Template talk:Skill

From TheKolWiki
Revision as of 06:28, 3 August 2006 by Phlip (Talk | contribs) (Skills IDs)

Jump to: navigation, search
  • Should Meat Cost be addded? Especially for the skills bought at the guilds. Else N/A could be put in the cost spot. --JRSiebz 16:18, 15 Jul 2005 (Central Daylight Time)
  • And don't skills all have pics, shown when skills are listed in your personal profile? --JRSiebz 16:21, 15 Jul 2005 (Central Daylight Time)
  • No, they don't. The effects they produce do have pictures, but the skills list in your profile does not have any pictures by them. Might be nice if it did, though. I think adding Meat Cost would be a good idea. -- Old Ned 19:09, 15 Jul 2005 (Central Daylight Time)
  • I think adding Meat Cost is a good idea; if you don't pay to get the skill, you could put N/A, or just 0. It would be used for guild skills, and the ones learnt at the The Gnomish Gnomads Camp. --Pcentella 07:19, 16 Jul 2005 (Central Daylight Time)
  • Well I just addded 'price', it only messes up 6 pages, which will be fixed, so it wasn't that big a deal. Yeah, only 6 skill pages out of the 75 or so used the template. --JRSiebz 13:57, 16 Jul 2005 (Central Daylight Time)
  • Should the category line be removed?--Dehstil (T | C) 17:52, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Skills IDs

Though all skills have IDs, the skills that are not ever on the profile page and end up being combat only (Magic Missle, Shake Hands, Moxious Maneuver, Spirit of X, etc.), do not have in-game description pages (but DO have IDs). --JRSiebz (|§|) 23:23, 2 August 2006 (CDT)

  • We could either conditionally remove the link or let people deal with "No skill found." Also, I noticed you added centering and did that thing like in {{item}}, but I still have rendering problems for msie as mentioned at Template talk:Item.--Dehstil (t|c) 23:30, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
    • "I noticed you added centering and did that thing like in {{item}}" -- I'm not sure I know what you're referring to. --JRSiebz (|§|) 23:49, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
    • Oh, it's either <div style="position:relative"><div style="text-align:right; position:absolute; top:0px; right:0px;>id stuff</div><center>title</center>content</div> like the item template or <div style="float:right;">id stuff</div>uncentered title + content like the outfit template. The former is slightly messed up in msie, at least my version.--Dehstil (t|c) 00:07, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
      • I changed the divs {{outfit}} to be like the other ones. Did this fix the problem? or am I still dense today? --JRSiebz (|§|) 00:21, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
      • No {{outfit}} was the one that was working fine; float:right is much cleaner than the other way. The double-div-position-absolute/relative is the one that gets messy and looks indecent in internet explorer, but is the only way I can think out that preserves the centering.--Dehstil (t|c) 00:26, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
      • We orginally floated right this kind of stuff but IE messed it up (collections were orig there... yeah yuk!). On IE, the float right would put the section on the right ok, but the regular page text wouldn't start on the page until past the floated right section, creating a large dead area in the top left and top middle of a page. What version of IE are you using, if i could reproduce the problem I could diagnose it better. On IE 6 somthing on XP it looks fine to me. I always check newly used formatting on IE, even though I use FF 99.99 percent of the time. The wiki already generates a bunch of divs and such when a page is rendered, so sometimes the simplist formatting doesn't work right when deeply nested. --JRSiebz (|§|) 00:37, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
      • Ok here's some tastey screenies. ie skill, ie outfit, ff skill, and ff outfit. float:right looks ok while the other type gets pressed against the side. It's...ok since I never really use IE either, but I'd rather see it fixed as it's not as prettified as I'd like.--Dehstil (t|c) 01:02, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
        • Hmm, I can't offhand think of any way to fix that that won't break it in Fx... since it is simply IE rendering it incorrectly... adding an extra padding, or shifting it across or something will also shift it across even further in Fx... actually, now that I think of it, would that be so bad? I'll give it a try. Phlip 01:26, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
        • Well, it definately looks better in IE now, but doesn't look too much worse in Fx... everyone satisfied? Phlip 01:28, 3 August 2006 (CDT)