Quest achievements

Nested recipe tooltips

This currently causes recipes to display a tooltip within a tooltip. Can you edit this so that the created item is linked rather than embedded? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is, at least in part, intentional -- we've never been able to properly include information about the item created in the recipe tooltip before, and I wanted to see if that's useful now that we can do it properly. The current nesting looks okay to me ( [Recipe: Vial of the Sands] is an example), so I'd like to hear a bit more about what makes the old behavior more desirable before making changes. — foxlit (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

To me, it seems like it would be better to be able to mouse over the name of the item and see the tooltip rather than have it embedded within another tooltip. While it may not look TOO terrible on Vial of the Sands (I disagree that it looks okay), something with a longer tooltip than a mount (like  [Plans: Imperial Plate Shoulders]) would be absolutely ridiculous. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There are situations when you can't mouse over an item link: it might already be in a hover tooltip, or perhaps javascript is disabled. Recipe vendor pages, like Sal Farraga, would certinly be a lot less awkward with nested tooltips.

It bears pointing out that the "absolutely ridiculous" nesting format is used by virtually everything: the WoW client, community site, wowhead, sigrie all display information about the item being made -- because it's useful, and perhaps not quite as ridiculous as you would imagine.

Based on your example, I think you're objecting over the increased length of the tooltip -- but since  [Plans: Imperial Plate Shoulders] doesn't actually use itemtip, it's a bit hard to actually figure out what that'd look like, and whether we need to change anything. I'd say give it time; if there are non-hypothetical pages that end up being negatively impacted by this, we can always look at ways of making it even more awesome. — foxlit (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If it becomes too troublesome, we could put the created item to the side like we do the dual-faction tooltips. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 13:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Itemlink

Is there an argument to prevent the page from being item-linked? We need it for things like Frostmourne, Ashbringer, and the Skull of Gul'dan which should never be linked as items. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

|noilink= will suppress the defaultlink formatting. --k_d³ 19:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Frostmourne, Ashbringer, The Skull of Gul'dan. Note that there's no tool/itemtip on Skull of Gul'dan anyway...--k_d³ 19:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

After a quick discussion on IRC, I implemented another solution that doesn't use the noilink parameter, which may not be long for the world. See Frostmourne vs  [Frostmourne], Ashbringer vs Ashbringer (item). If we wind up with another artifact that gets a tooltip or a blizz display, this'll probably be the solution we use going forward. --k_d³ 17:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That's probably a better solution anyway. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Vendor cost

Just curious, what was the rationale behind removing the cost that vendors sell items for from the tooltip? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Tooltip's |vendor= argument was only used on the item's own page, where the "Source" section typically provides a more readable description of how the item can be acquired. It's the difference between "Vendor: 1 " in a tooltip miles down the page, and "... in exchange for  [Leggings of the Forgotten Vanquisher]" rather close to the top (see for instance Thunderheart Leggings). — foxlit (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

ifexpr vs. plural

Maybe {{plural:$1|charge|charges}}? Strizh (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Certain template arguments can't be set in stone

Attributes, resistances, sockets, and effects are currently regimented and cannot be changed. This isn't the way the actual tooltips are in the game and the armory; they are often placed differently and not in line with some set list. We need to be able to adjust such stats as necessary. Meta sockets are not always placed last. Crit. strike is not always place before haste rating. If I was a first-time visitor to Wowpedia and started comparing such things to the Armory and Wowhead, it would make me wonder why Wowpedia's tool tips are not accurate, and what else might not be accurate. I realize that changing this is likely not easy, but honestly it's driving me up the wall.--Mondoblasto (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have an example of items that are different compared to in-game and on Wowpedia? --g0urra[T҂C] 21:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in the Blizzard template—which we've known about forever, if such a template even exists—are inconsistencies we can't deal with. Changing it is honestly out of the question. --Sky (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

 [Drape of Neferset Destruction]  [Furious Gladiator's Chain Helm]  [Demon Stalker Gauntlets] Pretty much all Cata crafted armor (I'm a LW)--Mondoblasto (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Even so, we need to be able to make it accurate. If there isn't a way to make those sections of the template arguements more flexible, maybe we ought to just use the old system for the ones that don't quite fit.--Mondoblasto (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)