- I agree, great looking template! Now all we need is for someone to implement the js they use over on [wowpedia] to make mouse-hover links work in the wiki. [example] -- Nightblade (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh wow, I didn't know Template:Item existed, someone has put a lot of work into that. Seems a shame to just discard it. It is outdated though since the game had a UI overhaul.
- Tooltips are definitely something we can do, but I think we'll have to be really careful with how often it's implemented. It really isn't something we want to overdo, and should only be used in places where it makes sense, like in guides. You can see an example of Tooltip JS at the SW TOR wiki Iamacyborg (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I worked the Template:Item a while back. No one ever used it though and most people, like you Malice, didn't know it existed. Where the hell were you Malice when we needed you months ago?! O well, your new template looks great now! See it in use: Unique_Swords. How do I center the template within the column?
- We really need to get the Fontin Smallcaps font embedded into the wiki somehow. Just look at the difference in the two fonts with IMAGE 1 and IMAGE 2 --FaceLicker (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Template:Hover I tried to this template as flexible as I could, in case someone want to use it for something other than what it was created for. For instance you could conceivably use it on the main page for the boxes (as shown here), or for just about anything else. But do you think it is easy enough to use? Making an item look right is reasonably complicated. Regular wiki people will be able to get the hang of it, but people with little wiki/html/css experience might be a bit lost. What do you think. — Malice (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm of two minds here. First of all, in regards to using this to replace the boxes on the main page, I have to categorically say no to that option. Any change to the template would then have possibly disturbing repercussions on the look of the main page. As to the complexity of the template, I do feel that it is over the top and is going to be seriously intimidating for new editors. This is something that has to be guarded against, since we always want to promote the ease of editing by ANYONE visiting the wiki. Complexity is also a factor in longevity. I'm glad to see you are providing relative complete documentation, since with any luck, this wiki is going to be around for a LONG time, while editors (you included) will come and go, and in that instance any templates should be easy to understand and modify by the next generation of editors. That's my 2cents. -- Wynthyst talk 18:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Right, I wasn't suggesting to actually use it on the main page, just using that as an example. Thanks for the feedback about the complexity, I'm pretty new here but I gather that you have a lot of wiki experience so when you say it's seriously intimidating I'll take you at your word. It could be possible to nest it in another layer of more specific, less flexible templates (say one for unique weapons, one for rare wepaons, etc., so normal editors would just be presented with a simple list of values to input. But that would add yet another layer of complexity. But if that makes it actually possible for people to use it, then it might be worth it.
- It's happened to me before that I've been reading a wiki and seen a small error. Then I try to correct it end end up down a bottomless pit of nested templates trying to find the data haha, I appreciate it's best to keep things simple where possible.
- One last thing if you have any suggestions to improve the documentation, I'd love to hear it — Malice (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's also possible to add most if not all of the functionality of the multiple templates into a single template. The resulting template CODE is complex, but the usage then becomes very simple. The coding requires a lot of parser syntax, etc., so it can be tricky to get working, and you often have to add a plethora of optional fields to cover all the available options, but it IS possible. You can see a prime example here. -- Wynthyst talk 19:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)