Because nobody else has yet, I'll just pass on a big thanks for starting the mass migration to the new skill template. It was a long thankless job, but now it's just a long job :) Just FYI, Echo was the skill that Pansola did all the testing on, as a consequence it looks like it's been moved to the new template but in fact the formatting is currently in some testing state of Pansola's. But as long as you're referring to GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Skills (which it looks like you are) that's ok. However I think you've changed the order slightly in the template, you've put the description above the stats and added a return (/n). It appears to look exactly the same but any reason why you changed it? --Xasxas256 07:33, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
- The reason for the (not so obvious) change is quite simple: I'm just copying the contents of the skillbox from the Skills' page to the template and most of them were in different order. This should not matter though, because references to the elements of the template are made by their respective name, not their position in the template (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). This way the long job is a bit easier:) And yes, the basis for the new templates is just a copy-and-paste from the Style and formatting page. --Chi Li 07:38, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
- Ha ha I followed the discussions on implementing the new templates without really paying much attention to the original skill pages :P Seems like a perfectly fine explanation to me although I wonder if GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Skills should mention that elite = is unnecessary for non elite skills... Anyway I'll let you get back to it while you're on a roll :) --Xasxas256 08:12, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
- Zoosh, way to go, keep it up. Meanwhile I'll keep adding +del tags to unused images ;p --Tinarto
03:26, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
Thanks for your tireless work on the skill boxes ^^ — Skuld 
05:06, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
¾
I seem to remember us deciding to use <sup>3</sup>/<sub>4</sub> instead of the character to allow more compatibility and easier reading, would you agree ¾ was harder to read than 3/4? — Skuld 09:31, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
- I was not sure if there was some consensus about the format of these fractional numbers, but since I didn't find anything I changed some occurences of 3/4 to ¾. To be honest I didn't actually compare that to the sup/sub variant, but I must agree the latter is more readable. I'll soon go through some more Skill box Templates and will change what I find (including my already commited changes to #188, #189 and #190) to the corresponding sup/sub. --Chi Li
09:37, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
- The discussion I found (brought up to me on my user talk page) was here GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Skills/Archive 2 The way I interpret that, the #188, #189, #190 was favored over 3/4. Was there more discussion somewhere else? Not to bring up old arguments, but I think that 3/4, is horrendously ugly, and is less preferable than any of ¾, 3/4 or 0.75. But thats just me. Edit: While GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Skills/Everything Example is out of date (doesn't use templates) it also uses ¾.--Chrono traveller 10:00, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
- Well, after reading the discussion on the page you linked and from what I found in the various sill pages I modified to conform to the new template I'd say: according to these sources there never was a final decision. As it is (from Skuld's and my point of view) easier to read with a mainstream browser (Firefox, Opera, IE) I'll continue to use sup/sub for now. In fact I hope to see all of these fractionals looking the same soon.
- If somewhere in the depths of the wiki or by a new discussion (maybe initiated by my changes) there is at some point a final decision as to how these fractionals should be formatted, I'll volunteer to change each and every skill page to conform with that standard. But what I want to see is every skill using the same format even for so little detail like these fractionals.
- I Agree with Chrono traveller, that the sup/sub isn't exactly beautiful, but it's (at least with the Browsers I looked at it) much more readable than the #190 variant. And that's why I'd vote for keeping the sup/sub over the #190. --Chi Li 10:24, 7 June 2006 (CDT)