Template talk:Instance drop

I've a bit of a problem with bolding the name of the template here. Some templates will be placed in such a way that we won't want to bold them (for example, when it isn't the first usage of the name). Not real sure how best to deal with it.

Further, this template isn't well suited in general, as we should be defining what the item is first, before explaining where it is generated from.

It's a good idea, but it seems too inflexible to cover the cases we want it to atm. Ideally, we'd also see this in tooltip, which is, what I imagine, the reason for the discussion opened on talk:tooltip. --Sky (t · c) 03:19, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever works. I'm just setting up a starting point. We've still got some time until the smw rollout so I'm trying to get as much at least started as I can so we can hit the ground running when the SMW databases are up and the jobqueue's fixed. If you've got ideas I'm all ears. ;) -- k_d3 03:34, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

This still leaves us with the issue of how to format it, of course. We don't want to enshroud our item pages in templates, but neither do we want to lose the semantic capability. --Sky (t · c) 03:53, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider something like your basic item page... um, let me grab an older one, as they're more useful to illustrate my point (and are the minimum that we should have on item pages, which I hate foxbot for not having done a better job when it populated the myriad pages): Azuresong Mageblade. We should be defining at least the type of item, before we discuss where it drops (I'd also like to see quality defined). However, we can get that early bit of information from the item page itself, without adding a new template to define the new things to the page! If we also add the source to tooltip, then we can further pull that information from the page itself, so that the page and template are internally consistent (and we only need to edit one object when we do need to change the page).