Forum:Naming of Recipe Subpages

This discussion was drawn out of Forum:Recipe tables, where the idea was put forward to identify what aspects of profession recipe/pattern/schematic tables could be standardised into a common look and feel. In the discussion below between D.D. Corkum, Hans Kamp and talk, it was noted that subpages where the information for these tables is stored (and then transcluded from) are not named following the same convention. The aim of this forum thread is now to hilight this issue, and to decide upon and implement a common subpage naming scheme.

The page below is divided into a discussion section and a table at the bottom, where the current status of pages are listed. This subject of this discussion is also a task in the Recipe Project.

Discussion
One thing that maybe could be standardised, without too much difficulty, is the naming scheme for transcludable pages. For example, (Alchemy/RecipeTable/Artisan) vs Inscription_recipes/Artisan. Renaming these pages to follow a more common pattern would not require changing the actual appearance of the content, and might make things easier in the long run. Ddcorkum (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In the interest of advancing discussion, I am putting together a table describing how recipes are transcluded for each trade profession. The intent is to identify how things are done now, so there can be meaningful discussion on whether or not to create a standardised method of doing it.  I invite others to contribute to the table below. Ddcorkum (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was adaptiong Blacksmithing in the way Inscription has been done until now. I have done Blacksmithing_recipes/Apprentice until now, and I wanted to do the other Blacksmithing recipes soon. Hans Kamp (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I notice that Alchemy omits the space in Grand Master (I bet if you look at the edit logs, its my fault from 2 years ago, lol). Otherwise, it is very similar to Inscription except the use of "../RecipeTable/".  One big difference I see, comparing Alchemy to Tailoring, is that in Alchemy only the tables are transcluded and in Tailoring the discussion on a particular skill level is transcluded also.  Alchemy also includes a page dedicated to each level which also transcludes the same table, but the text can vary. Ddcorkum (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am now moving the transcludable pages for Alchemy to follow the format for Inscription (and Blacksmithing). This is the first time I've done a change this big.  I hope I don't screw it up...  Be Bold, right? D.D. Corkum (T / C) 03:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I am finished.  Nothing links to the old pages any more (except this forum thread) so maybe they should be deleted?  I think anyone intending to edit the recipe tables will have little difficulty finding them in their new location. D.D. Corkum (T / C) 04:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just put  on the old recipe pages. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 11:41 PM PST 13 Nov 2010
 * Thanks for the tip! D.D. Corkum (T / C) 16:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that many of the pages still have something like (Profession)/RecipeTable/(SkillLevel) that is unused but exists as a legacy from the last time that work on this was done. For example, see the Leatherworking in the table below, and you will notice I added "not in use" to the last column.  I marked those pages for speedy deletion.  The same will need to be done to legacy remains of other professions, as they are found. D.D. Corkum (T / C) 16:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, at the time I "took over" updating the leatherworking and jewelcrafting recipes pages, a few years back, I was told it was preferred to use natural-language page names and avoid using slashes entirely. This is how "Master leatherworking patterns" etc. came about. LW and JC have been standardized that way for a long time. --W.woods (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer the natural-language page names, and would very much prefer to avoid the sub-page (slash) method.  I would like to add, though, that these pages should either be fitted to be useful to reader in their own right, or be moved to the template namespace.  They are currently pages called in to the XXX recipe page.  I will endeavour to illustrate with the Engineering recipe page and at least an example sub-page.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Answering my own call for examples (in making a page useful in its own right): Like Expert tailoring patterns, vs Blacksmithing recipes/Journeyman.  The latter example is "for inclusion only", which makes it a template.  The former includes discussion about the recipes in the table, making it an article in itself. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The tailoring pages have a discussion when viewed ala carte, which is not displayed when viewed "as a table" on the tailoring recipes page. So... the table is transcluded, the discussion is not. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you take a look at Alchemy recipes you will see that the approach for alchemy has changed recently. Now the page Alchemy grand master recipes is treated as the "main page" to the article and it includes both the transcluded table as well as plenty of other information (ultimately as a result of merging two pages that previously existed).  For alchemy, the slash format is still used to hold the table that is transcluded to both pages with ajax (partly this arose as a result of merging pages togther).  On the flip side, I do like how you are doing it with tailoring.  This is definitely a discussion to be had. (by the way, happy new year everyone!  I'm back from the holidays :) D.D. Corkum (T / C) 23:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Huh. Guess I did have a hand in the tailoring pages.  It's ... been a while since I did that.  And longer since the engineering pages have been updated, but I'm getting them up to snuff.  Slowly.   And, there's no reason to keep the references to the slash pages for the templates' sake.  Templates can be changed like anything else.  ... mostly.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Bleah. See also my comments here. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't like the idea of moving all the tables to the template namespace, unless the data in the table is being automatically pulled from meta-data on content pages (refer to Forum:Recipe tables for my demonstration of how that can be done). If we don't follow the meta-data approach then my opinion is that the tables belong in the main namespace, since there is actual information being plugged into them.  They are not just a list of recipes, but rather a comprehensive source of information (in their current state).  This makes them different, in my view, than something like a list of quests (which has only the names of the quests, not extra details about them). D.D. Corkum (T / C) 15:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (Previous arguments, reiterated, removed for brevity.) Some examples: Template:Socket_gem_sources_table, and Template:Cenarion_Expedition_items.  For a near counterexample, World_Events_achievements/Love_is_in_the_Air is *mostly* included.  The only element of that page not included is the footer.  (My opinion: said page should be expanded, or moved to template and footer removed.  But time/effort/consistency prevents me.)


 * "Actual information" is plugged into all of those examples. Different, less complicated information, but still.  TBH, your metadata concept is no different that our current use of item: a template pulls data from the target page.  Worse, though, in that it invokes the same problems that caused many reversion to loot - template recursion limits. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Table
--D.D. Corkum (T / C) 05:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Proficiency pages
I do not believe these have (yet) been maintained. But then, what do they add for a user that the recipe pages do not? (Not a rhetorical question. Is there anything on them that should be preserved?)  From what I currently know, I would not be sorry to see the lot of them removed. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus standard
(none yet - modify as appropriate)

Eirik proposal (existing standard 1)
I would like to propose the following:
 * 1) All "recipes at skill level X" pages follow the "(skill level) (skill name) (recipe type name)" pattern
 * 2) All such pages be categorized under the appropriate "(skill) crafted items" pages rather than the "(skill)" category.
 * 3) All such pages be arranged under the "useful in their own right" fashion.

Poster child for this format: Expert tailoring patterns. Leatherworking pages would need to be improved on point 3, blacksmithing and alchemy on all points.

Existing standard 2
I dislike this standard (as it stands) intensely, but want to list it so people can label it.
 * 1) All pages named "(skill) (recipe type name)/(skill level)"
 * 2) No effort made to make the page useful in its own right
 * 3) Categorized under "transcludable" and "skill name"

Poster child for this format: Blacksmithing recipes/Journeyman. Tailoring and leatherworking pages would need to be modified to the naming and categorizing conventions, and tailoring optionally truncated.

Alternate proposal for standard 2

 * 1) All pages under "Template:(skill level) (skill name) (recipe type name)" pattern.
 * 2) No effort to make the page useful in its own right need be made.
 * 3) Such pages be categorized under Category:WoW table templates or Category:Item templates.

All pages would need to be moved and re-categorized. Tailoring should be truncated under this.

--Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Standards Discussion
My preferences are (hopefully) obvious. No slight intended, corkum.

As stated above, if we intend the page to be "only ever included", that is by definition a template. If so, they should BE templates, and out of the main namespace. Conversely, if they are IN the main namespace, they should be accessible. I find the (skill)/(level) sub-page format much less accessible than the "(level)(skill)(type)" name pattern. (There's a structure argument to be made against sub-pages, but it would mostly be a distraction to this discussion. Let me know if you'd like to talk about it.)

Similarly, if they are to only ever be included, they can be bare tables.

As a person who generally browses without javascript active, the AJAX component of (eg) Blacksmithing recipes defaults to "click this link to view the page". IE, your option without javascript is to see the page on its own. This option does not well suit pages that are not in fact intended to be viewed ala carte. Thus for usual viewing, the tailoring page I listed under the "Eirik proposal" works very well for me. Being shuttled off to a template page is less attractive. ... but template pages are the natural outgrowth of the decision "this page is only a table".

So what about normal people, who have javascript active? Under my scheme, they get pages they can optionally go to, with "normal" looking names and that look like people were meant to visit them, without losing the "just expand the table" functionality they currently enjoy on the BS and Alchy recipe pages.

And Engineering? They DO have pages like tailoring does, but the individual skill level pages are linked to mostly via Engineering recipes. The Engineering recipes page is an outlier in all regards. I was actually on my way to look into changing it when I encountered this discussion.

So... Agree with the Eirik proposal? Disagree? Have your own plan? Don't care? I'd rather find a consensus than have folks wake up to a fait accompli and insist that I change it all back... --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)