FANDOM

{{Infobox faction}}

Please don't put in "placeholder" text when using this template. Most fields are optional, so if you don't define them they just don't show up. If it's a required field, don't put in the box without filling that in with real info. If you leave bits out people will fill them in as they see it needs it, but if you put in placeholders it looks crappy. Thanks! TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 18:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

alchemy recipes

while adding a full table for all the alchemy recipes is good, is it really useful to have both a 'name' and a 'creates' field, where they'll be exactly the same for all but the transmutes? wouldn't it be better and look more cleaner without the repeating on almost all recipes, and just keep the name field, having the itemlink there instead of in 'creates', as it's obvious e.g. the "major healing potion" actually will create a major healing potion? Taurmindo | talk contr  17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It's more of a matter of consistency. I plan to use the same table layout on a number of things where the naming convention does not hold true. In addition when getting to the transmutes you would then have to fit in all three once again (name, creates, reagents), which would be inconsistent w/ the rest of the table, and possibly misleading. Also, when color-coding for common/ucommon/etc. having the extra column looks better imo.--Scyth02 17:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Gems

Very nice work on the gems, however the Gems: pseudo namespace is not the best use. Gems:Yellow would be more appropriate as something like Template:Gems/Yellow etc. As well, {{gems}} is best suited for the bottom section of articles, the usual place for navigation boxes of this type like Deep Peridot. Keep up the nice work. --GRYPHONtc 02:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's nice to know that my contributions are appreciated. What I might do is add some info. to the top of the pages and make them actual entries. With that it would be reasonable to move them to page names such as Yellow Gems and such. I would keep them set-up for use as transcludable pages though. My feelings on placing the template at the bottom of the page is someone would need to scroll through all the tables and possibly not find what they are looking for until they reach the navigation template. 'course, one possible solution is to remove a lot of info that can be obtained through the navigation template, but I want some input before deleting that much. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scyth02 (talkcontr). 15:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Well the thing is that they are navigation and people are at the page for content, not navigation. All of the other navigation boxes are at the bottom because they are not the primary reason for people being at the article. --GRYPHONtc 15:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

please

Use ==External links==, not ==External links==. Ty --Sky (t · c · w) 16:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.