Category talk:Skills

Haggle
Someone just moved the Haggle skill from active to passive. According to the beta KB: "Haggle must be activated for it to work.". Can someone check please? -- Tihocan 12:27, January 30, 2006 (PST)
 * The edit was by an anonymous user - change it back with a commented note (edit this page to see) to him, always give registered users the benefit of the doubt, but never give the same to anonymous users. Anonymous user 70.137.13.166, if your reading this, I suggest you register - we love ya anyway (-: --
 * Ok, I'll check it anyway once I get in game -- Tihocan 05:40, January 31, 2006 (PST)
 * My bad, registered now... haggle is passive though. Tarod
 * My bad, terod, and welcome to the wiki!

Categories
Well, you've kind of... got the idea... but you don't manually build a category list. If you add to the bottom of a page, then that article will automatically appear in the skills category; better yet, if you put  (please keep everything uncapitalized, like that, except for A) the first level of an entire name, and B) proper names like Acid Arrow or Dr. Bumblebee) on the passive skills pages and  on the pages of the active skills, then add the  tag to those two categories themselves, those categories become sub-categories of , or nested categories' as we call them. Technically, the entire site should be one big un-broken (but not necessarily linear) string of nested categories, and every page should be in at least one terminatory category (meaning it has no further connections or sub-categories). This is, obviouly, not always possible, but is good to adhere too. -- &#8465;ilver&#167;&#8465;ide 01:25, January 14, 2006 (PST)


 * Aaah, cool, thanks for the explanation! -- Tihocan 08:02, January 14, 2006 (PST)


 * NP - dang it, I love this job! lol -- 66.58.239.135 11:25, January 14, 2006 (PST)
 * P.S. Check it out now - and DANG I just made that entire set of edits without logging in ^^/ poop. -- &#8465;ilver&#167;&#8465;ide 11:40, January 14, 2006 (PST)


 * Yum yum! -- Tihocan 18:47, January 14, 2006 (PST)
 * By the way you're contradicting yourself: you've created Open_Lock and Use_Magical_Device (with all-caps) :P -- Tihocan 19:20, January 14, 2006 (PST)
 * Not like I meant to do so - I just applied the category and stub tags to the documents you had listed. lol -- &#8465;ilver&#167;&#8465;ide 23:59, January 14, 2006 (PST)

Hmm, should categories really be used this way? Why add categories that are organized the same way that you're hand-organized them yourself with added short descriptions next to them? Seems redundant... should add categories that group things that aren't already grouped that way normally..? --Uky 21:33, January 17, 2006 (PST)


 * I don't normally involve myself individually, but I couldn't pass this up - that's the point. Categories are here so that you don't have to hand-write and update the info. I had it all categorized, but I don't know who went and broke it, and added the list to the page itself, which is weird ^^/ -- &#8465;ilver&#167;&#8465;ide 22:29, January 17, 2006 (PST)
 * Well I agree categories are nice for grouping things together in ways you normally wouldn't (like all spells of a specific element), but unless there's some way to add a little description next to the entries, it's still not as good as a hand-written page. If a person who's never played D&D's looking into DDO and what skills do what.. he's not going to want to click on the link for every single skill. He wants a single page of short descriptions to browse through. So you'd still want at least one hand-written page in the most normal organization. My remark was just that why make categories for the basic stuff already hand-written (where it SHOULD be hand-written), seems redundant. Categories like putting UMD into "cat:skills/class skills/rogue" or anything else that doesn't already exist on the normal page... that I could understand.


 * Heh, I agree that it's very weird that this list is added directly to the page itself though.. oO --Uky 00:07, January 18, 2006 (PST)

Skill and Skills
What do people think of merging the Skill and Skills pages? It seems like it would make sense to me. Flendon 14:32, January 29, 2006 (PST)


 * The Skill page is the definition of a skill, while Skills is the list of all skills in the game. Right now, the definition page is quite basic, as I just wrote it in a hurry. But it could be expanded more. -- Tihocan 18:20, January 29, 2006 (PST)

Navigation
Given the Navigation box on the right that's part of the skin and always visible (of which the first link is the Home page), is there a need for the navigation section on this page? All the links listed are on the Home page. Dedridd 10:27, March 8, 2006 (EST)


 * I had just copied the main navigation from the front page and palced them in the root folder of each catagory so that a person would not have to abck track to see other areas. I go no further than the main catagoried that are listed and this would be very helpfull for many. Most my guild frequents this site and wondered why there werent any navigations so i only added a few where they agreed would be helpfull. As i know that to much is annoying Pepcfreak


 * Ok, minus the Home page link, I'm beginning to think this has some merit. But only if we standardize on it. It would probably confuse users to only have the navigation links on a few pages. What if we templatized for the grey box and the links like it is on the home page, and found a way to put it at the top of all the pages? What does everyone think about that? Useful, or annoying? I'm on the fence with this one, but it seems like it might help visitors who aren't hip to the search function. Dedridd 11:09, March 8, 2006 (EST)


 * I think the home link should remain. Although i do note it is on the right, when i first came here i was completely lost took me a bit to understand where to go. I dont think the navigation shouldn't reach any further than from root to one pages past. like >classes>cleric thats it. Pepcfreak 11:16, March 8, 2006 (EST)


 * I agree that having some standard navigation tab with links to the main interesting sections would be a good idea. Actually, this could be directly in a site navigation tab on the right. It could be separate from the more "editor-oriented" tab that is currently in place. Tihocan 11:47, March 8, 2006 (EST)

In addition I added the navigation to the following areas. "Classes, Races, Enhancements, Feats, Skills, Equipment, and Places." Within these i have only added the menu into subcatagories in the Classes and Races these are "Calsses: Barbarian, Bard, Ceric, Fighter, Paladin,Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wiz" "'Races: Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, Humans, and Warforged." The standard code i use is as follows and is an exact replica of that which is displayed on th home page.

Navigation

Home - Classes - Races - Enhancements - Feats - Skills - Equipment - Places

Please use this where you see fit and so that i matches the universal Navigation on all other created screens. Pepcfreak 11:54, March 8, 2006 (EST)


 * If this is going to be on multiple pages, it has to be in a template, so that if we decide we want to add a link to Widgets, all we have to do is modify the template instead of over a dozen pages. This would also make it easy to remove the navigation bar should Tihocan implement the tab idea. Dedridd 12:20, March 8, 2006 (EST)


 * That code is on the pages i listed. I will personaly remove all navigations i had implemented as soon as i am aware of the right navigation area. Though i still strongly suggest that along with the right navigation there should be an area at the top with the same navigational functionality. Please contact me on msn pepcfreak@hotmail.com. Pepcfreak 12:47, March 8, 2006 (EST)


 * Ok, I moved the code into a template, and used it on the pages linked to in the navigation (ie, Home, Classes, Races, Enhancements, Feats, Skills, Equipment, but not Places because of the way the browse page is laid out). I also updated some of the links, because some of them caused redirects to get to the final page. This caused some of the links to not turn into just bolded text when you went to that page, but now it works like you would expect a navigation bar to. Try out one of those pages to see what I mean. I left the Home link in the nav bar since you think it's needed, but moved it to the last link since I think the others are more important. How's that look? Note that if this looks acceptible to everyone for now, all the other pages with the nav code needs to be updated to use instead. We can tweak the code in one place if the look, layout, or content needs to change. Dedridd 12:54, March 8, 2006 (EST)


 * I would keep Home first. Having Home as first link is kind of standard in navigation bars. What would be best is actually a home link at the top left of every page, with some kind of logo, like what we had before changing skins. Tihocan 13:33, March 8, 2006 (EST)


 * Home's been moved to be the first link on the nav bar. 13:54, March 8, 2006 (EST)


 * ps - Tihocan, I know you mentioned something different with a nav tab someplace. I'm all for alternates, just let us know. This is just a consolidation effort for now. :) Dedridd 12:57, March 8, 2006 (EST)


 * Anything that makes the site better is welcome. The fact is I have the feeling that the navigation tab on the right is mostly unused, and probably will have to be reworked. Tihocan 13:33, March 8, 2006 (EST)


 * Dedridd i am working on the redirect of the places as i write this im cleaning it up and making it a bit more "clean" shall i say. So if you could please re-edit it to direct to Places for the time being as i will be finishing that up shortly. Pepcfreak 13:50, March 8, 2006 (EST)


 * Ok all, never noticed this - I swore to take a two day break from the wiki and my computer life - had 168 e-mails when I got back, this page's update was one of them. Anyway, tihocan, see your talk page - after some work to seperate the memcached's for the sites, you can work on the sidebar module on your own. For the rest of you, move this discussion to MediaWiki talk:Sidebar. Thanks.

Search and rolls
Is it true that search does not require any roll? Can someone give proof of it? Tihocan 09:52, March 10, 2006 (EST)


 * Its a silent roll. Your search skill check is whats used. If your skill check meets or beats that of the trap or hidden door (or any other manner these are also predetermined numbers) you will find it. Now there are 2 search checks when searching for traps. 1 is finding the trap the 2nd is locating the disable box. Pepcfreak 11:09, March 10, 2006 (EST)


 * So if I understand correctly, this means there is a (or even 2) roll(s), right? (I'm talking about the DDO implementation by the way, not the official PnP rules) Tihocan


 * They are just checks i did not mean to mislead you on the "silent rolls" No rolls at all. Its Spot Check verse: the following, Traps, doors, and Trap Disable boxes. No virtual dice are rolled. Pepcfreak 13:44, March 10, 2006 (EST)


 * Ok, this is weird though, why didn't they stick to the PnP rules? Also, do you have any source of information proving this fact? (not that I don't believe you, but before marking something as 100% sure, I'd rather be 100% sure). Tihocan 14:11, March 10, 2006 (EST)


 * I am not so sure that rolls arent made. I know I have recieved spot danger warnings on my rogue, while a ranger has not, but the ranger recieved spot dnager warnings when I did not.  We differend only py a point or 2 in spot.  -- koolkat 14:12, March 10, 2006 (EST)


 * I can verify. SEARCH has no roll.  If you have enough skill, you can find it.  They changed it (I presume because it made traps too tough to find and spring).  SPOT, however, has a silent roll. This I believe is Compendium information at this point.KakarisMaelstrom 17:25, April 27, 2006 (EDT)


 * So you mean Search used to have no roll, but now has one? Tihocan 11:07, April 28, 2006 (EDT)


 * Vice-versa. Search has NO roll.  At a point in the past there was a roll on Search (not anymore).  SPOT, however, does have a silent roll. KakarisMaelstrom 12:44, April 28, 2006 (EDT)

Yea, verified. no roll on search, removing from disputed facts category. Shade 07:45, September 6, 2011 (EDT)