User talk:Howbizr/Template:Gems

Comments
Bulletted mostly to keep paragraph spaces from eating your page here... --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) My goal for a template was to have as little duplication between the 'legacy' gems and the 'cuttable' gems as possible. A benefit of this would be to allow multiple footers if really needed.
 * 2) Having a separate template for WoW/BC/Wrath goes some way to solving things, but I think "minimal footers" providing cross-linking would be needed. Template:Mount had collapsible sections for a while.  Perhaps something similar here?  (And names for each section: WoW Gems, BC gems, etc.)
 * 3) I think the WoW gems section you have provides information (what ore you get it from) that is not called for in a footer; also, way too large/tall.
 * 4) I am not comfortable with having the "by attribute" in the same template as the "by material". For instance, it is a non sequitur in your 'classic' footer.  If anything, it should be a footer of its own, perhaps with the appropriate category (-ies) bolded for the current page. ... which begs the question of transcludable "similar gems" pages. (q.v. "similar enchantments templates")
 * 5) Also in a footer, the icon does not seem useful to me. Perhaps Fandy disagrees?  Regardless, it is a dissonance with the "by attribute" sections beneath it, another argument for separate templates.
 * er, sorry, not "Thorium or better". Just thorium.  Ooze covered and small are covered under the contained ore.  Similarly "Tin or Silver", "Iron, Gold, Mithril, and Truesilver" etc.  "xx Or Better" implies eg Jade in Thorium veins, which doesn't happen.  Another complication arguing against including ore source. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, I'm going to separate these. It's hard to give feedback to 5 things simultaneously. In the future, you might just want to start 5 topics. 1:39 PM, 25 Aug 2009 (EDT)

1. Reduce duplication

 * My goal for a template was to have as little duplication between the 'legacy' gems and the 'cuttable' gems as possible. A benefit of this would be to allow multiple footers if really needed. Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I really have no idea what you're trying to say. None of the gems are shown twice, given different parameters. 1:40 PM, 25 Aug 2009 (EDT)


 * Having Minerals and Gems on the same page would be silly. I wanted to avoid that issue by coming up with something that could either combine the two, or "not display the other".  To that end, your templates do much the same. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, I don't see the problem. Depending on the parameter shown, you will never get "minerals" and "gems" at the same time. 3:04 PM, 28 Aug 2009 (EDT)

2. Minimal footers

 * Having a separate template for WoW/BC/Wrath goes some way to solving things, but I think "minimal footers" providing cross-linking would be needed. Template:Mount had collapsible sections for a while.  Perhaps something similar here?  (And names for each section: WoW Gems, BC gems, etc.) Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Really, I'm not sure how much more minimal they can get. Maybe I could attack trying to make a "two column" footer. I really liked this organization, because as a crafter, as you level up, you sort of go through "levels" of gems. I thought about just dropping off the label all together, because it was really hard to make a meaningful and accurate one. "Primarily from iron" was one thing I thought about doing, too. Item level is the most specific, but I don't think it's appropriate for footers.

Do you like the organization, and just not the layout (too much vertical)? Or do you like neither? 1:43 PM, 25 Aug 2009 (EDT)


 * Organization by expansion is cool. Labeling "uncommon/epic/rare" when the item link does the same thing seems unnecessary.  Organization by Category deserves a bit more than a blurb, see below.  'minimal footers': I was thinking of the 'collapsed tables' that mounts used, defaulting to a single line that could be labeled (eg) "BC Gems" or whatever. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the collapsing should be used sparingly. They should collapse if you have multiple footers. But sections within footers shouldn't be collapsible (that's an indication your footer is too complex/tall).


 * Again, we can remove the labels, but leave them grouped by quality?


 * My original question was did you like the grouping for the WoW gems? By roughly item level? 3:07 PM, 28 Aug 2009 (EDT)

3. Too large

 * I think the WoW gems section you have provides information (what ore you get it from) that is not called for in a footer; also, way too large/tall. Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * :er, sorry, not "Thorium or better". Just thorium.  Ooze covered and small are covered under the contained ore.  Similarly "Tin or Silver", "Iron, Gold, Mithril, and Truesilver" etc.  "xx Or Better" implies eg Jade in Thorium veins, which doesn't happen.  Another complication arguing against including ore source. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

See comment above. We could just drop the labels. I struggled to come up with one, even though I know this is logically how the gems are grouped. 1:45 PM, 25 Aug 2009 (EDT)

4. Attribute and material together

 * I am not comfortable with having the "by attribute" in the same template as the "by material". For instance, it is a non sequitur in your 'classic' footer.  If anything, it should be a footer of its own, perhaps with the appropriate category (-ies) bolded for the current page. ... which begs the question of transcludable "similar gems" pages. (q.v. "similar enchantments templates") Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just going for easy. You could make them separate. But if every article is just going to include both, that's kind of silly. 1:46 PM, 25 Aug 2009 (EDT)
 * Drop the rarity on the gems themselves, letting the Item template display their rarity, and it becomes a lot less silly to have a separate footer table for 'category'. Plus:  category is not really as appropriate on the raw gems (eg Bloodstone) pages, compared to cut gems pages.  By Stats, By Source need to be updated or they become worthless.  Should not be labeled by expansion.


 * Hmm... separate Category from others, and a lot of the empty space in the rarity row header goes away, too. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Icons

 * Also in a footer, the icon does not seem useful to me. Perhaps Fandy disagrees?  Regardless, it is a dissonance with the "by attribute" sections beneath it, another argument for separate templates. Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people including me forget the names, especially now that there are so many. They just know "the epic wrath red one." I think the icons are extremely important, since we can't change the color of the text. That's also why I dropped alphabetical order and went for ROYGBIV order in many cases. 1:49 PM, 25 Aug 2009 (EDT)


 * Wrath: I'd move tear and eye to the diamonds line. Throw rarity out the window and you could even add the pearl, all the "not standard colors" gems in one line.


 * BC: that "not standard colors" idea would work there as well, diamonds and pearls on one line, perhaps below epics.


 * WoW: you may have missed my comments on the legacy gems... --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The meta gems make metas, and the tears make purple cuts... so I don't see why they should be grouped together. 3:15 PM, 28 Aug 2009 (EDT)


 * Because neither fit the pattern created by the ROYGBP mined/prospected gemstones. You aren't displaying "all red gems", then "all blue", etc.  And the Tears make prismatic cuts.  Jaggal make purple ones. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)