Template talk:Infobox-spell

categories
Shouldn't SLAs belong to category SLAs, rather than All spells? Or are you still working on it? -- &rArr; Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 01:50, July 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * Probably. I haven't fully thought this through. I imagine there will be logic that applies to spells and other logic that applies to SLAs, where hybrids like Nimbus of Light use both. &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 13:12, July 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * I'm looking at this. There are differences between the C:Spells and C:SLAs trees that don't seem to make sense, presumably because they were developed at different times. For instance, C:Spells has a subclass C:All spells with no SLA counterpart. Also, the class C:Offensive spells corresponds to two SLA classes, C:Single Target SLAs and C:AoE SLAs. This would seem a convenient time to reconcile the two trees. To spark discussion, I propose:
 * Rename C:Spells to C:Spellcasting.
 * Rename C:All spells to C:Spells.
 * Move all spell categories (C:Artificer spells, C:Buff spells, etc.) under the new C:Spells.
 * Merge C:Spell like abilities and C:SLAs into renamed C:Spell-like abilities.
 * Rename C:Single Target SLAs to C:Single target SLAs and C:AoE SLAs to C:Area of effect SLAs.
 * Split C:Offensive spells into C:Single target spells and C:Area of effect spells (or add as subcategories).
 * Move all subcategories of C:Spell schools to a new subcategory C:Spells by school under C:Spells, and create a corresponding C:SLAs by school.
 * Rename C:Spell descriptors to C:Spells by descriptor and create a corresponding C:SLAs by descriptor.
 * Thoughts? &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 16:03, July 21, 2019 (EDT)
 * Probably a good idea! Probably involves some work editing pages to new categories. That's what I am worried most, I am lazy. --Cru121
 * That's what makes this a convenient opportunity. All or nearly all of the categorization could be performed by Spell. Only the category tree would need to be built by hand, and that shouldn't be too arduous. (I plan to do it, so you can still be lazy. ;) &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 16:57, July 22, 2019 (EDT)


 * A lot of those renames don't make sense. Instead I'd merge  &  into .  Class/type spells should be in subcategories of,  etc which in turn should be subcategories of .  I'm okay with #4 as long as there are proper Redirect categorys in place for the categories you're deprecating.  If you're going to rename  into , then  and  should use the full verbiage as well and be  and  respectively.  I'm okay with splitting #6 as proposed into subcategories of the parent, which should in turn be a subcategory of . I'm also good with #7 except the corresponding category should be in line with everything else and be .  Same with #8 creating . Again, please make proper Redirect categorys in place for the categories you're deprecating/renaming as they're obviously valid search terms since they've been used as the names for years.  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 12:00, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Thanks for the feedback.
 * Yes, I took it as a given that Redirect categorys would be used appropriately. I'm all for not breaking things.
 * I was originally going to suggest merging &, but then I realized they serve distinct purposes: All of the pages below  are individual spells, while pages below  can be things like Spell Power or Transmutation, which apply to both spells and SLAs. Hence the suggestion to make the top category more generic, with subcategories specific to spells and SLAs, respectively.
 * I wanted to rename to  for clarity, figuring the acronym in the subcategories would then be obvious; following the principle in formal writing that you define an acronym the first time it is used (only). Spelling it out in all the subcategories would seem unwieldy. Given a choice between all acronyms or all spelled-out, I'd go with all acronyms. &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 16:57, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * So I reviewed the existing categories briefly and it seems that we could indeed use if the existing C:Spells was cleaned up a bit. A new higher level category, for example C:Spellcasting does make sense. All stuff about spell casting mechanics could be moved there. This would allow us get rid of C:All spells and list the spells in C:Spells. One speculative suggestion: Should we move C:Epic spells under C:Spells by class? Or to C:spells directly? -- &rArr; Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 04:16, July 24, 2019 (EDT)
 * No strong opinion. Are there other contexts in which "Epic" is considered a class? &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 13:51, July 24, 2019 (EDT)
 * Individual spells shouldn't be in (or ) if we're breaking them up "by class", "by school", "by level" - they should only be listed in the appropriate sub-categories and the sub-categories should be listed in the parent .  This eliminates the need for  and a new .  We can create DPL pulls for each "by thing" sub-category to create lists in them (and be transcluded in the correct class/school pages) and then, if desired, we can create a DPL pull to list all of the known spells with sorting for class/level/school/etc. &rArr; DDOstream (Contribs • Message • Email ) 10:00, July 24, 2019 (EDT)
 * Thanks for the ideas. I'll move forward as discussed, and try my hand at DPL. We can always revisit. &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 13:51, July 24, 2019 (EDT)

grantedby
Could we add a granted slot like Template:SLA? That would better accommodate spells that are also SLAs, e.g., Nimbus of Light. Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 09:12, February 21, 2017 (EST)
 * If we're going to do that, what's the point of having two separate templates. I'd say merge them together into a single template. DDOstream (Contribs • Message • Email ) 10:10, February 21, 2017 (EST)
 * No argument here. Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 15:56, May 5, 2017 (EDT)
 * &rArr; DDOstream (Contribs • Message • Email ) 09:47, July 17, 2019 (EDT)
 * Look at the reasons why someone created the new template 7 years ago: I've seen some spell-like abilities using the spell description template. It seems to work well at first glance, but it auto-categorizes in several ways that it shouldn't, and a number of fields don't apply to SLA's to begin with. If anyone embarks on the merging project, make sure this is solved. Thanks. (Personally I think this smells like work.) -- &rArr; Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 15:39, July 17, 2019 (EDT)
 * That was 7 years ago, perhaps things have changed. We certainly have more editing freedom with the MW core updates and new extensions than we had back then. We can dig into it deeper. &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 16:48, July 17, 2019 (EDT)
 * Cru121 where did you find that comment? Are there any more specifics, particularly on miscategorization? I eyeballed the source, and nothing jumped out at me.
 * "a number of fields don't apply to SLA's to begin with" - doesn't bother me. Templates often use fields that are only relevant in some cases.
 * I'm inclined to take a stab at it in T:Spelldescription/sandbox. ShoeMaker any particular updates/extensions you have in mind? &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 10:14, July 19, 2019 (EDT)
 * Go ahead and start working it up in the sandbox (maybe even a fresh sandbox like Infobox-spell/sandbox (see renaming discussion below), also use Template testcase TOC and corresponding sub-pages). I was thinking about how we now have DPL, LST, and an improved MW:core for having better control of what is transcluded where (using existing templates as examples where things are categorized one way with these flags and an entirely different way with those flags). &rArr; DDOstream (Contribs • Message • Email ) 10:26, July 24, 2019 (EDT)
 * I'm trying to wrap my head around Template testcase TOC and failing. Here's my list of test cases. &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 15:46, July 24, 2019 (EDT)

Naming
While we're making changes, should we rename it to titlecase, T:SpellDescription? &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email )
 * No. If we're going to rename it, it should follow the naming convention for everything else.  The reason I haven't gone through and fixed all of these old template names is there is a LOT of work involved in going through all of the transclusions and updating the name AND it tends to break "historical" versions of the page.  So, if we're going to do a rename (which I'm ALL for if there is an agreement on it), then I want to make sure it's right the first time, so we don't have to do it again.  Proper renaming for this would probably be Infobox-spell (and all of our other infoboxes like MissionInfoBox (which should be Infobox-quest), Monster (which already has a Infobox-monster redirect), and any other such things I can't think of at the moment).
 * I didn't know we had such a convention, but I'm happy to abide by it. I don't volunteer to rename all the legacy templates, however. &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 13:06, July 24, 2019 (EDT)

Granted spells
Should maybe be allowed for spells. For example, Heal is a bard spell granted by Spellsinger capstone. Or Warlock pacts, etc. What do you think? -- &rArr; Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 01:52, July 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * Bother, that's a category I hadn't considered - non-SLA granted spells. Added to my todo list, thanks. &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 13:03, July 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * The way I have it set up now, any of the spell level parameters (artificer, etc.) indicates a spell, while the sla parameter (or granted for backward compatibility) indicates an SLA. A hybrid like Nimbus of Light has both. It seems we'll need another parameter that indicates a spell gained through non-traditional means, perhaps granted spell? &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 13:28, July 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * Ack, it's worse than that. For perfect elegance, we'd need a way to specify that Heal is a level 6 Bard spell attainable only through the enhancement. I'm open to ideas. (Note that this capacity doesn't exist in the legacy templates.)
 * Or we could settle for "good enough" instead of perfect elegance. &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 13:38, July 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * I implemented a "good enough" solution using the granted spell parameter. Thoughts? &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 14:02, July 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * The parameter is now called special. It's rather generic, but easier to remember and use, I think. The Heal spell shows how this works. I'd welcome feedback. &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 09:23, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Good enough imho. --Cru121
 * &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 16:59, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * Should probably be reworked at some time for 100% accuracy, but good enough is fine for now to reduce burn-out on a specific thing. &rArr; DDOstream (Contribs • Message • Email ) 10:26, July 24, 2019 (EDT)

epic
T:Spelldescription has an epic parameter, but I haven't found any pages that use it. I'm unclear how it should figure in. &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 13:16, July 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * I might have hacked that one in. Kinda redundant with granted by i guess. It's iirc used eg Burst of Glacial Wrath here.-- &rArr; Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 14:32, July 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * Thanks, that explains it. I see why you would have wanted that, given that granted wasn't available.
 * Burst of Glacial Wrath raises another sticky problem. I had kinda hoped that Spell would supersede Feat for spell/SLA feats. Obviously, that won't work when the feat also has a passive component. However, we don't want to duplicate information, either. I'll come back to this. &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 15:29, July 20, 2019 (EDT)
 * I think I found a reasonable solution, demonstrated in Burst of Glacial Wrath. Fields in Feat that are redundant with fields in Spell would remain for backward-compatibility, but considered deprecated (and probably removed from the USAGE doc).

NOEDITSECTION
Indeed, I was looking for a way to do that, thanks. &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 10:17, July 22, 2019 (EDT)

Mechanics
There seem to be inconsistencies in how various terms are interpreted. For example, SLA and the current iteration of Spell interpret a Target of Foe to mean an individual, and a Target of AoE to mean an area. However, in-game Foe indicates only the type of target, not the cardinality; so that Iceberg, Scorching Ray and Fireball all have a Foe target. Scorching Ray and Fireball both have Directional, so that does not distinguish, either. Indeed, in-game mechanics do not appear to offer any reliable means to distinguish individual from AoE. (Oddly, Mass Suggestion has a Target of Foe, Positional, while Mass Charm Monster has only Foe.) Apparently, the heuristic implemented in SLA and mimicked in Spell is misguided.

We must instead rely on features beyond what are offered in-game. Spell suggests Range and Area, which seem promising. However, the explanations are imprecise, apparently having accrued incrementally over the years. For instance, what is the Range of Cone of Cold, which is anchored at the caster, but extends outwards in a cone? Is it Personal or Standard? Furthermore, only Range is implemented in Spelldescription and SLA, leaving the question of individual vs. AoE unresolved.

A solution would be to refine the definitions of Range and Area, and then implement these definitions in Spell, adding the missing Area field. I will pursue this further in Talk:Spell (later). &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 22:25, July 22, 2019 (EDT)
 * This is DDO, there are inconsistencies and exceptions to unspoken rules everywhere. One option would be to faithfully copy in-game terms and parameters, and in a free description, describe what the spell actually does. If the game does not tell us exact value of a parameter, then we'd have to guess, different editors would use different metrics, etc. DnD terminology is confusing for many, probably even devs. -- &rArr; Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 02:17, July 23, 2019 (EDT)
 * Understood. I don't always have to be OCD. :) After I wrote the above comment, I realized I could simply get rid of the individual/AoE distinction in the template -- like Spelldescription does now -- and not worry about it. Lazy is good. :) &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 10:38, July 23, 2019 (EDT)


 * What are we trying to accomplish by making the distinction? A useful list of single target vs area of effect spells?  Certain categorization for a specific purpose? Something else? &rArr; DDOstream (Contribs • Message • Email ) 11:41, July 24, 2019 (EDT)
 * I have no specific purpose for the individual/AoE distinction; hence my willingness to drop it. It looks like U:Technical 13 initiated the distinction on February 11, 2013. &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 13:01, July 24, 2019 (EDT)
 * I see no introduction there, just typo fixes and convention fixes, and mechanical template fixes for the template creator. I think having a category or list of single target vs. AoE spells would be useful to our readers, and I'd be happy to help someone else make one if they wanted with little to no interest in doing it on my own. &rArr; DDOstream (Contribs • Message • Email ) 11:18, July 31, 2019 (EDT)

Ready to merge
I've tested what I believe to be a representative set of test cases, and am satisfied with the results. I would invite others to run their own tests. Once all are in agreement, I'd appreciate it if someone would run a bot to replace all calls to Spelldescription and SLA with calls to Infobox-spell. We can also redirect those templates, but redirected calls won't show up in DPL, e.g. All SLAs/sandbox. Many pages will merit revisiting, but they shouldn't be any worse off than they are now. &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 14:50, July 27, 2019 (EDT)
 * Are you using LIVE pages as testcases?  Please tell me it isn't so...    I really need to put together a video on just "How to sandbox a template and create testcases"... &rArr; DDOstream (Contribs • Message • Email ) 11:30, July 31, 2019 (EDT)
 * I wouldn't think of it! In fact, I didn't think of it. I suppose I didn't consider the risk of catastrophic failure to be particularly high. I have been sure to test each feature thoroughly in sandbox before promoting it to Main. (Hmm... would it be convenient for Sandbox: to be an actual distinct namespace?) Anyway, I promise to be more disciplined on my next effort.
 * P.S. I wouldn't take the time to watch a video. Now, if you had written guidelines... &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 13:51, August 6, 2019 (EDT)

Undercategorization
Note that a spell/SLA page that doesn't trigger any of the Spells by X or SLAs by X categories will not receive any related category at all. This can happen, e.g., if the granted field of an SLA has a value that does not name a race or class, such as Henshin Mystic or Exalted Angel. This, I imagine, is why a previous author assigned all spells directly to C:All spells. I'm open to suggestions. &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 14:50, July 27, 2019 (EDT)
 * The common/best way to resolve that is if there should be a "by X" designation and there isn't to have it auto-apply  where X is school, type, etc and then put the "with unknown X" categories in the proper parent categories (and include in the appropriate "needs work" maintenance categories). &rArr; DDOstream (Contribs • Message • Email ) 11:30, July 31, 2019 (EDT)
 * I've implemented a bunch of categories along the lines of C:Spells with unknown school. This, indeed, makes it far less likely for a page to slip through the cracks. Thanks for the suggestion.
 * I also discovered you can define All spells based on template use rather than category. This mitigates the risk of undercategorization, and also eliminates one motivation to make C:Spells contain only spell pages. &rArr; Hoopy Froodle (Contribs • Message • Email ) 13:51, August 6, 2019 (EDT)

Should we add Max Caster Level
There are a lot of spells that use Max Caster level - it would be nice to have this on the infobox and also have links to spells by MaxCL etc. &rArr; Christopher G Lewis (Contribs • Message • Email ) 12:57, October 14, 2020 (EDT)