Talk:LA 8 Races

Semantic Search

Any ideas on how to get rid of all of the SRD matches? --Aarnott 21:44, 29 February 2008 (MST)

So I got rid of SRD matches, but I can't get rid of the template (and I know why). When Semantic Wiki does a search by category, it also searches every child category. So when it searches for Category:Race and Category:LA8, it finds the template match because Category:LA8 is a descendant category of Category:Race. So there is actually no point in putting Category:Race there. I need to find a way to search for only that category and not child ones. --Aarnott 08:22, 1 March 2008 (MST)

Figured it out. There is a property in SMW_Settings.php called $smwgQSubcategoryDepth. For D&D Wiki I think it would be best to set that at 0. It basically tells how many subcategories it should include in a search. It would give us more control to be able to limit exactly which categories to include. --Aarnott 08:40, 1 March 2008 (MST)

I got it to work by using the Property:Race LA rather than the category... --Green Dragon 12:11, 1 March 2008 (MST)

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I knew that worked :). The problem is, we may want to add properties to SRD races at some point. It will grab SRD entries if we leave it as is. What I'm proposing will give similar customization as a DPL. Thoughts? --Aarnott 17:26, 1 March 2008 (MST)

I will tell Blue Dragon to change it. --Green Dragon 01:01, 4 March 2008 (MST)

Fixed. — Blue Dragon (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (MST)

Appearance

Hm... Should we change the look of SMW's default table to be more D&D-ish? Thoughts? --Green Dragon 12:16, 1 March 2008 (MST)

If we can, that would be awesome. I'll see if I can figure out how to. Though I do like how you can click a column to sort it. An option is to throw all the data into a template, so we could do that to format it ourselves. --Aarnott 17:28, 1 March 2008 (MST)

I was thinking that the other day when I looked at this page I forgot to mention it. If it is possible to change the appearance to look like the other tables on this site it would be great. Sorting is one of the main reasons I am interested in replacing DPL pages with semantic queries. I should mention the table looks different to how it did the other day the border is different (different bad not good). --Hawk 21:31, 1 March 2008 (MST)

Changing it should be simple. We could probably get away with only changing the colors used. I've got a standard set of colors I've been using for many of the visual elements on the wiki (e.g. d20 tables, infoboxes, NPC/monster stat blocks, etc...). —Sledged (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2008 (MST)

I have added the code to MediaWiki:Common.css... I say give the colors a try! --Green Dragon 13:19, 3 March 2008 (MST)

Actually, I'm thinking of using the existing style information. Try out the experimental spell form and tell me what you think. —Sledged (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2008 (MST)

Why the new template? Is the old one getting obsolete? --Green Dragon 01:00, 4 March 2008 (MST)

Since the form is template driven, playing around with it means playing around with the underlying template as well, but I don't want to affect the pages that using the existing template. —Sledged (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2008 (MST)

The resulting table uses the "smwtable" class. Is there any way we can change it to "d20"? —Sledged (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2008 (MST)

Nevermind. Figured it out. —Sledged (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2008 (MST)

Piping

Is it possible to pipe the table headers? For example change Race ECL to just say ECL? --Green Dragon 14:06, 3 March 2008 (MST)

From what I know that requires a template. Which is not necessarily a difficult or bad thing. This was just a Test of the feature. --Aarnott 18:03, 3 March 2008 (MST)

Does it allow parser function calls to be nested like dpl? —Sledged (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2008 (MST)

Like do you mean nesting of semantic searches? Yes. You have to use a slightly different syntax I believe. You should also be able to include other parser functions inside but I'[d have to check that. --Aarnott 18:55, 3 March 2008 (MST)

Hm... So should we change this to a template then? --Green Dragon 00:58, 4 March 2008 (MST)

Terminology

The terms used to the properties should coincide with how they're used in the SRD. Prefixing properties with "Race" is unnecessary. "Favored class," "Level Adjustment," "Size," and the like are specifically defined terms by themselves. Likewise, "Level Adjustment" should be used in place of "LA." Though it's common to use "LA," I've always seen WotC source use "Level Adjustment." —Sledged (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (MST)

Arg -- ok, fair enough. I was hoping to organize them by their prefixes, but your way does make more sense. --Aarnott 11:07, 7 March 2008 (MST)

Actually, now that I think about it. We should probably keep them separate from the 4e terms by prefixing them with 3e. —Sledged (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2008 (MST)