Talk:Priest spells

Spell Table Layout Questions

I'm not sure where to have this discussion, but is there a reason we repeat the school for each ability/spell? Is there a case where that changes? I'm wondering if that isn't wasted table space that could be better spent on the often-too-long descriptions, and moved into the header with the icon or into the Overview (ie. it could be made the style to always say 'Such and such is a [school] spell/ability for doing XXX').

On a related note, there doesn't seem to be an obvious way on the Spell page to indicate that a spell or ability is a talent. I'm thinking that would be handy to know, since a neophyte could look at the spell listing and not realize that pair of uber abilities they like so much are actually mutually exclusive (thanks to a derth of talent points). I'm not necessarily suggesting a whole column, but maybe some simple icon that would indicate it's a talent? Maybe it even links to a talent discussion, or a talent listing (are they any plans for a talent listing, in the same vein as abilities & spells?)

Lastly, and much more specifically, I'd like to say that I have no idea if [Resurrection] should be classified a Utility, Cure or Healing spell (currently I've got it in 'Cures', since it 'cures death', but that might be weak) or if [Dispel Magic] should be a Utility or a Cures (currently under utility because it also has offensive potential...but Utility seems wrong somehow. Miscellaneous?)

Anyways, just getting the ball rolling here.

--En Sabah Nur 15:58, 21 Jan 2005 (EST)

Spell/Ability Table Styles

Thought of something else: the style of table on the ability & spells pages, should they be alternating row colours like on the main spell page, or all one colour as most of them do now? [Elune's Grace] & [Starshards] have a (I think) a more consistent look to them, consistent with the ability TOC page I mean. Should the other pages be converted to match those two, or should those two be converted to match the others (ie. no alternating row colours, no different title row colour)?

--En Sabah Nur 16:38, 21 Jan 2005 (EST)

Further Details

I just noticed that Starshards uses GenericRowX & GenericHeader instead of manually defining the tables. While this is a really, really nice idea (especially since it means the look & feel of the tables can be modified using CSS), it seems to require that a fixed number of columns be used.

The problem with this approach is that not all spells use the same set of columns. [Desperate Prayer] is a good example. Unlike other spells, it costs no mana, and has no casting time. So those two columns might as well be dropped. Unfortunately, doing that causes a wierd column titled simply {{}} to show up at the end.

Similarly, there will be spells that require a 'Casting Time' column. This is important if there is a deviation in the casting time of the spells. Good examples are [Fireball] and [Heal]. Both spells have casting times that ramp up as the ranks go up and it's important that this be displayed in the table. Unfortunately, if you go beyond 6 columns, the later columsnns are simply dropped! So if you wanted, say: Rank, Level, Description, Casting Time, Mana Cost & Cost, the last one, Cost, would be dropped :(

Is there a more flexible way to use this GenericHeader/Row thing? Other than this problem, I love it!

Heh. It's a little earlier to think this maybe, but at the moment it looks like I'm having a great talk with myself. If talking to yourself is a sign of craziness, what does it mean when you carry on a forum discussion with yourself? *shudder*

--En Sabah Nur 17:06, 21 Jan 2005 (EST)

Unfortunately no, you can't leave an argument out of a row template.

-- AlexanderYoshi 20:39, 21 Jan 2005 (EST)

Decisions, Decisions

Does this mean we're not using the generic templates? Maybe we can come up with two or three, hell, just have the basic one be X number or columns, and add GenericHeader_XColumns with GenericRow1_XColumns. It's a little clumsy, but at least it works and extends the same idea.

Or, failing that, why not try to come up with two or three templates for the kinds of spells? Like GenericInstantCastHeader, or GenericSpellHeader (instead of just GenericHeader). Heck, I don't know, I'm just throwing out ideas :P Anything that doesn't fall into whatever's come up with can be done by hand, under the assumption that those spells that don't fit will be the minority.

Or...we can do it all by hand. I just want to know what the detail pages should look like =) Right now they aren't uniform, and they should be :P I'm happy to spend the time converting to either, I just need a direction from El Capitan (whoever that is)!

--En Sabah Nur 22:50, 23 Jan 2005 (EST)

Last Thing, I Promise

Three other ideas while I'm thinking of them.

First, how about a Talent Spells section like we've got with Racial Spells? It could be a straight list just like in the Racial & general Spells listing. Then they could appear below in their proper type like other spells. Good idea?

Second, since we seem to be going with a set entry style for the main page, is there any reason we can't have a GenericSummaryHeader & GenericSummaryRow1/2 set of templates? It looks like we'll be doing this a lot for the classes, might as well make it as easy as possible!

Lastly, the group organization looks wrong. Shouldn't Racial Spells & Spell By Type (and, perhaps, Talent Spells) all be sub-sections of Spells? It looks really odd to have Spell By Type be a sub-section of Racial Spells!

Sorry to be a PITA about this, I'm just not sure how much I should muck with things (and I don't even know how to create a template) and I don't want to overstep any bounds.

--En Sabah Nur 23:00, 23 Jan 2005 (EST)