Talk:Storm Scale

qualifierX

I think it would be helpful to have something like:

entryX = Landwalk

qualifierX = Nonbasic

the have the link work with the entry and have the qualifier appear in parenthesis after the mechanic. But not today. Merry Christmas - Yandere Sliver 17:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Already planning something like this. --Corveroth (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that edit wiped a few of the changes you made. I got it covered, just not tonight. --Corveroth (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, what say you to that? I know the subentry system causes those rows to sort a little oddly when sorted by rating, but otherwise, I think it works alright. --Corveroth (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks very cool. As you already mentioned, I would have expected that Bushido would sort under 8 (basically the main entry). However currently I don't really get why it sorts incorrectly. - Yandere Sliver 04:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Something about the sorting javascript doesn't handle it right. I'm not sure exactly what it is - whether it reads that row as "84", or "8\n4", or whatever, but it parses it as coming after 11... alphabetically, probably. The JS responsible is obfuscated and comes down from Curse anyways, so I can't change it. It comes down to a choice between having "subentries", as I'm calling them, as a part of the "main" row, which damages the sorting slightly; or having them as separate rows, which allows them to be sorted away from the main row. I favor the former, of course. --Corveroth (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

(reset indent) I updated the Flanking entry. I think that approach would be better. Simply because it sorts correctly when sorted by Mechanic and by Latest Ranking. The subentry logic looks more pretty, but I think it is less functional. It also don't need any additional code since everything already is there. - Yandere Sliver 04:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Turns out it can be forced to sort rows properly. As is now, Bushido sorts into the 8s (according to the primary entry for that box). Do you think that addresses the issues sufficiently, or do you still think the variant rows need to be separate? --Corveroth (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It is fine from my perspective that was my only major concern. By the way can you have more then one subentry? I mean is is currently not necessary. Well, we can get to it when it becomes necessary. - Yandere Sliver 06:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that will ever be needed, but no, it isn't currently supported. I'll be tied up tomorrow, but come Friday I'll look into building this out into a proper article. I've got even more data to work with, this is just the main attraction.

At some point in the future, I may try to rework the module to use a more traditional wikitext format for the ratings lists (like how navbox just uses list formatting). My main concern there is ensuring that editors input the data in a well-formed manner. Right now, at least, the unusual syntax is a reminder to pay attention to detail. --Corveroth (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Storm Scale Articles

What I just realized is that the articles from the wizard pages are missing:

• Ravnica
• Tarkir
• Zendikar

- Yandere Sliver 17:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

On the to-do list, I just wanted to get the blog import done first since that's the part that really wanted automation, then work out the layout. Thanks for the list. --Corveroth (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Got those in... mostly. There are a few things remaining. I didn't bother to include the rankings from the very top of each article, where he lays out examples of each point on the scale, because those are mostly duplicated throughout. The only change through all of those is the absence of affinity for artifacts in the Zendikar article. Still, it's a data point... should probably be done.

There were a few ratings I skipped including, however, and I'm unsure how I want to proceed there. For example, the Zendikar article gives ratings for traps, quests, and "the ally mechanic", while I've tried to keep the main table strictly named mechanics - or at least, mechanics. It's probably fair to bring "ally mechanic", "processor mechanic", "colorless matters", etc. into the table. Not gonna do it just yet though.

I'm growing disenchanted with the subentry setup I built. I might just scrap it and add a field for a fourth "notes" column. Feedback welcome. --Corveroth (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and entries added to the bottom of the table don't get automatically sorted in alphabetically. To-do list. --Corveroth (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes I was a bit surprised to see supertypes and subtypes not recognized as mechanics. Ability words and keywords feel more mechanical most of the time but they typeline carries as much information. In some cases all of it. - Yandere Sliver 05:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Killed subentries in favor of a generic footnote system. Table will auto-sort by first column on page generation, may later add option to default to second column. Some entries from lower lists moved into tables. All in all, I'm mostly happy with the current state. Aside from a bit of cleanup, I expect to push this live tomorrow, barring issues. --Corveroth (talk) 05:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I have seen it looks beautiful. - Yandere Sliver 08:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Very nice. Good work! --Hunter (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess -1/-1 counter is at 2 now

I have no idea how formatting works. Blogatog post is at: markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/157405990543/once-upon-a-time-you-rating-1-1-counters-at-1

I'm not allowed to link it. --Linlin110 (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi thanks for pointing this out. We are aware that the formatting is not really editor friendly. You can look at the history of the page and look at the latest revision. Perhaps that will help you understand how it works... : : The general rule for adding a ratings is: {rating, date of rating in ISO format, reference for rating}, ...

I hope this clears things a bit up. Cheers! - Yandere Sliver 03:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the usability is entirely my fault. I can probably make a modified TumblrRef that adds the rating parameter and puts special restrictions on the date, then the trick is just extracting the necessary bits from the ref... I'll look into it this coming week when I have time off from work. Of a more immediate concern, Linlin, it looks like you were tripping a major spam filter. You might be fine now that you've made an edit; I'm not sure what it considers a "new" user. For sake of argument, could you do me a favor? Use this page to generate a few paragraphs of filler, and then try to reply right here with that text and a) any safe, generic full (including http etc) link at the end of the last paragraph, b) that same link at the end of any other paragraph? I've seen a few other users get caught in those filters and I'd like to give Gamepedia some data in the hopes of reigning them in. --Corveroth (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)