Prismata Wiki talk:Community portal

Victory Bond

Currently Victory Bond still shows up in the colorless section of the unit groups, but this is completely replaced by Auric Impulse. So we either need a way for obsolete units to not show up anymore in the unit list or to delete the data table of Victory Bond. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zhala (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

There is a way, but due to a bug in the Semantic MediaWiki extension, it's a little harder to do than it should be. The problem was that Victory Bond was redirected without removing the infobox first, and that's where the bug comes in. To get the properties to actually clear from a page, it is unfortunately necessary to blank the page, save it, and then edit it again to put the redirect in. They don't update during the save that turns a page into a redirect.

This was a special situation, though, because it was renamed. For units that are just removed from the game, the better option is to edit the infobox like this:

{{Unit infobox
  |available=no
}}

That will put it in a different category so it doesn't get pulled into the card tables. OOeyes (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Unit Tables

Unit table appears broken? I am uncertain how to resolve, but appears to be an issue with the template I think (??). Also, it seems everything has been changed to "basic" set to refer to ABCDEFGRSTW. In the client it's "Base" wanted to get feedback before I made any changes (I believe we should be using "Base Set" and remove all references to "Basic Set").--NNUMskull (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried to poke around but my wikicode is rusty and these templates aren't for the rusty. I thought it may have been an issue with categories being assigned to certain pages but revering certain changes doesn't fix it so I doubt it. Is anyone sure how long it's been broken for? I also agree with the "Base Set" change, just for clarity. --Sabre070 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume you refer to my messing around with the categories in {{Unit table by type}}{{Unit infobox}}. That's probably the problem. I don't see anywhere in {{Unit table by type}} that would be affected by that, but my wikicode isn't all that great, especially when we get into all sorts of mediawiki extensions I've never even seen before I got to this wiki (what even is {{#lstsep}}?). I did however notice you only waited about a couple minutes before reverting the changes you made in both cases - it took a pretty long time for everything to update when I made the change at first (which would explain me not noticing that the tables ended up broken). Reverting my edit should fix it, but I'll try the edit to {{Unit table by type}} first, although I'll leave it a bit longer before reverting. Pjoelj (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like that did the trick. I really should've watched a bit closer to see that stuff like that wouldn't happen. Lesson learned and wiki hopefully de-broken. Pjoelj (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks. I don't know how template stuff works and was just asking for help. Is anyone strongly opposed to changing references to "Basic Set" to "Base Set" to be consistent with the client? I'll probably make changes in the next couple days unless people are opposed/want to discuss.--NNUMskull (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sweet, thought it was. I assumed the fix would be near-instant so didn't wait that long (and I didn't want to revert changes and stuff when I'm not a huge wiki editor here. --Sabre070 (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Partially spoke too soon. Vel'Kar's units are listed in colorless. I don't think they were before but they should probably have their own section (especially since more PvE content is going to be coming in the future. --Sabre070 (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe they were like that before as well, but I can't say for sure. I still agree that they shouldn't show up there, though. I tried setting the units to not available in their infoboxes just now and it looks like it worked for Gunbot... But not for any of the other units. Pjoelj (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

After making changes like that to any of those templates, it's often necessary to resave the pages with the tables due to the wiki cache. And it's also a big reason why you need to be careful editing those templates. Some changes may require all unit pages to be resaved, especially any to {{Unit infobox}} itself or any of the properties or categories it relies on, unless you want a long time for the wiki to catch up. It really is probably best to ask me to make those changes because I can run a bot resave afterwards to force updates. OOeyes (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Unit types with energy

Does anyone else feel that Energy-Green, Energy-Blue, Energy-Red, Energy-Green-Blue, Energy-Green-Red, Energy-Blue-Red and Energy-Green-Blue-Red should be unit types? We already have Energy-Green and Energy-Red units (Trinity Drone and Ossified Drone), but {{Unit type index}} doesn't support those unit types, meaning {{Unit infobox}}, {{Unit panels by type}}, {{Unit table by type}} etc. can't deal with them. I don't think anyone want me to mess with the unit type index any time soon, what with the unit infobox situation. Pjoelj (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please. They've said that additional units will be added in the coming weeks/months. We don't have the details yet, but probably safe to assume those combinations will be used eventually and should plan for it so the new units can be added when the time comes. --NNUMskull (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I just followed the "categories" they had on this blog page. While there wouldn't be harm in adding energy-whatever to {{Unit type index}}, I think it's very premature to start expanding support for energy-whatever units in other places. Some of these unit types are already pretty short lists, and all the possible energy-whatever unit types just about doubles the number of types. In my opinion, this would subtract rather than add any organizational value until we start getting a lot of energy-whatever units. For now, it's probably just best to note that blue, green, etc. units may also have a cost in energy. OOeyes (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As another point, one advantage of the current types is that they reflect real thematic differences between the units, aside perhaps from Colorless and Energy. But Blue and Energy-Blue will probably share a metal-mechanized/armor theme, Green and Energy-Green will probably have the same high-tech energy theme, and Red and Energy-Red will probably have the same organic theme. OOeyes (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I would propose merging colourless and energy categories. Both of these are pretty small, and as a result remaining categories would be completely logical with no exceptions for coloured energy units. Energy page already lists all units requiring energy, which seems much more useful than a list of colourless energy units. MedarPrismata (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That I do agree with. But I'm going to hold off for a while since we don't have an obvious consensus yet on what to do with unit types. OOeyes (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Going last call on this. If there are no objections on this within a day or two, I'll merge Energy-type units into Colorless. (Meant to say this earlier, but due to events out of my control, I was unavailable this week.) OOeyes (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This should be done now. I have a bot resaving pages just in case, but I think everything is already caught up with the colorless-energy merge. OOeyes (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Unit page formatting (panels on top)

There was a growing trend of having panels on top. I rather like this as I think the page flows better so I went through and changed all the ones that still had panels on bottom this morning. The only downside is that it looks a little weird for units that produce other units (e.g. Endotherm Kit) as both the unit panel and the unit panel(s) for the unit(s) it produces are currently listed in the panel section. Maybe we should move the "produced units" panels to a separate section at the bottom for clarity and improved readability. Thoughts? --NNUMskull (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Usage of icons in articles?

I'm wondering if there's a standard we should adopt for using icons in articles, compared to words. For example, should we say that an Engineer costs 2 Gold, or costs 2 ? Furthermore, what about using multiple icons instead of # icon (Lucina Spinos costs 4 and provides 4, or costs and provides )? I tend to use icons in lieu of words, and #icon instead of multiple icons, but I've seen different formats on various articles. Thoughts? -LtGleepGloop (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I really do not like it when icons are used to replace words in complete sentences, it just makes them much harder to read. I think it's good to use them in addition to words in certain cases when giving exact numbers, for example: "Unit has lifespan of 4" instead of "Unit has of 4" or "Unit has 4". Complete unit costs I think should be given with icons, because it's even common to use similiar notation without icons (Centurion costs 18GGBBR). As for multiple icons vs. number + icon, I would try to use same logic as is used in game: Resources other than gold use multiple, as does attack, most other things don't. -MedarPrismata (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Standardization is always a good idea in my opinion. Makes it easier for both editors and readers. The following is what I tend to use:

For resources (including attack), I try to stick with what's used in game - non-gold resources use multiple icons up to 4, then use [icon][amount] for amounts of 5 or greater. I'd say any time resources are mentioned, the icon can be used (whether production or costs). I'd probably stick Health in this category too - both on fragile and non-fragile units.

For keywords without numbers, my favourite option is [icon][keyword] (for example Blocker).

For keywords with number, I'll stick with a similar approach: [icon][keyword] [amount] (for example Lifespan 4). Pjoelj 22:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)