Template talk:Single build

New "single build" template uses very small width
''And I can't find it to fix it. Why does the new reference ( {{single build ) generate tables that force the title to wrap, while the old reference ( {{:Builds/SingleBuild ) didn't? Mebbe it's the missing colon. Check it out? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by {{User|Onorvele}}. ''


 * I changed it from a heading ( === === ) to a table caption, and the caption is forced to wrap, because it's part of the table. As for how narrow it is, it really isn't any narrower; it conveys the same information for (slightly) less space. The extraneous whitespace made no sense to me. I'm still thinking over a way or two more to tweak it.


 * As for the colon, that was only from where it was calling. A colon in front of the name is a bad thing generally, and you should come leave me a note when you find it. :) --Sky (t · c · w) 01:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I threw in &lt;h3&gt; instead of === to remove the "edit" option, but to retain the auto-population of the TOC. Specifically check out the heavy use of the template on Warlock builds.  Onorvele (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would claim the best looking page currently is mage builds, which doesn't use headings for the names of the builds, as it lengthens the ToC unnecessarily. I'd really like to use this template, without the heading (i.e., use caption), but with the style of the Mage builds page, which in this case, I'd support a restructuring of warlock builds to match. I personally don't know if Warlocks have the same issues as Mages do with respect to how they build their raid/PvP builds, but I suspect it's along the lines of mages.

Aside from that, a caption is more semantically correct than a header here, as well. I really think it's a great template, but it could be used better for all classes rather than restricting its usage to how the warlock page is set up. --Sky (t · c · w) 18:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The mages page focuses the first half on leveling, which is split of as a separate page for the Warlocks (Leveling_a_warlock). There are 14 total builds listed on the page, which wouldn't be too heavy a TOC, especially if the leveling details were moved to their own page.  However, discovery of builds and linking to a specific build is easier if it's in the TOC (like this  Fel Gaurd Emberstorm Raiding Build), so the discussion really comes down to a question of what the purpose of the Class_builds page is - a complete list of builds, an audited list of builds, advice on specific skills to include in your builds...
 * I also don't think that the splitting of PvE vs PvP vs Raiding in the TOC is efficient - take the Death knight builds as a worst case example, where there are more entries in the TOC than there are builds. Mind you (so it doesn't look like I'm picking on DKs), the Death_knight_build_samples is pretty much an ideal structure in my books (at least the portion I've modified), 'cause of the instant-access to information.  Oh, I should slap together a Glyph template Onorvele (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did the basics for Template:Glyph_build now, having trouble with one if-condition. Onorvele (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can tell there are 3 main styles - paladin/death knight style where there are few actual builds and lots of prose talking about principles, warlock/druid/most others where each build is a separate heading, and mage/priest builds where each build is a more lightweight subsection. The pally/DK style doesn't really benefit from a template anyway. I think I agree that mage/priest looks better tbh, the main thing I don't like is the need to tack colons and stars on the front of paragraphs to keep them at the right indent level. A particular failing of the warlocks page is that 2 very similar builds (such as 5-man and raid variants of the same build) end up taking a lot of space. I originally intended to fix this by making a 'multi' template (hence the 'single' in the name of this one), but an overall style rejig might be better.

I strongly doubt that there are major differences in the 'needs' of the different classes, and it's really just a stylistic decision what to go with on the page as a whole.

Whatever we decide, the main objectives I'd like to keep because they really helped on the warlocks page are:
 * "enforcing" the patch and testing field so submitters have to put something or it says they didn't test it.
 * the purpose field, to make it slightly more difficult to get "Deathroxxor's build that's awesome at everything" type submissions.

-- Binkyuk (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Undo of wikification
Noticed the de-wikificatioin of the template, back to HTML. Was it causing problems somewhere? Onorvele (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * By no means, but if it's already in HTML, that makes the parser a little happier. --Sky (t · c · w) 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah. Thought that the parser preferred wiki markup.  Onorvele (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)