| abstract
| - Currently we use various formats for common and rare crafting materials. I plan to go through all of the materials over the next days, and before I do that I'd like to agree on the formating. To kick of the discussion I created Bone, with a formating that I think covers all the information we need. Please review and comment. --Tetris L 04:01, 6 Oct 2005 (EST) The list "What salvages into it" can become quite lengthy and hence very hard to maintain. I've come to realize that maybe isn't such a bad idea. At least not for materials like iron and wood, 'cos those are in every second item. --Tetris L 04:04, 6 Oct 2005 (EST) How is this? I organized the salvage and crafting sections in columns for a more compact design. My wousewheel finger got tired from scrolling. ;) --Tetris L 23:34, 6 Oct 2005 (EST) id prefer another sorting:
* general
* use
* where to buy/sell
* what drops it
* what salvages into it else it looks good, and yeah, the lenght of the what salvages into it may get pretty long, but it may be useful if u wanna farm a special material, so i think its needed. --HJT 23:44, 6 Oct 2005 (EST) About the "contains xxx": as mats also get dropped by creatures, u have also in the info bar of a creature "contains xxx"???? another category may be created, like "drops xxx"... --HJT 23:50, 6 Oct 2005 (EST) I like the bone page, very useful. I think the whole category:Contains Iron and Category:Contain Vitamin C is a bit absurd. But I have no solutions myself. --Karlos 00:03, 7 Oct 2005 (EST) I agree with HJT that the Use section should be above the acquisition details. I'll modify it. As for the contains bone category: I don't mind at all to create the list manually. But that's redundant information again, which requires additional maintainance and increases the risk of errors. By GuildWiki policy we're trying to avoid that. --Tetris L 00:30, 7 Oct 2005 (EST) I modified the design again. Please review. I'm quite happy with it now. If nobody objects, I'll go ahead and update all other material pages (rare and common), using the same design. --Tetris L 02:33, 7 Oct 2005 (EST) It looks a little messy, but it's probably all of those edit links sitting in the tables. Maybe fix the location of the image box, too. - Lunarbunny 03:13, 7 Oct 2005 (EST) Please make the tables transparent (see example I did with one section). The white looks awkward --Karlos 15:44, 7 Oct 2005 (EST) I had experimented with transparent background while testing various formats and have to say I prefer the white background. IMHO the page looks even messier with transparent background listings than with white background listings. If we use transparent background then I'd prefer that we get dump the column design alltogether and switch back to the old list design, even if the page becomes a lot longer that way. --Tetris L 00:10, 8 Oct 2005 (EST) This is a style point and a point of taste, so I won't even bother to debate it. In general, a change of background that is borderless looks unprofessional, like we made an error or something. That's why I have category listings with the white background. If you want to have the while BG then put a border around it, even a single bevel is fine. --Karlos 13:56, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)