Talk:NPC Template - Revision history

imported>Tlosk: /* 2009 redesign */

2009-03-04T22:43:29Z

2009 redesign

← Older revision	Revision as of 22:43, 4 March 2009
(No difference)

imported>Tlosk: /* 2009 redesign */

2009-03-04T22:43:29Z

2009 redesign

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:43, 4 March 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== 2009 redesign ==		== 2009 redesign ==
	* [[Test NPC - Vendor]]
	* [[Test NPC - Quest]]
	* [[Test NPC - Crafter]]

	{{Post		{{Post
	\| Indent = :		\| Indent = :

imported>Tlosk at 16:44, 23 February 2009

2009-02-23T16:44:20Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 16:44, 23 February 2009
(No difference)

imported>Tlosk at 16:44, 23 February 2009

2009-02-23T16:44:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:44, 23 February 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== 2009 redesign ==		== 2009 redesign ==
	* [[Test NPC - Vendor]]		* [[Test NPC - Vendor]]
	* [[Test NPC - Quest/Crafter]]		* [[Test NPC - Quest]]
			* [[Test NPC - Crafter]]

	{{Post		{{Post

imported>Atarax: /* 2009 redesign */

2009-02-13T18:46:42Z

2009 redesign

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:46, 13 February 2009
(No difference)

imported>Atarax: /* 2009 redesign */

2009-02-13T18:46:42Z

2009 redesign

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:46, 13 February 2009
Line 59:		Line 59:
	\| Text = Yeah, I guess it wouldn't hurt putting location in the summary table. Except, if we are going to give each instance of generic NPCs a page, the name of the page will already have the location, like '''Peddler (43.1N, 53.4E)''' or '''Archmage (Hebian-To Sewers)'''. But this is really just a minor redundancy. Including location in the summary block will be fine for named npcs though, which greatly outnumber generic ones.<br><br>I was also thinking maybe for vendor NPCs, we could place buy/sell rates in the summary table.<br><br>I've added links at the top of this discussion section that we can use to create test templates for vendor and quest/craft NPCs.		\| Text = Yeah, I guess it wouldn't hurt putting location in the summary table. Except, if we are going to give each instance of generic NPCs a page, the name of the page will already have the location, like '''Peddler (43.1N, 53.4E)''' or '''Archmage (Hebian-To Sewers)'''. But this is really just a minor redundancy. Including location in the summary block will be fine for named npcs though, which greatly outnumber generic ones.<br><br>I was also thinking maybe for vendor NPCs, we could place buy/sell rates in the summary table.<br><br>I've added links at the top of this discussion section that we can use to create test templates for vendor and quest/craft NPCs.
	--[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 12:42, 13 February 2009 (CST)		--[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 12:42, 13 February 2009 (CST)
			}}
			{{Post
			\| Indent = ::::::::::
			\| To = An Adventurer
			\| Text = Yea, I agree, putting the buy/sell rates would be cool, as well as the currency the accept. The "Inventory" has to be completely redone anyway, so perhaps we could include some sort of secondary header, like a vendor intro template, that could sit above the inventory block which would describe all the specifics to buying/selling with this vendor? --[[User:Atarax\|Atarax]] 12:46, 13 February 2009 (CST)
	}}		}}
	----		----

imported>An Adventurer at 18:42, 13 February 2009

2009-02-13T18:42:50Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:42, 13 February 2009
(No difference)

imported>An Adventurer at 18:42, 13 February 2009

2009-02-13T18:42:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:42, 13 February 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== 2009 redesign ==		== 2009 redesign ==
			* [[Test NPC - Vendor]]
			* [[Test NPC - Quest/Crafter]]

	{{Post		{{Post
	\| Indent = :		\| Indent = :
Line 51:		Line 54:
	\| Text = You have a good point there. And if we do create individual records for each NPC, regardless of if they have the same name, then putting the location in the block would work better. --[[User:Atarax\|Atarax]] 12:21, 13 February 2009 (CST)		\| Text = You have a good point there. And if we do create individual records for each NPC, regardless of if they have the same name, then putting the location in the block would work better. --[[User:Atarax\|Atarax]] 12:21, 13 February 2009 (CST)
	}}		}}
			{{Post
			\| Indent = :::::::::
			\| To = Atarax
			\| Text = Yeah, I guess it wouldn't hurt putting location in the summary table. Except, if we are going to give each instance of generic NPCs a page, the name of the page will already have the location, like '''Peddler (43.1N, 53.4E)''' or '''Archmage (Hebian-To Sewers)'''. But this is really just a minor redundancy. Including location in the summary block will be fine for named npcs though, which greatly outnumber generic ones.<br><br>I was also thinking maybe for vendor NPCs, we could place buy/sell rates in the summary table.<br><br>I've added links at the top of this discussion section that we can use to create test templates for vendor and quest/craft NPCs.
			--[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 12:42, 13 February 2009 (CST)
			}}
	----		----

imported>Atarax: /* 2009 redesign */

2009-02-13T18:21:40Z

2009 redesign

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:21, 13 February 2009
(No difference)

imported>Atarax: /* 2009 redesign */

2009-02-13T18:21:40Z

2009 redesign

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 13 February 2009
Line 46:		Line 46:
	\| Text = I'm fine with moving location to notes - but this template will still not work for generic NPCs since their gender/heritage vary. Also, I was under the impression that instead of doing a single listing for generic NPCs like Archmage, Leather Crafter, etc, we were giving each NPC a unique page, with the generic being used as a disambiguation & location listing. For example, [[Archmage]] lists not only generica NPCs named Archmage, but all named ones as well. At least, that is Sanddh has been doing. I actually prefer giving each generic NPC a listing, although I would name articles by exact coords/dungeon rather than general area. --[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 12:14, 13 February 2009 (CST)		\| Text = I'm fine with moving location to notes - but this template will still not work for generic NPCs since their gender/heritage vary. Also, I was under the impression that instead of doing a single listing for generic NPCs like Archmage, Leather Crafter, etc, we were giving each NPC a unique page, with the generic being used as a disambiguation & location listing. For example, [[Archmage]] lists not only generica NPCs named Archmage, but all named ones as well. At least, that is Sanddh has been doing. I actually prefer giving each generic NPC a listing, although I would name articles by exact coords/dungeon rather than general area. --[[User:An Adventurer\|An Adventurer]] 12:14, 13 February 2009 (CST)
	}}		}}
			{{Post
			\| Indent = ::::::::
			\| To = An Adventurer
			\| Text = You have a good point there. And if we do create individual records for each NPC, regardless of if they have the same name, then putting the location in the block would work better. --[[User:Atarax\|Atarax]] 12:21, 13 February 2009 (CST)
			}}


	----		----