Template talk:Class table

Foo of NaN Level
Any chance we can make the table generate a category of "Foo of unknown level" instead of "NaN level" for cases when a class is specified without a class level? ~ Lhynard (talk) 17:09, April 2, 2016 (UTC)


 * I suppose, but I would just not specify the edition parameter and add whatever categories manually, since this is such an edge case. Do we really need a category for "unknown level"? They should be listed under "Category:Foo (3e)" for example, which should be sufficient. The edition parameter is used as a switch to turn on/off the category generation right now. If you really think it's worth it, I'll work on it. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 17:30, April 2, 2016 (UTC)


 * As an alternative then, is there a way to have a bot replace all instances of  with  ? I think I've got a bunch of such cases, but I couldn't begin to tell you which articles they are in. ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:28, April 2, 2016 (UTC)


 * That's certainly possible. Drop the details on my bot page and I'll add it to the list. — BadCatMan (talk) 04:31, April 3, 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe I just looked through all the Person pages that use the Class table and did not find any occurrence of NaN. If you can find me a page where it happens, please let me know. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 22:27, January 3, 2017 (UTC)


 * See Hazamir al Aktorral. I am glad to hear that this is rare, but I like to see auto-catting working for as many edge cases as we can. ~ Lhynard (talk) 23:18, January 3, 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry I wasn't more clear. My point was that if this is an extreme edge case then I'm not going to kludge up a template just to handle something so rare. I'm guessing the fix would double or triple the size of the template and it just doesn't seem worth it to me. That said, my searching routine is not working as expected, so I don't actually know how prevalent it is yet. I will continue to investigate. I currently feel that once we fix the existing pages, normal oversight will catch any further occurrences, and I'd rather do that than make a really messy Class table template. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 02:10, January 4, 2017 (UTC)


 * You were clear the first time around above. That was why I suggested a bot run to fix the existing pages, but when I posted to BadCatMan, we ended up back here again. :) ~ Lhynard (talk) 06:59, January 4, 2017 (UTC)

5th edition no NPC class levels
I notice people are removing 5e data and technically they're correct.

A NPC isn't a Wizard and he doesn't have six levels. It's simply the Mage "monster" stat block, and the relevant power gauge is Challenge Rating 2.

In other words, we need to be able to express this.

Where formerly "Wizard 6" was fine for a NPC, we now need the template to accept "Mage CR 2".

Not Ranger - Scout. Not Cleric - Priest. (Or Acolyte. Or Cult Fanatic, even!)

(I hope I don't have to say that any game wiki like this one will overwhelmingly detail NPCs as opposed to PCs.) – User:84.217.39.2


 * I was the one removing your class entries. I don't know anything about 5th edition, so I don't know how NPCs are defined. Unfortunately, I don't think our current system is set up to handle them, though we did adapt to fit 4th edition.


 * For a start, I think "Black Earth Priest" is too specialised and "Necromancer Mage" redundant. This should be general terms so the NPCs are sorted into shared categories. So Priest or Mage maybe. — BadCatMan (talk) 14:24, July 22, 2017 (UTC)