Help talk:Item articles/Preload

Change Log
If you modify the Boilerplate, please add a short entry on what you changed below.
 * 1) Change Log added to Discussion page - ClydeJr 15:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
 * 2) Updated several armor slot category possibilities to reflect new cats: Armor:Waist->Belts, Armor:Hands->Gloves, Armor:Feet->Boots - ClydeJr 15:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
 * 3) Changed the item lists (quest/mats) to use the loot template. It might be nice to have some sort of matlist template to provide better alignment for the quantities? --Chippydip 16:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Set Items?
I'm a bit timid as I'm very new to editing but I was wondering if there is any thought to adding a line to the item boilerplate where it would say if the item is part of a set and what set it is a part of. Currently the only like that might be used for such is the comment, and I know that's not what it is for. Again, since I'm new to this, I'm not even sure of the terminology (line? property?) nor how to add something to the boilerplate. Gattam 16:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Boilerplate Creation
I've been filling in a lot of item stubs recently and have been using this item template as base. I just enhanced it some more and am trying to create a boilerplate version to use for all items. Not sure if this should be moved to Boilerplate:Item or not. Would appreciate any comments or suggestion. Please look at the page source as well as I added some comments in there. ClydeJr 08:24, 15 April 2006 (EDT)

I find it easiest just to copy the look straight from Thottbot. This boilerplate works very well with that. Pzychotix 14:24, 6 August 2006 (EDT)

Icon
Perhaps move the icon to the tooltip instead of the article itself? Would make it look more like the in-game equivalent. Jeoh 20:27, 24 October 2006 (EDT)


 * It's, uh, a bit late in the game for that :( Theoretically possible, but it would require someone with a bot or a *lot* of time on their hands. Besides - I don't recall situations where the icon is in the tooltip in WoW. Sorting the "Source" line breaking problem is simple, however. Just put  after the intro text, which should move it under the icon. I just added it to the Boilerplate. --  Kirkburn  (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2006 (EDT)
 * Ah ok. It must be Auctioneer changing my tooltips, hehe. Jeoh 09:48, 25 October 2006 (EDT)
 * I agree, Jeoh. I like it better over with the stats.  I have changed the icon at Necklace of Sanctuary for the sake of this discussion.  See what you think about having it there instead.  And regarding the "being to late," if we decide this is a better way, it will start with new articles and eventually spread to the articles already created.  Plus, there doesn't seem to be that many item articles created yet (relatively speaking), and I have seen some users perform like bots!  :)  WhiteBoy 17:04, 2 December 2006 (EST)
 * This would be done by bot eventually, but needs to be discussed first tbh. It's a real major change, and I doubt everyone agrees on it. I personally do like the icon as it is now. --Adys 17:06, 2 December 2006 (EST)
 * Yeah I do not like the icon in the tooltip as it is, I would much prefer it if the icon was as it is now, but if it were to be changed, I think the text and icon should be on the same line and the icon should be smaller, otherwise it looks too spread out. Something like the following. 22:19, 02 December 2006 (GMT)


 * What about keeping the tooltip as it us, just move the icon to the right? something like this --Pupapaya 13:53, 3 December 2006 (EST)
 * Yeah, that looks nice, a little like WowHead, but it doesn't fit right in WoWWiki. 07:55, 04 December 2006 (GMT)
 * Tbh I really like the style 32px above. --Adys 12:54, 4 December 2006 (EST)
 * I like the 32px version, too, honestly better than what I currently have at Necklace of Sanctuary. Sorry, but I don't personally like the version that you have Pupapaya.  OK, sorry for a noob question here, but how do you do votes here?  I'm used to Wookieepedia and we have a place that we call "Concensus Track" where we can show the different formats and hold a vote on stuff like this.  Is there something similar here?  WhiteBoy 12:56, 9 December 2006 (EST)
 * The current boilerplate puts no icons whatsoever outside the tooltip. I think the icon in the tooltip is nice, but a large icon aligned to the left above the article makes it far more eye-pleasant. Does really everybody thinks different than me about that? Check Fang of Vashj vs Fang of Venoxis for a comparision. --FallingDown 12:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

When making changes
Try to put at least a minimal comment. I rolled back a change by Adys without any comment which essentially reverted one of my previous changes. -- Fandyllic (talk) 1:56 PM PST 3 Oct 2006
 * Ah sorry, thought I precised it on Pupapaya's talk page but just checked and no. I mainly reverted them for the same reasons as stated above by Kirkburn, doing any real changes to the boilerplate without modifying templates means going through a LOT of changes (pretty sure there is at least 5 000 item pages). As for this addition, personally I don't think it is really needed, since we already have a =Source= section, which is basically the same.
 * I also removed the JPG part, I am trying to go through all the jpg icons into png one by one, and it is very helpful if people use straightly the png, and saves a lot of time :)
 * I will leave it as it is atm, I'd revert it but I'll wait for your call --Adys 17:11, 3 November 2006 (EST)

Transclusion template design
So I've been skimming around some of the new TBC items, and I'm finding that I really dislike how items are linked in the wiki pages. I have some ideas for some templates we could embed in a   block, thus allowing pages to directly call an item page. For example, instead of just linking  The Scarlet Key  one could use   and get a color-coded WoW style link link like  [ The Scarlet Key ]

Second idea, add a parameter to the call to make a "summary" view, much like a loot box entry. For example,   would yield:

By adding these into item pages, we could make the links a lot nicer looking, and the vendor and mob drop lists look similar to a venor or loot window. I think it'd make the wiki look a lot nicer and more consistent with the in-game item views. --Tekkub 18:35, 9 November 2006 (EST)
 * Oh and I do understand that these changes wouldn't be applied as a whole to existing pages, I'm proposing it so that new (TBC) items get the new boilerplate design. Existing pages could be converted as the transclusions are needed to make a page that links it look better. --Tekkub 18:48, 9 November 2006 (EST)


 * The WoW-style link idea wouldn't be too hard to accomplish. There are already a couple templates intended to color links appropriately for what type of item they are. You simply need to add brackets to them, and you've got your WoW-style link. Those templates inlcude: Template:Lartifact, Template:Lcommon, Template:Legendary, Template:Lepic, Template:Llegendary, Template:Lpoor, Template:Lrare Template:Luncommon . In fact, I like the idea so much that I'll work that in myself. =c)


 * I would advise against using individual templates to display each item in the game, because that would create a huge duplicity of item articles and item templates that's just not necessary. I like your design, but it might be best to make a single graphical template with one argument -- the item name -- that somehow pulls in the item picture, maybe some statis if that's possible, and displays the appropriate information in a small box like the one you've set up. 19:59, 9 November 2006 (EST)
 * Ah, but I'm not talking about making seperate pages, I'm talking about embedding the info into the item page. The transclude accesses the same page, and the and blocks on those page make different info come thru the transcluded call instead of just showing what's on the normal page.
 * If you'd like to see, check out User:Tekkub/Beaststalker_Armor and User:Tekkub/Beaststalker's Bindings --Tekkub 20:31, 9 November 2006 (EST)


 * Ahh, I see. So, someone would link the item article as a template, which would only pull in your graphic. Clever. I like it. =c) I hope someone else does, too.


 * Kirkburn likes it, I'm toying with a TBC page to get an example going :) --Tekkub 21:11, 9 November 2006 (EST)

Can we make this a template?
Is there a way to create a template using this design? I know it would be more difficult because some items have more stats than others, hence more lines needed. Any wiki-savy people know? WhiteBoy 17:05, 2 December 2006 (EST)
 * It is better if it is not a template, just press on the boilerplate, copy all of the code and paste it into the new article. You could also just copy parts of it if you are editing, or just use it as a guide. 22:26, 02 December 2006 (GMT)


 * Sure, I'm working on a template... Although, it's probably the most template-unfriendly thing we have on this site so far. --Hobinheim 23:03, 14 December 2006 (EST)


 * Are you talking a template for the entire page or just the tooltip? I'm assuming just the tooltip. If you do create a template and put it in the boilerplate, make sure you get one of the admins to lock the template like they did with Template:Elinksitem. - ClydeJr 09:53, 15 December 2006 (EST)
 * Yes, talking about the tooltip. WhiteBoy 16:59, 15 December 2006 (EST)

Redesign
Ok, how about this? User:Zealvurte/Sandbox/Item:Conjured Bread Content needs work, you can ignore the categories for the time being, just comment on the layout and design. Where as this one User:Zealvurte/Sandbox/Item:Axe of Brox, you can get an idea of some other possibilities and how content would flow with more substantial content. -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 17:57, 24 January 2007 (EST)


 * Both of those pages are formatted really funky on my screen. In the Conjured Bread one, there's a line across the header that cuts through the icon. The tooltip is below the headers section, and TOC, links, and media sections are all floating directy under the tooltip (as in they are as wide as the tooltip. Is that how you plan it to look with those sections just under the tooltip? In the axe one, do you really mean to link off all the information such as the item source, what its used for, etc? Those should be on the item page. - ClydeJr 18:27, 24 January 2007 (EST)


 * Lol, yes that is the intended layout. This way the toc can be used along side the article without the existing method of either no toc, or having the toc adversly effect the content of the article. It also provides quick access (down the right, where the vast majority of users rest their mouse, and preventing confusion between the main site nav) to off-links to the information relevent to the item, but not part of the item's information specifically (these would be category links, yes, though that page needs to have several reworked. This is part of my proposal for something else, and not specifically to do with this design. Basically, lists of things and relationships between articles should be expressed dynamically unless inappropraite (singular or one sides relationships), only statically, when they need to be presented in a different form than a link or category. But thats a discussion for another place and time.. >_>; ). It keeps the generic information at the top, the game specific info just below it, and the lore last for further reading. The tooltip is kept above the toc for quick at a glance summary, the media that is relevent to the article as a whole kept below the links as not to needlessly clutter the page (where as contextual images relevent to a section of an article would still be within the body of the article) -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 18:53, 24 January 2007 (EST)


 * Need a in there. My main concern about the layout is that for the majority of items, the only info will be in the right column, making the article unbalanced visually. But it's a good start. --Mikaka 18:30, 24 January 2007 (EST)


 * No needed, the idea is to work with the toc, and allow it to fit the layout, rather than fight against it eleiminate it completely as we currently do. Very few such items exist in all honestly (especially in the links department, which grows with the item's info and usage anyways). There is always more that can be added that people don't realize, which is what i tried to do with conjured bread. Even then, yes it may look unbalanced, but the balance is simply down the right, where the wiki already as an unbalanced design for the left, it's easily missed and overlooked in that sense. And still, it is all there, consistantly presented so readers can become familiar with the design and know where to look for what they want instantly, regardless of how much info exists for that item. I think that's a small price to pay for such a design no? -- Zeal   talk   contr  web 18:53, 24 January 2007 (EST)


 * Why is the ToC (table of contents) below the tooltip? Either leave it off or place it on the left? See Sunfury Bow of the Phoenix as an example using current boilerplate. --Dracomage 14:02, 28 February 2007 (EST)


 * Because it should not be left out, nor should it be on the left creating a thin, near unsuable, channel for the lead in. The boilerplate does however need a redisgn to accomadte this (Which is what the above is all about). Even still, it needs a redesign to clear up the sections, as of right now, it discourages a lead in, and large soruce section (not needed) and a large notes section (should not be notes, and most of it should be in the lead in) -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 14:20, 28 February 2007 (EST)
 * Thanks for the response. I was away for more than a week - so mossed out on a lot of the changes! --Dracomage 14:41, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Effects
Could anyone show an example of an item with multiple effects? (were one effect do not have a spellID listed?) My example Marksman's Bow. Any advice? --Dracomage 14:41, 28 February 2007 (EST)


 * Oversight by me. The way you did it is correct (though with a slight change, made easier to follow, check the edit i've made), gunna update the documentation to explain a more predictable solution rather than having it figure out that quirk. -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 16:20, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Recipes
Am I confused or does this boilerplate not work for recipes because of the new tooltip template it uses?

If it does work for recipes, someone please give an example. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:18 PM PST 28 Feb 2007


 * Okay, I answered my own question... it works for recipes...
 * See the example below-right... (uses &#123;&#123;:Recipe: Shrouding Potion&#125;&#125; below)


 * This relies on proper use of &lt;noinclude&gt;&lt;/noinclude&gt; in the source pages.
 * -- Fandyllic (talk &middot; contr) 3:51 PM PST 28 Feb 2007
 * With the new tooltip template, it looks like created items should simply be shown as a link using the create= and createq= parameters. --Chippydip 16:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Items with the Same Name
I'm wondering about how to handle cases where there are two or more items with the same name, like pvp rewards and sutchforth, is should all the versions be included in one page? Should each have its own? (in that case how do we differentiate the page title, and how will that effect the Tooltip with the itemname not being the page name? --Kaso

Auction/creation costs
I noticed that on thottbot they now have a field for items that displays how much the materials to make the item typically cost, and also how much the item sells for in the auction house. This information is really important to newer players who might unwittingly sell a valuable item to a vender because they didn't know how much it was worth. Anyways I recommend we include the auction price and creation cost in the item boilerplate (or, better yet, in the tooltip).

--Jiyambi 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That price is WAY too volitile to put in item pages, thott/alla/head's prices update every time users upload data. Look at the same item on all three pages (hell, wowecon too), you'll see a big difference.  New players need to learn how to read the market for the item they're putting up, not just accept a price from some external source...  My roommate still seriously undersells his items, I buy all his crap every time he uses the AH, he thinks he's picking good prices cause the sell fast.  In the end I make more money off his loot than he does.   17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, that makes sense. -- 17:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Examples
I would find examples of most of the item types very useful. I just used this boilerplate for Brilliant Amber and I'm not 100% happy with my results. An example would have saved me a lot of time and left better results. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by. 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Includeonly
One of the wonders I discovered recently was the tag &lt;includeonly&gt;. Is there any particular reason why we do not employ the includeonly tag on the 'float' parameter of the Tooltip template used on this page (and elsewhere)? To me, it seems to be precisely the effect we are looking for. --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Required tools and required environment
It seems that all of the crafted item articles should have a tooltip parameter for required tools= (carried) and environment= (forge, anvil, moonwell). Right now, the Enchanting formulas that produce an enchantment have a rod= parameter, but the enchanting created items do not. Madkaugh (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

&lt;pre&gt; tags?
Wrapping the " " tag will cause the contents of this page to be displayed in a way that can be cut-and-pasted into existing pages. The PRE tags could themselves be surrounded by tags so that Help:Item articles would look as-is, and Help:Item Articles/Preload would be the pasteable version.

I came to this page to find something I could cut-and-paste, and didn't find it. Could we use this solution? -- (the 'pre' tag in the header bunged things up, Howbizr cleaned them up, but the "signature tildes" didn't resolve while the 'pre' tag had effect. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This boilerplate needs some love
I'm probably going to make use of Itembox in the source section. This looks very circa 2 years ago. 7:07 PM, 29 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * I'd been hoping that ignoring Itembox would make it go away. My objections need not be repeated yet again, though. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with this discussion. Care to link? 4:50 PM, 30 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Mostly personal objections based on style, laid on popular user-talk pages hither and yon. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a big follower of user talk pages... Basically it's all over the wiki, and most of these pages are really small so performance shouldn't be a huge issue. 8:47 AM, 31 Jul 2009 (EDT)

Patch changes
Patched doesn't really work right now for 3.3+ (date comes up with ??) despite being updated, and as such is really only being used for hotfixes - plus we've switched to the separate templates for each patch. Shouldn't we remove the section, so its just ? Resa1983 (talk) 21:12, April 4, 2010 (UTC)