Wowpedia

We have moved to Warcraft Wiki. Click here for information and the new URL.

READ MORE

Wowpedia
No edit summary
Line 20: Line 20:
   
 
::::On my browser the vertical extension isn't too bad. All the stuff on the left pushes the vertical page down pretty far for these short articles, and that footer doesn't add more than the categories box does. I don't maximize my browser window, I keep it about half the width of my monitor. It's at the bottom so it doesn't push important stuff down. The main reason I like the footer is it's easy browsing to the other class-related stuff, making the page able to "stand on its own" as I discussed earlier. Consider how a person arrives at an ability page - either by following links through the pages down to the "leaf" pages, or by using the search box to get right to it. For the link clickers, they can get back to more pages using the browser history, but a searcher needs some signposts. The footer style is consistent with other wikis too, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher] as an example (that ones much larger). We also have it all over wowwiki, see [[The Scarlet Monastery]]. An alternative is something like the "Part of a series on..." style like on this article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution] but that has a problem: we have an infobox on that side so it would push the page even longer. --[[User:Piumosso-Uldum|Piumosso-Uldum]] 19:42, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
 
::::On my browser the vertical extension isn't too bad. All the stuff on the left pushes the vertical page down pretty far for these short articles, and that footer doesn't add more than the categories box does. I don't maximize my browser window, I keep it about half the width of my monitor. It's at the bottom so it doesn't push important stuff down. The main reason I like the footer is it's easy browsing to the other class-related stuff, making the page able to "stand on its own" as I discussed earlier. Consider how a person arrives at an ability page - either by following links through the pages down to the "leaf" pages, or by using the search box to get right to it. For the link clickers, they can get back to more pages using the browser history, but a searcher needs some signposts. The footer style is consistent with other wikis too, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher] as an example (that ones much larger). We also have it all over wowwiki, see [[The Scarlet Monastery]]. An alternative is something like the "Part of a series on..." style like on this article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution] but that has a problem: we have an infobox on that side so it would push the page even longer. --[[User:Piumosso-Uldum|Piumosso-Uldum]] 19:42, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
  +
(unindenting) Which is exactly the problem. Atm, most of the abilities articles I've seen haven't been larger (taller) than the infobox (on my resolution... :x), which means the footer unnecessarily extends the article another inch or two. I'm not sure what browser you're using, but I'm using Firefox... If there were a way to make the footer float left, I would be happy.--{{User:Sky2042/Sig}} 19:56, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 23:56, 20 April 2007

What's in a good Ability Page

I like this new boilerplate over the old one. The info box cleans up a lot of the stuff that was just in bullet lists before. I think any page on a wiki should be able to stand on it's own, without the reader having to bounce around too many links to piece together the details. At the same time, too much redundancy can make it too long, or easily dated when little details change with patches. But these pages are usually short, so more details wouldn't hurt.

Separating "Tips" and "Tricks" seems unnecessary. The "Notes" section seems like a good place to list facts about the ability that would be too much detail for the intro. Notes is where you may list things like: this spell overrides this debuff, you can't use it in this situation, use this formula to calculate damage/mana/crit or whatever. Whereas Tips and Tricks sections are for player suggestions, like "this spell is good for killing Warlocks., here's how". I'd propose re-combining them.

The Notes section would be a good place to list known bugs.

"Past Changes" is straightforward.

I'd suggest including a short section on Talents (maybe a sub-section somewhere), where talents that affect the ability are described in a short bit of prose. The info box of course lists talents with links, but a short blurb wouldn't hurt to make the article more informative, and the link to the talent always has more detailed info. For example, in the Spell frost frostbolt02 [Frostbolt] article you'd mention "The Spell frost frostbolt [Piercing Ice] talent increases the damage of this spell by up to 6%" and so on.

I'll pick an article and work on it as a guinea pig this week. --Piumosso-Uldum 00:43, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll add a "Known bugs" section; I have that section header at Cold Snap (Mage talent) also. I'm not sure that "this spell is good for killing Warlocks" is a good idea; we have other pages for that. Duplicate info isn't cool. But I'll think on it. I'll also think about putting tips and tricks back together. /me goes off to ponder the mysteries of life. --User:Sky2042/Sig 01:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I worked on Spell frost glacier [Cone of Cold] a bit, it's a work in progress. I included a short section on talents. I'm not too happy with it as a sub-section where it is, I'm open to suggestion. Though I do feel it has a place in the article, as it is specifically addressing how the talent affects the ability. It's short, and not necessarily duplicate of the talent pages themselves (assuming they will exist of course, more to do!) since I'm keeping it in context. As for how to kill a warlock, it was just an random thought to illustrate my feeling that "player suggestions" should be kept in a different section than "known mechanics". Anything in the tips&tricks sections should be relevant to the ability, and written in that context. In the cone of cold case, I wouldn't go in to great depth on how to AOE farm ZG crocs with it, rather I'd leave that for a different article, and only mention cone of cold-specific mechanics. --Piumosso-Uldum 00:30, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Also, why don't you like the class footer? I always found it quite handy when bouncing around mage stuff --Piumosso-Uldum 00:31, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Why not? It lengthens the page vertically, quite unnecessarily imo. If some other way could be found to choose where we want it to float, I would like that very much. I like the idea of it, however, it is fairly unwieldy for articles. Rest of reply later, after I make Ability mage invisibility [Invisibility] into a mage only page, and make Invisibility (disambiguation) a proper disambig, etc.--User:Sky2042/Sig 18:15, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
On my browser the vertical extension isn't too bad. All the stuff on the left pushes the vertical page down pretty far for these short articles, and that footer doesn't add more than the categories box does. I don't maximize my browser window, I keep it about half the width of my monitor. It's at the bottom so it doesn't push important stuff down. The main reason I like the footer is it's easy browsing to the other class-related stuff, making the page able to "stand on its own" as I discussed earlier. Consider how a person arrives at an ability page - either by following links through the pages down to the "leaf" pages, or by using the search box to get right to it. For the link clickers, they can get back to more pages using the browser history, but a searcher needs some signposts. The footer style is consistent with other wikis too, see [1] as an example (that ones much larger). We also have it all over wowwiki, see The Scarlet Monastery. An alternative is something like the "Part of a series on..." style like on this article [2] but that has a problem: we have an infobox on that side so it would push the page even longer. --Piumosso-Uldum 19:42, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

(unindenting) Which is exactly the problem. Atm, most of the abilities articles I've seen haven't been larger (taller) than the infobox (on my resolution... :x), which means the footer unnecessarily extends the article another inch or two. I'm not sure what browser you're using, but I'm using Firefox... If there were a way to make the footer float left, I would be happy.--User:Sky2042/Sig 19:56, 20 April 2007 (EDT)