetting indents) The difference between PvE Team|farming and farming is important tot he people who do that. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say. -- Oblio (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Hmmm the categories don't work that way. If you label a build "PvE Team|farming, it will end up in both the farming category as well as the PvE Team category. I didn't personally think about the possibility of farming teams, do many of those exist on the wiki? If so, I don't think there is any harm in them being placed in both categories, but if we eliminated the PvE Team cat, team farming builds would just be sorted under the letter "T" in the farming cat. -- BrianG 12:57, 17 January 2007 (CST)

For that example, if you look at farming, you'll see entries such as "Mo/any xxxx" and "Team - xxxx". Just by the build name, it's clear if it's an individual farming build, or a team farming build. Also having the "Team - xxxx" builds listed in "PvE team" is redundant. Not a problem in this case, but it is redundant.

The same would hold for GvG. Individual builds would be named such as "W/any xxxx", while team GvG builds would be named "Team - xxxxx". To me, the builds name makes it clear if it's also a team build for the listed type. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)

That is true... we currently force the category into the name (heh). Whichever. -- Oblio (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Status Update

So far I've completed all tested Warrior and Ritualist builds. I'm going on lunch now and will most likely not have time for further updates till the evening. I'll continue on with anything thats left at that point. Please remember if anyone is helping out, to remove the categories from the bottom of the page, except the "by campaign" ones. And please leave a note here about which ones you're working on if possible. Barek, one minor thing I noticed, is that the builds still automatically display the "Tested Builds" category at the bottom, and that category is no longer going to be linked from my redesigned build page. Is there any way to program the template to instead categorize it by "Tested PvE Builds" and/or "Tested PvP Builds", depending on what tags are used? Very minor concern, otherwise I'm so happy with how smooth and easy the template usage is! :) -- BrianG 13:08, 17 January 2007 (CST)

It'll take some minor re-programming to get them to link to those categories - probably via the tag "-mssg" templates. Once we get everything setup, we can look at the fine tuning of those and any other issues that come up. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:15, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Sounds good, thanks! I'll let you know if I think of anything else. -- BrianG 14:28, 17 January 2007 (CST)

I found an item to add to the "to-do" list.

The "Unfavored-builds" tag currently already uses the same fields as the untested and tested templates in order to post a reason for unfavored. So, if a build goes to untested, it currently needs the build types removed from the tag. This can be a headache if testing continues, and others want to vote favored, as the build type is no longer attached to the build.

I think the easiest solution is to name the reason variables, then go through the unfavored builds to find which ones need updating. The reason variables can simply be named "R1", "R2", and "R3" - then the build types will get ignored by that tag. It's not a major deal to program; just an extra detail to cleanup. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:15, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Sounds good. Let me know once the programming is done and I can assist with any updates. Alternatively, you could redesign the unfavored tag to include the category icons as well as the reasons for unfavored. The icons would still be useful information, but wouldn't need to link to a unfavored sub-category (which I think is unneeded). Just a thought, but it is unimportant to me and I have no specific preference, as long as we don't create unfavored subcats. -- BrianG 15:33, 17 January 2007 (CST)

I can't work on them at the moment, but if someone else wants to do so, the remaining tested builds to be tagged are listed here: Category:Tested needing type. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:21, 18 January 2007 (CST)

Barek, I just cleaned out Category:Untested needs type, however there is one build left there that I am unable to edit. It looks like they used the wrong slash "\" in the build name, and now the article shows up in this category but is not found when clicking the link. Can you take a look at this as I'm not sure how to correct it. I'll move on to the tested needing type now. -- BrianG 12:47, 18 January 2007 (CST)

The build was a duplicate of Build:D/Mo Zealous Energy, so I deleted the version with the backwards slash. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:01, 18 January 2007 (CST)

Great thanks. I've got all the necros done from Category:Tested needing type, now only monks left, but I'm done for the day until later tonight. I'll finish up then if still needed. -- BrianG 13:14, 18 January 2007 (CST)

I was on for a moment, so finished up the monks. All tested builds should now be complete and are using the new tags within the template. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:16, 18 January 2007 (CST)

Woo! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 13:30, 18 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Request

Is there anyway to get the tags centred? They look ugly as they are. Sir On The Edge 16:41, 17 January 2007 (CST)

If there's concensus to change it to centered, then I believe that the build type boxes can be centered within their section fairly easilly. We're working on a list of "to-do" items for cleanup issues spotted following this implementation. Once we have the untested and tested builds updated with the current revision, I'll archive the above talks, and start a list of suggested cleanups/refinements. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:48, 17 January 2007 (CST)

UPDATE: Archived the older talks now ... will start the list below. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:53, 17 January 2007 (CST)

I would really much like to see them centered. Also a nicer looks would be great. They are pretty awfull now. (No, I'm not going to take part in any process to make them nicer as I don't have any ideas this time) -- (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Suggested design changes

A listing of suggested cleanups/refinements (discuss in sub-sections below).

1. Center build type tags within their section of the templates
2. Update the Unfavored-builds template to work with the build type tags
3. Add campaign type blocks/auto-categories within the same section as the build types
4. Remove auto "Tested build" and "Untested build" usage from the tags (don't list all builds within those categories).
5. Improve appearance of the build type tags within the templates
6. (additional suggestions)

[ edit] Center build type tags within their section of the templates

This should be easy to implement if everyone agrees. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:08, 17 January 2007 (CST)

I like the idea of them being centered myself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:11, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Yeah, centering them would be an improvement I think. I support that suggestion. -- BrianG 19:59, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Actually, I have no idea how to do this using CSS... <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:46, 18 January 2007 (CST)

Since everything in that section would need to be centered, I was going to place the tags just outside of the "div class" tags part of the tag code ... I was planning to use either <p align="center"> or the more basic <center>. This change has been requested in a few different threads already, and is the most basic to implement and reverse, so I'll go ahead and make the change today - it can be reverted if people disagree with the centering. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:41, 18 January 2007 (CST)

Okay, strike that ... tried two methods and no impact, so more testing needed ... sigh ... --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:53, 18 January 2007 (CST)

I've tried a couple of obvious methods and they haven't done anything. I'm sure it's possible though :P <LordBiro>/<Talk> 12:35, 18 January 2007 (CST)

[ edit] Update the Unfavored-builds template to work with the build type tags

This is a relatively easy fix - although unfavored builds that are already flagged with a reason for unfavored will need to be updated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:08, 17 January 2007 (CST)

I really think this will simplify when builds go unfavored - currently, the reasons for unfavored are un-named template codes - naming them and updating where currently used should resolve this. Can add the build type blocks at the same time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:11, 17 January 2007 (CST)

[ edit] Add campaign type blocks/auto-categories within the same section as the build types

I've already started on these - they're pretty easy to add, although the blocks may be bigger than the existing build-type blocks --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:08, 17 January 2007 (CST)

I think this will simplify the tagging of builds that use skills from specific campaigns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:11, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Personally I think this should be the lowest priority item. I really want to think about this as I'm not sure if that information is really needed in the tested or untested tag, and it might make things too busy. Also, people have requested in the past for a quick visual way to identify which campaigns are needed for a build. Our current way of doing things tags them only if they are exclusively from one campaign, otherwise they get a "multi" tag. So for a build that uses prophecies and factions skills for example, this would result in a "multi" box in the tested tag. It would be much more useful to come up with a better way to do this so that every build is somehow tagged with which chapters are needed, so this example build would quickly, visually show that chapter 1 and 2 are needed. So I think we need to think both about the best way to do this, and also whether the tested tag is the best place for this info. I hope my explanation makes sense but we can discuss it further. -- BrianG 20:04, 17 January 2007 (CST)

I don't think that campaign tags should be included in the top section. I could see maybe categorizing builds by which campaign(s) are required, or having a section in the build that notes which campaigns are required, but I think if things keep getting added to the tag we might run into a situation of information overload. My opinion would be to keep the tag at the top as simple as possible (though the intent of the build is certainly a good thing.) -- IzzionSona 20:12, 17 January 2007 (CST)

I prefer keeping campaign tags seperate, as I find them the least useful of categories for two reasons. First, people come along and change builds all the time to make them "better" without worrying about which campaign a skill is from. Another class of people try to make builds as good as they can, and since no single campaign has a lock on all the best skills, it is inevitable that someone will show how slipping one out-of-campaign skill in there is better. Things like the "Canthan Bonder" (which uses Balth's) is a good example of this (I suppose First Watch Sergei spent some time in Kainang Center?). Anyway, thats my take on campaign categories- not unuseful in and of themselves, but shouldn't be rolled in with the critical categories. -- Oblio (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Note: Per the comments above, I had stopped work on this one. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:45, 19 January 2007 (CST)

[ edit] Remove auto "Tested build" and "Untested build" usage from the tags

Another easy change - just need everyone to support it if this should be changed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:08, 17 January 2007 (CST)

This proposal involves splitting the current Category:Untested builds category into seperate lists of "All untested PvE builds" and "All untested PvP builds". The same type of split would be done for the Category:Tested builds category. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:37, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Supported.-- Vallen Frostweaver 16:10, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Its a minor difference and not extremely important to me now that we have the individual categories, however, I think it makes more sense, will reduce the chances of going 'over 200', and it will be much easier for me to fit the links for these categories into the new build page design. It just makes for a more intuitive layout, so I hope you go ahead with it. -- BrianG 18:20, 19 January 2007 (CST)

The new categories have been created. Once the category indexing gets updated overnight tonight, the builds should show in Category:All untested PvE builds, Category:All untested PvP builds, Category:All tested PvE builds, and Category:All tested PvP builds. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:18, 19 January 2007 (CST)

[ edit] Improve appearance of the build type tags within the templates

This was a vague suggestion - so not sure would work. For clearness, text boxes work better; but we could resize text, change to one line instead of two, change/remove the color, change border color/width, etc. If all can agree, we can implement something. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:08, 17 January 2007 (CST)

I personally like having PvE vs PvP types a different color; but it may be over done currently. We could lighten the color usage, or only use it in the borders, and even modify the borders to a less bright or thinner color. Also, I think the font size could be reduced some - currently it's slightly bigger than the normal font - I think that makes the blocks a bit too big on the page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:15, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Honestly I don't see what the issues are with the appearance. They are clean and clear. Personally I think the functionality is way more important than the appearance, and they work great. If anyone has issue about the looks, they should suggest an alternative design. My only concern with the appearance, is that I'd like to see some space between the bottom of the icons and the bottom edge of the tested box. This is not a problem with untested since there is text below the icons. Coming up with some text to put below the icons in the tested box would be an easy way to fix this, otherwise maybe it could be buffered somehow. -- BrianG 20:07, 17 January 2007 (CST)

P.S. I think the colors are great and it was easy to match them to the build page design since they are very close to the types of colors used elsewhere on the site. Were there specific complaints about that? I hope you don't change them too much. -- BrianG 20:09, 17 January 2007 (CST)

The existing color scheme looks great to me. -- Oblio (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Looks like you've buffered the bottom edge now, looks much better. -- BrianG 12:50, 18 January 2007 (CST)

Most comments are favorable to the current design, and no specific change request was ever made (I had tossed out ideas, but none were specifically requested). So, I'm dropping this one to be the lowest priority, or just cancelled. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:46, 19 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Old page showing up in cats

Any way to stop the archived talk page showing up in the all (un)tested categories? --NieA7 07:19, 23 January 2007 (CST)