User talk:Snapper2

Editing
Hey Snapper2! I just wanted to let you know that er... well to tell you the truth, some edits that came from you weren't the best. Mind you, i suggest revising your edits such as Acupuncture, 100% Single Punch and Eight Trigrams Sixty-Four Palms. For 100% Single Punch, its clean up wasn't much of a clean up... you sort of deleted almost all information... If you need to contact me, please respond on my talk! --NejiByakugan360 22:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Link title

Ok, I see why you did the editing now, but for the 8 trigrams thing, are you sure that is the real name?--NejiByakugan360 23:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories
Snapper2, please stop trying to recreate stale category techniques which we have been trying to get rid of. Categories for separate types of Jutsu, ninja Ranks, and loyalties were finally removed, or at least almost completely remove awhile ago and replaced with semantically correct annotations to the pages which actually allow us to build complex queries. Removing jutsu from the Jutsu category destroys our ability to create Jutsu lists from the articles. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Feb 17, 2009 @ 17:44 (UTC)


 * Category:Kages as you can see on that page is marked for deletion to notify people to stop using it. There is no Property:Kage because you misunderstand semantics. The relevant property is Property:Rank, so in a query Rank::Kage will filter the list to only include Kage. The current (old) infobox already includes support for these inside the  property, just make sure that   is used instead of   as the later stops the annotation from working.
 * Template:Ninja loyalty was created quite some time ago when we didn't have semantics. The limitation of it is because of it's use of categories and the fact that it is meant for title icons. The reason why the list is so small is because that is the list I knew about back when it was created. More loyalties have been added to the universe over time, so for now feel free to update that template with any new ones. In the future when the new infobox is done (It looks like I might want to do some more experimentation on the Soul Eater Wiki before I work on the complexities of the infoboxes here) that kind of stuff should be handled much better.
 * As for Category:Jutsu, that is our atomic category for jutsu. Effectively it serves as our filter of "This is a Jutsu", and by definition "Jutsu" should contain all jutsu. For what it impedes, that would be queries:
 * Ninjutsu:
 * Fire release Ninjutsu:
 * Fire release Ninjutsu:
 * But basically we need the common category to filter queries. As for alleviating things, queries can be used to create jutsu lists. And at that, in the futrue ones better than a category can show:


 * Unfortunately at the moment names are not annotated on jutsu pages so those don't show up yet. Honestly, I was hoping that once jutsu pages were annotated nice and widespread (hopefully using an infobox) the pages like List of Ninjutsu could be replace by nice generated lists. As well, I poked Wikia awhile ago to install Semantic Drilldown since it basically creates a more robust category like view system for semantic annotations. Though just like Semantic Forms did, it'll probably take awhile, as well as some community pushing just to get it installed.
 * You're free to help out with Template:Infobox/Jutsu (Example). One of the things that impeded development of it was how long it took to get SF installed (arraymap is needed for these newer infoboxes so that userinput is not too complex). But a good definition of rows is needed for infobox creation. There are a number of rows that are being used on existing Jutsu pages that are not inside that template under development. Feel free to help out in defining what is needed inside the infobox. A good list of what rows should exist, what format these rows should be inputted in, and what kind of values they can have would be very useful. I've been doing a lot of work on the Soul Eater Wiki with the techniques for the infoboxes, forms, and ability pages. Take a look at w:c:souleater:Witch Hunt for example, but getting that to work on the Narutopedia is a good bit more work. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Feb 18, 2009 @ 00:07 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about the bug with the infobox, I thought it was there but it wasn't, I fixed the issue now so feel free to go around and fix any  or   to use.

I'm working on techniques, not specific formatted infoboxes. How similar the abilities in Naruto and Soul Eater are don't really matter. I just need to apply the techniques to the infoboxes here. Though, one big issue here is hierarchy. For example, on Soul Eater it's small enough that "| user =" is a simple comma separated list of names. However on the Narutopedia a "user" can be a person, a clan, a village, all ninja, ninja of and above a certain rank, users with a kekkei genkai, and so on, and some even exclude certain people, and even be limited to a game or anime/manga only. So I have to come up with a way for that to be inputted.

Jutsu pages actually have rows that are not in that infobox, things like debuts have been added to the jutsu infoboxes but not listed for the infobox. It would be helpful to have a list of those. As well the same goes for the parameters already in the infobox, a format for them would be useful, something like:
 * English/Kanij/Romaji/... name: String format
 * Jutsu class: Values ((Nin|Tai|Gen|Kin|...)jutsu, etc...), multiple input (checkboxes?)
 * Rank: A/B/C/D/E?/S, Dropdown
 * Range: Short "Short range (0-5m)", ...
 * Kekkei Genkai: Autocomplete on Category:Kekkei Genkai
 * Parent jutsu: Autocomplete on Category:Jutsu, multi-value?
 * Child jutsu: Autogenerate inverse using query " "
 * Users: Complex input, Autocomplete on concept including Characters, Clans, Villages, Ranks, etc... And find a way to distinguish each and every one of these in a way that will let us generate proper lists in Character infoboxes.
 * ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Feb 18, 2009 @ 20:33 (UTC)
 * ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Feb 18, 2009 @ 20:33 (UTC)

Citation
Snapper2, as well when citing something like in this edit please try to cite individual pieces of information using ref tags instead of creating a sources section. The latter doesn't specify what is actually referenced and can lead to a false believe that everything on the page is citeable and fact. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Feb 17, 2009 @ 17:47 (UTC)
 * I know about the bug with refs vs. semantics. For now I just comment them out with so that they can be included when we fix the issue. It's something that stems both from the generic setup of those infoboxes, as well as issues with markup added by ref tags being injected into semantic annotations. The new infobox already includes two separate inputs for various pieces of info that differ between part one and two which solves the issue we have about the generic infobox trying to annotate those values. I created a mini extension to fix the bug with refs (It basically creates a parser function that allows you to take some inputted wikitext that may have refs inside of it, and extracts the two parts (text, and refs) and lets you specify a pattern. Something like  would basically fix the issue by putting all the refs after the annotations. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Feb 17, 2009 @ 23:38 (UTC)