Template talk:Named Weapon

Needs fixing on the blank variables for pictures, don't have privileges myself Neouni 15:03, March 9, 2011 (EST)
 * promoted you to be able to. --yoko5000 00:10, March 10, 2011 (EST)

Crafting
Can this be re-tweaked so that the "to" between the type of crafting and item is put back? (ie, "Epic Crafting to Epic Whatever" instead of just "Epic Crafting Epic Whatever") I looked at it, and said "... yeah, I'm gonna break something if I try to fix this..." -LrdSlvrhnd 01:31, April 17, 2011 (EDT)

Such low rez argh
Can we please modify this template and others to allow better sized pics? 180px/400px is just too small and ends up looking really blurry on high rez monitors with zoom/resize happenin when it really doesn't need to happen. I mean most of us run widescreens now, so theres tons of room for better pics in these template.

It's probably the main reason I dont do many item page edits.. They just look terrible and dont show me what I want to see easy, like the itemwiki does. In a perfect world: It should display the full item, and full descript pic, all on 1 page, and look nice and not resized. At the bare minimum, the descript size needs to go up to around 470 width, as thats what the actual size is if you do a perfect crop of the games infoboxes with borders.. Or 410px with borders cut. Prolly 410 since borders aren't needed, and jj's got them like that anyways, so we can be different.

Actually technical_13 your image popup would be really nice for the full weapon pic too. So we can have a decent sized preview, and full high rez on mouse over to not kill thoses with poor bandwidth.

Here's some quick n dirty paint edit screenshots of what im talking about:
 * How it looks now
 * How it could look better

--Shade 14:21, July 5, 2011 (EDT)

The picdesc images dont always display well, they tend to blur since the template is telling small pics even if its a a few px to re-size to 420px and it becomes noticeable unlike the pic images which has no text to distort. After some testing would suggest using thumb Bladedge 19:14, March 26, 2012 (EDT)


 * Resizing option: upright might be better than thumb (which you can't use in this template as it would be ugly) and would replace 420px with, "Resizes an image to fit within reasonable dimensions, according to user preferences (suitable for images whose height is larger than width)." I've not yet tested this option and discretion would have to be aired. ShoeMaker (Contributions &bull; Message) 20:23, March 26, 2012 (EDT)

Thumb won't have any effect on the poor image re-size algorithm the wiki uses. All it does is add a border around the image.

Yea ideally we simply don't re-size the images, but I don't know any way to do that.. Specifying no dimensions automatically re-sizes to 300px (if the image is larger then that, smaller pics are left alone) IIRC last i tested.. That seems to be the max, and well that looks like crap.

At least for us though, the simple solution is just to crop your pics to 420px as I do.. All of my recent uploads are like that, and they look fine, no resizing. See: Sword of Shadow and it's epic version I've just fixed.

It's pretty easy to do, it would not involve resizing for ANY users. As the game UI simply does not scale, all screenshots, not matter what rez you run the game at, picdescs are always 420px exactly (with wings clipped, border intact). If we get any that are a lot smaller or bigger, that means the user forcibly re-sized the image.

Maybe Xevo or Tech can figure out a way for us to be allowed to link up to 420px images without any automatic re-size, without specifying a px range.. So at least all pics up to 420px will look fine, (ones over will still be re-sized, but we can clean up manually at least).

Also read the update Naming policy as I've included some tips on how to get your images to look nice. Shade 21:09, March 26, 2012 (EDT)

Oversized handwrap generic pic
This may be related to "argh low rez" above, but the generic pic on handwrap pages (eg ) is comically oversized at 420px compared to the ~300px of normal generic pics. Can we maybe have a handwrap-specific check that fixes that? Cdr (Contributions • Message) 17:19, March 13, 2013 (EDT)

Tiefling Scoundrel
... should be added to Race options. Similarly T:Named Clothing, etc. Various items (e.g. I:Sureshot) currently say, which should be. &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 16:46, June 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * So I changed a bunch of critical templates quite a bit. Let me know it there's anything terribly wrong. -- &rArr; Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 03:51, June 23, 2019 (EDT)

Empty input to the new 'sentience' parameter
Hey Joenuts, I think there may be something weird happening with the new parameter 'sentience' when an empty input is applied. I noticed that the idea of computing it automatically based on the minimum level works flawlessly in your sandbox example. However, you can verify for instance in that sentience is being shown as 'No' despite the item being lv 29. Maybe there is some delay for the update to work properly on every weapon page? &rArr; MrLizard (Contribs • Message • Email ) 22:22, October 14, 2020 (EDT)

Copy that. It's still a work in progress. Weapons currently call the 'named items' template with a 'weapon' attribute, which then calls the Named Weapons template, so the value of sentience needs to be passed through both. I'm aware and still testing. Thanks for pointing it out. &rArr; Joenuts (Contribs • Message • Email ) 23:10, October 14, 2020 (EDT)


 * Why did you implement a "hack" in the Template:Named item instead of properly using  in Template:Named Weapon? &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 14:57, October 15, 2020 (EDT)


 * Without the "hack", the  expression in the Named Weapon template >>ALWAYS<< evaluates to false when Named Item is not called with the parameter defined. This is because if a page calls the Named Item template without defining the parameter, the Named Item template then calls Named Weapon with the same parameter, but this time passes in an empty string. Named Weapon template then sees a "defined" value of empty string, treats this as false, and assumes the page explicitly has defined the parameter as false. So all the logic of how to handle when the parameter was not defined is ignored.
 * If it's still unclear to you, let me know, I'll draft up a diagram of the code flow through the templates and how values are interpreted. &rArr; Joenuts (Contribs • Message • Email ) 18:35, October 15, 2020 (EDT)