Multiple changes needed:

Template leaves "gunk" around, unfortunately. An expert is needed to fix that.

Template designed for white skin wiki. An expert is needed to fix that.

Extra entries needed to be added: split night/day sight, bounties provided, etc.

Note: This template is not suited for heroes. (It doesn't deal with gaining levels, and it doesn't have Strength/Intelligence/Agility either.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

See also Template:WC3UnitBox/test also... --Sky (t · c · w) 00:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the background color issue and made it so the border changes color based on faction (assumes neutral/Neutral/N, alliance/Alliance/A, or horde/Horde/H) and sets color to yellow/blue/red respectively. I used a Dark Ranger neutral hero, just because I like that, but template still needs real hero support. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:41 PM PST 2 Apr 2009

Contents 1 New Parameters 2 Further modification 3 Image size 4 Appearance

New ParametersEdit

You were asking about some of the parameters. Feel free to change the terms:

"* unittype - For summoned units?"

There's already a "type" field, you can put summoned in there (along with things like mechanical, undead, etc). PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Further modificationEdit

I admit to creating the original travesty of code which this template is based on over on the SC wiki. We're in the process of discarding this version of the code for something cleaner. :)

You may be interested in w:c:starcraft:Template:ColorRace for a more automated way of choosing a colour based on faction/race/etc.. Essentially an argument is passed in and the template returns the associated colour value. Naturally, ColorRace can be used to modify the colours of multiple parts in another template.

You can see it in action with the newer cleaner code in w:c:starcraft:Template:UnitBox (feel free to lift it for your own use if you like it :) ) where the border colour abd the background colour of the headings are modified based on the unit's race.

You may consider expanding WC3UnitBox to encompass building statistics as well. Given the similarities in the stats used it may be easier to maintain one template for both.

If you think my poor skills can be of any further help, don't hesitate to poke. Cheers! - Meco (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Image size Edit

The imgsize and imgsize2 funtions can't be used. As I'm not an expert in templates, can someone help me out and correct them? Thanks in advance. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Appearance Edit

The look of this template disgusts me, it doesn't fit the wiki's style. I plan to make it look more like {{Npcbox}} if no one has any objections. The main change as far as information goes is only one image will be supported (really two images is just excessive for an infobox). Any other ideas are welcome. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!•C50,269 contributions and counting) 04:03, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

2 images are fine, imo. One for how the unit looks like in-game, and another one for the icon. Both are useful: one to recognize them in once they are built and the another one to build and select them.--Lon-ami (talk) 18:10, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lon-ami that two images are useful, however, a good solution would be putting one of the two images in the gallery section and leave the other in the template.

And I like your idea Pcj, this template really needs a style cleanup, but I couldn't make it because of my limited knowledge in templates. And if the only parameter that will be lost is the second image, I support your idea. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 21:31, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

If the problem of the images is the space, we could put them in the same row. We could put the icon inside the article text, too, instead of the template. As you see it.--Lon-ami (talk) 23:10, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

OK, I kept both images for now, check it out and let me know. --PcjWoWWiki admin (TDrop me a line!•C50,269 contributions and counting) 04:03, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

A really good work :). I think it's really good as it is now. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 05:24, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Great, love it. I think it needs a bit of polishing in some parts, but thats all. I'll elaborate on it later. Good work, Pcj ;).--Lon-ami (talk) 13:16, January 6, 2010 (UTC)