Template talk:Mouse

Template design

Just a note that I am absolutely NOT committed to the current color scheme and was simply going for something different than already exists in other infoboxes and other templates. If you change the colors, please avoid any shades of red and orange as it is preferred to save those for warning or other notice boxes. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 20:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've left an idea in the history for approval. Before somebody says "ewww, brown", I've based the scheme on the mice button from MH. I'd figured brown could be a nice break from the pastel shades. Of course, it'd be best to get some feedback first. Revengeance 04:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't think of any nice way to say that that was friggin' hideous. Sorry. Looked like someone barfed up a mint Oreo regardless of where the color idea came from. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 04:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Can't say I was expecting you to agree with it. Serves me right for trying to break away from the puerile pastels. Revengeance 04:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, c'mon now. Did you seriously think that looked even marginally good? Honest to god, seafoam green and turd brown? Really? Maybe you didn't expect me to like it, but can you find ANYONE who would, except maybe someone hungry for a mint chocolate Dilly Bar? The "pastels" (really, just a lighter shade to compliment the darker border) are unobstrusive, but more importantly they make it easy to read the text without being the focal point. I can't spend all night typing up a lesson in aesthetics, but if you can find a majority of people who prefer that trainwreck to the previous version, I'm open to new ideas. Maybe everything I was taught in my graphic design coursework in college, along with everything I've read, seen, and taught others in countless web design workshops and seminars, was wrong. *shrug* -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 06:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
        • And besides, the idea behind any good design (web, print, or any other medium) is consistency within a theme, not a jarring departure for "a nice break." -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 06:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
          • As a fellow graphic designer, I'm surprised you're so close-minded to it. If people aren't open to new combinations and just agree with the opinions of others who consider them "barf", we may as well go back to painting on caves. Revengeance 06:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm not closed-minded to it. I considered it and didn't like it. I'm very open-minded about design, but I do reserve the right to not like something once I've given it due consideration. And that, unfortunately, was awful. More to the point of a reply to your comment, however, is the idea that this isn't the place to experiment with "new combinations." It's not a canvas for artistic expression. The wiki is for sharing information and any design cues should be subtle or, if not subtle, then at least purposeful. When the text is the focus, other elements shouldn't draw the eye away. BTW, you do graphic design for a living? (That's not a slam; honestly interested. Drop me a line on my Talk page if you like.) -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 06:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Any objections to perhaps increasing the width of this info box? I've noticed the addition of loot causes some ugly word wrapping (Plankrun pages, etc). --Dave Vanderburg 01:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • None whatsoever. Expanded it by 40px, which may or may not be enough. At some point we might consider piping the links to a shorter text for display purposes, such as [[Torn Pages of Plankrun's Journal|Journal Pages]], to help with this issue to that the tidy infobox doesn't become a bloated table of its own. In fact, given the variety of loot dropped by some of the mice, I wouldn't object to removing that line altogether and letting the main article address the loot. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 03:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Mouse Description

Thinking of moving the description off the template and back onto the main mouse page because: 1) Looks pretty cramped squeezing all that text into the small box, when 2) The rest of the page looks empty Comments? -- Grexx 16:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm strongly against it. It was put there to parallel the other infobox templates (e.g. Weapon and Base). Instead of moving it out, why not consider trying to flesh out the mouse pages instead with actual information? They are bare, but that doesn't necessitate mucking up the template to make up for a lack of info. New sections such as "Hunting tips" and "Best place to find this mouse" would be great additions and wouldn't be change for the sake of change. IIRC, Peter888 has some templates for such pages that he's playing with in his sandbox. Might check with him to see what he's up to. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 16:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah I didn't connect the standardization in the templates together. Ok then lets see what we can do to make the pages more lively then. -- Grexx 16:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I've been thinking about consulting the timeline to add History sections with release dates, as well as brief mentions of any other mice released with them. Seems like a good start! Revengeance 16:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and written ones up for the first three "A" mice (Abominable Snow, Archer and Assassin) as examples of what I mean. Revengeance 06:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Noticed that -- looks great! -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 06:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

URL vs. ID

Instead of using the URI each time, why don't we just specify an ID parameter and have the URI link automatic? That would make it easier if MouseHunt suddenly changes how the Mouse Profile page works (instead of having to change every Mouse page.) --Navarr 00:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• In Addition to this, I've created a script that could very easily grab the Mouse images from my server in a standardized way using the id field if it is added; if this system wishes to be used. I try to maintain all high-res graphics of the mice on my site. --Navarr 00:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Both look like solutions in need of a problem, IMHO. I'm not expecting any sudden changes from MH anytime soon. And along those lines, I think the chances of them changing the numeric ID to something else are the same as the chances of them making drastic changes that break all the image links. And perhaps most importantly, if anything DOES change in a uniform manner, I can have every mouse page updated in under a minute using the wiki editing software in my arsenal. Having said that, if you want to change it go ahead. As for the links to images on your server, it's nothing personal when I say I don't think that's a good idea. To be honest, the chances of YOU changing something are probably greater than HitGrab doing it. It's good to know the images are there, and you can even link them with the full URL, but doctoring the template such that it's dependent on a private individual's site is A Bad Idea™. Nothing wrong with using the full URL for both the info pages and the images, IMHO. They're already there -- it would be more work to change things than to leave it alone. If it breaks, then worry about. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 03:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • In addition, in the event that you don't have a particular mouse image on your server, that leaves no recourse within the template for adding an alternate link. Or in the event that something happens to you, to your server, etc. I just think that unless and until the devs decide to allow uploads to the wiki, the best idea is linking to well-established image hosting sites (e.g. Photobucket) as is currently the case. Again, it's nothing personal at all. Just speaking from hard personal experience. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 03:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
      • That makes perfect sense, I just find the different image sites and different qualities of high-res pictures (JPGs used to be linked, not sure anymore) to be.. hmm, not sure what the word is. Maybe I'm just a little OCD about URIs, lol. --Navarr 18:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
        • AFAIK, all of the mouse images are now linked to full-res PNGs on Photobucket taken directly from MouseHunt. (I know because I did it myself.) The only exceptions are three (I think) rare/prize mice that I have asked Dave Vanderburg (a HitGrab dev) to provide ... without response: Mobster, Leprechaun, and Master Burglar (IIRC). If you've got those on your site, a direct link to those full-res images would be terrific! -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Also meant to add that having the template dependent on your server effectively prevents anyone else from contributing images to the wiki. Also A Bad Idea™. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 18:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
            • While we're on the subject of images, the current "Image" header doesn't leave room for special event portraits, so any other versions have been left in an "External links" section. Would it be better to change it to something like "Image(s)" and put them all together ("Current" or "Original", "Halloween", "New Year's", etc)? Revengeance 11:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
              • Are you talking about moving the image link out of the infobox altogether? That I would vote against. The vast majority of the mice do not have special event images and altering the infoxbox because of a handful of "bonus" images would be A Bad Thing™. But I'd be very much in favor of adding a section heading "Images" just for the purpose you described. In this limited situation, I don't see any problem whatsoever with having the link to the original image duplicated twice on the same page. We must remember that first and foremost the site is about easy reference, not strictly adhering to an imagined "only one link per site or page PER page" rule. Go for it! -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 14:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
                • No, I was talking about putting all the links together in the infobox instead of having extra ones by themselves in an "External links" section. Although, thinking about your suggestion, changing the sections to "Images" and adding the originals probably would be better, considering we should avoid taking information out of the already-lackluster articles and moving it to the infoboxes. I'll get started on it. Revengeance 10:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Category

I noticed that the "Gameplay" category was included in this template. I don't see any reason for all the mice to show up in both it and the "Mice" category. Since we don't really control the mice directly, it's not really part of our playing of the game. If we instead define gameplay as anything involved in the game, then practically all pages in the wiki fall the category, which seems kind of pointless. --Hyperchao 03:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The game was much simpler when the template was created. I removed the category as suggested. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 03:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Category Tag

I'm having trouble getting the category tag to display correctly now that I've changed it to be associated with Mouse Group instead of Power Type. Help would be much appreciated. In the meantime, I'll continue adjusting the mouse articles. --Dreamwalker 11:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think the problem is that I linkified the value of mgroup by typing "[[Indigenous Mice]]" instead of just "Indigenous Mice". This can be easily worked around by making a "Mouse Group" article which mentions the weaknesses of each group just as we have a "Power Type" article which was used to combine all the mouse power type articles. Let me see if this solution would work. --Dreamwalker 11:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, that solution worked. If you decide later that you want things like the words "Indigenous Mice" linking to individual articles, you should be able to accomplish that by adjusting the template to auto-linkify whatever value you assign to mgroup. --Dreamwalker 11:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I've had this problem too, when I set up the Category tag for the power types before. Glad to see you worked it out, and made this section here (I didn't think about it when I had a problem)! I don't think we need to link the "Indigenous Mice" itself, since there's the category link at the bottom, and the Mouse Group page is for all the groups. -- camomiletea 16:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

maxpoints/mingold Parameter Names

Even though in the game now the points and gold are set values which don't change (no more maximum/minimum values), in the template we have to keep maxpoints / mingold to avoid breaking all the existing articles using the old parameter names in the template. Unless someone wishes to edit every mouse article to change "maxpoints" / "mingold" to "points" / "gold" there, and then we can update the template as well. -- camomiletea 17:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: "Known trap weaknesses" variable

With the advent of Longtail, mice no longer have power types, and that variable has been rightly removed from the template. But mice are still weak to certain trap power types, and I think that info should be included in the template, as it's one of the most significant stats a hunter needs to know about a mouse.

I realize that this information is already given, indirectly, by linking to the mouse group. But since different mice within a group can be weak to different power types (the Gauntlet being a prime example, Balack's Banished another), I don't think it would be redundant.

Thoughts? --GoBecky 01:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat against the idea, because it's not so simple. It seems to me that it would be best to explain the weaknesses in a narrative form within the article itself, because some of the mice may have several weaknesses, but a particularly strong weakness against one type. I guess we could list them all in the sidebox; I just don't think that that's enough. -- camomiletea 02:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That's true. The lycan mouse is a prime example, as is the hydra. Both are (or were, as of 2.0) much more easily hunted with the best power type, though several work on each of those mice. So saying that (eg) the lycan is weak to arcane in a sidebar almost gives the wrong impression. I feel that folks who want to know what trap to use should be looking at the strategy sections of location pages. -- Pakaran 02:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Weakness/Effectiveness Field: How should we use it?

I added in lines for "Very Effective," Effective," and "Less Effective," but my edit was quickly reverted. In his edit comments on the reversal, B.Rossow wrote:

don't need these fine details in the infobox; save them for the narrative

and

infobox is for most important info, not every tiny detail

I started a thread in the FB editors group about how this "Weakness" field should be used, but got no reply so decided to be bold and start doing it in the way that makes the most sense to me, as a user and as an editor.

In my view, simply listing the power types that have some effect is confusing; as a user, how do I know what level of effectiveness each corresponds to? So should this space only be used for the "Very Effective" power types? Is that the "most important info"? What about mice that don't have a "Very Effective" weakness… leaving the field blank isn't exactly right either, as they do have weaknesses. If we only do the "Very Effective" ones, we should at least indicate that that's what it is. (Hence, my labels.)

I'm more than willing to start adding this data to the mouse pages, but obviously we need to have a consensus on what's supposed to go there, first. I appreciate all input; I'm particularly interested in hearing B.Rossow's take, as he was the one to add the field back to the template in the first place. --GoBecky 22:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You might wanna read (and write) here too. ____m. 00:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)