Question and Answer/ArchiveQ104

Q104 - Monster Template

While the blue monster template is pretty, I find it extremely annoying to view and find the information I'm concerned with. I much prefer the Shadow Mission Monster template and thus made a test template that mirrors it, using the blue template's transclusion codes. Some elements of the blue template I'd kept because I thought they were neat, however I'm open to suggestions/changes.

Working example of the proposed monster template. (edited to include multiple monsters and both collapsed and uncollapsed versions)

I would highly welcome comments and critique. I would also like to hear from people who find the blue template difficult to use as well, to get their opinion on what works for them and what doesn't. -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 18:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added several variants of stress tests to the new template. One thing that I wonder, would it be useful to have the Info section be hideable as well? It would be open on default, but if say a person would like to compare the Prairie Dragon against the Red Dragon, there would be a ton of scrolling unless the Info could be hidden. Just a thought.-- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 18:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that there is need for a change to be honest... yes it can be a bit of a mess when you unhide things in the monster pages but it still works and the basic info thats needed is redialy seen. i'm wondering what exact problems your having in veiwing the monster pages. and i would have everything hidden by default to be honest to prevent long scrolling. --chrissy of hailfire 19:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not just an issue of that the info's there. It's an issue of useability and how best to show the info in a clear/concise way. Also I kinda find it deeply annoying that that it's so wide. And the hide v. unhide is a huge arguement apparently in irc and talk pages and people prefer it by default unhidden. -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 19:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The blue template is too wide for smaller resolutions; I have to scroll to the right just to see the monster drops, which definitely should not be necessary, and is very frustrating. I really like your template ladywinter, especially how you've put the stats, but we will have to get a lot of agreement from the community in order to use it since I'm sure a lot of people are too used to the blue template by now. Some notes: some of monsters' pictures are going off the table. Anyway, keep working on it. --- Angevon (Talk) 20:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! Where would I advertise this new layout for review? Or can other's do it for me? Also, what do you mean by some monster pictures going off table? Can you give me an example? -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 21:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

ZRoc's thread

I like your monster table better than the existing one however;

1. Don't use icons, it's easier to see and understand the monster's skill if it's typed in as words, as done on the shadow mission monster template. It was hard for me as a new player to remember what the icons meant (also some of those skill icons don't exist in the game) on the existing monster template and it still isn't easy. I know you can mouse over the icon to get the actual name but that's a pain, especially if the monster has a number of skills. On the shadow mission template you can just read the skill straight away. Also, if your just using the actual skill titles then they can simply be typed in rather than having all those separate skill parameters in the template.
2. In the template's Drops list add width="100%" to have the "show" and "hide" buttons remain in the same position on the right side of the table, i.e., use
   

{| class="collapsible collapsed" width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"

|-

! bgcolor="#e7f3e8" colspan="7" | '''Drops'''

instead of

{| class="collapsible" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"

|-

! bgcolor="#e7f3e8" colspan="7" | '''Drops'''

--ZRoc (Talk) 21:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason I like ladywinter's monster table and the shadow monster table is that they are more compact (easier to see on smaller monitors), the info is better organised and the style is closer to that of the rest of the wiki (which was chrissy of hailfire's argument for changing the equipment list tables in Q102).

Personally I prefer hidden by default sections, as it makes a page easier to scroll down and it takes but a click to open a particular hidden section. Whereas to shorten a page to compare tables, by clicking shut all the unhidden by default sections between the desired tables, is annoying (I'd probably not shut them but just keep scrolling up and down all those extra kilometers miles). --ZRoc (Talk) 21:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

ooo, thank you for the coding help, will implement. Regarding the hidden by default sections, I prefer them too...but apparently they annoy alot of people who don't talk on Q/A??? (see User_talk:Saiyr and User_talk:Sinnoaria). Personally I prefer the text-based skill info too, but I dunno if alot of people LIKE the skill icon version. I'll code up another version that's text-based, so that if we get alot of fist shaking it'd be a simple thing to switch from one to another. (granted it would have to happen at midnightish due to server load issues and transclusion, but you know, yay for not having to do it by hand?) -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 21:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as hidden text goes, the arguments given against it are irrelevant. For whatever reason, the wiki is grouping a lot of info in a single monster table and placing multiple monster tables on a single page. The problem is that info restricted to a single table (especially where that info is constantly added to by an expanding game) is going to have issues on how to contain all that info in that single table. Having single pages with multiple tables is going to make the pages too long and using the TOC is useless once you've gone to a section. You either need to split the monster table up into smaller more usable tables (with tables of the same type grouped on respective pages) or have each existing table restricted to a single page. Otherwise, you keep what we have and you use compromises to have reasonable access to the existing pages. One such compromise is to hide long info and have it hidden by default. Having it open by default is no more helpful than not using hidden sections. If that means Ctrl-f doesn't work then that's a compromise you live with. Note you can't search for monsters by name via the search bar on the left of the screen, cause the monster table is created using a style/data template and includes the section heading containing the monster's name. That's a lot worse than not being able to use Ctrl-f but it seems to be a compromise people are willing to live with. --ZRoc (Talk) 00:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

*BLINK* dude, the searching is easy to fix! I'll just add in an anchor to the code =D ::goes to do just that:: -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 01:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

An anchor will only do what the section heading in the monster template does and that is make each monster table's section linkable, not able to be searched XD --ZRoc (Talk) 04:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

...redirects then! =D -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 05:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Chrissyofhailfire's thread

Having things easier to edit is a must in my opinion as there was too much of a learning curve when i first got on this wiki. We got to make sure that people can understand how to add in data or be able to change it.

my only real consern is that the current system is so spread throughout the entire wiki. and it being something that is (at least for me) used on a daily basis. having some of the tables in transition or even editing the many pages will become somewhat a full time job i know personaly with me, just getting images to be transparent and changing the list style has become a big project. getting the monster list to be fitting in a typical screen would also be beneficial and i would like to see that be changed. though i'm used to the drops being on the side...

the resolution thing though should probably have some type of quiz or something asking what the screen resolution wiki users use to see if it really is something that would be affecting lots of users)

on a side note i would much much rather have the icons rather than text. for me its an instant recognizance of what that skill is. and i can quickly glance through the list and know what monster has what skill. and seeing as there aren't all that many monster skills that are encountered during normal attacking of monsters such as ardvarks i don't think it would become a big issue.--chrissy of hailfire 05:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

A huge majority of users of this wiki are not editors and they haven't joined the wiki. They are players simply looking for game info, which is the what this wiki is meant to do. Therefore, that huge majority of wiki users will never be able to answer a quiz about monitor resolution/size. Even if you placed such a quiz on the wiki's front page, most such users will ignore it or not even see it. --ZRoc (Talk) 06:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The monster table requires only the template to be changed not all the tables it creates on each page. Unlike making individual images transparent or editing those list tables, what ladywinter is doing will require a single template page to be changed. If she gets consent to change it, then pray it's done at a really quiet time on the wiki, cause the server that runs this wiki is going to stop doing anything else while it updates all the pages using the monster table template. This means the server isn't just going to go slow, it will practically stop working for all users until it finishes updating all those pages. XD --ZRoc (Talk) 06:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of doing it sunday night at 1am. -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 06:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good time to do it =3 (by the way have you checked your talk page, did the tables all have the same width?) --ZRoc (Talk) 07:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

nah I mean, go to my sandbox, make your window all wide, and compare the black succ entry to the dragon entries, width-wise. --ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 08:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In answer to chrissy, yeah, basically if I change the template, then it automatically changes all the entries with monster data. At once. It's a single step copy-paste process. I know alot of people in my guild complain about the page width too, but we're experienced players and don't often to go wiki for monster data. I actually look on wiki from a imac, but I prefer my windows to be tall and narrow because it's easier on my eyes and you can scan for info faster. -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 08:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

ok, it totaly sliped my mind that it was a template.. *facepalm* well, all the work i was imaganing pretty much went out the window lol. wish i could just use a template for my project but it would only help me in a small part of it and thus not really worth it to be honest.--chrissy of hailfire 14:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Déjà vu Anyone? Give the reason for switching sides if you did. As for display resolution share, you can use the averages from netapplications and w3counter.--Hengsheng120·^TALK_CONTRIBS 11:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

yup. large table is large and unwieldy. Also does not match with rest of the wiki. I will keep trying until I find a template that more people like that's not the blue one. =\ I usually have large resolutions but I hate full-screening my windows, I have them tall and thin-ish. -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 14:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless the sysop and/or admins make it a rule that something stays as it is, then everything and anything is up for change at anytime. People come and go, opinions change, so déjà vu will be a permamenant state of affairs lol --ZRoc (Talk) 15:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you've fixed the pictures now. I'd rather you used the word "Gold" instead of the picture of gold, though. It looks really out of place since all the other headers there are text. --- Angevon (Talk) 15:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

will do on the gold in the no icon template.  ::salutes:: Though I'll keep it for now in the icon template for comparison -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 15:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

ok... as i keep looking over the template i'm liking it more and more. the only true issue i'm having that's left is the location section as seen in the mimic. it strches the table out way too much. is there any kind of way that the location list can be made into two lists if its over a certain amount? even if it can't be done through the style page can it be done on the individual monster pages, if it can then i would be ok with the change.--chrissy of hailfire 16:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

what do you mean by two lists? one that's hidden? or two lists side by side? or?... -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 16:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

two lists, making them into collems (sorry my spelling is totally horrible today.) making them in a way that would still show the locations as you look at it normally but that it wont stretch the template so much that it makes it look so different from the other monster data. it seems that having the locations like that wouldn't affect the template as severely as just one long list. and i know that there aren't that many monsters we would have to worry about doing that for.

i've actually been wanting to find out if that can be done simply for the list of liked and disliked foods for the hot spring monkeys as that one is getting to be quite long but i dont know enough of the code to know if its possible. everything i've learned about wiki code is through examples of whats already here--chrissy of hailfire 22:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

hmmm, well, if it's for the template then I'd have to figure out how to automatically wrap them. But I've just now looked through all the monsters and Mimic actually clocks in as the single most prevalent monster, appearance-wise, in dungeons. Very few monsters appear in more than 5 places, which include 4 spiders, 2 foxes/skeletons, 1 gorgon, and 1 wisp. It may just end up being a situational coding for those 12 special instances, which isn't too bad. Making two columns is actually fairly simple to implement: it's just a table with two cells and invisible borders. =\ However you can't use mabitable on it, you have to handcode using table tags and add style="border-style:none;" -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 23:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sozen Cratos Focker's thread

Every single person who's opinion of the "blue template" I've asked for in game said they hate it, so I'm sure they'd welcome a change. When the current template was first implemented, what I hated most about it was how much space it wastes on pointless padding, which made it annoying to look for specific information, and contributes to making it more inconvenient with small windows/monitors. I support the idea of getting rid of the current template, and making the regular template match the shadow monster template. I mostly like what you're changing with your new template, but there are some things you left alone that i think should be changed.

The skill icons make it easier to use the table, but there should be some way to include ranks.

attacks first, range hits, magic hits, and magic damage spots are useless, and the "offensive stats" label isn't really necesary.

I was never fond of the gold and aggro pictures, and using a picture for the elemental just might not work out since some monsters might have more than one elemental and monsters probably have different amounts of elemental.

CP and HP aren't so closely related that you can justify grouping them like that and having them in the same cell.

We need to have a spot for crit rate in the chart.

Um i have more to say, but it's getting late, and my comment is getting long.--Sozen Cratos Focker 10:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

thank you for your well thought out reply!

Hmm, ranks? Like ranks of skills? Would that make a difference to many templates? Cannot a note of the rank be made in the Notes section?

I thought that "attacks first" was based on aggro, though to be honest I never understood the designation. Mainly here I'm just using the data point that was present in the old data entries, so that I disturb as little of the infrastructure as possible. Ditto with the "range hits, magic hits, and magic damage spots" data points. Though on thought, perhaps that is a numerical designation of ranks of range/magic skill?

Good thoughts on the "offensive stats" label. I was just mirroring the Shadow Monsters template and upon thought, nothing says that it isn't possible to go back and tweak the Shadow Monster template to make it better too.

I have icon-less options, an am fine with making the gold/aggro pictures non-present. But waiting for more feedback on the matter, so I'm offering people options.

...monsters have more than 1 element? D= really? Also the different amounts of element is possible, but would require going back and changing all the monster DATA, not just the template. It'd be quite easy to put a number next to the elemental bubble, but it would require a frikken lot of work for alot of data that no one knows. XD If you can get me the monster data for most of the monsters involved, I will stick it in and go back and change things. But I'm not going to do that much work for a data point that ends up being "Unknown" for 95%~99% of the monsters involved.

CP got stuck with HP due to a space issue. Which there is more of due to the "offensive stats" label disappearing.

MONSTER CRIT RATE! brill! ...but do we have the information? >.> produce me the data, and I'll stick it in.

Again, thank you a lot for your feedback. Get back to me with some more monster data and we'll really get this boat rockin'. -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 14:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is probably a pointless suggestion but we have a page for each item in the game, a page for each NPC, a page for each skill, etc., so is it really necessary to have similar monsters grouped on a single page using just the monster template. By all means keep the monster table (whichever style is preferred) but have one monster table to a page and remove those table sections that can have too much info (e.g., drop list, advice, notes, locations) and place them into their own sub-sections on that monster page. This means no hidden sections (Ctrl-f can be used to easily find something and the pages will be far easier to navigate). In the case of variants such as shadow monsters where you have Basic, Intermediate, Advanced and Hard versions of the exact same monster, then these I would keep on a single page (but that's only 4 tables). As for comparing monster data use list tables (I believe some already exist) but not a single list table which would be too wide. Instead create separate ones on different pages, such as, a monster item drop, gold drop and location list table, a list of monsters and their skills, a list of monsters and their stats, etc., (these can be made sortable and even have multiple sortable keys, i.e., full name column and type column, e.g., Black Dire Wolf and Dire Wolf). Similar monsters can still be grouped on the existing pages but as links or easier still use categories. Preferably not the confusing scientific named ones used at present, e.g., just have Wolf, Dire Wolf, Dog, Kiwi, Alligator all in Animal rather than Wolf, Dire Wolf, Dog --> Canidea --> Mammal --> Animal; Kiwi --> Apterygidae --> Bird --> Animal; Alligator --> Alligatoridae --> Reptile --> Animal. I doubt many players would know what a mammal or invertebrate is, let alone what an erinaceidae or myrmeleontidae is. --ZRoc (Talk) 17:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

...er. well if you want separate monster page sections I welcome you to make it. XD That's sorta what I did for the enchant section w/ enchants by effect and a sortable full list, except not one page for each section. It could always be made and then deleted... but um, that will have to be your own project. *wry* I'm willing to make a template and to code data, but making that many *individual pages*... Basically if you really want it, you have to make it. I'll rearrange coding on the template to facilitate you, or you can code the template in hindsight (whichever works), but I don't really feel up to making ~1700 new pages for each monster.

the confusing scientific names is not me. Apparently someone found it useful and made it.

monster drops, as a sortable list, would be INSANE. I'm not sure that would work, necessarily. But a cp + hp + damage + gold drop + location table is doable and useful. I don't see why you'd want a table JUST with monster skills...unless maybe it's with the cp + hp table...which is only useful with the location + gold...Which means it's a huge table with pretty much most of the info we have already in the template.-- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 17:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I was told that monsters of the same type were grouped on a single page so that they could easily be compared. That doesn't seem to make much sense as you usually don't just compare monsters of similar type but that's what I was told. Many of those pages have become so long that comparison is quite difficult to do. The list table names and what goes on them was merely to give an example, all I was trying to do was indicate that not all the data for monsters should be on a single list table which would be too wide. There is already a Monster Table that lists location and CP of monsters (sortable by name and AI type) and a List of Monster Drops (as well as a Category:Monster Drop List, which does the same thing) for monster specific drops (i.e., fomor scrolls, body parts but not other items such as equipment, herbs, potions, etc.). Why would you have to list gold and item drops with stats, if the table is too wide then split it in two and add links on one list table page to the other. If your looking for monster stats then your probably not after drops and gold but that info is still only a single click away. Locations can be supplied on both tables or just the drop and gold table if it makes the stat table too wide. Open 2 tabs in your browser and have each table in a tab, even quicker comparison lol.

Each monster's data (drops, locations, stats, etc.) is in its respective data template. Although I'm not fond of style/data templates, all you need is to create a style row template for each list table and then enter the monster names as a parameter. (z's comment I'd cut into)

hmm well okay, templates I can do, and multiple sortings available can be helpful. I can add in a Navigation section in the monster category that lists all the possible sort lists. What lists do you think would be helpful then? So far I'm thinking (feel free to change/crit):

1) name, location, gold

2) name, location, skill, hp?, damage?

anything else? -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 19:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The individual monster pages will take time but copy/paste a table onto a new single page and replacing the tables on the old grouped monster page with a list of links isn't too hard. Breaking up the table can be done on an individual basis on the new single monster pages, so that the info is there no matter what. (z's comment I'd cut into)

• thumbs up* if you really want it, implement it? -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 19:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Scientific naming of monsters, many of which are magical and never existed in real life (let alone look like anything in real life), is helpful? OK, you'd need to be a real science geek with a good imagination to find that helpful XD. --ZRoc (Talk) 19:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• shrug* again, I'm not sure as to the exact reasoning behind it besides being really specific. And I agree, it's specific in a way that is opaque to the average user and non-inclusive to magical beings so...yeah I dunno. XD -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 19:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A navigation section in the monster category sounds like a good idea, if the list tables are created.

For the lists perhaps have:

1) Monster Locations and Rewards: name, type (enter one or more of the following: field, dungeon, shadow mission, standard field boss, giant field boss, dungeon boss, shadow mission boss(?) and/or main story boss), location (possibly split into 2 columns for dungeon and field as there should be room), experience gained, gold dropped, equipment dropped, misc. items dropped

2) Monster Offensive Stats: name, location (contains both field and dungeon in a single column to save room), walking speed, detection speed, detection range, hits (use one column and enter n melee, n ranged and/or n magic, where n is the number of hits), damage (again use one column and enter x~y melee, x~y ranged and/or x~y magic, where x is the min damage and y is the maximum damage), attacks first, multi aggro. Many of the columns could be fairly narrow as the data isn't very wide but if the table proves too wide then remove the location column.

3) Monster Defensive Stats: name, location (contains both field and dungeon in a single column to save room), HP, defense, protection, combat power. If this can be added to the offensive stats table without making it too wide then fine (and call the resulting table only Monster Stats List).

I would implement having the monsters on single pages but I think I better get more approval or I may be lynched XD --ZRoc (Talk) 03:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

PS. Add Sozen Cratos Focker's suggestion of a monster critical rate, if that exists on the each monster's data template, to the offensive stat list. If it doesn't then call the parameter in the style template anyway and have an "if" expression making the value "?" if there is no crit parameter or if it has a blank value. Then the crit parameter and value can be added to the data templates at your leisure. This would apply equally as well to your monster test template.

Also, you may not want location in either stat table (or the single stat table if that's what is created) as it will make a row very high if a monster spawns even in a handful of locations. This doesn't matter in the Monster Locations and Rewards table as the equipment drops and misc. item drops will probably make many rows fairly high. --ZRoc (Talk) 03:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Another suggestion: use "unknown" instead of "none" as the default for drops. For monsters that actually do have no drops, it should be noted in the data template rather than the style template.

Wow... Now that this is broken up into sections, i can see that the 32kb warning was mostly my fault, lol. If i were to finish listing my complaints about the current template, my subsection alone might hit 32kb...--Sozen Cratos Focker 10:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

done. and the 32kb warning...well it's me and zroc talking about monster tables really XD you can see the results of that discussion here. -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 14:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I was unable to load any page on the wiki this morning, and when I was unable to play the game, and unable to work on further hijacking your monster template revamp project(btw, srry about that, there are just so many things I've been wanting to change about the current template ever since it was implemented last year, but never got around to it. And since someone else is planning to change it, I want to make as many of those ideas ready for use as possible so that if other people agree that they are necessary/useful, they can be implemented at the same time as yours to avoid crashing the server more times than necessary), I started a YouTubeing session that ended up lasting from 1 AM to 9 AM... If the wiki wasn't working because of the implementation of the monster tables, that means even the new server can't handle changes to such widely used templates, so, before you implement the new template, if we just edit the current one instead of making a separate version3 template(3 because [I think] it's the third major redo of the template) template and manually changing the template used in every monster's page one at a time, then I strongly recommend giving everybody a warning at least half a day ahead of time before making the change, and maybe ask whoever does the news posts on the Mabi World Forum main page(I don't even have an account on the forums, so i wouldn't know who it is lol) to mention it there.
Wow, a run-on containing, in parentheses, several explanatory comments about small parts of the run-on, one of which is an additional semi-off-topic run-on.... I should practice making it seem like I conform to the average length of human thoughts...--Sozen Cratos Focker 20:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed there are a lot of extraneous if statements in the template.
In {{#if:{{{MonsterCrit|}}}|{{{MonsterCrit}}}|Unknown}} the first use of the parameter ({{{MonsterCrit|}}}) sets the default value for MonsterCrit to an empty string so that if there is no value for MonsterCrit or MonsterCrit is an empty string, the value for MonsterCrit becomes an empty string(pointless redundancy already). Then the if statement Displays "unknown" if MonsterCrit does not exist or MonsterCrit is an empty string (Now that's quite ridiculous when you think about it.) or displays the value if it exists.
Basically, the default for what to display in that cell is set twice, to different values, one of them triggering the other with an if function nested in another if function with the same purpose.
Anything that says <nowwiki>Unknown</nowiki> should be replaced with a much less wasteful{{{''Stat''|Unknown}}}, which simply sets the default value to "unknown" when there is no value or it's blank. In my monster template sandbox, I already did this for crit rate and will change the rest when I have time.
This will make the template more efficient, [probably] not make obsessive compulsive computes scientists cry, and maybe even reduce server downtime when changing the template, albeit not by much.
I guess the person who originally wrote the current monster template must have been thinking as if he was writing a program, where trying to assign a string to a numerical variable would result in an epic fail, with much head-slapping. However, this is wiki code, so just about everything, including purely numerical stuff, is handled with strings anyway.
I'll check for more wasteful/redundant/inefficient code after I finish messing with how skills are displayed.--Sozen Cratos Focker 21:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

implementing new suggestions

(starting new thread)...AN IF EXPRESSION IF NO VALUE. *HEADSMACK* DUH. OMG. Also, point on the fact of the location. Possibly just a note of whether it's field/dungeon/Tail SM/Tara SM. Regarding the drops tables...that may either make people throw fits...or love it. It could go either way...but I think I'd make a note at the top of the table to use ctrl+f. XD--ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 04:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the item drops, a note about ctrl+f would probably be necessary (for the locations too) XD. Those that hate it don't need to use it but those that like it will use it (hopefully someone does like it). Note that the monster data template has the locations, equipment drops and misc items as lists and not as a sentence using commas as separators. This isn't a problem but they will quickly add height to a row the more locations, equipment or misc. items there are for each respective parameter. So having those three in only one table really makes sense (to me lol). --ZRoc (Talk) 05:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

mmm, point about placing all the data points with bulleted lists in one place. Reduces the OMGWHOA factor, they're just WHOA over one table. XD-- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 06:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(new thread) Implemented Sozen's suggestions, Moved all variants to the top of the page. Thoughts? -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 06:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Crit space Doesn't need to be that wide, I doubt anything has a 9 figure crit rate. As for not having data on crit, we won't have that data as long as we don't have a place to put it. Once we have a spot in the table, i'm sure the people who check for new monsters' dammage will take note of crit aswell, and i intend to personally test crit rates of certain monsters (namely mimics) when grinding for the mastery title. Crit rate and rank have a prety big influence on damage output, so if we don't have those, why bother with listing damage in the first place?--Sozen Cratos Focker 06:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking better, although the EXP (title cell and value cell), Attacks First? (value cell) and Multi Aggro (value cell) look too wide but I can't think of anything that can be done about it. Still don't like the icons. However, both those points can be ignored, as the first is a minor quibble and others disagree with me about the second XD. --ZRoc (Talk) 07:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

PS. Agree with you Sozen Cratos Focker and ladywinter has included crit in the monster test table or did you want something else added? --ZRoc (Talk) 07:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, about the element thing, forget it, it doesn't look like we're going to learn more about that anytime soon so the way elements are shown in the curent template is fine.
Some more things to consider adding(of course with if functions for monsters that don't have that value specified yet): Melee attack speed, splash radius, angle, and damage. The values for all of these can be taken from race.xml, or determined by the weapon used for humanoid monsters that have equips.--Sozen Cratos Focker 10:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please rename the "Multi Aggro" title cell to simply "Aggro." Otherwise some people will think it means all monsters are multiaggro. I still vote to remove the gold pic and use the word "Gold" instead. I like Sozen's version the most so far. --- Angevon (Talk) 13:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"sozen proposed" one should be iconless except for skills. --Sozen Cratos Focker 03:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction, completely my suggestion for now is completely iconless. I think it's important to list the rank of every skill, and I can't think of a practical way to do that with icons. Someone in a discussion on the talk page for the curent template suggested using tooltips, but I don't think there's a way to do that.--Sozen Cratos Focker 06:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible solution for high numbers of entries in location and drops: use <div style="overflow:auto; height: 100px;"> </div>. (Thank you Dramartistic for using it in your user page, cause otherwise i would probably never have noticed you could do that here.) It should reduce stretching without completely breaking ctrl+f
To keep it from stretching single-entry ones, add some parameters named something like "LongListDungeon", "LongListEquip", etc. and have if functions check them. if the value for the dungeon list being too long is "yes" or "y" or "1" or whatever we decide to use for that, then have the dungeon location list inside those tags, if the value is something else, or if it doesn't exist, have the dungeon spawn list without them. Add those new parameters to the monsters that need them when the new template is implemented.

If any of my past or future suggestions seem discouragingly difficult, complicated, tedious, or annoying to code, let me know and I'll be glad to help. --Sozen Cratos Focker 11:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

<offtopic>Wow... this section alone is past the 32kb warning already. It should be it's own page.</offtopic
Ladywinter, do you mind if i mess with Template:StyleMonsterTEST2 myself a little?--Sozen Cratos Focker 11:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

mmm, frankly I would prefer for you to make an entirely new template, but feel free to copy-paste from TEST2, and also feel free to add it into my sandbox!

regarding the icons, I've been getting feedback that people like the icons, for their quick parsing ability. A picture is worth a thousand words after all. I'm thinking that we can encourage people placing information about skill ranks by introducing the parameters and making it appear in the Notes section.

regarding 'overflow', I don't quite understand it yet, I'll play around, but thanks for giving me the heads up! -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 02:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Update 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've really liked Sozen's version and implemented the collapsed and no-icon versions. Also did several variants of scrollable tables. Comments? Critique?

My thoughts are to first implement the version with the icons on a Sunday->Monday night at 1am, and then if there's enough support for it, go completely iconless a couple weeks or months later.

Due to the rather largeness of the discussion here and my eyes crossing trying to parse all of it, I've tried to add section headers at the start of major threads. Feel free to undo if this is against policy or something.--ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 14:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

i don't blaim ya for doing that... i was surprised someone hasn't tried moving the discussion to a totally new page or something. as for the scroll i love it. solves all the issues with the template strtch and don't have to worry about lists getting too long. and once again i would still like to have the icons. its much easier to see in my opinion and doesn't make it look like pure text which can be info overload. as for the scroll. it is needed. it is needed so much because it helps with the long pages that we would end up getting. and again it doesn't distort the template and makes things look neat and organized. so scrolling definitely implemented in the drop lists and un-hide. in fact really with it being able to scroll you don't have to hide the drop list at all to be honest. it wouldn't be really needed --chrissy of hailfire 14:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

thank you for your feedback! I'm glad that the scroll works for you. As for the "hide", I'd like to keep it there, just to give people the option, and it's not like it's taking up that much code. -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 15:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

More and more, I'm leaning toward moving the contents of "Q104" to it's own page, so it's easier to organize polls and so that we can have all the subsections here as sections and i can break up my section into subsections so it doesn't take five minutes to load the edit page every time I try to add a comment to my subsection around 6PM. Plans for major changes like monster templates are important enough to have their own page. Also, this section has reached 41kb, and every time you try editing the whole section, you get a warning message with a recommendation to make it it's own page.--Sozen Cratos Focker 22:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

agreed, moving completed topics to archive page. re:coding artifacts, feel free to remove them if you feel they are so redundant. The code is a bit of a headache at points. -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 23:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

In regard to icons, it may be useful to those who know what the icons are but those new to the game or new to the wiki, and that I have sent to the wiki to check monster info, have told me they don't like using the old template's table. One reason given (not the only reason lol), is because they find those icons useless. Skills that are used by monsters and players are easy to identify, although in most cases those players were not checking for these skills, they were looking for info they can't easily identify in-game. However, most monster specific skill icons are not used (or at least not seen) in-game and this information is what those players were looking for. But they have no idea what the icons mean, don't realise they can click on the icons for more info (considering that most other images go to an image file page) or that they can be moused over for a skill name. If having the skill names as words causes "info overload" then we better start using icons to replace all those words used for the locations, drops and the advice section for some monsters. The icons look pretty and a bit more tidy but they don't make it easier unless you use the monster tables constantly, are someone who regularly edits the monster data templates or have a really good memory (if you can be bothered to remember). --ZRoc (Talk) 23:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so you're basically saying that the skills that people most need to know about are opaque because the icons are made up. (ie. Advanced Heavy Stander) I can sympathize with that, and that actually is a very good argument for the non-icon version. My vote's on the iconless version, then.-- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, sum up my rant in less than half a sentence, see if I care... *has tantrum*... OK I feel better now,and yes that is what I was trying to say XD. --ZRoc (Talk) 07:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

When taking in information visually, simple pictures are generally quicker/easier than words. When humans(and i would assume most other animals, and other intelligent lifeforms) see something, the mind processes it mostly as a bunch of shapes. [the important/relevant(to determining which one it is) part of] a skill icon is generally a single group of shapes not much more complex than a letter in the roman alphabet(also known as the English alphabet). A word is a string of letters, and a skill name is 1~3 words long. A skill icon Is one pretty simple group of shapes whereas a written skill name can be several serieses(I'm not quite sure how to pluralize a word that's already the plural form of a word that i have never even heard being used.) of slightly simpler groups of shapes.
Wewt! shot down another of ZRock's not-so brilliant ideas. I originally wasn't doing that intentionally, but now that he talked about it on his userpage (stalking people ftw?), I'll do it recreationally on a regular basis, and keep score!! Muahahahaha!! JK. But seriously, I think that any argument that icons are hard for people to understand and memorize to be invalid, and as for newbies not realizing that they can mouseover/click, we can just add a note to the top of every monster page, and though I think we should have stricter and more specific standards for the fake skill icons, it's still easy to find out what they are.
That being said, I too vote for the text version.
Yes, that's right, all that ranting about why you're wrong, and at the end I still agree with you.
Well, I'm on the same side, but I think your reason for being on this side is meaningless, and therefore, you should go over to the other side for a bit while i try to convince you to come [back] to this side by shouting the following semi-argumentative rant:
I don't support the use of skill icons because i think it's inefficient; it requires every skill to have it's own piece of code in the template; that's 50 skills, (+ the icon for no skills) and counting, when most monsters only use ~5, and many of the skills are specific to one monster. The skills cell alone already takes up half of the source code for this very large and complex table, and if I were to add code to display skill ranks as tooltips, the length of that part of the template would increase 15x~40x(if counting by lines, not characters). Every time a new skill comes out, there arises a need to modify the template and crash the server. Another reason coding every skill into the template like this is a bad idea is that doing so makes impossible the already difficult task of adding other information, such as ranks, unused skills(taming abusers would want to know this), or things like what the crag cow's information says about intuition, without causing confusion.
P.S.:
@ZRock: The old template did not use icons, the current one does.
@LadyWriter:For AHS, the icon is not the only thing that's made up, the skill itself never existed...--Sozen Cratos Focker 11:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I wouldn't take your argument as winning. The specific audience I am thinking of is new/dumb users. The specific argument that has convinced me is that the icons are fake, and do not actually exist for our perusal in-game. Personally, frankly, I don't care if the style code itself is tedious, because users never see it. It's being coded once and then left alone. There's actually a line I want to add into the skill code that I'd discussed with ZRoc, about making all future monster templates with a skill= data point, so that the old monster data can be used at the same time that it's easier for new monster data to be added in.
Regarding AHS, it's still a descriptive element of the monster that is similar to a passive skill, so it counts for me. -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 14:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I never said it's tedious, I said it's inefficient. It's not "coded once and then left alone", it's coded once and then read hundreds of times by the server, with most of it resulting in nothing being displayed anyway. It's coded once, then read hundreds of time but only used once. It's not likely to cause problems, but it just annoys me that something like that is being done so much here.--Sozen Cratos Focker 01:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

hmm, well if it's that much strain on fearless leader's servers then, go ahead. XD Also, I still like the fact that there's separate places for ranged damage v. melee damage v. magic damage. What is your rationale for removing those cells? Or should the cells be merged? -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 18:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any intention of removing ranged or melee damage. Ranged and magic hits are what need to be removed. hit number is something that aplies only to regular melee combos(excluding ones made during final hit), as in, regular smashing without loading anything, and changes based on weapon used and/or race, so melee hits is a stat, but for any other attack, the number of hits is an aspect of the skill (there's no way to attack using magic or ranged without loading a skill) and is in no way effected by any stat. For monsters that use ranged attacks, we should probably list aim speed. Maggic dammage issomething that should probably be removed. For magic, damage depends mostly on the skill and any damage bonuses from int are minescule, so unless a monster's race directly boosts magic damage like wand and does it significantly, there's no need to list magic damage.--Sozen Cratos Focker 19:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

hmmmmm, good point about the ranged hits. I think magic damage should be placed there however, since not everyone knows what damage a skill of any particular rank is off the top of their head. Also, some monsters use multiple charges while others don't, which affects damage range. Succubus only uses one charge I think, but Shadow Wizards use multiple. -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 21:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

the damage range differences from multiple charges for Fire Bolt, Lightning Bolt, Ice Spear, and Thunder are also aspects of the skill, not any stats.
Not all monsters that use magic use only one spell, so it does not make sense to list the damage they end up doing since it varys with the spell used, it would only make sense to list how much extra damage they get, but I doubt anyone is willing to test for that(and I'm pretty sure it's not in the client files. Race.xml is the only monster file i know of that stores anything other than display information, and it doesn't say anything about stats like int/str/dex/will/damage.) To find out the skill's damage, they can click the link, and if i manage to get the tooltip idea working, i intend to have a quick summary of the important rank-dependent details of the skills (damage or damage% at that rank, range at that rank for wm/charge/fh, added def and prot for defense, etc.) in the tooltip.--Sozen Cratos Focker 22:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir. While it is true damage ranges differences for multiple charges are aspect of the skill, people don't know the numbers off the top of their heads and are usually unwilling to page away. Not everyone memorizes the magic skill pages, especially for all ranks F->1. And while monsters use different spells, the collective of these spells have a lower and a higher range; and what players generally end up doing in my experience is that they either tank the spells, or they prevent the monster from throwing one at them. The decision of whether to tank or to prevent is almost solely based on how strong the strongest spell is, because once you see it's casting motion you have to assume the strongest spell. Therefore, I believe that magic damage range entry is important, and while I can see the usefulness of having information about the skill ranks, believe that it doesn't negate the need for the magic damage cell in the table. -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 16:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, by reading all that's above and finding out that the current skill icons for monster skills have been created then i could see that having it be text would make more sense. though i still would like to have icons, keeping the wiki as official as possible is more important.--chrissy of hailfire 04:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to create a visually efficient wiki, we are supposed to supply info that all players can easily use, in particular those more likely to need the wiki, i.e., new players. Using an image someone doesn't understand is not helping. Info about using the icons would need to be added above each monster table so that it would be seen. This means your usually using as many words, if not more, to describe the icons as just listing the skills in words. Also, players who aren't so new to the game are checking the skills because they only come across a monster infrequently and don't remember what it uses. How do you expect them to remember the icon if they don't remember the skill? Pictures are never "worth a thousand words" (they can surprisingly supply very little or even very inaccurate info) and are mostly helpful in association with accurate text. --ZRoc (Talk) 11:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Update 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Have implemented the conditional scroll boxes originally designed by Sozen Cratos Focker for both Many Locations and Excessive Drops. Made the 'edit' links prettier, removed redundant information boxes and shifted aggro information up. Contemplating going straight to complete iconless version.

Also, does anyone know how to suppress the 'edit' link that appears at the side of every section? Right now it goes straight to editing the template, and with the upswing in vandalism I don't want the template so easily accessible as editing the monster templates at the wrong time can crash the wiki servers. -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 16:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe you can suppress an individual edit link for a section, at least I couldn't find any info about it (I think they're an integral part of the wiki software, so maybe ask IJ?). Have your monster style template restricted so only admins can edit it, when it's finished, as the existing monster style template is. You'll need to restrict it anyway, it will be on too many pages and having a well meaning user do a minor edit (let alone a vandal) will cause problems. The only other thing you can do is remove the section heading from the template and enter them manually on the page, then the edit link will go to the section on the page instead of the style template. This also means the section heading won't be restricted to a single type (yours is restricting all the monster tables to using section headings with 3 equals signs). The Shadow Monster style templates don't include the section heading in the template for the same reasons. It also means you can change the section heading name if you wish to use the monster template in a different type of page (other than a monster page), where the section heading may not require the monster's name which is in the first row of the table anyway. --ZRoc (Talk) 09:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

okay, a question, 'cause I had the thought, is it possible to have a section header appear in the TOC without having an 'edit' link show up? --ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 15:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know this only occurs if the template is restricted from being edited by normal users (i.e., restricted to only admins editing the template) and the section header is included in the template. The existing monster template does this, however it makes all section edit buttons disappear, even if the corresponding section headers actually exist on the page (i.e., aren't a part of the restricted template). The page for Kristell uses the existing monster style template in one of the hidden text boxes and as a result none of the other section headings have an edit button. Also, no monster page using the existing monster style template has edit buttons for any sections, even those sections that don't include that template. --ZRoc (Talk) 23:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

huh! ~goes to explore~ -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 02:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

okay, so if I'm understanding you right, once the admin makes the template protected, the (edit) link on the right will not appear even to editors? -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 02:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep XD. But note that doing this means that the only way to edit any section will be to use the edit tag on top of the page to edit the whole page. This might not be worth doing as it would make editing long pages quite difficult. If the section heading is removed from the template and entered manually then restricting the template wont hide all the section headings but the template wont be edited unless an admin agrees to do it. --ZRoc (Talk) 09:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

In the top row of the table created by your monster template, next to the monster name, you have (link) but won't this link to the monster table using that link, i.e., just link to itself? --ZRoc (Talk) 10:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

yup, exactly. Should I retitle it "link to here"? -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 15:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused XD. Why would you have a link in a monster table that links to that monster table? Click on it and you don't go anywhere or is it for something else? --ZRoc (Talk) 23:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

so that people can change the link at the top of the browser into the link for the anchor so that they know how to make direct links to that part of the page? o.0 -- ladywinter ~{talk page}~ 02:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

OK I see what you are doing. It's so they can copy/paste the part of the page address that has the section link in it, to make a link to the section heading of that monster. Uhmm, most if not all monster pages have redirect pages so that you can use just their names. For example, [[Horse#Bomb Steed]] and [[Bomb Steed]] do the same thing. The only time this doesn't work is where a pet has the same name, e.g., [[Horse#Unicorn]] goes to the monster but [[Unicorn]] goes to the pet. However, does it occur that much to require the link? Oh well, I'm not against it, it probably will help XD. Note, like animal NPCs which use "Animal Name (NPC)", pets that have the same name as a monster should really be using "Pet Name (Pet)". --ZRoc (Talk) 10:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If you use text instead of icons for skills by using a new skills= data point (you mentioned it above), it'll be a lot easier to input skill ranks. It seems redundant to have the skills in a "Skills" section and have a whole different section for "Skill Ranks" when they could be easily combined. Also I'm not sure how useful it is to have the "Magic Damage" section (I noticed Sozen talking about it up there). Since some monsters have multiple magic skills, which skill is this damage range going to be for? --- Angevon (Talk) 20:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

hmm. good point on the redundancy. x.x; Gah, I dunno now if I just like the magic damage section because it looks appropriate next to the melee and range sections. Come to think of it, do we even HAVE the magic damage data? x.x;; -- ladywinter ~{talk | contribs}~ 21:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ranged Attack data

Random thought: Would a monster's Ranged Attack's range and aim speed be useful to know?
If those were added to the table, it could be made even smaller!(read further if you want that to make sense)
There would be 3 ranged attack stats (dmg, range & aim) so the offensive stats portion of the table could be rearranged with all ranged stats in one row, and the whole row could be made conditional since either none or all of those stats apply for any one monster, and since most monsters don't use ranged attacks, this would usually shorten the table.
PS:I know a lot of my ideas don't seem doable to most people till I make a working example, but i don't have time right now because of finals.--Sozen Cratos Focker 07:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

All information is useful information, but whether that belongs in the main table, that's up in the air. I would encourage such information in the notes section, but I'm not sure that there's a place for it as general information as it's not a question that people usually ask. It's usually, "crap! archer! aiming in my direction, so it must be in range, so I have to play dead/get pet out/run/shoot magic/def/etc." Or at least that's how it is in my experience.-- ladywinter ~{talk | contribs}~ 02:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Update 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I got over myself and removed the magic damage entry, and added in an entry about Atk Range. I figure we can put a number, and since the box links to Distance, it'd give a good idea-ish of what's going on? Plus, maybe an idea of splash or something. Decided to make it all iconless to see how it looks, and it isn't as bulky as I was afraid of. Kinda unrelieved text tho. =\ -- ladywinter ~{talk | contribs}~ 23:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

very minor... mainly only noticed it after you put in glas. but the icons for the boss and for mainstream can be clicked. where the others for monsters can't --chrissy of hailfire 03:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

ah! fixed. -- ladywinter ~{talk | contribs}~ 03:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I kinda liked how the aggro data was under the skills in User:Ladywinter/sandbox2#No_Icons but after removing the magic hits and damage I see that you had two free boxes just perfect for the aggro info. Only thing I've noticed is that when you unhide the Notes/Advice, the Notes and Advice box is like a quarter inch shorter than the template (doesn't go all the way to the edge). It's just a minor cosmetic thing so it can be ignored if there is no easy fix. Also, I was wondering if we could use the word "None" when a monster has no element. The non-element icon () confused me to no end when I first saw it. Like... "darkness element? I thought that didn't exist!"lol. Maybe it's just me, though. --- Angevon (Talk) 14:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

re:notes/advice, d'oh! It's a formatting issue. x.x I'll go play with it.
re:element, you're not the only one, I'll implement changes. -- ladywinter ~{talk | contribs}~ 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Update 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Made non-element into text, fixes the drop-box spacing issue. Anything else?

Note: template will be implemented at 1am on a Monday, for least chance of server breakage. -- ladywinter ~{talk | contribs}~ 16:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Update 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: cosmetic color change test. To make the table more like that in the NPC articles.

Dunno if I like it though that may just be inertia. I like the font better tho. Opinions? -- ladywinter ~{talk | contribs}~ 02:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the blue, borderless monster table looks good if you want to use it but I like the old version with the borders as well (it's a little less bright and easier on the eyes if you get up in the morning after a "late" night XD). The font in the blue, borderless version isn't as wide (which makes it use less room) as the old version but you could use that font in the old version too. I'm a little more in favor of the old version but don't mind if you use the blue, borderless version (will just wear sunglasses when I get up in the morning XD). --ZRoc (Talk) 04:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Checked in Firefox, IE, Opera, Safari and Chrome (all on Windows XP OS): both versions of tables look about the same so none of those browsers seem to be having a problem with either version's code. --ZRoc (Talk) 05:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

excellent -- ladywinter ~{talk | contribs}~ 02:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Atk first is unclear when you use Aggressive/Passive. If you want to make it simple it should just be Yes or No.--Hengsheng120·^TALK_CONTRIBS 07:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Merely a suggestion, but why not use Aggression as the title and have Attacks First and Passive as the values? --ZRoc (Talk) 16:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

implemented -- ladywinter ~{talk | contribs}~ 02:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Right now I'm still leaning towards the Less Blue version because the blue version's white borders aren't as kind on the eyes. Whichever one you decide to use will be fine with me. But if we go blue maybe other tables ought to be changed to match it, too. Template:Pet, Template:MainStreamQuest, etc. Plus equipment pages use white/green for most of their tables and it would be a pain (understatement) to change all of them. Though, I guess we don't have to have all the tables look the same across the wiki. Anyway I'll support the new template either way and we can worry about other stuff later. --- Angevon (Talk) 03:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I'm leaning towards the Bluer version is because of the font, if I can reproduce that look with the Less Blue version without nerfing the borders, then I will. I don't mind the pet and mainstream templates? Space/info ratio is a concern for me with the monster template, in particular. I'll keep poking at it. -- ladywinter ~{talk | contribs}~ 15:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd use "Hostile" instead of "Hostile?", the question mark is a bit superfluous and the values work without it in the title. --ZRoc (Talk) 07:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC) We have an Aggro page, would it help to link the Aggro section's title to it? --ZRoc (Talk) 07:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried the question markless and it just looked odd to me, and doesn't make it clear enough imho. Linked to the Aggro page though. -- ladywinter ~{talk | contribs}~ 15:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not just the question mark, that title cell and it's value cell are superfluous. Linking the template to the Aggro page might confuse people since the way aggro is noted in the template has nothing in common with the notation described on that page.--Sozen Cratos Focker 04:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

either version is just fine to me. so it dosn't really matter much.--chrissy of hailfire 04:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)