2,804
edits
Changes
Thoughts about proper categorizing in light of DPL options (ie. what categories have a practical use).
==Proposed Changes==
Should we have a category or some other notation for NPCs who will/won't talk to players in beast forms? [[User:Karunama|Karunama]] ([[User talk:Karunama|talk]]) 01:54, 7 October 2014 (CDT)
==Shop Table Layout (new template with icons)==
Btw, I realize now there is no column for Favor. It sounds like favor is often a requirement and may be worth documenting. On the other hand I think you soon realize as a player, that nearly everything of value is going to be locked with favor anyway. But that's just me. For the time being, don't worry.. with this template format, it is only a matter of adding a new parameter, if we ''really'' need to add favor as a column.. we can do it. Just i'd rather focus on other priorities as long as it works reasonably well. The template can accomodate any number of rows. It allows to make complex formatting of table rows with little code in the article. --[[User:Gorgonzola|Gorgonzola]] ([[User talk:Gorgonzola|talk]]) 08:16, 7 October 2014 (CDT)
==Proper Categorization of NPCs (including creatures) to work with DPL (Dynamic Page Lists)==
Some things that come to mind while testing DPL on [[Goblin]] and [[Arthropod]] (creature types). We have to take technical requirements of DPL in mind when designing the categories so we can pull useful lists.
* [[:Category:Serbule NPCs]] and [[:Category:Under the Hand Bosses]] seem extraneous and have no purpose
* Instead, we can pull DPL lists that include one ore more simpler categories, for example Serbule + NPCs, or Bosses + Under the Hand
For example [[Ancient Skeleton Guard]] could be categorized as Serbule, Creatures, Skeleton
For DPL purposes I think we should use NPCs for friendly characters, and Creatures for things that can be attacked.
Then we can pull (using DPL options):
* '''Friends''' (friendly characters) : NPCs & Zone (optional)
* '''Bosses''' (creatures) : Bosses (Creatures here is implicit) & Zone (optional) & {creature type} (Optinal, eg. Orc)
* '''Foes''' (basic enemies) : Creatures & Zone (optional) & NOT Bosses (exclusion!)
Conclusion:
* A global category that overlaps both enemies and friendly NPCs could be made, but does it have a purpose?
* A global enemy/attackable entity category that does not overlap friendly NPCs => Creatures
* A global category that includes all friendly (non attackable) NPCs => NPCs (NPCs does sound like an overarching category for both friends and foes... but thats what we used so far, it's short so I'd prefer to keep using that, .. also NPCs is often used to refer to distinguish from "mobs" in many games).
* A global category for named creatures, currently we use => Bosses
Do we need a "named creature" category? I'd rather avoid adding more categories unless there is a use case.
Do we need a "mini boss" category? I'd rather avoid adding more categories unless there is a use case. Though here we could identify the ones that have a curse through the use of the MOB infobox template and some DPL trickery (we have a curse parameter).
For bosses we can make some trickery with DPL to pull lists based on MOB infobox parameters: for example only those that have a curse. Any template parameter in [[Template:MOB infobox]] can potentially be used as a filter.
