User talk:Gorgonzola

Using tables for NPC's Shop

Question; is it okay if I turn the various NPC stuff into tables instead of bullet points? It'd be easier to include things like favor limitations and prices that way.

Sure, I agree the bullet list is going to be a little limited. Once we have a few of these I might look into creating a nice style for "lightweight" tables like that, that fits nicely in the article (ie. with less borders, perhaps slightly smaller fonts or row height so they dont make the pages super long). --Gorgonzola (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2014 (CDT)

Disambiguation pages

I'm thinking we could use a disambiguation page like wikipedia or simply drop the plural for the main page for any items that are really necessary. I'm sure we'll figure something out if it actually becomes an issue.— Unsigned comment added by Karunama (talk • contribs)

Do you have some specific in mind? I'm not sure what you are referring to, do you mean things like "Sword" instead of "Swords" for the weapon type (if/when it gets a page) ? — Unsigned comment added by Gorgonzola (talk • contribs)

Yeah, or Sword (Skill) for that page. Anything that would make it clear which is which. The main thing to watch out for is that the search engine will automatically bring up the page for an exact match, so someone looking for a page of weapons is going to only get the skill if they use the search without some sort of clear solution. Also, for an idea as to what I mean about a disambiguation page, this is what I mean.— Unsigned comment added by Karunama (talk • contribs)

Agree, I like "Sword (Skill)" , I use the same conventions for images (eg. "Marna (npc)"). Makes sense, in fact someone yesterday ingame told me about that issue, definitely since /wiki is an in-game facility we can name pages accordingly. So yeah, good idea with the Crypt disambiguation, now I see what you mean. Also where appropriate we can create a redirect from an in-game jargon, that could be used with /wiki, to an appropriate page title. --Gorgonzola (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2014 (CDT)

PS: Generally I suppose that means we should avoid using too short page names, or too generic as that is what will match the /wiki searches. --Gorgonzola (talk) 10:00, 5 October 2014 (CDT)

Template:MOB infobox comments

I like your Mob box template. I think it's quite nice. If you'd like, rather than having individual mob pages, we could wrap them all into a single page for either every mob of that type category or by each mob that uses that model. For example, in the previous system, we'd have the undead category page serving as a home for every undead creature (Perhaps transcluded?). In the second option, the skeleton archers would all be together, but seperate from the mages. And yes, I was including the mob hp/armor/rages on the main pages for zones up until now. It seemed the most reliable option. That said, I had to write 'minimum' in their hp/armor/rage sections because the same mobs can have different amounts of each based on where they are in that specific zone. The Ancient Skeleton Guard is an example of this. Anyway, let me know what you think. --User:Karunama

I really like the idea of having an overview page for the creature types, currently the categories you made match the in-game Anatomy sub-skills right? So those seem like a good model for such pages. Besides we have some lore we can add from the loading screens (mostly goblins, that I can remember). I think Anatomy -based makes more sense than the models, which could change. So all types of undead together under "Undead". Then we have a nice fleshed out page.

Transclusion wise I don't know if we can do that, unless we do not use the MOB infobox for random mobs (because it would make the page very big). Another option is to make some kind of table eg. all skeleton types under "Undead".. but tables should be used sparingly imho lest the wiki looks like a spreadsheet ;) .. I guess we'll have to see how these category creature pages flesh out.. but that's an idea I like is to work from "overview" to "detail" always works well. It also makes it easier indeed for new editors, browsing such a page, if they want to create all the sub pages (the ones you propose to transclude, and some you started making).--Gorgonzola (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2014 (CDT)

PS: how will you name them? "Goblin (race)", "Goblins"... wondering what would make sense as this refers not really to a race but some kind of anatomy classification. (eg. Arthropods include Mantises and spiders) Maybe "Arthropod (creature type)" ? --Gorgonzola (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2014 (CDT)

In my personal opinion, we could absolutely drop the hp/armor/rage stats for non-bosses if we wanted, but drops and images are probably necessities, for quests and crafting if nothing else. I'd also love to get the (type) anatomy XP amounts for each creature, but that might be far more trouble than it's worth. --User:Karunama

Alright. I will let you create the individual creature pages at your own pace as I will focus on templates (thankfully Eric said at town hall meeting he would add the extension, which will greatly improve the "infobox" capabilities). Stats wise I agree I'd rather not indicate them if they are not reliable, saves you lot of time too. Anatomy XP sounds more useful than general mob stats, however is it not like gourmand, you get most XP onfirst kill? If that is the case then the simple list of every existing creature type by itself provides the information to level Anatomy XP. --Gorgonzola (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2014 (CDT)

PS i'd say we will not transclude pages as that will probably be too long whether or not we use MOB infobox, so use MOB infobox if only for the Anatomy link, and leave out armor/health/rage parameters. Later, when I can improve template, those will not show (or maybe it will say something like "Stats variable" we'll see.. also it helps getting the image filenames ready for people who want to add pictures later (insert MOB infobox first, it auto-create a picture link for upload).--Gorgonzola (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2014 (CDT)

Seems to me you get the exact same amount of XP per autopsy on a creature until your anatomy level equals the amount of experience the creature is worth. So, for example, sewer rats can only take you to level 13 IIRC. Although I understand the logic behind this system, it isn't particularly self-evident to new players, IMHO. Again, I think listing this would help people out, but it's probably far too much trouble, because if you already hit 13 from sewer rats, the giant plains rats in eltibule will give you nothing, and the only thing you'd be able to list is that it's less than or equal to 13. Perhaps just listing the best known creature for the anatomy skill would be sufficient?

How to list foes/bosses in Zone articles

One last thing, rather than having a list on the main page for a zone, we could just have a link to the Category:Serbule Creatures page or something along those lines. That might help us trim the page without hiding any info from the people who want/need it. If we do that though, we should probably consider creating dungeon named creature categories. A la Category:Serbule Crypt Creatures.--User:Karunama

Hmm, I guess the list of enemies could grow long vertically, with lots of white space. I have a middle-way solution I'd like to try first: we can create a category listing with DynamicPageList right? I think it allows for multiple columns. It seems less useful to me if a simple list of creatures is not directly available, but listing them on multiple side by side columns could help improve the layout. I'll try that and report back later (not sure if it's supported as there are two "dynamic page list" extensions). edit In theory it would look a little but like a transclude of that category page you mentioned (which uses multiple columns). --Gorgonzola (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2014 (CDT)

Well, I did get notified. Let me know if you get the message for this, since I won't be using the indent or signature thingies. My current guess is that it notifies you if someone adds to your (talk) page, and that's it. Btw, do we have anyone that can delete pages? We could end up with a fair number of empty pages if we try to move all the creatures to a single page :/

Hi Karu. First concerning creatures: no, you can make individual creature pages. I only suggested that we focus our efforts first on the creature type pages (Goblin, Arthropod, etc) in which we could list the known individual creatures, and link to their pages (so you can keep making those pages if you like, and we don't need to delete them).

Regarding signatures and Talk Pages: please try to use them as is documented. When I come to the Talk page, I have no idea where you replied, I have to re-scan all the text to get a sense of who is who, or go through the page history (in fact now that I re-scanned the page I noticed another comment you left regarding Anatomy XP, it's hard to see!). Signatures, indents, and topics (headings) make it easier to see how the discussion is going and who has last replied, not just for the person you respond to, but any future editors who want to get up to date on the conversation and the history of an article. It also allows future editors to join in a conversation, add their opinions as they can chose to address any specific comment by indenting.

Granted it has been easier to talk to User:NotesOfNotus because our play time overlaps so we could talk in-game. I've looked for you in-game but we don't seem to be on at the same time much. If you'd like to discuss via Skype to communicate more easily see this tooltip. It's not just my page and your page, it's super helpful for all talk pages.

If I seem to drive things a little bit for now, I hope you can appreciate that I spent some time creating MediaWiki Help bookmarks initially on my user page, and recently moved to the Project Gorgon Wiki:How to help page sidebar. I made lots of effort during the past 3 weeks to organize things here because now is a critical time to do so. Two weeks ago I posted a long Reddit topic to attract editors, and for nearly two weeks I kept making edits without seeing anybody else in the Recent Changes. I think make a great wiki for this game is a way of supporting it, and the players... but that requires a lot of planning atm in the early days, to avoid it become a big mess later (in my opinion). — Unsigned comment added by Gorgonzola (talk • contribs)

Yeah, as you're no doubt aware, I'm a total noob when it comes to wikis, so until the other day when i looked up how you had been signing them in the edit section, I didn't even know how. I'll try to do better in the future though. Regarding your proposal, I agree, but I don't think it will ever be necessary to list the individual anatomies on their own. They should be good on the main anatomy page as a table. That said, I'll probably make that page link to the relevant creature anatomy info, assuming I ever get it nice and compiled the way I'd like to. Karunama (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2014 (CDT)

Hah! I forgot to sign myself apparently talk about contradicting myself. Aanyway. Thanks. Regarding anatomy sub skills linking the Category:Creatures by Type on the anatomy makes sense. Agree Anatomy subskills page probly a little much. --Gorgonzola (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2014 (CDT)