Template talk:Passive skill link

Wrong main page link
Is there a way to change the link of the skill? All the Ascendant skills link to the class and not the passive skill and I don't know how to fix it.--ThemJohns (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Add main_page parameter to the passive skill page. See also Template:Passive skill --OmegaK2 (t|c) 18:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The function is still broken. Also, is there a way for the query to link to the proper skill page and not just create a link of the skill name? --ThemJohns (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It only wasn't showing the correct link above the icon, icon link was correct. I fixed the former. You still need to add main_page parameter to the passive pages for the ascendant, it isn't magically happening byitself --OmegaK2 (t|c) 06:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We have already defined the main page when we created the page and added the passive skill box to it though. How about if we add a main_pages cargo table that would store to? This would remove the need to also find the technical page(s) and edit those. --Illviljan (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * doesn't store any data, it queries it from the data page. We can't modify specific rows from other pages with cargo --OmegaK2 (t|c) 08:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, but you can join the tables together. When creates the infobox it has gotten the passive skill ids, so then it can store them in the cargo table main_pages. Then  simply joins passive_skills and main_pages together via the id to get correct main page link. --Illviljan (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Implemented this method. Looks like it's linking to the right pages, but I haven't checked every combination. Let us know if there's something wrong. --Illviljan (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really like this since it not only duplicates where the main_page can be put, it also makes it unclear which one to use if a skill box is used on multiple pages --OmegaK2 (t|c) 16:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Having to create a page, add the infobox and then also define the same thing on the X matching data pages requires quite a bit of unnecessary effort and is the big data duplication issue in my opinion. In the cargo table now there's 1500+ rows that the main page should've been manually defined on with earlier recommendation to be certain that all data link to the correct main page. If this method proves robust enough I think the main_page-parameter can be removed eventually. can't indeed be used on other pages than the main page now. Fortunately, I don't think we intentionally use it in any other way than as a main page definer right now. There's a risk that some edge cases might get through on multiple pages due to the queries being a bit too generic, but that's an issue we deal with all the time. --Illviljan (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that passive skill box is a generic link and shouldn't really define data in the first place. A lot of those 1500 entries are completely unnecessary because the name of the main page doesn't differ from the name of the passive skill. Under no circumstance should main_page be removed since it has a clear purpose and clear usage conditions. What you call edge case here is basically just a mess now, since it completely deviates from the intention of a link and not a template that defines data. Your method isn't even robust conceptually. --OmegaK2 (t|c) 10:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)