Template talk:Ground weapon nav

2016 October edits
I did a huge overhaul of this template but I really am curious if others think it is good, or better than the old version. Its main cons are lacking actual weapon names in the text that people can ctrl+F to; do you guys think that the ground weapon and Special Ground Weapons pages adequately make up for this? Just want to make clear that just because I make these enormous edits to the page, I won't be offended if anyone wants to scrap it and revert. DanPMK (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The next step probably would be to utilize the infobox popup thing on all the shiny iconlinks you made. And no I am not volunteering for that. Keeping the lock boxes in a decent state is quite enough for me. --Dukedom (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to get those things to pop up, honestly DanPMK (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Too many ground weapons share icons, I don't really like this change. I do agree that something should have been done with the template, though, it was missing a lot.  &mdash;Kinanra (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll work on a different idea soon then. I'm wondering if I should just remove the fleet weapons entirely and just put a link to the fleet weapons page. What do you think about that? DanPMK (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea Jacobsodinforever2000 (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a new version with just phasers as an example, Proposal B below. What do you all think? DanPMK (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I still like Proposal A. Not that there isn't room for improvement, the colour changes from B look nice, you could use that to highlight the parts of the template who are hidden from start. And changing a page so that the infobox pops up isn't really that complicated. All you have to do is to add/move the part to a subpage called pagename/Info. Not complicated just a lot of work to do on all the pages. Bonus points are awarded if you add the dangle that prevents the Info-subpage from being shown in categories and use the  template on the mainpage. Like Ferengi Energy Whip I just edited. --Dukedom (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I admit, I'm starting to like Proposal B more, though I still want more feedback. I removed the Fleet weapons from the main template for now, since none of them have dedicated pages (and frankly, they shouldn't) and it was just using way too many resources. Plus with the next update we're getting even more fleet weapons, it would just be too much. Will do the same for Proposal B if we decide to use it. DanPMK (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Below I have added Proposal C and Proposal D. Basically what DanPMK did, I just replaced icons with text. This allows search function, but it could get text heavy when table is fully completed. It takes more space compared to icon tables, but we could use shorter names (if needed) by removing Pistol from item name if that item is sorted under Pistol category, for example. Any comment is appreciated. I would go for Proposal D, but if people don't like text based table, I vote for Proposal A. --Damixon (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I admit, I don't really like C and D. While they allow Ctrl-F searching, there are so many duplicated words (the damage type and then the weapon type) I don't think that is a useful function, since it doesn't do more than the table headings already do. Using shorter names would just eliminate that search capability. DanPMK (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Crystal Radiation Projector is an Assualt weapon without expose and there is currently no room for that type in current template. We could add it, but Proposal B seem to have more room so I'm leaning toward it. --Damixon (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But if Proposal A (current) Assault section could be expanded to fit non-expose Assault weapons, that could be better. Now that I think about it, Proposal B could take too much space because each damage type is having 2 more sections (under Pistol, Rifle, Assault). How do other think? --Damixon (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah that new weapon would be dropped into the "Exotic Other" category on Proposal A, like the Breen weapon. As for size, I'll go ahead and finish Proposal B so we can compare the size directly. It might end up with too many blank cells taking up space, but I can't picture it without actually filling it out, so I'll do that today. DanPMK (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Decided to put all the exotic ones in one row rather than making the table taller. It is still taller than Proposal A though... should we get rid of the barely populated Other column and just put them in their own row? DanPMK (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks great. With expand option, template doesn't take much space on the screen. Any chance we could move exotic rifles to rifles table, same for pistols? --Damixon (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, and filled it out with Winter weapons in the process. DanPMK (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So where are we with Proposal B at the moment? If we'll modify this template to be on an auto-update mode, proposal B would handle it more easily because it doesn't split weapons into normal and two-proc. Downside is, auto-update would require existence of weapon page, and proper categorization (but less work on this page). In example below, #dpl extension will show icons of items that are in both "Antiproton Weapons" and "Wide Beam Pistols" category, but without those in Exploit Weapons category. (If we insist on having rarity border, it can be modified to use icon2 template like we currently have). --Damixon (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

category=Antiproton Weapons category=Wide Beam Pistols notcategory=Exploit Weapons listseparators={|class=sortablewikitable \n,\n allowcachedresults=true

Revision
Someone should control Impulsefibre731's edits, because I noticed they have added some double entries of lockbox weapons in the main area, and others they put in the wrong slots, but I don't have the time to go through all of it myself. --Xbrain130 (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought that I was doing things right. I'll refrain from editing further, and will revert all previous edits. --Impulsefibre731 (talk)
 * You don't have to stop editing, just get familiar with established weapon categories on that template so you can place them in right spot. If you will have any questions, you can ask here or via profile comment. First table is standard+special weapons, second table are fleet weapons and third table are lock box and reputation weapons. I think SFC already made adjustment to the table so no need to revert anything. --Damixon (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)