Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Crafting formatting

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Poached from Community Portal[edit]

I've poached this from the community portal page. Apologies if that steps on any toes.

Really, I think this is two problems, and I believe the solution from the second flows from the first... but first, the content from the community portal... Torrenal 22:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A call for a Community Referendum on the documenting of crafted items and their Recipes[edit]

Moved from Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Community portal#A call for a Community Referendum on the documenting of crafted items and their Recipes
  • First) The Intention here is to establish a Consensus, and a Compromise to create a Standard Format, that while all may not agree upon, but that all must in the end equally uphold.
  • Second) It has become clear that there are several very strong emotions and feelings on this issue, and I respectfully request that we all attempt to set those aside and approach this in a logical, practical, Intuitive, and Functional Compromise.
  • Third) The game mechanics of Guild Wars 2 is different from the game mechanics of Guild Wars 1 and we should not be afraid of establishing our own distinct policies and procedures to present the NEW material available to us in a NEW way.
  • Fourth) and Foremost it must be a method that even the most inexperienced User attempting to locate the data must be capable of navigating, comprehending, and employing it, and preferably with an "At a Glance" list also available.


Some Basic Definitions and Semantics may need to be established. It is understood that some of the final implementation must await the planned and anticipated Upgrades to the Wiki software. It is further possible that the solution may require fundamental changes to some Templates.

This being Said; To get the ball Started, I would like to introduce some Dialogue from a Resent IRC chat on the issue: {names without permission to "Quote" were substituted}

Goals:

1) How to Document individual Recipes and the Resulting UNIQUE Item. (and in very rare cases, different recipes that result in the same item across different crafting professions)
2) How to Integrate both the Recipe and the Item into the Wiki Search Engine so it can be found.
3) How to present "At a Glance Tables". (and/or Recipe Prediction Tables).
4) Where or how to Document, cross reference, Ingredients, and Recipes? (how interlinked should crafting materials, recipes and profession pages be?)
4b)How many times or in how many locations do we need to interlink and or cross reference where or how a material can be used or in what recipe each material needs or can be used in? {How deep the iterations}
5) Can multiple Unique Recipes be grouped into single Item articles? (ie. Ignore all item prefix and suffix) {Example: Garnet Stud of Might and all "xJewelx" Stud of "xxxx" to be only on a single page called "Stud". (with or without redirect pages?) ?User search effectiveness?}

Issues:

1) Not every item needs it's own page.
2) Recipes do not need their own page.
3) Recipes can be bunched together on a common pages by type. (who needs to search for spoilers anyway.)
4) We don't need to document every prefix or suffix an item can be initially crafted to have. (nor do users need to search by prefix they should be smart enough to search by the base item name only and then look at the table on that page for available variations.)
5) Post crafted items that have been modified after creation by the addition of, or replacement of, an upgrade do not need to be documented.

Please feel free to speak your mind on the topic, or to add to the list of goals, and or the list of issues. Rudhraighe 18:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  1. I think we should move this off community portal and into the talk for style guide pages (reason: this page is already hard to navigate — that gives us more freedom to establish sections to discuss different elements of the issue). I think we should also move the IRC contents to another page (again, to facilitate editing the talk page).
  2. I think 90% of the people with views on this topic will change them after we implement Semantic MediaWiki. When GuildWiki added that extension, it completely transformed how that wiki created relational links between mats, sources of mats, and products of mats. Since those relationships are even more diverse and complex in GW2, I think we should wait for everyone to see how it works. It will make it trivial to present at-a-glance, integrate recipes & items, cross-discipline differences, and grouping all sorts of nearly identical combinations (e.g. Festing vs Honed Boots, or Festering Boots vs Festering Gloves).
  3. I think this is a critical conversation for the wiki and I'm keen to resolve, but I think there's no immediate need to do so. We will have loads to overhaul & clean-up whenever we adopt SMW. I'm afraid that if we adopt an interim solution now (without SMW), it will be difficult to reach consensus later, since many people will have made up their minds about what crafting-related articles should look like).
As a guiding principle, I think we need to make sure that crafting is presented as simply as possible. Let's be careful about cramming too many infoboxes onto the same page or creating tables that contain all data but are hard to read. We should make allowances for different types of players: some will know to search for simple terms (e.g. thin leather boots), but others will look for the full name (festering thin leather boots) and others will look for the dyslexic name (thin leather festering boots) — I'm not sure how we handle it (more redirects maybe), but let's not dismiss out of hand the fact that the nomenclature won't be intuitive to everyone (particularly not to non-native English speakers).
To reiterate: I think this is among the most important documentation issues we face, but I think we can put it off for a bit longer (even though we have 30 different systems in place). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I wish I had seen this earlier. During the last BWE, I did test what happens when you change the Garnet Pebble from a Garnet Stud of Might with an Amber Pebble. As expected, it turned it into a Garnet Stud of Festering. The Garnet Stud part is locked with the innate power bonus and cannot be changed. The upgrade bonuses change with the name when the stone is changed. I'd propose we stick with pages without suffixes (eg. Garnet Stud instead of Garnet Stud of Might). We could add a note that, when crafted, the item contains the used gem in the upgrade slot but can be changed afterward. I believe this would help new players to know that you can indeed change the upgrade. --Thervold 21:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I guess the issue then comes down to the search. Would it be horribly inconsistent to have a redirect from the default crafted item to the base? So when you do craft your Garnet Stud of Might and look it up on the wiki, it would have a redirect. But if you changed it to a Garnet Stud of Festering, would you still expect a redirect? Basically, if you have one redirect, must you create them all? Or could we suggest that Garnet Stud of Might is special and the only Garnet Stud of X that requires a redirect?--Thervold 22:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Problem, the first: the final items[edit]

Crafting items appear to revolve around a base item, to which modifiers can be added. These modifiers are decided upon at the time of crafting and cannot be changed later. If I were to take this to Old-School GW1 days (pre nightfall & inscriptions), I'd liken this to the innate mod a weapon has. (Yes, we need to look forward and I'm looking backwards... bear with me a minute) In GW1, that innate mod does not change the weapon name, nor does it get the weapon a unique page for it on the wiki. Never the less, players would still advertise for a 'R9 15^50 Celestial Sword' in trade. The R9 and the 15^50 are not proper parts of the weapon name and weapons don't get new pages for each weapon, but they still matter to the player. The combination as a whole however did not matter to the wiki. If it did, we'd find a unique page to discuss the R9 15^50 Celestial Sword.

In GW1, all R9 weapons behave similarly with respect to req. All 15^50 weapons behave similarly with respect to damage dealt. These traits get different pages for themselves, but not every weapon needs nor requires them. It is enough to base the weapon page around the skin and obtaining thereof, sometimes with respect to specific mods.
In GW2, this really has not changed. What has changed is that the R9 is now recorded in Rarity & Level, and the 15^50 is recorded in the afix for the weapon. All level rare level 30 weapons behave similarly with respect to values that level/rarity affect. All Pillaging weapons behave similarly with respect to bonuses provided. Create single pages to discuss level, rarity, and Pillaging and be done with it. Leave the rest to the skin. Come to think, this is simpler than in GW1. In GW1, there were skins you could not obtain with certain mods. In GW2, you can. Just transmute the weapon skin you want with the weapon mods that has the mods you want.

I would propose that we do nothing more in GW2 than we did in GW1 - Discuss items based on their skin, not on their full name, from which the skin name is derived. We needed the 'Sundering Zodiac Longbow of Fortitude' pages there no more than we need the 'Emerald Platinum Ring of the Knight' page here. This would require:

  1. Create a page for every prefix/suffix. In those pages describe those in detail. What they do, how they vary among themselves (various 'grades' of pilliging insignia have different levels of effect), etc...
  2. Create a page for each final base object type: Wool gloves. Jute Gloves. Cotton Gloves. Discuss the basic attributes of these types. The levels, and attributes for their levels. Refer to the prefix/suffix content, but don't cover it in any real detail, that's what the pages for the prefix/suffix content are there for. Under a list for obtaining these, list the ways that the various levels of gear can be obtained. 'When crafted using a wool insgnia, a level 30 armor is produced. When crafted using a embroidered wool insgnia, a level 35 armor is produced...'

This gives a simple system for representing a plethora of object types without needing thousands of pages. Part of the key to this is balance. Balance depth of detail with breadth of detail. Don't need a separate page for every possible permutation, but we do need pages where the permutation cannot readily be described in a generic sense.

We have a system now. Lets apply it to the mid-step crafting components. Specifically, the insignia, the inscriptions, etc... A wool insignia is a wool insignia is a wool insignia. To the crafting system, it doesn't matter if it's pillaging or rampaging, what matters is if its wool or not. Wool armor takes wool insignia. That's all there is to it. Oh, we may need to make a decision about embroidered wool insignia (lump under 'wool insignia' or lump under 'embroidered wool insignia'), but we don't need a separate page for each unique insignia. Such pages are of limited use to the user, and if the user really needs to learn about a 'festering embroidered wool insignia', the search will still find festering on the embroidered wool insignia page. Torrenal 22:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

How does the stuff I did fit in under this, like Bronze Rifle? Too much? Okay? I think that the pages like Huntsman and Leatherworker only need the basic category (i.e. Seeker's Gloves, Crude Longbow, etc) to avoid having the aforementioned 9000 items and associated pages. I personally like the listing of different variations on the end pages, to see where the levels break and the difference in attribute buffs lie. Wombatt 01:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
About the right content, but wrong format for it. Infoboxes are best in moderation. Around 2/page, in my opinion. One at the top for the item. One at the bottom for navigation between common types. In concert like you have, they format poorly on a narrow display. That said, the content is good. It just needs a tweak... Torrenal 01:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Whoever works on that "tweak" should keep in mind this discussion, so that we don't solve one problem only to exacerbate a different one. And what you describe are two different kinds of boxes - the one in the top-left is an infobox, the one at the page bottom is a navbox. They serve different purposes. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Edit done - I've pulled everything into templates. Looks like I may have removed one too many infoboxes, as the page is now entirely free of them (oops?). More info now fits on the screen at one time. It's easier to compare different variations. And the layout won't break on my tablet. My error on calling the nav box an 'info box', but really, that's about it for boxes on a page. Bugger, forgot the TOC. Gotta have the TOC. (3 boxes / page?) Torrenal 03:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Huh, I thought you were going to modify {{recipe}} so it wouldn't look like an infobox. Oh well. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 03:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Apologies if I was vague. I was tweaking the page, not the template. Glad we have all that content tho, kudos to Wombatt for compiling it and getting it posted. Torrenal 03:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm going through the Huntsman and Leatherworker pages with the rest of the info I got from the recent stress test, I've tweaked the Bronze Rifle page layout a little, as the infoboxes (containing value and power) were gone. Thoughts? Am I missing anything? Just want another opinion before I update the rest of the Hunts pages with the layout. Juicearific ~talk 19:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that on the "Boilerplate Generic Final Product Page" the basic crafting formula is in a inline format. It seems like using the recipe template box {{recipe}} is much cleaner and easier to read.
Slowload 00:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And wastes a ton of screen real-estate.
And is also several times harder to compare and contrast different recipes.
And it formats poorly on small screens and tablet devices.
Please: 1 infobox per page, not more. It's not just a good idea. Ultimately, I think to keep the DB tools happy, we'll need a unique page for each unique recipe. Save the infobox for those pages. —Torrenal 00:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
While I understand the want for one infobox per page, what are we going to do about pages that have the level 25, 30 and maybe even 35 variants of weapons/armor together? the 25's all share the same attack power, craft level, etc., but not with the level 30's. I find 2-3 infoboxes more fitting for that, one for each craft level set.

Juicearific ~talk 20:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I can understand the screen space issue, some may not want to scroll down a ton to see all the information available.
  • The info box makes it easier to compare two recipes not harder, it gives the recipes a standard layout that is evenly spaced.
  • Formatting on mobile platforms is not something I think this wiki should be worried about, you wont be playing the game on a tablet, and if you are looking something up on a smartphone or tablet then understand that is a draw back of using that device. Most will be viewing it on a pc, the wiki should be designed to present the information in a way that benefits the majority of players.
  • The down side to only using one info box is that you have to decide which item with that name is the most important, and then you will either make all of the other item's information be displayed in a hard to read format or simply not display it at all. As a long time user of GW1 wikis, I can tell you that not having information is the best way for a wiki to become worthless, the second being presenting the information in several different formats making it hard to read. Please take a look at the Mighty Embroidered Coat page. With out any of that information the page is incomplete. The info boxes display all the information in an easy to read, and well organized way.
  • And this is may sound silly, but what database tools are you talking about, the ones that operate on this site? If not then it is of no concern to this community, making the information on this wiki hard to read so that another site can strip the info off of it and then re-display it is something that should be avoided.
Slowload 18:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Just my personal opinion here, but:
  • Info box spaces the information out. It can actually make the information more difficult to compare.
  • formatting on mobile platforms shouldn't take the front seat. It shouldn't be the main concern, but if we can make it look good on PC and mobile devices as compared to just PC, we should. I don't know about you, but if I had an Ipad (that didn't have some school sanctioned browser that blocked everything. -.-), I would have the wiki open while playing GW2 on my pc. It would save me having to alt-tab out, and the fact that GW2 dies every about 5 times i alt-tab, it would be very useful. Not our first priority for sure, but definitely to be considered.
  • no need to decide on the most important name. Just put in "(suffix) Embroidered Coat", or something to that effect. You could even leave "(suffix)" out.
You referenced Mighty Embroidered Coat, but what's with with this design Crude Longbow? It encompasses all the information that yours does, allows for easier comparison between things like festering/mighty, and has less infoboxes/recipe boxes. There is also less blank space. Juicearific ~talk 23:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Re Crude Longbow The multiple tables separate the information same as infoboxes, making it harder to compare things. Since they are holding effectively the same content, but for nearly identical sets of objects. Further, they suffer a (minor) layout failure on narrow displays. If a single table will do, then by all means use a single table. See: Embroidered Coat —Torrenal 01:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Having them in different tables lets you know at once that there's something different about them, without having to sift through tightly-packed columns to try to figure out what's different (a la Seeker's Coat). That's not to say that I don't like the Seeker's Coat layout, but if it was up to me I'd put Healing, Precise, and Vital at the end, sort by variant, THEN by alphabetical.Wombatt 01:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Juicearific, I had not seen the layout of the Crude Longbow page and I agree that it is the best solution I have seen for the problem we are having. I don't really like the basic crafting recipe layout, but since no one likes using the recipe box for it I don't have any better ideas to offer. Using the multiple info boxes along side the multiple tables allows a user to tell what information is being presented to them very quickly and easily. The multiple info boxes are especially helpful in sorting out which upgrade components create which level of bow (crude, standard, masterwork) and show the strength and req level difference in the two types of standard bow.
Slowload 17:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I prefer the table formatting as currently displayed on the Crude Longbow and Bronze Rifle page for the crafted item variations, but a suggestion: if the standard and master variations were listed in the same sequence, (for example Mighty, Festering, Vital, Healing, Precise, Resiliant) and if this sequence were standardized across the tier of items, (including the insignia/inscription tables) it would create a more standaridzed, uniform appearance, be easier to compare items, and be neater. Just my two cents. Karen Lioheart 12:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem, the second: the recipes[edit]

Recipes are in many ways linked to the items they create. If we are already treating the insignia/inscriptions/etc as a separate component of the item, we can extend it to the recipes as well. But this gets a little more difficult, as we are trying to list the ingredients for making specific items. This can still be managed in a general way that won't require 1000s of pages. Wool gloves are still just wool gloves.

Have a page for each base recipe, say 'Wool Gloves'. In a list of recipes, the wool gloves would list their 2 standard ingredients Rawhide Wristguard strap and Wool Wristguard padding. In the last space we put a wildcard: Wool Insignia.

In a list format, that's all the user really needs anyhow. They can then look at the list of wool insignia by following its link. They can drill into the recipe to get an enumerated list of the recipes, so that they can identify any in-game recipies they might be missing.

To me, this seems simple, but I think simple is the way to go for something that's going to be used for reference as much as this is. Torrenal 23:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Start with something and then fix it...[edit]

There is a Crafting_materials page that privides something like an index to the various items. I think it is a bit incomplete so I am hacking up a somewhat more complete version here. The format includes a bit more than just the raw materials, intermediate results and final results for both crafting and cooking. It is definitely a work in progress with the current intent of just getting the information up so it can be looked at.

Another problem is missing icons. Rhoot posted a quite large archive of icons. I'm in the process of uploading them with an index here. That should help with getting the right pictures for the various items.

--Max 2 23:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Icons can be fixed I'd rather let people who enjoy that task work at it. I'm more concerned about the framework the items are used in. I would say the crafting materials page needs help. It at least needs organized... the one looooong list of items in a single column will get people lost. Myself included :P
Speakihg of starting someplace, I'll be tackling a draft version of the tailor recipe list. Torrenal 23:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Uncle. The table work is beating me up, but you can get an idea of where I'm headed by looking at what I made of bags here: User:Torrenal/Sandbox/Tailor -- Torrenal 01:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Loading all those icons is not particularly 'enjoyable', but there is satisfaction in doing something useful. See User:Mtew/Icon Gallery, User:Mtew/Icon Gallery 1 and so on. --Max 2 06:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
No argument there. I've spent a good chunk of time stubbing out NPC pages, cropping and loading pages. At least this time around, someone beat me to creating pages for most of the NPCs I had screenshots for. Unfortunately, I've got extra detail for each of them to load (detailed info for each item they sell...).
On topic, I had better luck with the jeweler (more complete data, and much simpler mid-components than tailor). Have a look at my general recipe page here. Click on the 'ore' and 'Ingot' links to get an idea of what I think each of those pages would look like -- the same would carry over to the chain, filagree, band, etc pages. Terminology might need some minor help, as I have it presently, Doobloons count as 'gemstones'. *shrug* Either way, I think it's far more concise and simple than the current page. Thoughts please? Torrenal 07:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Transmutation and item names...[edit]

Hum. Was thinking it might help, but after hunting down a screenshot of my transmuted headpiece, it keep the entire name that came with the skin.... so it wasn't a Pillaging Glacial Eye... shame... had the name updated to represent the component stats going into the item, it'd help support what I was arguing for... Torrenal 23:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Come to think, that may rate an actual bug. Consider the case of someone transmuting a Pillaging widget of mightyness with a Wimpy widget of mightyness. The result would be as mighty as the Pillaging widget of mightyness, but still be named wimpy. Or.... it might be called a 'Rampaging' item, with Pillaging gear. Think back to GW1, a 'Firey' bow that did frost damage. Might confuse a few peeps, eh? Torrenal 23:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Recipes resulting in lootable items[edit]

Apprentice Warhorn is an item that is commonly looted in the game. It is also the result of recipes (as seen on the article). This will be my main example whilst I address an issue for anyone believing a compact article is the way to go.

Currently, the article I linked has only recipes, hardly any information on the item itself. This will change in the future. And one thing we need to avoid is ending up documenting every instance of every variant of every form of the Apprentice Warhorn on that article. It may quite possibly result in massive pages filled with infoboxes and recipe templates. Because we only have limited access to the BWE (and therefore this item), we should assume worst-case scenario for many forms of documentation, so i will sketch this for you.

For now we will assume that the Apprentice Warhorn is going to drop for every possible level. We are also going to assume that there are more recipes for the other rarities. (The generic item Sword (or Axe, or Rifle, etc.) would be a more generic example to imagine this scenario for (also being more likely).)

There are 14 prefixes we currently know of. There are 6 rarities for PvE equipment (Junk isn't a weapon rarity, neither is Transmuted). There are also 80 levels a player can currently be at.

Going by that information, this scenario would result is 84 recipes (with 84 results) and 80 regular lootable items. To comfort the scenario slightly, we're also going to assume level dictates rarity for looted objects (per example, all level 20 instances of this weapon are Masterwork). Needless to say; there is no room to comfortably document all of those, let alone on a single page.

I don't have an ideal proposal to sort out this kind of scenario. I am hoping it will never get to this kind of pain. I just think it is a topic that requires a lot of attention whilst we're sorting out the whole crafting thing. In the very basic; I'd keep recipes on recipe articles, and the results of said recipes on the base item articles. Don't transclude recipes into the base articles. Definitely don't transclude a large template with the recipe. Just a link to the individual recipe articles would be much cleaner, for starters. - Infinite - talk 18:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to make a quick note looking ahead to SMW integration: in order to annotate the recipes properly and easily, each recipe will need to be a separate article. Whether this is a combined recipe/output article (that documents the specific instance of the item created by the recipe) or just the recipe by itself won't really matter. But having 6 different recipes on one article like Infinite's example would make it extremely difficult to keep the properties of each recipe linked together properly, without suffering bleedthrough between the recipes. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 18:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
While I'm not strictly opposed to separate articles for separate recipes, I don't see that presenting the content to the users requires such. It may be that technical limits force the articles on us. *shrug* I definitely want to quash the idea of a separate article for each item variation. No need to document the Sundering Zodiac Longbow of Fortitude as a separate, unique item, different from the Fiery Zodiac Longbow of Fortitude. Link both to 'Zodiac Longbow' and discuss the prefix/suffixes on their own pages. The same sort of conversation is happening for Veteran NPCs.
I honestly think the best approach is to, at lest in ones head, break the item down into several separate properties: Level, Rarity, Skin, Innate Modifiers, Upgradeable Modifiers. If you mentally break the items down that way, I think it becomes much easier to cope with any specific variation. I've always thought of the crafted item as more the subset of the item than an archetype, no better or worse than drops. Just... different. This makes for a challenge, yes, but not one I hadn't expected. Torrenal 20:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with presenting it that way - we'll just have to sequester the semantic annotations in {{recipe}} like auto-cats so that they can be turned off by passing | semantic = n when used on the generalized article i.e. 'Zodiac Longbow'. We'll still have to create articles for every distinct variation in order for us to retrieve any useful information from SMW.
Let's go back to the Apprentice Warhorn to discuss an example situation. The generalized recipe would be * 1 <generalized> Bronze Plated Inscription * 1 Bronze Warhorn Mouthpiece * 1 Bronze Horn. Now, imagine someone has a Mighty Bronze Plated Inscription, and they want to see what they can craft with it. If they make the obvious query for {{#ask:[[Has ingredient::Mighty Bronze Plated Inscription]]}}, they won't see Apprentice Warhorn in the results because it doesn't reference that specific inscription, it references the generalized form of it. Thus, we must also have a separate article for Mighty Apprentice Warhorn that does list the specific Mighty Bronze Plated Inscription as an ingredient. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 03:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
clarifying my previous statement, i'm generally opposed to having a unique page for each and every final >item<. I'm on the fence about having unique pages for each >recipe<. I thought I saw a page about loading raw data data directly into SMW, apart from what was on wiki pages. Is that true? (i am a noob when it comes to SMw). That alone might get us around some of the restrictions on organizing data that might otherwise be imposed on us. Torrenal 04:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
There are a couple of alternative solutions to being able to keep things simpler:
  • Raw data loads, assuming we can extrapolate the recipes and results for missing items (and that ANet doesn't have to be involved more than once). (And that things don't change much after we load the data.)
  • Have a bot generate [Prefix] [Item] [of Suffix] with the right data
    • Redirect such articles to [item].
    • To keep things less cluttered, also create a special name space for the variations on a theme (but not the generic article). This populates SMW, but doesn't clutter up searches.
  • Assuming we can extrapolate results, add a button to each generic page to generate appropriate results on the fly for common queries. For example, in Ish's example above, that button would read, "What can I make using this item?" Another might be, "what variations of this item can be crafted?" So, we might not have everything in SMW, but users could still find the information they were looking by starting at the article for the generic item.
Separately, we might want to include a parameter in all item infoboxes (armor/weapons/item/other) to indicate whether this is about a generic item or a specific one. (e.g. maybe base item = yes). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
We'd need one anyway. Recipes templates have a req level, which becomes meaningless with many of the generic recipes. Torrenal 06:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
er, hang on, you said 'item', not recipe. For recipe, we'd need the flag. For an item, I think we do better if we can avoid going to the trouble of having more than a single listing for an item type. Seriously, we're looking at approx 10,000 pages to maintain if we go that route, half for he recipes, half for the produced items. Then you throw in merchants, who (after looking at skins) may overlap with each other or crafting. If we need to make an update to all the pages (say, if SMW needs some additional template info), that's a monster list to maintain. Torrenal 06:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
"I thought I saw a page about loading raw data data directly into SMW, apart from what was on wiki pages" Um, you must be remembering wrong. The core concept of SMW is making data on pages accessible to the rest of the wiki - data stored solely in the database doesn't fit the SMW model. Maybe you saw the discussion about the ExternalData extension, but the key there is that it's still loading external data into wiki pages. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 14:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
(reset indent) its been brought up that items can also be crafted/purchased, with Simple Shortbow being an example. I'd like to take a page from the GW1 wikis and use a single page for all of them, regardless of req, method used to obtain them, or precise modifiers. This implies that we need a 'Item Formatting' page to record that particular standard on, since it's not a problem unique to crafting. Torrenal 17:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I think there's general agreement that readers benefit from slogging through fewer pages. The question is how do we document things so that the single suggested article for base-item is (a) easy to find & covers the relevant differences; (b) users can easily find (and understand) the general naming conventions (and how they affect price); and (c) how we can be sure to allow us to produce the correct dynamic lists of all items in the game.
It occurs to me that another potential standard we could use is displaying the base item only in a list as something like:
[item] || possible upgrades: [article with dynamic list of valid upgrades] || base coin value || base coin cost || karma cost
So if the item was low level armor, the dynamic list would show "Mighty,..." and "of Health..." and would show how those upgrades affected price. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Formatting of Generic Material Types[edit]

I'm seeing some repeated themes in material:

  • Scraps (jute, wool, cotton, etc) can all be turned into bolts.
  • Ore (copper, silver, gold, etc) can all be turned into ingots.
  • Bands (copper, silver, gold, etc) can all be turned into rings
  • Venom Sacs (tiny, small, normal, etc) can all be used for specific types of item...
  • Bone (chips, small, normal, etc) can all be used for specific types of item...
  • Vials of blood (thin, weak, normal, etc) can all be used for specific types of item...
  • Dust (glittering, shimmering, radiant, etc) can all be used for specific types of item...

I'd like to see pages that place these items in discrete groupings (I'd say categories, but I don't mean wiki categories).

From a starting point, they don't need to list recipes that they go in (for most, that would probably be messy), but can they at least be created & fleshed out? (Mind the naming of 'Bone', we have about 5 different 'Bone' in the game. Thus far) Torrenal 14:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wiki categories would also be helpful.
I believe the game identifies several types of items either via the mouse-over info or the section of storage a material goes into. I think we have three overlapping varieties of categories:
  1. Type of material, i.e. indicates the stage of the process, e.g. raw (ore, scrap, wood), refined (bolt, square, ingot), component (e.g. a lining, hook, bow string), fine material (blood vial, dust, ...).
  2. Type of recipe ingredient, i.e. how it's used in the crafting process, e.g. activators (from chemistry, these affect the type of bonuses, e.g. blood or dust), constituent piece (e.g. a leather square for linings, a leather scrap in making squares)
  3. Tier of material, i.e. what tier of product they can be used for, e.g. at lower level discipline, it's weak blood & jute variants, but later, one needs thin blood and wool. The dividing line seems to be every 25 or 50 discipline ranks, depending on the item. Outside of cooking, I haven't seen many (if any) recipes that combine items of different tiers.
So a bolt of jute is a material that is a refined, tier 1 constituent piece; a bolt of wool is also a refined constituent piece, but second (or perhaps third) tier. Although similar concepts apply to cooking, the terminology doesn't quite match and the relationships are more complex. Salt and Pepper are ingredients, but they can also be combined to create a second-level ingredient, salt+pepper.
Using this terminology, crafting a finished product comes down to refining materials into goods that are stitched/welded/joined into component pieces, which are then combined into finished product. Activators used in the final steps determine the bonuses. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Tiers do appear to be every 25 levels. A given base material seems to be active for 50 levels, then you have a 25 level gap before the next base material kicks in. Liking much of what you stated, *however*, tiers are vague, on a per-item basis. What is a tier 2 item for the chef (req 25) may be a tier 7 item for the Artificer (req 150). We may find that things get more complex than that, a single item may operate on multiple tiers for a profession. One reason I've not stubbed out the Alloying Lumps page is I've got too little info to go on -- perhaps only the first 2 tiers are called 'Lump', and the third tier is 'Brick of Unobtanium'. For similar reasons, I don't want to start with assigning tiers until we have a better understanding of how the game uses them. It's clear that the game doesn't work strictly from tiers, reusing some low-level mats for one crafting profession for mid-level mats in another. I'd say 'Be ready to assign things tiers, but wait on more info.' The rest you stated holds as valid. Torrenal 23:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Past time we got some real content on the page. Added Generic Types. Review & Edit at your leisure. Torrenal 01:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I've put up a rough draft of a generic final product page. I pulled it from Bronze Rifle, which is plainly not a finished product. It still needs polishing of types that I'm not well suited to give it. Torrenal 03:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I independently put together [[User:TEF/Sandbox/Recipe B|a sandbox]] for updating the presentation. It shares the same principles as Torrenal's example which are:
  • Show the boilerplate for the recipe (for basic firearms, it's barrel, stock/handle, activator)
  • Use one infobox per article; display the variations in one or more tables (T's separates by suffix: Simple, Master/Masterwork, and none; mine does it by required toon level for the character; also possible is by discipline level)
  • In addition, use prose or another table to show the basic stats and how they vary.
Both are more extensible presentations than what I see currently at things like Bronze Pistol. Both would also allow some dynamic list creation. See for example: "User:TEF/Sandbox/Recipe lists". – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I think we can drop the value column, there's things wrong in the game if you are making something with the intent of selling it to the merchant - for a profit. 'bonus determinant item' is long, and contains 'item', which is redundant. One only adds items to a recipe. I've renamed it to activator. I would prefer to combine the level 10 and 15 tables, as they have the same materials going in and thus follow the same basic recipe Not sure we want the attribute icons, but merchants get them... I'll take another swing at your version tonight. Torrenal 13:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Responses:
  • Activator is a much better term (I had been thinking about catalyst, but those do not get used up in reactions, whereas activators do).
  • Icons for items: yes, please. (I've added them to the sandbox e.g.).
  • I'm absolutely against dropping value — it's an opinion as to whether selling crafting items to vendors constitutes a broken aspect of the game; it's a fact that crafted items have merchant value, so we should include it.
  • I have a weak preference to dividing things by product level. The other choices are by materials used (Torrenal's suggestion above) and by discipline level. Each has their advantages:
    • By product level makes things easy to find if you're trying to produce an item to order.
    • By materials is better for seeing patterns. This is nearly analogous to by item rarity.
    • By discipline level is better for seeing what you can make (makes it easier to identify recipes left to discover, helpful for progressing the craft).
I'm sure there are other useful ways to setup a generic item+recipe article, but this is already far easier to read than what we are seeing elsewhere. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
let me state the value another way - the only value we can list is the value to merch the item. That is not however the market value for the item. I very strongly expect that items made will trade for many times their merchant value, making the merchant value on the page both of negligible value and misleading. For those two reasons, I would exclude the value to be of negligible use. Mind, this is my opinion only. Another factor to consider is titles. Yes, titles. Theres one for crafting one of everything. A not-short list of about 5000 items. Which means that unless each and every player has use for all 5000 items, they are going to be selling a large number of items in the marketplace, and merching any that they can't sell for merch value. That may make the value less than merchant prices but even then, the player isn't going to be making the gear to make a profit selling it for the merchant value. He's going to be making it to use, trade, or sell. In none of those scenarios is the merchant value meaningful. The table should list meaningful information instead of all information. I'll get into grouping the recipes tonight. For now my terse response will have to be 'fewer longer lists is better than more short lists'. Torrenal 18:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Let me rephrase my objection: I don't think we should be imposing "value judgments" about what facts players should find useful. Vendor WTB is often the only piece of data available to get a sense of "fair pricing" (by comparing them to vendor data for comparable items that do have vendor WTB/WTS info). Further, if I craft even as few as 200 items useless to me, I'm going to merch before waiting for the trading post interface to pop up (and manually adjusting the prices or even accepting the default). I do want to know in advance what those values are. In any case, adding a value column barely increases the total real screen real estate used, so I don't think it's a question of long-vs-short lists.
However, I want to point out that this is a relatively minor sticking point: I think we both agree on the more important issues of (a) condensing the presentation, (b) reducing repetition, and (c) logically grouping products for easier comparison.– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
(reset indent)Torr's Edits, round 2:
  • There is no reason to describe the description as being the Description. That the top of the page starts with a description of the contents can be implicitly assumed anytime the page starts with text, and the description's description becomes redundantly redundant.
  • That the item contains an unused upgrade slot can be considered implicit information. All weapons/armor have upgrade slots. Only if the slot already comes used, is missing, or more than one upgrade slot is present would it be noteworthy.
  • Vertical real-estate is expensive. Use the horizontal stuff when you have it -> Express the recipe in a horizontal format, not the table format that is vertical AND takes an extra line of text for column titles.
  • Anomaly: The bronze rifle expressed the level 15 versions as masterwork quality. The pistol expresses them as fine quality.
  • Axe the top-left infobox -- really, I'd prefer that to be the infobox in the top-right, but more important still is keeping it off the left edge.
Thus is my reasoning. Torrenal 01:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Torr's Edits to [[User:TEF/Sandbox/Recipe_B|a proposed template]], round 3:
  • Axe the double infobox look. Still need to axe the 'Undefined' values from the remaining infobox.
  • Looks like Activators will be a 'thing' on the wiki. Give them an icon. I hate it, but it's better than the lock (may retry with an asterisk, but I'll wait for input first)
  • We don't need the recipe in the page body if its in the infobox.
  • Could really use some in-depth detail on high-level crafting, as it can define the table layout for the types (by making some styles unworkable)
  • Drew up one tentative table format. Vertical space is at a premium, so I'm trying to not waste it, but it may be too wide.
  • A second tentative table format to follow.
--Torrenal 03:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Table updated... Eep! Just realized -- there's no place to link the final items in the table. Unintentional, but Infinite may not appreciate the detail. :s Ad-hoc fix with a two column list of the recipe links after the table? —Torrenal 01:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Recipe Listing Uniformity[edit]

I've noticed a number of alternate approaches (Example one , two, and three) when it comes to the recipe listing following crafting ingredients. I'm thinking about replacing them with a DPL generated version. Any thoughts on the output or design? -- Dosvidaniya 15:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

DPL's "linksto" isn't 100% reliable, since it's possible for someone to include a link to other ingredients in a note on an unrelated recipe page. SMW (hopefully we'll get it before launch day...) will provide a more reliable framework. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 15:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Couldn't the DPL be constructed to look at the Recipes category, then for each of the Disciplines, then look at each of the 4 ingredients in turn and if the pagename turns up, it would add it to the list? Jfarris964 16:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
You can look into the parameters of the template to determine if it is a match. However, the only way I know to do that requires you to use those values in your output. In addition, embedded templates always match. Perhaps Dr. Ishmael or others know a way to fix those issues. I know SMW would fix them, but ANet doesn't appear to have any information regarding that update. -- Dosvidaniya 16:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I tried using "linksto" on GWW to construct a list of bosses that carried skill X, but it also included any NPC articles that recommended using that skill against some other boss. So, I think you'd want to use the includematch filter (there's a bad example in my sandbox). Essentially, you use a regrep expression to filter on the values of certain parameters. I'm not good at construction regreps, so I can't be of direct help, but I'm pretty sure others could construct an expression that looked for mat-1, -2, -3, or -4 including PAGENAME as part of {{recipe}} and so on. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I figured out how to bypass my earlier issues. I constructed it to use includematch filters and verify that it was a correct listing. However, it put me back to square one on another issue (which is why I went with linksto). There are pages with multiple recipe listings on their page. With multiple listings, I can't look at parameters. I've looked through the earlier posts and don't see a definitive response as to the page layouts and templates used. I think that will have to be resolved first. -- Dosvidaniya 19:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Your current issue is one I was concerned with as well. From what I've been seeing while working with the DPL to create recipe tables for my personal use, when several recipes are listed on the same page, the DPL will group ALL of the information for all of the recipes into a single item. A way around this would be to have each recipe on its own page. There are a few examples that look identical, but some have all the recipes on a single page, while others link to the individual recipes. It makes for a much cleaner look and the information is on its appropriate page. I know there is a discussion going on somewhere (can't remember where right now) in which people are debating how to handle multiple recipes. Personally, I like the idea of each recipe getting its own page, but others in that discussion feel that it's too many pages to keep track of. Jfarris964 20:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Nailing things down - Overarching design[edit]

Oh goodness, we have a deadline. Time to panic. :P Seriously tho, we really need to have crafting in better shape. We've not hammered out the details, but crafting content keeps getting added that will need moving and revising, so lets get some basic structure together now so that people coming to add content can find that structure and follow it. I've been adding bits here and there for what I see the structure being, but its past time that that I outline it properly.

Here's what I'm going to start filling the project page with, feel free to edit, update etc. I think we need to be on the same page for this so that we can start getting our recipe content moving in the same direction.

1) Main Crafting Discipline Pages -- Outline what the discipline is, what it does. Do not detail any specific recipes. Either discuss them in general terms or not at all. Just as the page for Warrior doesn't and shouldn't contain detailed information for every warrior skill, the Crafting Discipline main pages shouldn't contain detailed information for every recipe. Link to the trainers in each home city (seeing the stock of inventory for each could be good). Link to good starting points for recipes (by component type or base material/difficulty. Link to list of buyable recipes.

2) Archtype Crafting materials (Ingot, Bolt, Dowel, Band, Insignia, Inscription, etc) -- Create these as pages for use in genericized recipes. At most, list how to craft each unique type, but do not list what uses them -- for some items (ingot) that could literately be over a thousand items.

2B) Activators (Dust, Bone, Blood, Scale, etc, etc): Get pages put together for these. Same rules as with the archtypes: Don't list what uses them (this could change once we know more about crafting). These exist primarily for generic recipes to link to them, but can also work as a 'what are the types of scales' pages. Where we have naming conflicts with other types (eg: Bone), we can suffix it with (Generic crafting) -- If we opt for another name later, we can look at having a bot change it.

3) Create pages for each discipline that detail generic recipes by base material (will this work for cook?). (Jeweler/Recipes_Grouped)

4) Create pages for each component type, by base material, that detail exact recipes (Jute Insignia, Copper Band , etc...)

Try to limit how much time you spend listing what uses a given component. We'll have SMW/DPL for that, our time will be better spent getting other framework up, not in making pages 110% complete.

TEF, I think the long version of my proposal table on on your page will be the go-frward table with only minor edits. Thus far, it looks like the only simple recipes are for level 5, so other than the lowest level of crafting materials, it should remain narrow enough to work well. For low level stuff we can Kludge the simple recipes -- I *think* it's just one simple recipe per object type, so it can remain off the table entirely.

Lets be honest, the current setup is a bit of a mess, and peeps keep adding to things, which makes the problem larger without moving us towards a solution. Lets get this under control before go-live. I'm willing to sacrifice neatness for scope -- give users a framework and they will work to make it more neat. What this needs now is broad structure, even if not entirely thought out to the final detail, and I believe the above gives us a good framework hanging a more detailed design on.

Priorities:

  1. Create the pages for discipline crafting by general component type.
  2. Create the pages for discipline crafting by component type+base material.
  3. Stub out pages for holding unlocked recipes.
  4. Move all the specific recipes off the crafting discipline pages down into these pages
  5. Get the archtypes defined, stub out activator pages.
  6. Create generic <disciplineX> by base material pages.
  7. Polish.

Please, give this design a yay/nay vote -- if its untennable speak up now so we can get a framework that will work pulled together. If it'll work, but could use revisions in the broad design, state them. If the problems you have are in the details, save it for the details to come - this is applying a broad draft design to the crafting information, not a final version. —Torrenal 01:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit note: I corrected your usage of "profession" to the proper term discipline to avoid ambiguity.
I say go for it. You've probably got the best overall knowledge of the crafting system out of anyone on the wiki right now, so you're definitely in the best position to get this done in a consistent manner. We can always change things later if we need to - and once we have something in place to give a consistent starting point, future changes will be much easier to make. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the structure needs tweaking. If I view this as a linked list (or just try to browse upwards), I get lost or run into duplicate data when I try to follow the path. I'm going to use this example: Copper Ore => (Ingot archtype) => Copper Ingot => Copper Hook => (Stud archtype) => "Amber Stud of Festering". When I walk down the path, this is what I see: Copper Ore which leads me to (Ingot archtype). That tells me that I can create Copper Ingot. If the page Copper Ingot doesn't exist, I have no idea where I go next. I don't know what I can make with it. If it does exist, why doesn't it have the recipe and toss me there directly from copper ore? This plan appears to be built where you are only linked to the parent node. You can take anything back to Copper Ore. However, you can't move forward.
The only possible method I can see to reduce the number of pages while maintaining a path forward and back is to place the leaf nodes onto their parent. IE: Placing "Amber Stud of Festering" onto (Stud archtype). At that point, you are placing non-crafting mats onto the page. For all intents, it's a generic version of the item with descriptions as to how to craft the permutations. All final items (you can't change them) should probably be structured in that matter. The crafted versions would just have that section enabled. -- Dosvidaniya 03:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Obviously specific material pages should link directly to the specific recipes that use them (Copper Ore → Copper Ingot). I don't think Torrenal ever said anything against that. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 03:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I misunderstood something. But why would the recipe ever be important on a parent node until you hit the leaf? Looking at the post, I was under the impression that recipes were being added to the parent in order to simplify the node count. However, in order to do that, you lose all the child nodes. For example; based on number 4, Jute_Insignia. There is a recipe list. You can see Festering_Embroidered_Jute_Insignia on the list. In order to know the children (which is a mask), it must have its own page. At that point, why wouldn't you put the recipe on Festering_Embroidered_Jute_Insignia and then use SMW/DPL to populate Jute_Insignia later? -- Dosvidaniya 03:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I am in the process of documenting the contents of the various Bank Collection panes. As such, I am creating very minimal stubs for each crafting material in the collections.  I hope that does not interfere with your program. --Max 2 03:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Nope, that's just fine - every crafting material still needs an article, regardless of any structure for "generic" or "archetype" articles. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 03:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Dosvidanya, I don't know DPL, and from comments I've heard, it's probably for the best I never learn it (I push limits in things, me doing that with DPL sounds scary). We don't have SMW yet. If you can populate some of these pages with DPL, go for it, but we need these pages now, so that users looking to find or add content can do so without becoming lost or contributing to the current hodge-podge data structure we have currently.
Max2, you are doing work I might otherwise have to. Keep it up. Keep in mind that it looks like the crafting items were not finalized as of BWE2 (some recipes changed between BWE1&2, one seemed to not fit the template for it, and the molten silver I had claimed to be a future crafting item). You may want to verify that your work is still current in BWE3 and again at Release. —Torrenal 04:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
That's the plan, plus descriptive information... --Max 2 08:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset Indent) Here's my take; we currently have three different "types" of pages.

  • We have the basic materials. They serve as root nodes in the hierarchical scheme. All we need from them is the recipes that use the item. That can be gathered from the other pages. We'd just need contributors to create and flesh out the other details; like item infobox info, gathering information, description, etc.
  • We have the crafted materials. These serve as nodes that aren't roots and aren't leaves in the hierarchical scheme. They need the recipe required to create them (this will be used to create the lists of recipes that use an item). They also need a list of recipes that use the item (automated). We'd need users to create and flesh out the recipe, item infobox, etc.
  • We have the created items. These are the leaf nodes in the hierarchical scheme. We have a couple possibilities here. We can list all the children in recipe format on the page. We can use a tabular form to represent the result with an activator. We could just separate them to their individual pages. Either way, the information can still be collected to form the contents of other pages. Contributors would need to fill in the recipe, infobox, etc. Nothing on this page will be generated unless the permutations can be created by inference.

The remainder of the pages that don't fall into the above are informative pages; not recipes. They are designed to convey a general concept, idea, or grouping. If we want to add recipes to them (such as the recipe listing for all the ingots) that is fine. However, I'd rather keep all the recipes assigned to their respective creation instead of assigning them to the informative pages. That would let us pull the information to the respective informative page.

In my opinion, I'd list the priorities as:

  1. Rough layout & design of the three page styles. Consider activator design.
  2. Stub out non-created recipe pages.
  3. Remedy all non-conforming recipe pages.
  4. Remedy informative pages.
    1. Create the pages for discipline crafting by general component type.
    2. Create the pages for discipline crafting by component type+base material.
    3. Move all the specific recipes off the crafting discipline pages down into these pages
    4. Expand the archtypes defined
    5. Create generic <disciplineX> by base material pages.
  5. Polish page layout & design.

The key here is just to have a page for every recipe that is a crafting item. Contributors should simply create or update a recipe page based on the information they have. That can be pulled to the informative pages. I don't claim the formatting I listed above to be perfect and am more than happy to change it. I just pieced it together from your table and current models. -- Dosvidaniya 06:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

the root node looks nice. I'll put together a few general activator pages tomorrow. You might want to fix the intermediate node link you have above. Looking at the intermediate node, it is not going to be enough to just list what references it. We'll want stats, recipes, etc... Which, I think DPL may not be up to. What you have for the root node looks good for activators, and may work well for other base items... Try it with copper ore, you might find the result an argument for another output format. Lastly, can we cache results with DPL, or do I get a multi-second pause every time the page loads? Dang it, DPL is risky for me. I've already got ideas for it that are best left for SMW... (simpler & less expensive) —Torrenal 07:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
DPL does have a caching option (used on the skill list pages, allowcachedresults=yes), but in my experience it can be a little wiggy - sometimes it works great, like the skill lists seem to be doing right now, and other times it doesn't seem to work at all and hitting F5 on a skill list takes ~5 seconds to reload. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 12:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
so, one page, one user, 5 seconds of server time? Not what I think of as ideal. Picture 10,000 users all accessing the same page in a single hour. That's 50,000 seconds, mind one hour has only 3,600 seconds - this quickly becomes a question of 'should we?'. Can the server cope, or will we need to avoid using DPL for high traffic pages? If we need to avoid it on high traffic pages, I'd lump crafting into that bucket. —Torrenal 13:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I've enabled cached results. That'll help until the server decides the page is old and updates it again. I could improve performance a lot if we place recipes into their respective discipline of crafting. Alternatively, it could be improved if we had access to the array extension. (I take it that we don't have it based on my experimentation).
Whoops, I linked the wrong page for the intermediate node. That is the one I meant to post. It may still need an overhaul. DPL will do the same thing on this page as it will on the root node. Contributors will have to fill out the recipe, stats, etc. I don't know which layout you prefer for the leaf nodes. My artistic talent is terrible. Do you prefer the recipe mass listing? Distributed results where all children get their own page? Or tabular form? -- Dosvidaniya 14:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Kk, going to table the DPL question for the moment. As for stubbing out missing recipe pages: not a priority for us. Important, yes, but it'll happen whether we want them or not. The point here is framework, not completeness. And stubbing out recipe or end item page is a completeness item. Let joe user complete things, let us get the framework into place for joe user to follow. —Torrenal 14:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Dos, the mass listing is an example of the user needing a hammer and finding a rock - it works, but almost anything else would be better. We should pare all the crafting pages back to a single info box. For listing multiple recipes in a single page look at what I did for jute insignia. For an end product page, start with your tabular form, but axe the left side infobox, and the 'simple' column. It's too wide as is for tablet devices, and there appears to only be a simple recipe at the lowest material level, so we can omit it without too much grief. I also want to monkey with the table columns some - haven't had time to look at your version of the table in detail yet, final product will be similar to the first table on TEF's example's talk page, probably with bits stolen from the jute insignia table. I won't have time till tonight to examine the bits properly and pul things together into semi-final versions. —Torrenal 18:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I follow. Are you talking about formatting the recipe listing to include more information while linking to the item -or- are you talking about moving the crafted item's information to the recipe listing? -- Dosvidaniya 19:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I mean, the recipe mass listing, the 10+ info boxes on one page needs to be done away with. Converting those pages should be something of a priority, as its where users will go to look for 'how do I add a recipe'. I mean, the 'final component page' hasn't properly been assembled on a live page. The intermediate components have been put in place in a few places, including the crafted activators (ahem, Insignia). Base materials can work pretty much as is, but kill any extra info boxes. Will need someplace for the content of those boxes... Preferred table format for pages that cover final products, lets move forward with the version here: User talk:TEF/Sandbox/Recipe B#Torrenal's Proposal Table 1. Similar to the version you linked, but some columns removed, others added, and some formatting tags inserted for display on mobile devices. —Torrenal 01:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
(reset indent) Created "Bone (generic crafting)", a generic activator page. Review and update as you see fit, before we make a cookie-cutter of the page. —Torrenal 02:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I like the table and I like the generic page. I assume you are planning to use the design of the raw materials which has been mentioned previously? (Like Bone_Sliver). That design looks good to me. Though I am wondering if the generic pages should also be categories. Right now, there is no categorical structure for the vast majority of crafting. That's the primary reason that DPL bogs down so hard when working over here. It, literally, searches through every single thing because of a lack of categories. As an example, should all the bone materials listed be placed into [[:Category:Bone]]? In that case, we can use dpl to generate the list with next to no overhead. It would also add some semblance of organization for some of these massive groupings. -- Dosvidaniya 02:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Um... which bones do we put in Category bone? Crafting bones? Bundle bones? Consumable bones? Environment bones? I've seen each in the game.
Different topic, I've got a revised page for Tailor here: User:Torrenal/Sandbox/Tailor - Lots of red-links, but that's about how I vision the most we get for recipies on the Discipline page. Comments, before I install it and start moving into the red-link sections? —Torrenal 16:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Why do we need categories for the sub-types of Fine materials? I think that's going a bit overboard. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 17:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
If you are referring to the Category: categories,, its a subject matter over my head and I'd defer to the SMW/DPL gurus. If it's a more generic sort of categorization, I've lost the thread of discussion —Torrenal 19:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
My logic behind [[:Category:Bone]] was that any grouping of items that warrants a page to describe them, warrants a category. Why do we need "Bone (disambiguation)"? If it's because navigation without it is difficult, the categorical structure should be adjusted to be easier to navigate. If it is because there are unique properties that merit description, it deserves a categorical structure. From a DPL/SMW standpoint, you are creating a page that lists all the bones. As such, you should be able to query these items and return that listing. Maybe people disagree with me, but I still believe that if a page is designed for the sole purpose of conveying information about a category of pages, the pages being described should be within that category.
I do see that the "Bone (generic crafting)" page is a candidate for deletion and I believe Ish doesn't feel those pages are needed. In that case, there is no reason to have that category. However, if "Bone (generic crafting)" warrants existence, the items described should be in that category in my opinion. I'm still on the fence as to if that page warrants existence. -- Dosvidaniya 22:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer that Ish responds with what Ish meant instead of everyone optimistically assuming that he supports their side, and automatically claiming likewise. Tell me, Dos, how would you write a recipe that could be expressed in general terms of 10 cloth + 3 bone? What, if any, links do you use? —Torrenal 23:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't add those tags, and I'm still reserving my opinion on the matter. However, those "generic crafting" pages are currently nothing more than lists, so I can understand why Ernie and Konig tagged them for deletion. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 23:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand Torr. I don't have a side on the matter. You'd know far better than I do if the page warrants existence. My point is that if a page exists that describes a grouping of pages, those pages merit a category. If "Bone_(generic crafting)" exists, it should also be a category. The shared properties were important enough to warrant a page, therefore they are important enough to warrant a category. The pages that go into that category should be the ones that share the properties posted on the page that describes or lists them.
For example, your tailoring page. You have created a page to describe all the pages that share the property of being crafted by a tailor. The page is dedicated to describing that grouping of pages. Those pages (all the items crafted by tailoring) belong to that category. You've also outlined key patterns and properties (for example, 1 Bag = 10 Bolts of Cloth + 1 Rune of Holding + 3 Activator) for certain recipe groupings. If a page is created that describes a category of pages (like Activator), then those pages should belong to that category. If there is a page that describes bags, all bags belong to that category. If the grouping of pages have shared properties that are important enough to merit a page describing the shared properties, they should be in a category. Your page looks fine to me. I'd just state that if there is a page to describe a generic bolt of cloth, all bolt of cloth pages belong in that category. -- Dosvidaniya 23:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
You have neatly missed the point of having a page for bone, because your recipe of 1 Bag = 10 Bolts of Cloth + 1 Rune of Holding + 3 Activator is the same for invisible bags and crafter's bags. The user needs to look elsewhere to figure out what activator to use to get a crafters bag, or to even tell if it uses the same or different ingredients from a invisible bag. The main purpose I had for the Activator page is Insignia and Inscriptions. I have clear purposes for each of those pages (which I think may become more clear when we see more rune and Sigil recipes), which is to be as specific as is practical without being required to enumerate each variant. What purpose do the myriad of Categories serve? —Torrenal 00:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The categories serve the same purposes as the created page. You created the activator page for a purpose. The category has the exact same purpose with the added benefit of generated content. If the page has a purpose, by transitive property the category serves the same purpose. -- Dosvidaniya 04:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The activator is not a traditional item. It behaves as a wildcard. Do you therefore list all items in the activator category, since the wildcard can represent any? At that point, the category has lost all meaning, since it contains everything. —Torrenal 05:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Categorical Structure[edit]

Currently, crafting has no real categorical structure. Everything is being dumped into Category:Crafting Materials. It makes finding things impossible and adds massive overhead to basic DPL queries. I've outlined a basic structure and would love input. I'm unsure as to any other necessary subcategories. (Feel free to edit this list). -- Dosvidaniya 17:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

-- Dosvidaniya 20:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm a little blind when it comes to categories. You might have one for each type of activator (Bone, Dust, Scale, Totem, Blood, Venom, etc...) Up to you if you put them together in any hierarchy, but I think that may quickly become more complex than it's worth. —Torrenal 19:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
From my observations, I've determined that activators are upgrade components that are also used for crafting. My observations have been that they are always inscriptions, insignias, jewels, and trophies. (Bone, Dust, Scale, etc. are trophies). Those may merit subcategories for the subtypes (like bones or Jute Insignia).
I'm of the belief that any page that is created to describe a large number of pages should be a category. For example, if you create a page dedicated to leatherworking, leatherworking should be a category for all the pages that are being described by the leatherworking page. The caveat to that rule involves categorical intersections. If you want crafted bags, you won't need the category as long as you have a list of recipes and a list of bags. Then you can just get the intersection in order to generate your list.
While it may seem complicated, it adds structure and allows you to find things by browsing (rather than searching through 100s of trophies for example). It's well worth it. If you think that Bone, Dust, Scale, etc. warrant a page and are going to create one that describes those types of items (aka pages), they should have their own category. If they don't warrant a parent page (for example, there aren't enough dust to warrant a page), then they shouldn't have a category. -- Dosvidaniya 20:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Are they trophies? Do trophies properly occur when yo usalvage? I see trophies as being things like the packages you get as drops, possibly the salvage items, and the junk items. Looking at some monster drops in GW1 and their categories: gw1:Ruby - Rare Crafting Material. gw1:Bone - Common Crafting Material. gw1:Dust - Common Crafting Material. gw1:Pile of elemental dust - Trophy (salavages into dust). gw1:Centaur Hide - Salvage Item. gw1:Naga Hide - Trophy. Jeez, looking at our Trophy page,I can't find the trophies for all the crafting materials... —Torrenal 15:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
They are classified as trophies. You can see that over at GW2DB as well. GW2DB believes that salvageable items (as well as a few other random things) are also trophies, so there may be overlap. Here, people seem to be placing salvage items into their own Category:Salvage_items category. Perhaps that should be a trophy subcategory and all crafting trophies should be in their own subcategory. Which trophies can't you find? Though, the categories over here are a mess and things are scattered.
Edit: Ok, I looked at GW2DB and looked at your other post. You're very correct that trophies aren't my definition. Thanks. I'll try to think of a new structure. -- Dosvidaniya 16:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
GW2DB is also not an official Arena-Net source for information. And they have a Crafting Discipline for Enchanter. Did I miss an announcement? —Torrenal 16:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
(Reset indent) Why don't we just start with the sub-types used in the game? Basic materials, Refined materials, etc. The number of members in a category doens't impact DPL performance all that much. I don't see any urgent need to force a bunch of unofficial subdivisions just yet. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 18:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
That's fine by me; we just need some categories. These items are ending up all over. Would this be good for now?
-- Dosvidaniya 18:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
How are Components and Ingredients different? Depending on what's what, I could see either overlapping with Basic Materials and Refined Materials. —Torrenal 18:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Ingredients is the in game name given to cooking materials. In truth, they are just basic materials and components. We could kill the category. However, that one already exists and is already structured. Refined materials are components (materials created by crafting that are only used for crafting). So, it is probably a good idea to remove the refined material category. -- Dosvidaniya 19:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Ingredients, Basic materials, and Refined materials are the 3 "collectible" panes in the bank, and I'm pretty sure those types are shown in the item descriptions, as well (I know Ingredient is). Components are different because they don't have a collectible slot in the bank; also, Refined materials must still be crafted one step further before they become a Component (they are not used directly in a recipe for a final item).
Trophies, by your usage, are a subset of Basic materials that don't necessarily need to be distinguished yet.
Something that would help me a LOT would be if either of you could upload your screenshots of item tooltips to Flickr/imgur/etc. so I can see what the game actually shows on the different items. I'm trying to contribute here, but my suggestions are all based on my limited understanding of how this stuff is all represented in-game. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 19:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
We are all limited to what we know. I've shrunk my screenshots zip 80%, and am currently posting it on my webserver. Ish, I'll wiki-mail you the link once it finishes. At 20% original size, it still is 200MB. My main interest has been Karma vendors and crafting, but you may find the odd other item (Woo. A Dam Debris, type 'Generic') —Torrenal 20:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think I have a better understanding now. So, for Category:Crafting materials:

Sub-types per the Account vault collections:

Sub-types per the crafting interface groupings:

Currently, I don't think there would be any benefit from going any deeper in any of those categories. There is one point of overlap: Refined materials all (that I have seen) have slots in the Common materials collection. So I don't think that category is really necessary. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 21:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's where I would put refined or upgraded jewels. They can all be added to an item after it's crafted, which is our definition of Upgrade Component. Wombatt 21:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Where would you put upgraded jewels? It's not clear (to me) which category you are referring to. Logically, they should go in the category that matches whatever grouping they are listed under in the crafting interface - I just haven't seen any screenshots/video that show which grouping that is. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 21:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd put them in Category:Upgrade component like you said. Upgraded jewels cannot be placed into the panes, if that's what you mean, they just sit in the regular storage area, the same as a rune or sigil or jute glove lining.
Okay, based on File:Jeweler Crafting Pane.jpg, refined gemstones are Refined materials, and jewels are Upgrade components (like you said). This also shows the difference between gemstone and jewel - a gemstone is an uncut precious stone, while a jewel is a cut and finished gemstone. I updated my proposed categories to reflect this. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 20:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I would hesitate to list a gemstone as a refined crafting material, I believe they belong as Upgrade components. There are recipes listed under Refinement for gems, only because it's possible to create a lump out of 2 nuggets and dust, etc. Truthfully, you could list gemstones as crafting components, upgrade components, and refined crafting materials if you really wanted to. I agree with the rest of it, I think, though, that we should make a very clear distinction between Gem and Gemstone, or it could lead to confusion for someone that's never been exposed to the game. If I could offer a rewording, "a gemstone is a raw precious stone, while a Jewel is embellished (or further refined) with a filigree." Gemstones have dedicated slots in the bank, Jewels do not, they just have to sit in the regular generic storage pane with armor and weps and the like. Wombatt 21:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
not all gemstones are stone, as I understand it coral and doubloons both serve as 'gemstones' in recipes. In the jewelry trade, whether it's rock, metal, glass, plastic, etc, it's a gem. A metal gem, a plastic gem, but always a gem. The problem there is the name gem conflicts with the gemstore gem. To avoid confusion I would urge you to use a different term for crafting than 'gem'. I would suggest Ornament, but perhaps you can find something better. —Torrenal 22:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
That is pure semantics. By strict definition, shields and focuses aren't weapons, either, but the game calls them weapons. In this case, the game calls them gemstones (by naming the collection "Gemstones and Jewels"), thus for game purposes they are gemstones. As for confusion with gem - well, that's why we have {{otheruses}}. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 22:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with that. It's not the clearest way to do it, but it IS the way the game labels it, so I guess that makes it the right way. Guess we need to have Jewel moved to Gemstone and put {{otheruses}} at the top for clarity's sake. Wombatt 22:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we should have both, since, as we both pointed out above, there are important distinctions. However, I must disagree with what you said here: "I believe [gemstones] belong as Upgrade components", because no other upgrade component has a slot in the vault. If it's in the vault, it's either a basic material or a Refined material. So gemstones are basic crafting materials (some of which are Refined) while jewels are Upgrade Components. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 23:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Definitely Gemstones and Jewels.  Stone is amorphous and opaque.  Jewel is crystaline and transparent or at least translucent.  So the Account vault pane includes both and the Category throws in a few other things as well.  They are also the traditional 'birth stones' and it might be useful to name their associated celestial signs and terestial months in their description even if the game does not (apparently) make use of the association.  --Max 2 04:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
That's true, but a gemstone (as well as a Jewel) CAN be added to an item after it's crafted, confers benefits while wielding that item, can be crafted, bought, found, and can be replaced but not removed, which is the exact definition of an upgrade component. I would submit then that Jewels should be categorized both as crafting materials AND upgrade components. By your argument (which I agree with), "If it's in the vault, it's either a basic material or a Refined material" so if it fits all the parameters of an upgrade component, it's also an upgrade component. Wombatt 04:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Crafting observations of the day[edit]

  • Crafting Recipes and bonuses were changed between BWE1 and BWE2. This makes looking at current information on the wiki dubious. There are non-conforming recipes in BWE2 (recipes that are expected to fit a pattern, but fall outside in some way), so I expect expected more changes between now and go-live.
  • Previously observed with karma vendors, Higher level items get larger bonuses than lower level items
  • Previously observed with karma vendors, Green items of equal level get larger bonuses than lower level blue items
  • Insignia bonuses for a particular armor piece vary based on where the armor piece is equipped. Hand armor gets smaller bonuses than chest armor.
  • This might carry over into 1h & 2h weapons with inscriptions. I lack data to verify this.
  • If the bonus is reduced to 0, the bonus is not listed.
  • Tailor recipes include what appears to be 1 non-conforming recipe per base material, which combines an insignia with the base material, or with a fully crafted item. These may represent a theme. They sometimes include a rune on the produced item. Eg: Devout Leggings of the Citadel.

—Torrenal 23:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Cloth Coat page that was added to tailoring seems strange. Why would we not simply list the generic recipe of each type of item. I understand that all "cloth coats" follow a similar pattern but it feels like an unnecessary step when trying to find what your looking for. I feel that seperating out the recipes that much will simply make the wiki less user friendly to those who just use and do not edit it.
Slowload 00:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
What I've noticed:
  • 1h and 2h do have the split numbers, like you suggested. specifically, 1h is half of 2h's bonus almost exactly (odd numbers may be off by one.) The exception is magic find, which is 1% in both cases.
  • huntsman weapons made of wood have two brackets, simple and basic recipes have the prefix "crude" for green wood, and the prefix "apprentice" for master recipes. for soft wood recipes, instead it is "simple" and "journeymen"
  • EXP rates appear to be the same for items of the same type. I.E. a weapon with two different inscriptions should yield the same exp, granted the inscriptions have the same craft level req.
  • All 2h weapons of the same level have the same stat boosts, (for example, a festering lv20 longbow is +27 Condition damage. So is a festering lv20 rifle.) this holds true both for 1h weapons and like armor pieces
  • All inscriptions of the same level have the same boost. a mighty inscription for level 20 gives the same number (+27 on a 2h wep) stats as a vital. (assuming the same base, of say a longbow).
  • On the note of recipes changing from BWE1 -> BWE2, among that list is the rejuvenating inscription. It doesn't appear to have existed in BWE1, but it was definitely there in BWE2.
Juicearific ~talk 02:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Slowload, I'll be honest. The Cloth Coat page wasn't built around making crafting easy. It was built around providing detail for the generic Cloth Coat recipe on the main Tailor page. My main drive has been to get the recipes OFF the discipline pages. They belong there as much as a detailed list of skills belongs on the Warrior page, and their presence does little to help a user understand what the discipline does in general terms. For general terms, you need general (ahem, generic) recipes, and that's what the Cloth Coat page is about - Providing more detail about those coats when someone drills into it. If you want to make things easier for crafting (which we also need), have a look at the Jeweler, specifically the top recipe link on its page, which takes you to Jeweler/Recipes Grouped.
The Cloth Coats page stays. but we also need the 'Tailor Recipes - Jute' page, as well as Wool, Cotton, Linen, Silk, and Gossamer versions. They can even be drawn up as a short list of links (Jute armor consists of Embroidered Sandals, Embroidered Coat, "Embroidered etc...", rather than over-long pages that duplicate information already on other pages. This will mean that crafting has a 'double index' to it, one that works by difficulty, and another that works by type. The trick in keeping things managable, maintenance wise, is to keep a minimum of information on the pages that lead up to that final branching level on the Embroidered Coat and similar pages. —Torrenal 05:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Juicearific I've noticed that there's a difference in naming Huntsman stuff, but it doesn't quite exactly match up that way. This is what I got for naming, based only on my own screen shots:
Crafting Tier Longbow Shortbow Warhorn Torch Pistol Rifle Harpoon Gun
Green Inscription Crude No data Crude Crude Bronze Bronze Crude
Bronze Plated Crude (Master) No data Apprentice (Master) Apprentice (Master) Bronze (Master) No Data Apprentice (Master)
Soft Inscription No Data Simple Simple No Data No Data No Data No Data
Iron Plated Journeymen No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data
Obviously I don't have all the info first-hand, if anyone has screens of recipes or an item name showing in a crafting window for what I'm missing, maybe we can get this nailed down. It looks like I may or may not have inadvertently gotten ahead of myself when I put Masterwork level info on Crude Shortbow instead of at Apprentice Shortbow. Wombatt 19:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I put it on my page, but I spose I'll update it here too:
Crafting Tier Longbow Shortbow Warhorn Torch Pistol Rifle Harpoon Gun
Green Inscription Crude Crude Crude Crude Bronze Bronze Crude
Bronze Plated Crude (Master) Apprentice (Master) Apprentice (Master) Apprentice (Master) Bronze (Master) Bronze (Master) Apprentice (Master)
Soft Inscription Journeymen Simple Simple Simple Iron Iron Simple
Iron Plated Journeymen (Master) Journeymen (Master) Journeymen (Master) Journeymen (Master) Iron (Master) Iron (Master) Journeymen (Master)
Basically, wood based items go crude 0-25, apprentice for 50, simple 75-100, journeymen for 125. Longbows is the exception, in which 0-50 is crude and 75-125 is journeymen, maybe they'll change it to match idk. Metal weapons (pistol and rifle) are bronze 0-50, iron 75-125. Juicearific ~talk 20:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Crafting materials Account vault[edit]

I have put togeather a series of Drafts for the Crafting Materials Account vault.

They are organized as a top level page and a series of sub-pages.

The DRAFT top level page is sparse of contents at the moment. I intend to add:

  1. An initial description of the bank and what it does. (This will probably just the material from the Account vault page.)
  2. A Show/Hide list of 'Banker' locations.
  3. An image of the 'Banking' transation form with as neutral a background as possible. If possible, add tool tips on each of the action and informational components.
  4. Sections or sub-sections describing each of the action and informational components with roll-overs on section titles high-lighting the corresponding item on the form.
  5. An oversized image of a cell from the form, with call outs of each informational component. Also describe how the count of items stored changes the affect of the cell.
  6. An oversized reproduction of the 'tool tip' for the sell. Include a description of the icon, item name and value components of the drop-down.
  7. A list of the various panes that act as links to the page detailing each pane's content. Also explain which panes are available from which 'banker'.

The DRAFT sub-pages contain most of the product of my project. Some additions probably are needed:

  1. An explicit back link to the main bank pane page.
  2. A discription of the kinds of things that go on this page.
  3. The reproduction of the Account vault are missing a few cells. The abreviated descriptions that caption each cell should also be checked.
  4. Display the cells in logical groups as well as the in-game form.

The main idea of the sub-pages is to provide a galery so that materials can be identified quickly. Details belong on the pages describing each material. --Max 2 07:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Liking the new look - the names makes the pages meaningful to my tablet. I've identified and uploaded the missing icons (and don't ask how I sorted what was what, -- I'm reasonably certain they all match up proper). Tool-tips will be worthless to my tablet, but don't let that stop you. What you have there now is fine for my needs, and tablet users can't ask you to hold back for their sake. —Torrenal 03:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I have a retake on the Account vault and really would like some comments (and help) with it. --Max 2 07:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Component Types[edit]

We've got our base materials:

We've got our fine materials (commonly activators, but activators are not limited to these)

I'm a bit more fuzzy about gemstones. We've got quite a few small groups: Single-variety jewels (lowest level):

  • Pearl
  • Turquoise
  • Malachite
  • Tiger's Eye
  • Garnet
  • Amber

Plus a few 2-fer groups (mid-level):

  • Carnelian
  • Lapis
  • Peridot
  • Spinel
  • Sunstone
  • Topaz
  • Amethyst

And some 3-tier jewels (highest levels):

  • Beryl
  • Chrysocola
  • Coral
  • Emerald
  • Opal
  • Ruby
  • Sapphire
(Then there's a few that just don't lump together properly by name... perhaps examining use-cases may reveal an extra category or two, and perhaps let us link some of the others as 'low grade'/'hi grade' variations

And lastly, the Chef components. Which... do we *have* any generic recipes or components for the chef? Or is that discipline entirely ad-hoc? (looks like I've got me a target for BWE3...) Anyway... for crafting, any objection in turning all the red links above into nice shiny blue ones? Any adjustments we want to make to the names? —Torrenal 01:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no, Chef is completely pattern-less, because it is based on real-world recipes. While you could force some groupings onto the ingredients (like roots, fruits, herbs, etc.), they wouldn't be meaningful or useful. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 01:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't touch Chef, but as far as I can tell the only real categories for ingredients that may be useful would be those which can be foraged and those which must be purchased. I already made that notation here, not sure if it's worth pursuing further, though. I did more with Jeweler than any other discipline, I could tackle the jewels fairly confidently when it comes time to do so. Wombatt 01:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
And we have someone marking pages for delete... yay. I'll point them here, because are useful or they aren't, and I think bags make a perfect case for why they are entirely appropriate —Torrenal 03:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
My two cents. I do not think that the "fine materials" need grouping pages - having a page of fine materials can do the grouping themselves. I don't see anything which would benefit from linking to these pages over a table with columns to show the nomenclature (e.g., claw, fang, etc.) and the rows to show the level/rarity (e.g., tiny, small, regular). It feels like making more pages than needed, and as they are they merely act as disambig pages for said nomenclature. It's like having a page called [[Tiny (material)]] which lists all Tiny material items. In fact, this can be expanded to the basic crafting materials (e.g., no need for an "ingot" page, as that's just a form for metal). We don't hold such pages over on GWW, and in this particular case, it'd be the same situation imo. Konig/talk 04:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Konig, It is I think appropriate for the main Crafting Discipline pages to have some recipes on them, to serve as both a gateway into the full recipe lists, and to serve as a brief 'this is how it works' guide for people new to crafting. With that in mind, having an Ingot page makes perfect sense, as you can then describe half of what a crafting discipline with a single, brief table: Jeweler#Crafting components. What we can NOT have is a massive, 600+ row list of recipes on the discipline home page. I'm trying to get us away from that, and describing crafting materialsl in generic terms helps us do that. Being able to say 'Invisible Bags are made of 10 Skill.pngBolts of Cloth + 1 Rune of Holding.pngRune of Holding + 3 Skill.pngPiles of Dust' is Very powerful. Take away 'Pile of Dust', and you take away the link and the picture and it loses a lot of depth. —Torrenal 04:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I have renamed my 'Bank Panes' project as 'Account vault'. This is relevant because some of those pages include alternate layouts that demonstrate the various patterns of materials. They also act as quick reference galleries for those materials. Similar galleries could be set up for intermediate and final crafting products.
I know the 'Account Vault' page itself needs work. In particular I need to include the Main page's content. But is the concept at least close to being ready for 'prime time'? --Max 2 07:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Thread hijacker :P I've got my own ideas for where your bank vault stuff can fit, but my ideas and yours may be different if you're discussing it on the crafting page. Where do you envision it fitting in the wiki? Regardless of your vault, I'd want something to turn up in searches for 'pile of dust' and 'ingot' besides a page listing all crafting materials (which is more pointed at Konig than you, Mtew). —Torrenal 07:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Well it is closely related 8Þ. 'pile of dust' and 'ingot' are obvious disambiguation pages, so there is a definite place for them and where they fit in a 'wiki' is well established. I was thinking the stuff I put togeather fit as a substitute for the current 'account vault' page. The other galleries don't fit there, so I've not done anything with them yet. --Max 2 08:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I guess I just don't see things like you do, as I cannot see how a list of multiple ingredients, where no two of them are used in a single recipe or where a single recipe uses one or the other, is useful. All I see is a fancified disambiguation page, which as I pointed out feels absolutely pointless as it's just nomenclature. However, perhaps it's because I cannot think of how you're wanting things thus I would need to see a complete version in a sandbox of sorts before I could agree with such. However, I am merely one individual and they won't be deleted over little ol' me. But again, I don't see the usefulness at all. Konig/talk 05:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be really swell if we could hold this conversation in a single thread, instead of three threads on one page... Then I repeat myself that much less often. Fortunately, Konig, this is the thread I'd started the topic in, everyone else is independently starting it elsewhere... Many of the examples that I want to point to (runes, particuarily) are things we don't have full info on. But we can compare the cotton and wool insignia. They use the same recipes, except the base material is changed (wool or cotton) and the activators are a grade better for cotton (Small Venom Sac vs Venom Sac, for Ravaging Insignia). That's it. Looking at the Wool Insignia page, you can predict everything there is to know about cotton Insignia, but sometimes the correlation between grades of a component type arn't always obvious. Sure, small tooth or tooth, that's easy. But blood.. which is stronger? Weak blood or thin blood? And dust? Is Radiant above Luminous, or is it vice versa? One thing these pages do is make that order clear. Another thing they let us do is list the recipe in generic terms, as Bolt of Cloth + Pile of Dust, getting all the appropriate links and content —Torrenal 06:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
From what I see, there are two purposes beyond a disambiguation for these pages. To the former, showing order, that can be done in a simple 8 by 8 or so table in pages meant for all of the groups (the groups sharing in the storage grouping) - at least for the two mat groups, gems are harder. The latter, generic recipe patterns.... I don't see a need for. A list of recipes - in its own page or as a hidden section (that is, collapsing) doesn't matter much but this just seems like more articles than its worth and fewer articles that can show the same without being chaotic is better. And length doesn't equate chaos.
TL;DR color me unconvinced. Konig/talk 07:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I've been wondering all along whether this "generic framework" is going to end up being more chaotic than it's worth (thanks for the word, Konig). As an organizational paradigm, sure, it sounds like a great idea for explaining the relationships between different recipes. But from the practical standpoint of a reader checking out crafting for the first time? I'm a bit worried that they might start to feel a bit lost as they have to click through a seemingly endless string of "generic" pages (yes, "seemingly endless" because they don't know that it's only 3-4 levels deep), to the point that they give up before they ever find anything specific, or even if they do, they feel it was too much effort and don't want to go through it again. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 12:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we should make the articles and article names revolve around what kind of components they are. If you wanted to do that, we have the generic crafting material page and nav boxes. Also, those "(generic crafting)" articles should be disambig pages instead with "(crafting material)" after the end. --JonTheMon 19:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I think once we do finally decide on an organization style, it shall be worth it. Assuming it actually comes decently soon.
As for the actual style, here's my opinion: I think pages like ingot etc. are well intentioned, but not entirely thought out. What if someone is new to GW2, they haven't even touched crafting yet. They've gotten a few of these items as drops but really haven't any idea what they're for. Our goal is to explain what they're for, how they're used, etc. - down to the end that says "this recipe takes these pieces" after they get the drift. With that in mind, is linking a person (that has very little idea about crafting), to a page with 8 different ingots going to help? probably not. It may help those that understand the concept, but to the general new person it probably isn't going to help. What about instead of linking to a generic "ingot" page, is there a way for us to make a drop down type bar? Is there any way that we can have a simple
Item Variations Mat1 Mat2 Mat3
Invisible Bag 6 Leather Rune of Holding Pile of Dust
(a very simple representation, but you get the idea), that when clicked gives a drop down list of each specific one? I'm not sure if we can do that on the wiki, but allowing for something like that for things such as invisible bags could be very useful to new crafters. Instead of being linked to random leather or dust types, or even clicking on the bag and seeing all these different slots and crafting levels, what if we could display them on the very same page without actually taking up all the space? Like I said, I have no idea if we can even do that (I assume we can somehow), but I think it's a rather good idea. If not, I think our best bet is to link it to the page of the bags always (perhaps even have the listed "leather" in above example link to the bags) so that whenever a new player may click on it, it would display the recipes they are looking for. It would be more effort, but it would be more easily navigable for newer players. Just my thoughts. Juicearific ~talk 00:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Juicearific -- The very first sentence on the Ingot page (and any of the above pages) should be for someone who has no knowledge of the item. If you think these first sentences are not meeting that goal, then update them.
Linking the user to a page with 8 ingots IS useful. It informs the user: 'Hey, we have these kinds of ingots'. It doubles as a disambiguation page 'I meant that Ori-ka-lum stuff, there it is... Orichalcum Ingot'
Wikis arn't good at drop-down lists, and as long as some of the lists would be, drop-down would be a poor format. Wikis ARE good at drilling in or cross-linking information -- Play to the strenghts of the media.
I would suggest we look at use cases. 'What are the ways this get used?', and aim for a minimal design that achieves that. For my purposes, a disambiguation page at each will suffice, but I'd like to see at least a sentence blurb describing the content, and some of the pages (especially Ingot) are well suited for holding extra information. None of the use cases I can envision need actual categories wrapped around the sub-types of crafting material, and it sounds like Ish believes the data side (DPL/SMW) has no use for sub-types either. —Torrenal 03:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Been looking at what into how what I was suggesting would be done. Apparently I was thinking a collapsible table, not a drop down bar. Fancy technical terms... I just call them what they look like. Anyways, I'm not saying the page should disappear, quite the contrary I think they're a good idea. I'm just saying, think of this example: A player is new to crafting in GW2. They have copper ore in overabundance, and want to know what to do with it. They come to the wiki, they search copper ore. All they find is bronze / copper ingots. So they look at both of those, and they link to pieces of weapons or jewelry. So then they look at those pieces, which link to the pages. That's alot of looking for someone new, though I don't have an idea to improve that atm. Now, lets assume instead that your person has a specific item set in mind, lets go back to the idea of invisible bags. They decide they want to do leatherworker (my example since I actually know about it), and as such visit the leatherworker page. It says invisible bag, made with leather, piles of dust, runes of holding (All generic links). That's great, they know what items they need - sort of. So, to decide what items they need to click on the invisible bags link, and it takes them to the different kinds of bags. They casually browse through and find out the crafting level etc. for each, and decide what ones they need, how much, etc., now even that isn't a bunch of effort, they only have to link to the page for bags. BUT, what if that person decides they like leatherworker. So now, they want to check out what all you can do with it. Now, they go around checking out different pieces of armor you can make, what the highest stuff takes, etc... and they're clicking on a million links. What if instead, we just had a collapsible little table that had each of the ones listed (just like Bag (crafting) does), and saved the people the hassle of having to visit all these different pages. Better yet, anyone that is scrolling through for just one piece of information gets exactly what they need.
I wasn't trying to say those pages arent informative, only that to someone new, they're going to have to go in, click on the bags link, the dust link, the leather link, etc. etc. to figure out what this is all about. why not instead just direct them to a little collapsible list, that does that already? (still looking into collapsible, but I'm not much of a wiki person, so I'm really pretty clueless. Looks like it's possible, but IDK how to get it into a table form.) Juicearific ~talk 04:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Slight edit to myself here. I've got a model of it almost working in my sandbox, the only thing I need changed is the collapsible tables are starting collapsed. If someone knows of a fix to that, I think we could incorporate a bunch of collapsible tables into disciplines. Also, what are thoughts on incorporating these collapsible tables? yea, nay? I don't want to be just putting these in without input, I'd be curious to see what anyone else thinks.


@Torrenal: "it sounds like Ish believes the data side (DPL/SMW) has no use for sub-types either" DPL would probably need them, yes, since it relies heavily on categories as the basis of most queries (category queries are a LOT more efficient than template-parameter queries). SMW, on the other hand, can work without any categories at all, and I think category-based queries are actually slightly less efficient than property-based queries (SMW stores property values in its own highly-optimized set of tables, where DPL has to query the wiki's page table and parse the wikitext to get at template parameters). As part of our eventual move to SMW, I'm sort of waging a quiet campaign against overly-specific categories, simply because they won't be needed or useful anymore. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 04:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
@Juice, 'Can Do' and 'Should Do' can be and different things, and in the case of collapsible content, I believe they are different. Web pages have had static layouts since they started in the early 90s. That's been changing in the more recent years, but wikis have been holding to that static layout more-so than other pages. When I first saw them on our wiki my reactions were, in order: 'Where the heck is the content on this page?', 'That's awkward as #@%$', and 'Someone should axe those.'
That said, I've had myself a look at your sandbox. No impression of missing content, not all that akward, and very capable of carrying a natural flow. I like where its going -- it may well be a practical and viable use for collapsible panels, but parts of crafting have too much content for even ordinary tables, it's only going to get worse for collapsible ones... Such panels are not for all crafting pages, but they may work well on discipline page, to give a single level of disambiguation. —Torrenal 00:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Loose Ends[edit]

There's a few loose ends as I see it with where I'm taking crafting. —Torrenal 16:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Recipes[edit]

There's no actual, honest to goodness recipe pages. That is, where a single page holds a single recipe.

  1. Will we require these (for SMW/DPL?)
  2. How do we disambiguate them from standard the objects the recipes create? I'd suggest suffixing stuff with (Recipe), and use the same pages for the buyable recipe unlocks (to keep from using the namespace Recipe:)... but there's a twist. Some unique items have several different recipes...
I'd strongly suggest keeping the recipe pages apart from the pages for the created items This will make the instance where one object is available from multiple sources (drops/merchants/crafting) simpler. —Torrenal 16:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Unique Icons[edit]

This can probably be handled with unique recipes, but needs to be laid out:

You have 14 different items built around the same recipe, and they all use the same icon.... except for one or two versians with variant icons. We probably should capture that variant icon somewhere, and check whether the armor gets a unique skin. —Torrenal 16:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Upgrade Slots[edit]

The Jeweler is notorious for this, but it's not just jewelery. Some crafted gear comes with filled upgrade slots. As an example, the Devout Leggings come with a Minor Rune of the Citadel. Not all devout armor, just the leggins and (I think) chest. Other bits of it are devoid of runes. This needs to be watched for and captured...which implies someplace to capture it. I'll try tackling it when I get to Devout Leggings. —Torrenal 16:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Runes[edit]

I've got only 2 rune Recipes to work with. Or perhaps I should say 4.
1 is for the Minor Rune of Pirate (1 bolt of jute, 1 silver doubloon).
3 are for the Rune of Life, one each for the different armor disciplines, each different (2 jute + 1 leather square, 2 bronze+1 jute, 2 leather+1 jute). I'd encourage a seperate (unique) page for each discipline to list these recipes, since they appear to vary, but such a decision may be premature, as I've only got examples for 2 runes.... and who knows, BWE3 may show new rune recipes. —Torrenal 16:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Gear Stats[edit]

Each item has stats appropriate for its level (armor rating, damage, etc)

  • Is there any reason to assume the stats for crafted are ever non-max for their conditions (level+quality)?
  • If the gear is always max, is there any point in listing its stats anywhere but a page unique to the single recipe that created the object? It's going to get awfully redundant saying 'And the level 35 version of this armor has 30 AR, just like every other level 35 armor...'

—Torrenal 16:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, the three categories of professions have different defense ratings. I believe that Armorsmith, Leatherworker, and Tailor will all have different defense ratings because of the whole "soldier/adventurer/scholar" split. Wombatt 03:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Templates for Crafting Materials[edit]

On the GW1W there are templates for every crafting material, would that be something worthwhile for here? A graphic representation of each crafting material. Not components, just the basic and fine crafting materials. It would save a lot of space to not have to list out every item's name, and it looks like simplicity itself to do. I'd volunteer to do it if the consensus is that it would be helpful. Wombatt 02:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

not far removed from Pile of Glittering Dust.pngPile of Glittering Dust, which is template driven. Given two similar ways to do similar things, if they both achieve the same goal, I'd stick with one of the two, and not use both. —Torrenal 02:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
NUUUUUUUUUUuuuuu-- (you get the idea) Even if we restrict it to basic "raw materials" (non-Refined materials in the vault collections), that would be waaaaaay too many (28 non-Refined Common, 48 Fine, and 7 Gemstone Pebbles, total 83). Way too many - GW1 only had 36 materials. I agree with Torrenal that {{item icon}} will continue to work just fine. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 03:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Crafting Materials[edit]

The Crafting material page is a disaster, no other way to put it. There's all kinds of stuff in there that doesn't meet the criteria described on that page, let alone what we've discussed here. I've gone ahead and converted it all to the categories from up in "Categorical Structure" (i.e. they match the vault panels), check it out here. I did a couple different versions, personally I like the Condensed versions better, and Gemstones 2.0 for obvious reasons. The only thing I like about Gemstones 1.0 is that it gives a better immediate visual representation of the progression of types through the crafting levels, especially since those lower-level gemstones are used in recipes to make the higher-level gemstones.

The first versions of the tables take advantage of the (generic crafting) pages that we've made, the condensed versions take away the need for those pages, other than as a disambiguation or category page. Let me know your thoughts, I'm convinced that the Crafting Material page needs to change (at least the tables do), I think this is a good step forward. Wombatt 05:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I really like the condensed version, but I'd make one change: on the common materials, ordering the columns alphabetically makes no sense and kinda jumbles the table. Group them together by metal/cloth/leather/wood, ordered by basic->refined, and it'll make a lot more sense. (I'm not really liking the dual-line ingots, either, but don't have any suggestions for that at the moment.) —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 06:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, that's done. Which of the gemstone variants did you like (if any)? I'll move everything over to the live page tomorrow. Wombatt 07:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Loving the condensed version. I looked into the gems. tried to make a table, since they all share similar buffs. I'd like to point out that no "amethyst pebble" actually exists, atleast not as of BWE2. I took a video of my bank, and there is no slot for it there. On the other hand, there is an "amethyst nugget", which is tier 2. I was going to suggest pairing them up based on what they boost, but there is 7 tier 2 and 6 tier 1. They follow the same pattern as insignias, actually. 6 tier 1 stats, power, condition damage, vitality, precision, healing, toughness. 7 tier 1 sets of 2, including precision/magic find, power/precision, vitality/toughness, and some others. Point is, I'm not sure there is a good way to show them aside from gems 2.0. Juicearific ~talk 08:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Good catch, fixed the Amethyst problems. I agree that it'd be nice to get more info on a table that lists the contributions of the different gems, maybe not on the Crafting Materials page, though. Something that in-depth could easily be saved for on the Gemstone page which I'll create today as well. Wombatt 15:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Edit: I should clarify, I think it's a good idea to list what attributed they affect, not necessarily the values given, since I believe they will be different depending on whether it's a Gemstone or Jewel, and whether it's used as an activator (during the crafting process) or as an upgrade component (added to an item after crafting). Wombatt 16:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Would you guys please look at and use:
  • Account vault/Basic,
  • Account vault/Fine Crafting Materials,
  • Account vault/Cooking,
  • Account vault/Gemstones and Jewels, and
  • Account vault/Miniatures.
They are accurate images of the Account vault pages. (And if they are not, they should be fixed.) They provide a place to display this kind of information and provide a game context related format that should not confuse players. --Max 2 16:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Fixed gem, it displayed amethyst pebble instead of amethyst nugget. I believe pebble once existed, but as of a video I took on stress test 2 (the most recent game access), it no longer does and is now called amethyst nugget, it's also in the higher tier. Also, we can't use that specific format because well, it takes up alot of space - plus it doesn't group materials by what they're used for. While it may be descriptive to those that are new and could see something familiar, to anyone that IS crafting, it is a nuisance to have to look via bank as compared to like attributes (something most crafters will be using.) While we should cater to new players, we should also cater to existing players. Besides, we can make it new user friendly in other ways too. Juicearific ~talk 20:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Now that I'm thinking about them in the context of crafting, the big problem with your vault pane layout is that it strongly de-emphasizes the item names, by placing them in a very small font underneath the full-size icons. For someone just looking at the vault, that's not a big issue, but for a crafter, the item names are pretty important, so a standard table layout is better for the Crafting article. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 22:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
First, the Account vault pane pages are intended to be accurate reflections of the game content with a small augumentation to make them more useful. That does not mean they have to be the primary presentation in all contexts; it means that they are a primary point of contact with the game content and any other presentation should reference them.
Second, they are a gallery and a summary. They display the icons at their best and make their classification and relationships clear through additional presentations. In this they should serve as a model for displaying similar arrays of icons.
They are not intended to be the final word in presenting the information they contain, just the first word. --Max 2 06:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Riiiiiiight... and that first word should be at the Account vault page, not at Crafting. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 12:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

new infobox[edit]

I have created {{Crafting infobox}}, a more pertinent and specialized infobox for crafting materials. Features include:

  • Input parameters for tier and each distinct discipline, the latter replacing the overloaded usage of the Item infobox's level.
  • Automatic determination of rarity based on type and tier (only for some specific types, for now).
  • Crafting-specific usage of the type parameter to identify the crafting material type, rather than the base item type.

Please point out if I missed anything. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 16:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Numeric tiers seem so.... overdone. I hope some game mechanic with text names will make itself apparent, because crafting already has too many numbers. Other than that one item which can't be much helped, it looks good. —Torrenal 17:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me at first glance! Wombatt 18:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I like it. as for Torrenal, there's only a few ways to do the tiers. One could say the 0-75 tier, but even that isn't completely descriptive. You could say A-F, but in my opinion it's easier to say 1-6. The only problem I see with 1-6 is, is 1 the top or bottom? While I understand 1 is the first you use, someone else might not get that. Juicearific ~talk 20:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Add a #Tiers section to Crafting so I can link to it from the infobox. :P —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 22:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a little placeholder blurb in there now, I'm going to gin up a little visual aide to make it perfectly clear what I mean. Wombatt 23:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Thinking more textual: Feeble, Weak, Poor, Effective, Strong, Mighty Tho, which words, and what order, and will users recognize the order correctly.... alas, that's a tricky one. —Torrenal 00:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Tiny, Small, (normal/basic), Large, Immense, Maximum. Captures the idea. Still though, I think 1-6 is more easily represented. Juicearific ~talk 00:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There are so many variations across all the different categories of items that assigning a list of incremental names to them would be impossibly difficult. Calling them Tiers and just assigning ascending numbers is the most basic, straightforward way to do it. I expanded on the section a bit, look here to see what I came up with. It's a little dry and technical, but with all the different words that CAN'T be used to describe something like this (can't call it a level, or strength, or rank) I think that Tier is as cut-and-dried as it gets. Plus, not everything has 1-6. Some will have more tiers than that, I'm sure. Wombatt 00:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Torr/Juice: Assigning arbitrary names (even if they draw inspiration from some item names) is a bad idea, because you can't give any explanation for them other than, "We just kinda made these up." In a case like that, numbers are better because the progression is obvious.
Wombatt: All basic materials (common/fine/gemstones) have 6 tiers (with the exception of alloyed lumps and alloy ingots, only 3 of those). Based on the relationships we've seen so far between basic materials, crafting components/inscriptions/insignia, and final products, the tiers propagate all the way through the process.
  • Tier 1 wood weapon: Green Wood Log -> Green Wood Plank -> Green [Plated] Inscription / Green Longbow Staves -> Crude Longbow [(Master)]
  • Tier 2 cloth armor: Wool Scrap -> Bolt of Wool -> [Embroidered] Wool Insignia / Wool Glove Lining -> Outlaw's Gloves [(Master)]
Inscriptions/insignia and final products have a kind of "half-tier" progression, of course, but I don't think we should call that 12 tiers. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 00:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) OK, I wasn't sure how to handle those, if we make the (Master) level weapons and armor their own tier, or if we keep them in 1 because they're made from green/soft/etc wood in the inscriptions. Call it 1a/1b in my head, I suppose :) Wombatt 00:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I updated the text and table, I think it reflects what we're trying to say better now. Let me know if it needs to be changed. Wombatt 01:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you make the template spit out icons like Armorsmith tango icon 20px.png (25) instead of spelling it out? That'd cut down on the visual busy-ness of it, I think. Wombatt 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Hm, I don't really like that, because the discipline icons aren't something I'd expect most people to be very familiar with. Even for profession icons, which should be much more familiar to readers, we still spell out the profession name in {{Skill infobox}}. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I personally like it. I think it's cleaner and everything is nice and even. If there's a question, you can always mouse-over the icon and it tells you what it is. Take a look at Steel Ingot (just the info box, the rest of the page needs work). Wombatt 02:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Follow up - can you make it so that using that info box automatically puts a Crafting Material category tag on that page? Wombatt 02:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I prefer the full discipline name, the icons may be concise, but are not precise, if you follow. Sure, you can mouse over them to get the full name. I cannot. Not on my tablet device. 97.118.200.217 02:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) It was already in there, but the #if block around it weren't correct. Hm, makes me wonder if the Item infobox has it wrong too, since that's what I copied for this one... yep, they were wrong too. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
tiers: we could just go with the tiers as laid out by one of the base metals (copper tier, silver tier, gold tier, etc), or to avoid confusion with currency, go to cloths. Another item, I'd only assign tiers to materials where it's unambiguous. Some materials that are tier 1 materials for the chef wind up in died 2 or 3 as artificer materials - which makes an argument to omit tier entirely. 97.118.200.217 02:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Tiers don't apply to chef, there isn't anything recognizable there. Are you referring to something else?
@Wombatt: when using the infobox, please omit any unused parameters. Templates can get a bit funky if you list a parameter but don't give it a value - I'm pretty sure our infoboxes are coded the right way to handle that, but it's still not a good practice. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I just finished up all the Tier 1 items from the Crafting material#Common Crafting Materials chart. I didn't take out anything that was blank, didn't have any issues with anything. Do you still want me to go back and do it? Wombatt 03:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm already doing that, but yes - as I said, it's bad practice. Anyone wants to know the full list of available parameters, that's what the template documentation is for. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Not all items use metal, or cloth, so basing them on those labels wouldn't be any better than assigning arbitrary names. Wombatt 03:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Remaining Questions[edit]

So I had this really well typed out thing. and then I must've X'd my page before I hit save. Stupid killer headache. Anyways. I've been looking at a lot of crafting pages, and I've got a few questions / suggestions I want to get out there.

  • Insignias don't list how much stat boost they actually give anywhere on an insignia page. Comparing my numbers in leatherworker to those on the tables on tailoring, they're the same per piece. As such, I could compile a list of what stat boosts they give to put somewhere on that page.
  • Pages like this bother me, they lack a solid place to put the defense or the value. They also don't have a place to put simple variations (this one doesn't have em, but there is more pages like this that have simple variations). I think we should put the master variations below the regular ones, then the table could be extended to the right with defense and value.
  • Pages like the one above, and this, are in alphabetical order. Simply put, alphabetical order sucks. It should be in the order it is in game, or at the very least in order by craft level - it doesn't really benefit anyone to put it in alphabetical order. It's 7, it isn't like it is hard to find what you're looking for, but it is very confusing (and will be harder to display information correctly) when it is level 10-15-10-10-15-15, or something to that effect.
  • Discipline pages don't really have a good way to display crafting components. We could make a collapsible table that holds each tier of them, but instead I propose we make a page like "tailoring_crafting components" that we can put all the recipes on, and we can put the general recipes on the discipline page. Putting them on an alternate page also allows us to sort them however we feel, we could split them up by what they go to (shoe soles and shoe uppers, coat lining and panel, etc.) or split them up by tier.
  • Some discipline pages have "item name (Simple)", "item name", and "item name (Master)" all on the same page. That's unnecessary, since we can have all the results on one page, we should only be listing one. This holds true even for huntsman, where the regular is Crude Shortbow, and the master version of it is Apprentice Shortbow. We can display the other names (like apprentice) on the actual page, for the discipline page there should only be one display, though.
  • I split some of these pages up into two pages before when I made them, specifically the above example, but I'm going to pick one name and use it instead. The other can just redirect to it.
  • we have a lot of pages for things like Dust, Bones, and Venom Sacs. Is there any reason to keep these separate, or can we combine them? To me it seems to make more sense to put these together. Or, to put the ones that are used in armor/weapon making (venom sacs, scales, fangs, vials of blood, totems, claws, and bones) to allow those to find them easier. We can easily make dividers on the page, but to me these pages don't really mean much, except more looking. If you're actually looking at that page, likelihood is you will be looking at the others too. (want to craft, but not sure what is what tier.)

Thoughts/Comments/Opinions whatever is good. I just want to get the wiki structure ironed out enough for me to input all of my information before Orcs Must Die 2 comes out, because I want to enjoy the one month I have on it before GW2 releases ;P. Juicearific ~talk 05:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Be **VERY** careful when looking at BWE1 crafting data. A ton of stuff changed between BWE1 and BWE2 including bonuses and recipes, if you are seeing the same bonus for different armor pieces, then you are either looking at BWE1 data or you are comparing 2 pieces with similar bonuses (hand/feet armor).
You might get away with listing bonuses for inscriptions, because the variation is simple, it is not so for insignia.
The student's coat doesn't list a defense value, because:
  1. it varies by piece
  2. There's no room for a by-piece armor value in the table
  3. There is an expectation that all crafted armor will have 'max' armor for its conditions
  4. Some armor is given as drops or rewards in the game, making it plausible that all 80 levels and various qualities will drop.
Any pages listing all 80 armor values per quality will be very very cluttered (and I expect someone will remove that clutter).
Alphabetical sort was chosen as the sort most suited for finding insignia by name. The list is short enough to compare/contrast rows that are not adjacent, but we can discuss the sort of those tables in their place.
Recipes will never last on the main discipline pages. Perhaps generic forms as a 'this is what this discipline does' / 'this is where you find recipes for xyz', but that's it. Tailor is working towards a reduced set of content, give it a peek.
For combining dust, bone, etc, I am not sure what you mean (I could read your statement multiple ways). If you mean delete the generics pages and replace them with a single, all encompassing generics page, NO. I put them out there for explicit reasons, if you cannot say that there is value in a recipe linking to its ingredients, and if you cannot say that having the pages exist for search reasons, and if you cannot say that having them there to disambiguate and contrast the various component types, if you cannot say any of that, then they can go, but I don't see how we can properly present information to the user without them. —Torrenal 14:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Questions of armor value properly belong on a different page. I'll take some time later to try and approximate the armor level equation for a blue light-armor chest piece. Green gold will have higher values at approximately equal intervals. Armor increases on an exponential curve with level, and crafted armor levels are in line with Renown Heart merchant armors. I've skipped the question for crafting, because I believe the answer to armor ratings properly does not belong here, and would needlessly clutter our pages —Torrenal 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There wouldn't be any reason or expectation to list the AL for every single level of an armor, only the few that can be crafted. That can be done very easily by using the format of Crude Longbow or with more difficulty using Embroidered Coat's layout. Wombatt 17:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
crude longbow layout breaks on narrow displays. Embroidered coat suffers a minor glitch on narrow displays, but works. I would not make either display any more wide. Further, these pages are going to be linked to for drops and merchants that sell the same items, or even different items with the same skins. Once people see crafting with armor levels, they'll start adding their drops and such with stats also.
I do intend to capture armor ratings, just not on those pages. what is the use case for including the armor level on these pages? —Torrenal 18:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
There's no reason to list the defense or power of every single level. List the maximum (crafting) and make a note that says that items of a lesser level or non-crafted items will have lower stats. GW1 weapons didn't have every possible dmg range listed for every level of anything, no reason to expect to do it here. Tables like this could be put on the page for Huntsman or broken down further and put on Crude Longbow and Journeymen Longbow. Wombatt 18:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd think the use case for defense/strength levels is the same for listing the attribute bonuses - they're all part of the final product's stats. If we're going to list the exact attribute bonus of a crafted item, accepting that non-crafted items have random attribute bonuses, then why not also list the defense value of the crafted item? Seems like an obvious parallel to me. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 18:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


  • Yes, insignia DO vary by piece, that was my point exactly. The point is, level 15 shoes made from leatherworker, or them made from tailoring, have the same boost. So does the chest, so does the shoulders, so does every other piece.
  • I don't believe I am looking at BWE1 crafting data, I know all data I'm using via leatherworker is as of stress test 2 / bwe2.
  • Defense value should be listed. Period. that page is not complete without it, and I see absolutely no reason for each person to have to follow a link to each piece's specific page. In my opinion, the only difference between these pieces is what bonuses, defense, and value they have at 10, 15, 20.. and the different bonuses the insignias give. One person should be able to access this page and not have to go any further. I'll have you a prototype page in a few hours, or less.
  • I see no reason why recipes won't last on the main discipline page. [http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/User:Juicearific/Sandbox/discipline3 this] is a fine example of Tailor with recipes on it, and if we take crafting components and put them on their own page, that page is fairly compact. There is only 6 different versions of each item (ex. Acolyte's, Embroidered, student's, and the higher 3.) It doesn't take that much space to display 6. Besides, what else is going to go on this page? Aside from location of master tailors, I don't see anything else to put on the tailoring page, why not put the recipes?
  • I mean, that these pages should exist ONLY for search purposes. As far as the pages on say that list all of them go (I can't think of an example page) - they should all be linked together. if I click on "bone" I should go to a page that has them all. I'm not entirely sure. It was like 2am and I had a killer headache when I wrote this.
  • Questions of armor value are perfectly fine here. It was in reference to the table, and since the table is part of the format, I'd say it belongs. Furthermore, I have the exact sell price for every craftable item in huntsman and leatherworker for 0-35. It isn't that hard, and why can't we just put another column on the end of the table that has value?
  • We're talking about the crafted pieces. If you want to list dropped pieces too by all means go ahead, but put a different section. This shouldn't have any bearing on what the crafting page displays. I'm not leaving out crafting related information and making crafters search through 50+ extra pages because some people want to put the ones that drop on the table too. They can use a different bloody table.
  • Crude Longbow needs work, I believe I stated that when I first typed this up. then accidentally didn't post it. On the other hand, Embroidered coat leaves no space for the simple variation or room for improvement. I will get you a model of what I'm thinking of shortly.
  • Armor Rating = fine, masterwork, etc. correct? Then why don't we just put a small piece of text that says any item made with an embroidered insignia produces masterwork, and any with a regular insignia produces "fine"? Simple enough.
And I don't believe you understood what I meant for the insignias. Look at this: Revamped Jute Insignia compared to Jute Insignia. There is a big difference, I believe mine is not only easier to read but easier to see patterns (ex. all Embroidered insignias make level 20 armor). The table is actually also more compact, and the table on the bottom accurately displays the stats of each piece of armor, made by each insignia. It's hard to tell, with the stunning lack of information in tailoring as well as the fact that there is about 2 typos in the little information is there (I know they're typos, 2 level 15 armors will never have different amounts) - but they match my information on leatherworker to a T. I could put it all in a table, if it would make you feel any better. Anyways, I'll have a working version of Crude Longbow for you within a few hours. I need to eat and do a few things before I get to it. At the post suggesting a table like such, what if we could just display the power/defense right on the table? I think what I'm talking about will be more clear once I get a prototype ready. Juicearific ~talk 18:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Defense (not armor rating) and Strength SHOULD be listed on each item's page (Acolyte, Embroidered, Student's, etc), whether by changing the charts to look like Crude Longbow and having multiple infoboxes, or by inserting another one on the page to compliment the existing table like in Embroidered Coat. I personally could care less how something looks on a tablet or phone, there's no way to make one layout look perfect on every display, we should only be concerned with making the pages work for as many viewers as is possible, to me that means a desktop or laptop screen.
I like the Revamped Jute page. Although you should change the progression from "biggest bonus to smallest" to "top of the body to bottom" like it's listed in the equipment panel. Having it organized like this is just as un-awesome as going alphabetically.
Re: value, there is a parameter for value in the {{Item infobox}}. If we follow the Crude Longbow format, then we put value in the infobox, not in the recipe table. Same for defense/strength on {{Armor infobox}} and {{Weapon infobox}}, respectively. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 18:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought the infoboxes for each was ok, but it still looked a little sloppy to me. please take a look at my prototype and see what you think. also, I fixed the ordering on the revamped jute insignia page for you. I couldn't decide how to display it, so I just picked highest -> lowest for simplicity at the time. (I did think about bottom -> top. but I couldnt think what order they were in, and I had a headache so I passed). My main questions on the new format:
  • Should the value even be there?
  • Should I display each value/craft level/equip level/etc. in its own column, or does it look better with it spanned across 3 or 6 rows?
  • Should there be one infobox there, saying that it is a crude longbow, it goes in the longbow slot, etc.?
  • Simple, Standard, and Master are all labeled. I could instead of a column, have one row that says master variations. Which would look better?
  • should there be a division mid "standard", as there is two parts of standard?

and just to note, each of those crude longbows (festering crude longbow, etc.) will link to a page just for it. Except at the moment those don't exist, so they just link back to the original page at the moment. Juicearific ~talk 20:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I officially (ok, unofficially) declare this the winning table format. It has all the information we need, and is easier to understand at a glance. I would leave the value and level panels exactly the way they are. Having them cross 3 or 6 rows lets you know instantly that those 3 or 6 variants are their own sub-group. The only thing I MIGHT change would be change "Longbow" to "Variant" in the top row. Wombatt 22:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Juice: When I asked for use cases, I asked for "Give me a reason that this page benefits from having this information." Your response of "Period." is not a reason, it is an assertion without justification.
Allow me to give you my reasons for excluding it from the table:
Given: The table on Embroidered Coat is too wide as is - on tablets it breaks the page layout.
We have several pieces of information to convey: Type (strong, pillaging, etc). Bonuses. Level to craft. Level to equip. Item required for crafting. Defense. Value. Inventory Icon.
  • Type: These serve as the identity for the row. They are required.
  • Bonuses: These are the key differentiating item between each item. They are required.
  • Level to craft: Fail to meet this, and you can't craft it. Required.
  • Level to equip: This will be a key factor in deciding which armor to get, as in most cases players will want the max armor that the character can equip.
  • Item required for crafting: Need to know this to be able to make one. Required.
  • Value: The only use-case where this applies is where the user opts to sell the item to the merchant. Given prices, the user opting ot do this is not doing it for the value of the item. Unnecessary.
  • Inventory Icon: This has no functional effect on the choice. Need to verify if item skins change any, but even if they do this remains a secondary concern and can be addressed with a footnote. Unnecessary.
  • Defense: All items of a given level and quality have a specific Defense value. This does not change from item. While higher quality items do get better bonuses, the 5 level gap between crafted item levels is more than enough to always keep higher level crafted items superior to lower level crafted items. The ONLY use case where the armor level is a factor is: Where the character is evaluating a higher quality drop a few levels below their currently craftable equipment. This is only likely with a level that is actively gainin levels (eg, non-max). This is an edge case only (multiple conditions, some applicable only before the cahracter reaches max level). Defense is not required for the table.
  • Room: There is insufficient room for the table as is, to format correctly on all displays. As is, non-essential columns must be dropped.
If you want the information elsewhere, I have no objection, but not in the table, its non-essential content and the table has no room for that. if you think otherwise, then justify your statements by giving an example of where users will commonly require the information. Including it "because it lets us check off all the boxes on our 'data to include' list" won't cut it. —Torrenal 01:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "I see no reason why recipes won't last on the main discipline page." Multiple reasons that is NOT happening. 1) This is the page the user sees when they first look up the discipline. It benefits nobody to overwhelm them with a deluge of information. 2) There are an estimated 900 recipes for Tailor (actual may be closer to 800, but I could see 1000). That will make the full list unusable -- the only way to find information is to use search, which makes comparing two rows of data very difficult. (did I say 'deluge of information'?) —Torrenal 02:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


you asked for that elsewhere. and defense? that IS a period. even Dr. Ishmael said that should be displayed. Also, I believe I said: "that page is not complete without it, and I see absolutely no reason for each person to have to follow a link to each piece's specific page." meaning, no person should have to follow a link to 3-4 different pieces of armor/weaponry just to see the defense/power it gives. it's pointless when it can be included.
Bullets in response to what you said:
  • I've made a new table. Did you check it out yet? No? You can look at this or this.
  • I read this - and now I'm confused. I said defense must be on there, period. What are you even arguing at me about now?
  • Obviously.
  • Obviously.
  • ...Obviously..
  • Right. Still there.
  • Also still there...
  • Unnecessary perhaps, but the wiki exists to hold information. I know that there will probably be times that the merchant will be buying for more than the marketplace, and that value will come in handy to someone eventually. If it fits, it shall be included. (It fit.)
  • Inventory icon? you mean picture? sure, doesn't need to be there. but it fit too.
  • it is required to be on the page. I'm sure I'm not the only crafter who decided to craft for one reason: To make my own armor. If I'm making my own armor, I want to know the stats of the armor I'm making. Starting with defense, and moving onto the rest. Defense should be on there.
  • Dr. Ishmael recently said (a few paragraphs up, I believe) that tablets are not the primary concern. If it works on them, that's wonderful. The primary concern is for laptops and desktop monitors. My prototype works fine on my desktop computer.
The first page they see, yes. It might help them to see recipes like invisible bags and embroidered coats. Just as much as a basic recipe, except they'd be seeing more familiar icons/names. Instead of generic ones. Of those estimated 900 recipes, how many are for crafting components? I count 12 for each tier, so a total of 72. Then, how many are insignias? I recall the number 100 being tossed around before, so about 175 of those aren't displayed on the tailor page. I've already said they should be elsewhere. Of the remaining ~725 recipes, how many are variations of armor? well I'm only listing the SIX basic of each type, one for each tier, and there is probably about 14 of each. That's about 498, if my math is done correctly (which is almost always is) - which leaves us at about 225 recipes left. Currently so far, we've displayed about 55.that means, at maximum, we're actually only displaying 280 recipes. If you think that is still unacceptable, consider this: 12 of those are refinement, 18 of those are bags - what tailoring is specifically mentioned for being able to create. Of the remaining about 200, that's all in unique recipes and runes. Runes and Unique recipes both don't have generic recipes, or atleast don't appear to. You could, on the other hand, have a generic page of tailor made runes and a page for each set of unique armor, leaving on display a total of about 90 links/recipes, on the tailor page. still complaining about a "deluge of information"? Because to me, that sounds pretty good. And like I said before, aside from the "master tailors" section, what else IS that page for?
As for the 3 points you feel shouldn't be on the table -
  • Value: This is there because it fits. While not everyone will readily need it, it is there for those to notice and remember, (or for easy access) in times that the marketplace price may be lower than this. It isn't necessary, but it is useful. Not to mention, it fits on my table.
  • Inventory Icon: This is there because of the people that craft an item, remember what they craft but have no idea what it looks like. If you don't care that's fine. But, like said prior, it fit on my table.
  • Defense: this is there because.. wait. let me quote you. "This will be a key factor in deciding which armor to get, as in most cases players will want the max armor that the character can equip." - That's what you said about equip level. And well, it about sums it up. How can a person tell if this armor outranks their green / yellow drops, if they can't see the defense? I'm telling you right now, I would have no way of knowing the mask I got from ascalonian catacombs had 2 higher defense if I wasn't already wearing a set of that armor. Like I said, it has to stay - Period. This will be a key factor in deciding which armor to get, as in most cases players will want the max armor that the character can equip. Seriously though, Check out this and this. They completely satisfy the needs of what we need. Juicearific ~talk 02:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
edit, or this. Incase you needed an example of an armor piece. Juicearific ~talk 03:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that all this information (strength, value, defense, icon) is valid and belongs in the table. "Does it look good on a tablet" is the absolute last thing I care about when laying out the wiki, as I've said a number of times. Wombatt 02:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, it was Wombatt, not I, who stated that about tablets (either he forgot to sign or his sig got eaten somewhere, I don't know). While it is a noble goal to make the wiki look good on smaller screen formats, I think we have to admit that there are limits to what we can do, and that some things are just too complex to present in such a small form factor. The various aspects of crafting definitely fall under that category. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 05:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Oh. It wasn't signed so I assumed it was just an extension of what you wrote below. Anyways, if there are no objections (other than tablet formatting), I'd like to put my layout for armor/weapons, as well as insignias/inscriptions, into effect on the pages. As far as the discipline pages go, I think there are still a few unanswered questions I'd like to ponder first. Regardless, still open to any feedback on any of them. (P.S. torrenal, if you can make a table that still looks good, is easy to read, and works on tablets - go for it. But, until then, I will be using my table simply because it is simple and displays all information. Juicearific ~talk 06:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Naming[edit]

Should Crude harpoon gun be Crude Harpoon Gun? Juice and I are having a discussion as to whether a specific item's name constitutes a proper name, or if it should stay where it is? Wombatt 04:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the page should be named the same way the item it represents is named. If the in game item is "Crude Harpoon Gun" then that's what the page should be named.
Slowload 13:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
As I posted at the discussion Wombatt linked, this is a much bigger issue than just crafting. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 16:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
What I got out of all that (ok, I skimmed) was " titles should depict what they are depicting. If a target is capitalised, the article should too (even if that means targets where you'd usually apply sentence case..."), so items should be listed here as they are shown in game, so Crude Harpoon Gun would be the winner. Wombatt 22:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the discussion never reached consensus, it died off because people couldn't come to an agreement. That's why I pointed to the discussion rather than pointing to actual formatting guidelines. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 00:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It never came to a consensus on everything, most people seemed to agree on that point though. Juicearific ~talk 20:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Discipline Design[edit]

Just pulling the conversation off of component types to a slightly more relevant title. I just want to get the opinion of a few other people, (that is, someone aside from myself, torrenal, and Dr. ishmael) and see what the thoughts are on collapsible tables for the discipline page? We can represent the basics, then have collapsible (press show to display, press hide to hide again)tables, so that recipes can be hidden in discipline pages (Huntsman, Tailor, etc.) without taking up much space. For an example, Collapsible Table Examples will take you to my sandbox, where a few ideas have been tossed around. Collapsible table designs aren't finished yet, but I would like to know where anyone else from the wiki stands (opinion wise - 3 people is hardly a large opinion base) on collapsible tables. Juicearific ~talk 06:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to put this here, too, since it's the clearinghouse for crafting formatting discussion. As we discussed here, I firmly state my opinion that: items that are crafted by only one discipline should have their recipes displayed at length in tables on the respective Discipline page (bags for Tailor, longbows for Huntsman, etc, etc) while items that can be made by multiple disciplines (insignia, inscriptions, more?) should (on the Discipline pages) only have a generic recipe and description and then be linked to those respective pages (Insignia, Inscription, etc), where all the extensive information and recipes can be listed ad nauseum. Wombatt 01:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've finished the discipline page revamp I was working on. It is a rearrangement of the current information housed on Tailor, as well as some of the pages linked to from it. I'd like feedback on it, I also have a "notes" section at the bottom that I put my main questions in. You're welcome to comment on the bottom or here or my talk, but I'd definitely like some feedback on it. You can find it [[User:Juicearific/Sandbox/discipline3|here]]. Cheers. Juicearific ~talk 07:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

  • edit* I've finished an alternate of it, as well. It is located here. Opinions appreciated, I'd like to pinpoint exactly what we want discipline pages to look like soon. Juicearific ~talk 21:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


I want to bring discussion back to this topic, so I've moved it from its place a bit further back (where it was buried). On that note, I've developed This to represent what a discipline page (in this case, Huntsman) would look like with general inscriptions and crafting components, all weapons (but no specifics like mighty, vital, etc.), sigils, unique recipes, and refinement. I would definitely like feedback about this, because I think that it is an improvement over our current discipline page design, and I'd like to incorporate it (leaving out any information that we don't have yet, unlike this page has) if there are no major objections to it, or flaws with it. I also want to point out, this was made to demonstrate the space that would be taken up if we had endgame material. After all, we don't want to have to update this again in ~2 months. Thanks, Juicearific ~talk 08:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I like the direction you are headed with it. I prefer the look of the tables when the ingredients are listed one on top of the other the way they are here instead of having specific columns for each type. Other than that I think it looks fine. I like the idea torrenal had on the Tailor page. He added a table that broke down the recipes by there base material. I think using our two ideas together would provide the best way to display the data of this wiki. Adding his chart to your layout will make it so someone who is just starting the profession has a good feel for everything it can create while also providing essentially a decent leveling guide for those that just want to get through it.
Slowload 14:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, alright. (this is why I asked, to me side by side looks fine. Good to know.) I put them that way so the tables were more compact, but if it looks better the other way... Anyways, the only reason I didn't want to use a table that broke it down completely to base materials was because there was only 6 variations, and one would have to link to a page with only 6 variations on it, then to the page they wanted. I was hoping to save the hassle, if possible. What I don't want to do is take the page completely down to basics - I still hope to keep some of the (discipline specific) recipes on there. For example, on tailor, bags. I would like to keep all the bag recipes on there, since they are only tailor made. I am prior occupied for today, but I'll try putting together something like what you're suggesting tonight or tomorrow. Thanks for feedback =) Juicearific ~talk 15:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
edit: I've reread what you said a couple times (I'm going to work on that page now), and to me it seems you want the same thing I have, but with ingredients stacked instead of side by side, and you want that default table at the top? Also, did you want the first table (that broke levels into their level brackets (I.E. jute, wool, cotton, etc.), or did you want the one that says "general recipe for leather is 2 leather sections" etc? Both sort of fit the description. Juicearific ~talk 20:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Finished the draft slowload specified. It can be found here. Please, compare & contrast, which is better, pros and cons of both, I really wanna get a discipline page that we can all be comfortable with. In a week or two I won't be able to wiki work very often, so I want to make the most of the remaining time that I can. Juicearific ~talk 21:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that if you're going to give the generic recipe and list all the recipes for the tiers under "Weapons", you don't need it up top under "Recipes." I would remove everything in "Recipes" after the Verify tag. Of all the other stuff (Refinement, Inscriptions, Sigils, Weaponry, Crafting Components), I think I would maybe keep the Crafting Components, only because they're unique to Huntsman. Everything else is multi-discipline and should just be linked to, IMO. All the other information is also repeated on this same page. Also, are you planning on putting Packs on here like Bags are on Tailor? Wombatt 22:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I was going to, until I remembered packs are for leatherworker. I hope you made the same mistake I did, cuz I felt pretty stupid for making the entire packs section then realizing I was making a huntsman page. Also, I would like to keep inscriptions. Just because they don't take a large amount of space, and they're just as important to the crafting system as crafting components are. Sigils (to me) are just like bags in tailoring. They're the special part of huntsman, they may have similar pieces in other disciplines (like packs in leatherworker), but they do vary slightly. If there are way too many, we can always just link to a related page that holds all huntsman made sigils. Weapons are only the general, there are 6 of each and it contains their basic recipe. Also, no other disciplines make weapons. I showed examples 1 & 2 to my brother, and based on his feedback I've made this. I think it captures things a bit better (personally I like it better). Tell me what you think. Juicearific ~talk 22:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh, jeez. /selffacepalm. Of course. I'm not too opposed to Inscriptions as you have them listed, though I *do* think they're better on their own page. I took the liberty of rearranging some things from your page, you can see it here. I think that Unique recipes should be in the category they fit under, denoted as Unique. I also put Weapons up front (that's what a Huntsman is for, right?) and the rest of the stuff at the end. I also separated Weak Blood and Green Inscription differently, I think it calls attention to the fact that it's a special case. Wombatt 22:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm also not opposed to displaying inscriptions the way you are, it really isn't that big of a deal. As far as the modifications, I do like the distinguishment. I'm pretty good with unique pieces too, but I don't think they're all bought, just an fyi. I think some are random finds. Weapons up front is good, order doesn't matter much to me. The only thing I noticed is something I'd like your opinion on. On this, weapons are in smaller columns and thus easier to see with their information, or compare to each other. With your draft (or my second one, presumably the one you modified) the ingredients are stacked, and large icons are used. Which do you prefer?
  • stacked ingredients, or placed side by side? If side by side, should they have their own columns or just be connected with "+" signs, and be in one single "ingredients" column?
  • Large or small icons? if we're stacking ingredients, may as well do large in my opinion, since you have the space. This is more for if we aren't stacking.
also, you have the entire refinement table. Should we have that on there, or just general recipes in a table? I wanna get specifics of what everyone likes and dislikes, so I can gauge which is better looking / gives a better feel. Thanks (and don't feel bad, like I said I made that packs mistake too. I saved the info for safe keeping though :) ) Juicearific ~talk 01:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I say stacked, large icon for the final product and small for the components. Wombatt 01:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright, that appears to be slowload's preference as well (based on their prior comment). My brother and I prefer small, side to side (but we're also alot alike). Mind having your GW1 buddies take a look at it? We need a larger test pool than 4. And yeah, small icons for components, there is no reason to go big. 63.239.152.224 02:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Follow-up, a number of red links in your Refinement section already have existing pages under slightly different names that can be expanded on. See log, plank, and dowel. I fixed the links in my own page but left yours as-is. Also, how sure are you about Darksteel lvl? Also, the more I look at tailor the more I love it. I love the first chart, that recipes are broken down by tier, and levels to equip and craft. I would take out the first table section about Insignia, because it's repeated more or less verbatim lower on the page. What I don't like is the listing of every single component. I think they should be listed on the Jute Recipes/Wool Recipes/etc pages. Having a list of 80 recipes about crafting components on a discipline overview page is only good for filling a lot of space. The Insignia section is perfect, IMO: touch on it and leave the in-depth stuff to the Insignia page. I would put in a line or two about "The insignia that is incorporated during the crafting of an item ultimately determines which attribute bonuses that item will possess," and that higher-tier insignia possess more and stronger bonuses. Refinement panel, okay, that's basic enough to be worth keeping, even if it is a bit long for weapon-making disciplines (I can't be the only one that has to keep stopping myself from saying profession here...) The problem with Tailor vs Huntsman is that there are already pages for Harpoon gun and Rifle that deal with the basic aspects of those weapons and list their skills and equipability. I don't think that we want to put all the crafting variations on a page designed to be a weapon functionality overview. That means that we either have to list all the recipes (at tier level anyways) on the Huntsman page (yuck) or link to a page like [[Huntsman/Rifles|Rifle Recipes]]. Take a look at what I did here. I need to move the Unique Pieces up, but you get my point. This way we have the main Discipline page that gives the overview of the discipline without choking the reader with every tier's recipe for every weapon. Wombatt 03:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't look into red links at all, I just named them what appeared best. We can always fix that when we incorporate a new design. Darksteel level, honestly I'm not very sure. Today I was looking at crafting, and had a eureka. Steel is iron + lump, what if darksteel is mithril + lump, and mithril is 225? Who knows, I say we leave those out until we have the info anyways (if they're even referenced). That first table is on our page as huntsman, for the record. It's on my second and third draft, and also in both of your drafts. I am not a fan of the second table, myself. It's too long, bulky, and a little bit disformed. I'd rather have them split between a few tables - I can see labeling refinement and insignias on it perhaps, but not the weapons and crafting materials too. In my personal opinion, IF you do weapons that nonspecific, they should be in their own table - since we'd still be at a max of like 50 recipes on the page. Also, same for crafting components. I'm not a fan of the refinement area, really. We need a new table, at the least. Every time I look at it it seems disorganized to me. I can also understand why you'd want to link to a Huntsman/(weapon) page, but I don't like the concept - for one main reason. As a crafter with a good memory I probably won't refer to this page, but for a general crafter, someone who knows the ropes of crafting but needs to know specifics, lets say they go to the page. Now, this person is looking to see what items they can make, what levels they are, they want ALL the info. they want to read it all, take it in. Sure, you can do that, but it may be a bit complicated. With tiers listed, there is 1 link to follow to each weapon. That means a total of 42 weapons, to get all that information. On the contrary, if we link to Huntsman/rifle, Huntsman/torch, etc.,(depending how you want to design it,)then they have to load the discipline, find the link to each of those 7 weapons, link to them, then they have to follow the links on those pages to what they're looking for. Or, if you design the recipe pages the other way, they have to find the link to those 7 weapon pages, and sort through all the information. While the last option is probably the most ideal, what if we took the weapon lists and broke them into tiers, like I did in my drafts. We put those into a page called Huntsman/recipes, and put a link to it. It will link to all the weapons by tier, so that anyone that knows what weapons they're looking for can go right to them. Then, we can put a link to each huntsman/rifle etc. on that page (and on the basic discipline page, if we like) that will take one to ALL of the recipes for that item. This would also allow for unique recipes to be stored right with the weapon type they are, or apart from it - it doesn't really matter. I will try to get an example of what I mean up, though I hope you understand what I was trying to say. Sidenote: I don't think sigils/runes should be displayed on the pages, ever. There are probably a vast amount of sigils to be made, and it would be easier to make a Huntsman/sigils page. (though I also want to say, 100 recipes on a discipline page isn't a bad thing. It doesn't matter if the page has a little bulk to it, just so it isn't overloaded.) 63.239.152.224 04:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I like what you did with this one Wombatt, I would vote to keep the weapon recipes they way are on that page verses using a generic harpoon, rifle, etc page. There are only six(not sure if that is correct) levels of mats, one of each generic weapon per level. I think it would be more beneficial to display those recipes individually verses one generic link. Not sure how everyone else feels tho.
Slowload 17:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) from the four of us so far (my brother included), we're tied between large/small icons, side to side/stacked ingredients, 3 of us prefer the weapon recipes on page, and past that i'm unsure. Also, should unique pieces have their own section, or should they be incorporated where they belong? for armor disciplines I say they're in their own place since they normally come in sets, but what about for weapon disciplines? and refinement, do we want only the generic recipes, or do we want all of them? Just food for thought. (obviously we're not all going to agree, so we're going to have to go with some sort of compromise that still looks good. But if we could get even a few more ppl to look at it... 4 is a small sample size.) Juicearific ~talk 18:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a tad offtopic, but I think we should use stacked ingredients for anything that we want a large icon for, or anything that has more than one bonus attribute. We can use side by side ingredients for anything that only has one bonus attribute (ex. Jute Insignia). Then, on anything that has multiple, we can stack them (ex. Wool Insignia) Thoughts? (i'm fine with stacked on the discipline pages, assuming we want large icons.) Juicearific ~talk 20:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Be consistent and either stack the ingredients for all similar tables or don't stack them at all. Personally I prefer stacked, so I can read the ingredients as a compact list instead of having to scan across a wide table for all of them. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 20:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Tie, broken! :) I like stacked for the same reason, they're lined up and orderly. The large icon lets you know right away that it's the sum or greater part of the recipe. Ish, can you read this and weigh in? Wombatt 21:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm good with stacked too. My only complaint is for things like say, jute insignia, where they all take 2 or 3 ingredients each, and we stack them suddenly the table gets much longer. On something like the wool insignia, they already have 2 high (since they have 2 attributes) and it barely makes the table any longer. If variation is that much of a concern though, we should go with stacked, for the case of high level content. If we can give variances between pages though, I would prefer to leave tier 1 in a side-by-side table. Juicearific ~talk 21:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Nobody that I asked commented that they were too long, instead they said that they wanted more info on the versions that were truncated. At any rate, here is my final draft. Comments and suggestions are appreciated. Wombatt 20:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Tar, I just realized what we missed. There is no place for crafting components on our new huntsman page - oops lol. Where are we putting them? I vote we put a table that includes the generic crafting component recipes, and link them to a page where they are all found (just like we did with refinement, except this will be for crafting components.) Also, since I'm already posting, do we want to display bags/packs/boxes on the tailor/leather/armor discipline pages? I think we should, but that's just me. Juicearific ~talk 05:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to avoid having them all listed. All the weapon categories have the general recipes listed, and clickable links to pages like Longbow Stave and Rifle Barrel. I dislike the idea of listing everything (even though yes, I know, it violates my philosophy of "unique to the discipline = listed here"...), although I would be less hesitant about it if we made it collapsible. A 72-item list sounds troublesomely cluttering in my own mind. BUT, yes, we *should* have it in there. Maybe put it right before Inscriptions. I'll get it taken care of.
ALSO, make sure if you make tables, don't use the word "Ingredients" to describe the crafting materials. Ingredient is a term for cooking items! Wombatt 06:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, well technically you could just list the 12 and like i said, link to a page like refinement, that has them all listed. But, I'm also game for collapsible tables, or small tables side-by-side ingredient tables, like I like. And thanks for the tip, I was putting in ingredients because of "recipe", when you think of recipe you think ingredients. I'll use materials from now on. With that, I'm going to sleep. Zzz. Juicearific ~talk 07:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I have new pages mocked up for Artificer and Weaponsmith. Both are a little different because they have things that are unfamiliar to me (Upgrade components and potions) and a lot of the stuff on the current pages looks like it's may no longer be accurate. I didn't get rid of anything, pending me checking out the disciplines this weekend. Take a look at them please and let me know if you're opposed to me making the switch. Wombatt 03:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Weaponsmith->Refinement->Alloy Ingot. You have an X for lump where it should be one, and there should be an X for the outcome of bars, and the ore should be 2x. Stub is also at bottom of page, should be moved to top. This holds true for Artificer, as well. On Artificer I think you're better off with no table under unique weapons until we know more. Interesting theory for crafting components. But if we do it that way, I feel like they should be collapsible. Just my 2cents. I'd suggest (I don't know what you were planning on) waiting until BWE3 to change them, since one of us should hopefully get a look to see some more concrete info on them. Though, I'm not directly opposed to changing before and confirming after either. Juicearific ~talk 04:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm planning on confirming and then posting. That table for unique weps is just there as a placeholder, and so if someone DOES fill something in, the chart looks the same as all the others. That stub notice is a {{section-stub}}, to point out that the particular section needs expansion. I did ingot that way on purpose, for two reasons: one (most importantly in my mind), it doesn't mess up the alignment of everything by putting a value in front of something in a column that's otherwise without values; and two, it's still right: you get 1 ingot for each two ores you put in, the actual variable is how many lumps you need to make it so. I think the flag and explanation will clear up any questions. Wombatt 17:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Refinement vs Plank/Bolt/Square/Ingot[edit]

As part of the process of hashing out the discipline pages, Juice came up with this page, which I expanded into this page so that it covers all the crafting disciplines (minus chef). In effect, it's a one stop shop that can be linked to instead of bolt of Cloth, leather Square, etc. There had been a lot of discussion farther up the page about whether all those pages were really needed, this seems like it could have all the information organized in one place. Any opposition? Wombatt 22:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The page I like, I think we should keep it. My only objection is on the description of the dowels, I think we should reserve Skill.pngactivator for venom sacs, totems, etc. I don't want anyone (namely myself) getting confused with that. Also, dowels are used in inscriptions, not the weapons :). Suggestion: Dowels are created from planks and are used to make inscriptions (Artificer tango icon 20px.png, Huntsman tango icon 20px.png, Weaponsmith tango icon 20px.png). They are used with Skill.pngActivators to make different types of inscriptions, which ultimately effect what type of weapon you will create. Thoughts? Otherwise I (personally) say you nailed it, and think we should keep this / use it instead of the other disambig pages. It's easier to keep track of one.
edit: Also, if we are including all the info for 150+, don't forget to put verification tags places, or make mention that we don't actually know anything about information tier3+. Wouldn't want to be misleading. Juicearific ~talk 02:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
An activator doesn't have to be a totem, sac, etc. We've defined Activator as "the part of a recipe that gives a crafted product unique properties", so an Activator could be from any number of categories. Totems, sacs, etc are Fine Crafting Materials (as defined by their vault storage pane label) that happen to be used as activators very often. A totem is an activator for a dowel, and the dowel is in turn an activator for the inscription, which is then the activator for the weapon. Good catch on the inscription part, I'll change that up. Wombatt 02:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
mm, but even so, the dowel doesn't give it the unique properties. the tiny venom sac makes it festering, while the vial of weak blood makes it mighty (the inscription). The dowel, makes it a "green" inscription, which happens to have 6 varieties. Perhaps, it's just me, but it seems as though in this case the activator is the venom sac etc., which then makes the inscription the activator (but we may as well use inscription for simplicity). Would someone else mind weighing in? Sometimes my brain thinks differently. Juicearific ~talk 02:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we even need the "activator" term anymore. When making a final product, the inscription/insignia is what gives it the unique property. When creating the inscription/insignia, it is a fine material that gives the unique property. Continuing to use the made-up term "activator" to group those 3 official terms doesn't really seem necessary. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I personally like it, but not enough to fight for it too hard. I counted 78 pages that link to it, though. I don't suppose there's a way to change all those links automatically? :D Wombatt 06:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Just saying, but who knows how many of those are sandbox. I know probably half a dozen+ are in my sandbox, and there has to be some in your and torrenal's sandboxes as well. Though, automatic would be nice. I'm not attached to the term either, as long as we have something to represent a general view of crafting materials. It may even be beneficial to develop something for each tier of crafting materials. Juicearific ~talk 07:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Bag Overhaul[edit]

I re-worked the Bag page, check it out right here. It's more thorough and complete, and combines everything into one chart instead of having to go back and forth between the two charts (if you figured out that you needed both.) Wombatt 00:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The table is too wide. File:User Torrenal Too Wide 2.jpg —Torrenal 04:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
We've discussed it at length and ad nauseum, we're not going to dumb down a table so that it fits on a tablet. Wombatt 04:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not too wide persay, but the items look a bit scrunched up, with all the wrapped text. I don't like to be one to just tell you what I think is wrong, so if you look back I've made two drafts (appropriately labeled under my name), see what you think. I designed the first, but it still wrapped, just not as much. Still, I didn't see any real use to using it over yours. The second one doesn't wrap, but it does have a little bit of height to it, though we had said that might not be necessarily bad. Anyways, Just let me know what you think. Juicearific ~talk 16:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I like the Juicy 1.0 the best, honestly. It's concise, condensed, and not too wide. Wombatt 23:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I prefer the first one, lists in tables really don't read well for me, and the headings are nicer than table 2. Fix the typos and change Pack to Invisible Pack, and it's perfect. Not significantly wider than the others, either. Illiander 17:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that's actually juicy 1.0, he changed the order. I agree, it is my favorite as well. Juicearific ~talk 19:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
That's correct. I realized that my own was lacking and moved what I thought was the best one up. Wombatt 21:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to dumb down the table to fit on a tablet. I'm asking that you make it work on a tablet without broken layouts. There is more than one way to accomplish that. Oh, and the problem occurs for more than just tablets. Not everyone has uber-high-end gaming systems that handle multiple wide-screen displays in multi-head gaming. Some of us need to resort to older tech. File:User Torrenal Too Wide 2.5.jpg Even newer stuff suffers the same layout problem when I rotate my monitor to portrait. Do decide what you will support. Do have that support include the subset of systems that are supported for playing the game. —Torrenal 01:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand the frustration with that, I look at wikipedia on my iPhone all the time, and I have that issue. I realize, though, that hey, I'm on an iPhone, not a desktop, and accept the limitation for what it is. If it's that big a deal for me, I'll get on my desktop and look at the page that way. I'm firmly of the opinion that we should put up the most complete, concise information that we can, and hope it can be awesome for as many people as possible. Now, having said that, I did manage to take about 50px out of the top chart by rewording a couple things. Wombatt 02:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Next - Drop Rates[edit]

I'm moving on from crafting to Drop Rates as my main task. I may poke my nose in from time to time under crafting, but I think that under Tailor we've got a good template for other disciplines to follow. It may need revising, but it beats out what I see under weaponsmith and leatherworker. Some parting notes:

  • Please please **PLEASE** give a look to Undercover Agent Tulfar and consider what goes at the end of the recipe redlinks there. Pay special attention, it should not go to the crafting recipes. It should go to inventory items that unlock them.
  • Tailor Level 20 armors get special icons, a theme I did not see repeat for Wool. It was specific to the level of the crafted item, and not its master/nonmaster status.
  • Runes and Sigils are now at least somewhat understandable., give the Tailor Jute Recipe page a look -- Sigils appear to follow a similar theme (see my addiitions to weaponsmith)
  • Always give consideration to narrow displays, or I will return (this is not a threat. It is merely a simple statement of fact that includes an unhappy outcome for all).
  • Tailor Jute Headpieces and Pauldrons had increased difficulties in BWE3. This did not repeat under cotton. The levels of the crafted items was likewise affected. -- Don't use ink in your updates for this, bet on seeing something here change between now and release - The ground is fertile for at least an icon update.
  • Festering was renamed. Be wary of other renamed items.

—Torrenal 04:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Your first point doesn't concern me, as I already understand that.
  • That is not the case for heavy armor, the looks are broken up by tier for heavy, as I did it in BWE3 and have the videos to prove it. you aren't referring to unique recipes like shadow, are you?
  • I'm concerned that while they're understandable, they're incomplete. I think we're probably missing a bunch and they may or may not follow that standard. For now though, I'd be ok with following it, since we don't know any different.
  • I have an ipad, I check the pages in my sandbox (since half the freaking wiki pages are blocked. stupid school sanctioned browser) occasionally to make sure they work. Mainly only the ones that are actually important to tablets though. Besides, on my ipad everything just scales down what I see here - I don't understand the problem.
  • Incase you hadn't noticed, this pattern had occurred in every armor discipline since BWE1. Helms unlock at level 25, have no simple recipe, and their starting product was level 15. The stats on it matched the stats of the other basic jute insignia, and the embroidered one still made master at level 50. Shoulders unlocked at level 50, had no simple recipe, and their starting product level was 20. There was a fine and master version, fine encompassed all jute insignia, while master encompassed embroidered jute. I highly doubt the change.
  • I believe Wombatt and Dr. Ishmael were already discussing this on Wombatt's chat. I know any page I edit I am changing the name of, and I'm sure he will be doing the same.
Juicearific ~talk 15:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Level 20 armor icons: I'm referring specifically to the Level 20 Embroidered armors. Not specifically the (Master) items, as all Mantles (Masterwork or non) as of the last beta were level 20 and got the same special icons.
  • Runes sigils will be incomplete. As of BWE2, the activators for them were in game, but listed as 'Future crafting items', so we've really only had 3 days in-game to try and figure them out. Do what we can, let the rest take care of itself.
  • Re tablets: My gripe with respect to these is not unique to tablets, any computer with a 1024x768 display will suffer the same problem, and odds are good that we'll have a healthy number of users actually stuck with that resolution. My concern here however is more specific to tablets because I can see the problem being more common with them than with the case of a user with a low end monitor -- Picture a kid playing the game on a mid-range PC, looking down at the wiki on his tablet. Where the problem originates however is moot. The issue with small displays and tables is that one or both of two things generally happen. First, content becomes excessively wrapped, making it difficult to read.
Picture
a block
of text
being
wrapped
every
other
word or
so...
It becomes very annoying dealing with it. Second is a minor layout issue. You can work around the wrapping in tables by using the nowrap tag in cells that are susceptible to wrapping, however if you do this, the table extends to the right, past the edge of the background. Even without nowraps, it's possible that the table will extend to the right. This has always looked awkward to me, and I avoid it whenever possible. You can see an example of it on this page here: User:Torrenal/Sandbox/Colorfull Dye Seed Drops - this page has several very-wide tables. Unless you work with microprint on huge displays, the tables there 'break the background', as it were, tablet device or no. —Torrenal 01:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Tailor Overhaul[edit]

I've been working on making Tailor look like the rest of the crafting pages, [[User:Wombatt/Sandbox/Tailor|this is where I'm at]]. It eliminates all 5000 separate sub-pages for every genericized category of everything and puts everything right there in front of you. Please voice your opinions before I make the switch. Thanks! Wombatt 14:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The Tailor page in your sandbox looks great. I would like to know what "It eliminates all 5000 separate sub-pages for every genericized category of everything..." means. Does that mean that all of the individual item pages would go away? If so, I strongly disagree with that.
I feel that if an item is in the game, it should have its own page, Item infobox, and Recipe infobox that creates it. Also, the current items that are created by recipes never change. They are not variable. A specific recipe creates a specific item. Currently, these item pages don't have much information on them, but I feel that's only because people are trying to get the pages created with a basic amount of information and the rest will follow. Statistics such as power, toughness, etc. are not shown currently, but I know that if you look at the item created, there are stats associated with it as well.
I, for one, would like to be able to have DPL scan the entire wiki and give me back a list of every recipe that is available to craft. With the use of general, grouped recipes, this is not possible. This is something I am currently doing in my userspace. Jfarris964 20:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The current Tailor page doesn't list recipes, it lists things like "cloth head armor" which is a separate page that lists all the variations along with a pro forma statement on what a cloth head armor piece is. I think that's overdone and inconvenient. My own sandbox page reflects the ideas and opinions that we developed over time on this very page. What I meant by that was that those sub-pages would be unnecessary, the recipes would be listed on the Tailor page instead of making people navigate through multiple pages to find the information. Right now the pages for individual items have information that's as complete as we can make them (defense, craft/equip level, value, etc). If you look at the pages like Embroidered Coat you'll see what I'm talking about. Eventually every item will have it's own page with all that info. For now we're trying to get some uniformity on the discipline pages, after that we can dial it down to the recipe pages. I personally feel that the item infobox is very ill-suited to the overall pages like Embroidered Coat or Embroidered Wristguards because there's so much different information within the item, do I've been deleting them as I go. I figure that an infobox full of "Unknowns" or "Varies" is no use. On the individual pages for the Malign/Honing/etc variants that won't be the case, but so far we've been using those pages for redirects so we don't have 13 different pages all about an Embroidered Coat. Wombatt 22:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
@Jfarris: our goal is to make it easier to access those pages you're referencing. We want to make it less clicks to get to the specific page, Wombatt is talking about taking away the pointless links in between. Basically: you want to view page 0, source page. Tailor is currently page 4. You go from 4 to 3, to 2, to 1, then 0. We're looking to remove "page 3", so that tailor is closer to the base.
edit: to mention, at the moment alot of those pages don't exist or are redirects to the page of all the information. We're not against those pages at all - we're just trying to make it so the general player that will access the page looking for all those recipes finds them, we're updating the large list and will make all update all those pages later, after all the information is incorporated into the wiki. I dunno about Wombatt, but I'd rather have all the information readily available, than have half the information look pristine.
@Wombatt - looks good. I'm curious about some of the specific information (I'll ask you later somehow, irrelevant for the moment.) , but since I'm fairly certain you were talking about layout, onto layout.
I like it. Easy to read, easy to scroll through, removes disambig pages.. looks good to me. Only a few curiositys (not criticisms, just food for thought. I'd be very comfortable with you moving that to the main page atm.)
  • We're working on removing disambig pages, but we're still linking to insignia pages. Should we list jute/wool/etc. insignia, or should we keep that disambig page? (Personally I think we should keep insignia page, but that's just me)
  • Should we arrow hide the last 3 items that we have no idea about? Leaving only ONE that we are unsure about shows that we are still missing information, without showing a bunch of blanks. When updated, we could always just uncover the next to show there is still more.
  • We're still using disambig pages in the generic recipe. Should we leave these in (for the crafting components), or should be instead just make the words italicized or bold? Are we trying to rid disambig pages in general, or just specifically the headgear etc pages?
  • Unique table: is the vendor necessary, if we include the recipe name? or visa versa? I can see the vendor becoming confusing, but if the recipe name is there, we can just link to the actual item which will display who sells it.
  • Still bothers me that you numbers for discipline level aren't centered, just saying ;P. (on unique, sigils, and craft components)
None of what I said above is criticism, that page is seriously awesome. I'm just trying to be objective so that we see this from as many angles as possible. I have the same goal as you, to make the page as simple as possible while still displaying as much of the relevant information as possible. Cheers. Juicearific ~talk 06:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
We decided not to put all the insignia on the tailor page because it's multi-discipline, while the components are listed because only a tailor can make them. I could go either way on the vendor name. I am cool with hiding the unknowns, and I'll take care of the centering when I get back home and don't have to do it on my iPhone :) Wombatt 16:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I have a keyboard that you can macro on, so all i do is press a button and it inputs the command for center lol. Juicearific ~talk 19:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Jeweler and Infoboxes[edit]

What's everyone's thoughts on Jeweler pages and the infoboxes on them? So far I've seen a couple different ones: One infobox, unique info in recipe box and two infoboxes, unique info out in the page. I don't have a strong preference either way. I remember some discussion about having too many infoboxes on the same page, so I was thinking that one infobox might be the way to go. However, having two infoboxes allows for more clarity. Wombatt 20:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal thoughts: I like the unique description in the box, but I feel like it takes away the information that is displayed about what item is slotted into the item when it's made. Also, I think you can make 1 infobox work (2 looks a bit crowded), though I would definitely leave the two bottom recipe boxes seperate. What about this? I was just messing around with it, but I think that infobox is what I was trying to describe. Anyways, personally I don't really care. Just tossing ideas around :) Juicearific ~talk 03:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Chef / Cooking[edit]

I've been trying to avoid asking this question... but how are we going to display chef/cooking? (I say both, since I use the two terms pretty much interchangeably). I'm compiling a page of just the recipes (not designed to be the page, just using it to house the recipes) here. Needless to say, there are too many recipes to display on the discipline page. The problem I forsee, is that there is also no specific pattern that arises, like other disciplines. Even jeweler has a fairly concrete tier pattern, chef has none of that. We can't display the basic pattern because, well, there isn't one. I don't want to have a page of just text describing it, but I also don't want to display all those recipes... I need some suggestions, badly. My only two best thoughts are to put a bajillion collapsible tables, which I'd REALLY like to avoid, or linking to subpages like Chef/Dyes, Chef/Meals, etc. - which though not a bad idea, leaves the original page very bland. I'm looking for something that still gives the original page a use, without overloading it. And even if you try to break it down to things like pie filling, pie, tarts, etc.... it doesn't follow a definite pattern, plus things like meals don't have much of anything that falls into those categories. Juicearific ~talk 22:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I would break them down by Type (soup, meal, snack, dessert, etc), and then break them down into discipline level groupings the same as for crafting tiers (0-50, 75-125, etc), then alphabetically within that. If you wanted to have some actual content always showing, have the Tier 1 recipes visible (or collapsible) and the subsequent ones expandable. Wombatt 22:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't use "the same [level groupings] as for crafting tiers" because those tier groupings are meaningless to the chef, and it implies a correlation between the chef and the other disciplines when there isn't one. Just use the obvious discipline ranks (every 100 levels) or, if that still seems too much, cut it in half. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 00:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
For the consumables, I'd add in a colomn giving their bonus, and sort by bonus type, then crafting level. That's the other thing people are going to want to use this table for: "I want to make something that boosts power, what does that?/what do I need to make that?" For the intermediates and dyes, I don't see anything wrong with sorting by required level, then alphabetical. Illiander 06:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
On a related note: you can use the {{Crafting/item}} template to make the coding easier (especially for people who may add things in later), just omit the Variations from both the template and table, it will no longer show up unless there's a value in it (thanks, Ish!) I love Illiander's idea, not surprising that we didn't think of it already, given that I suspect that we're all stuck with the Tailor/Huntsman/etc mentality! I think that's exactly the way to go, I know that I for one will be looking for the stat boost before anything else. Wombatt 14:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) awesome, thanks. My only remaining questions:

  • Certain consumables can be used to craft as well (see caramel). What do we do about those, do I still list the level (that they are used at)?
  • Also, would it be better to just display the first 100 (I like 100 as well Dr. Ishmael, it seems that the "tiers" in chef are broken down into that, as portrayed by dyes.), and put the rest on a chef/dyes chef/meals etc. pages, or do I put them all there with expandable tables instead?
  • Do we want to, for chef only, actually have all of the recipes on this page, unlike other disciplines?
  • And lastly, should I be displaying if recipes need to be bought before you can make them? I like how Wombatt did it, though I could also put a yes/no.

Onto above, I agree, Illiander's idea is novel. I will definitely be using that. Juicearific ~talk 18:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Since we're listing recipes, not ingredients, organize them by the recipe's D-level. The item's C-level, if we list it at all, can be listed with the effects.
I would start off by putting everything on the page. It's easy enough to split content to subpages if people complain about the data overload at a later time.
I'm working (slowly) on a revamp of the recipe template that will include a learn-method parameter, which will identify each recipe as being learned through "discovery", "advancement", or a "recipe sheet". (Suggestions for better names for the parameter are welcome.) We could display this in tables as D/A/R and if R, make it a link to the relevant recipe sheet item. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 19:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) After working on the page, I've hit a question that needs answered. I'm dividing the recipes up by their effects (I.E. things that apply might go here, things that apply power, things that apply magic find, etc.).. but what if one item gives BOTH, endurance and might? or condition duration and damage? Here is the link, but the question is: should that recipe be displayed under BOTH, endurance and might? or, only under one? if only under one, how do we determine which one? Also 2 more small questions:

  • I have condition duration & damage listed together on the page at the moment. Should they be seperate?
  • In some cases, you get buffs for condition duration (I.E. +16% condition duration), but sometimes it can also be buffs so that you are under conditions for less time (I.E. -8% condition duration). How should I differentiate between the two?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juicearific (talk • contribs) at 00:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC).

I wouldn't split them by effect on the chef page. That's what the listings on the individual effect pages are for, e.g. Might#Consumables that grant might. On the chef page, I would expect them to be split by the required discipline rank/level. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 01:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
What about something like this? You could make a column that tells what effect it has, without listing every detail on the Chef page. The last one is made using template:Crafting/Item, it would be perfect if it had a couple more optional parameters for effect-1 effect-2 effect-3 and it would stick them on the end. I think that would be much easier for other people to add recipes they find as the game launches. Unfortunately (and not surprisingly), I can't figure out how to do it, nor how to test a template that I create in my user space, so I'll have to rely on others to do that if we decide to create {{Template:Crafting/Chef}} or whatever. Wombatt 01:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I just solved it for you, and there's no need to change the template. The template outputs a table row, with the row separator at the top of the template. That means that if you want additional cells at the end of the row, you just add them like normal table cells. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I see that, thanks for the learnin'. How do you feel about a table like that? It gives easily-referenced basic information without being too extremely detailed. Wombatt 02:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Duration should be on the left side of the ingredients, so all the "effect" data is grouped together. You're overloading the variations parameter with your current setup (i.e. using it in a manner for which it was not intended), so that would be better anyway. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That's just the order that the template spit them out, I adjusted the order accordingly. Wombatt 02:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I can do that too, it sounds like a good idea. My only concern is I know that I myself prefer to look at things and go "well, i'm level (ex.) 112 chef, I can make all this stuff, *scans through exact numbers and stats they boost* and decide what one is best for me." If we only list what stat they boost and not the numbers (or effect) as well, then I can't accurately compare them without opening all the pages and switching back and forth (a large pain imo). So, while I like the idea you guys have, is there any way we can make a seperate page that encompasses all chef recipes for say, might, and the exact numbers they have? I would like people to be able to look at all the recipes (Saying screw if it's a snack, meal, or soup) and decide what item is best for them. We could split them by attribute, and order those by level. It could be off the main discipline page, so that the main page looks nice, but for anyone looking for that information it is practical as well. Just a thought, it doesn't bother me because I have the information all down in an excel doc.. but if there is anyone else out there as particular as me, I know it'll probably bug them too lol. Juicearific ~talk 03:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Kinda like the Bronze Recipes pages listed off of Armorsmith/Weaponsmith, etc. I think that could be helpful Wombatt 04:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, something like that. Maybe split them up by tier (IMO chef tiers are per 100), or per attribute, but that would make comparing all the level 50 recipes difficult. I'd say we split them into 4 sections, each 100 levels gets their own. Regardless, I have a job interview tmrow morning, so I'll probably work on it tmrow night or something. Juicearific ~talk 06:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That's why I've been avoiding tier when talking about chef recipes, and only talking about them per rank. Within each rank, you could set the default order by level, then by name, instead of only sorting by name. Or you could even split the tables completely by level, set level 2 headers for each rank and level 3 headers for each level.
== Initiate ==
=== Level 0 ===

=== Level 25 ===

=== Level 50 ===

=== Level 75 ===

== Novice ==
=== Level 100 ==
Etc. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 12:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
@dr ishy, you are referring to the table, not actual headers like that, correct? I can see splitting tables via rank, but via level is uneffective. Certain levels have very few recipes in snack/meal/soup, while others can have a large amount. It's better to group per 100, imo.
Also would like to mention I've updated the table to what Wombatt suggested, it can be found Here. Is it missing anything? The only thing I can think of is whether or not a recipe requires a recipe sheet before being able to make it. Juicearific ~talk 05:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, I was just making a blind suggestion with the split by level - if it's not practical, I won't be insulted. :P —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 12:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
As far as the recipe sheet requirement goes, why not use bold text to denote those that require one, instead of a column for yes/no? Or, a line in the infobox on the individual page like "| sheet = yes" displays that in the infobox? Non-entry would either display nothing or Recipe req? No Wombatt 16:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I want to add a "method" parameter to {{recipe}} so we can show whether it is learned automatically (through leveling up), by discovery, or from a recipe sheet. See here (the formatting is very basic because I don't really care what it looks like right now). —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 16:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yay, I've wanted one in that box for forever lol. That will only work on the item's exact page though, I still think we should display whether or not it takes a recipe on the main page. I sorta like the idea of a bold title, but I dunno how practical it is. Juicearific ~talk 18:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The ingredient page is (or was) set up so that forage-able items were listed in bold, so it would tie in somewhat. Wombatt 19:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Formally establish Naming Conventions[edit]

I thought this had come up in discussion previously, and it did, but I'm not finding it on the wiki, so it probably happened in IRC.... We've got a bit of a naming convention to settle, regards crafting. item 1: We have three discrete items to distinguish (using Shadow Leggings as the example:

  • The Produced item: Shadow Leggings
  • The Recipe for the item: Shadow Leggings
  • The Unlock for the recipe: Shadow Leggings.

Further, MediaWiki has a naming convention for namespaces, a name space is some text, followed by a colon. Eg: Talk:Main Page The discussion I had amounted to, in a loosly paraphrased summary:

'You know those names in game for Recipes won't work on the Wiki. We'll need to use Shadow Leggings (Recipe)'
'Why.... Oh, namespaces? But shouldn't we keep the names as they are in the game?'
'Sometimes you need adjust the content to fit in the Wiki'

I've got 3 questions we need formal answers to.

  • Is the : in the name of recipes a bad-thing wiki-wise? Is it best to avoid using the colon in page names?
  • Is it fair to indicate all Recipes with Recipe in the name? Either as Recipe: Shadow Leggings or as Shadow Leggings (Recipe)?
  • Is it fair to indicate all Recipe Unlocks with Recipe Sheet in the name? Either as Recipe Sheet: Shadow Leggings or as Shadow Leggings (Recipe Sheet)?

—Torrenal 20:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Namespaces have to be specifically configured. You can't just name a page "Foo:Bar" and automatically create a "Foo:" namespace.
We already have plenty of pages that start with "Recipe:". This is what the items are called in-game and is what we should continue to use on the wiki. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 20:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Each should follow their appropriate name in the game. If the item is called "Recipe: Shadow Leggings", then that is what it should be. I know that in weaponsmith, we have items like say "Recipe: Copper Sword" (or recipe sheet, i can't remember what it is), while the recipe itself is called "Copper Sword (Master)", and the item is just called "Copper Sword". I think that information i gave is inaccurate, but it serves its point. all 3 are called something different, and I think it should be represented by that. Though, how often do we ever even use the name of the recipe? on all the item pages, we just use a "product" column, which avoids the confusion of differently named items and their recipes. Juicearific ~talk 03:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Imbued Inscriptions[edit]

Throwing this out there, anyone that wants a look for the stats of new imbued inscriptions, I gathered enough data to figure it out. You can find it here. It appears to be an attempt by A-net to allow us to use low(er) level crafting materials, even whenever we've passed the level significantly. You shouldn't run out of recipes until you deliberately farm it, unless you're in a guild that you're crafting everything for. I also managed to get all the stats for weaponsmithing weapons in that imbued group (thank god for friends that got a high level like you, and feel like mailing you a bunch of fine crafting mats. <3), which I will be updating shortly. Juicearific ~talk 04:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

PvP Recipes[edit]

I've been heading up research over at GW2 guru regarding mystic forge recipes for PvP gear. For the purpose of the wiki, I believe these need to be classified somewhat differently to both PvE recipes (for crafting professions) and PvE mystic forge recipes (which follow very different rules).

My current understanding is that when salvaged, all PvP weapons and armor breakdown into 4 item types. If you were to salvage the same item enough times, to get all 4 of those specific salvage materials, and combine them at the mystic forge, they will create that same item again. There is an element of chance involved ("crit" crafting, as we have started to call it) but each recipe so far has an obvious expected result.

As such, it seems sensible that PvP weapon and armor pages should include Mystic Forge recipes. I have attempted to create a new template "PvP recipe", based on the existing "Recipe: template, however, my knowledge of wiki syntax isn't up to the task. I would much appreciate any discussion, guidance and assistance on this topic. - Greyf0x 07:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Just throwing ideas around (I've yet to use the PvP Mystic forge, I'm more of a PvE guy) - but wouldn't it be beneficial to have a link under PvP (armor and weapons), and another under mystic forge, that would link to the same page, being a list of recipes that can be used in the PvP mystic forge? You could compile them all on the same page for easy access, they'd be away from all the PvE stuff, but still easily accessible. Of course, I don't really have an idea for the specific page, but I would say take a look at the mystic forge PvE pages, and maybe format it off that? Juicearific ~talk 18:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You might want to check out {{mystic}} as PvP recipes done though the mystic forge. 198.65.168.24 20:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to clarify a couple of things. Technically the PvE and PvP mystic forges are the same. You can take PvP mats to the forge in Lion's Arch, and you can take PvE mats to the one in the Mists. However, the PvP recipes are quite different in function. The PvP recipes follow very predictable patterns, and every single PvP item has a corresponding PvP recipe at the mystic forge. As we already have a PvP reward (historical) page which is collecting all the weapons and armor, I don't see the need for a specific page collecting recipes. A simple category for PvP recipes might do the trick there. -Greyf0x 07:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

I have no issues with deleting the pages since basically all of this stuff is really just the Item formatting page, but I do wonder if we should keep the talk page around as an orphaned talk page since it does have quite a bit of content here. - Doodleplex 03:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess we could convert it into how to use {{recipe}} + {{recipe group}}. You're right though, it doesn't do any harm to keep the talk page. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 21:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I like Alex's suggestion, so I'm in favour of keeping both. --Idris (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars2.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_2_Wiki_talk:Crafting_formatting&oldid=1614147"