Template talk:Rune infobox

We're going to be creating this soon anyway, so we might as well break in with a proposal. Lasha has created this gem in his user space and I find it to be an excellent opening proposal. An example can be found here. Insights and additions to formatting of rune articles will still be required. - Infinite - talk 22:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

How would it work with multiple runes on a page? Would it be listed down with one rune under the other?

The discussion on Talk:Rune is leaning towards putting Minor/Major/Superior on a common page for each rune type. Venom there brought up the point of whether the icons would be the same or different for Minor/Major/Superior of each rune. If the icons are different, then I like Lasha's and we could make an infobox for each tier with it's own icon. If the icons are the same then what about merging them into one large infobox? Aqua showed me this the other day and I think that style would work for the runes as well with the thick header splitting each tier then the 1 common icon at the top.

So in short, I like it if Minor/Major/Superior have different icons, and want to expand it if they have the same icons. 23:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

All icon are diferent but only see Runes of Ascalonian Armor in Churl Ghostshield. Lasha 10:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What we do with it? Do you applied and later puts the multi-object or that is done? Lasha 12:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Something like this? Aqua (T|C) 18:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Aqua, you are my god... after Grenth, but my god. I love it. For me, it's perfect :) Lasha 21:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Aqua, did your version here. It's correct? Lasha 11:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice. I like that Aqua + Lasha version. 16:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

[[:File:User Infinite Rune infobox.jpg|This is Firefox.]] - Infinite - talk 18:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed that. Was working fine in Chrome but in Firefox it was doing the same thing that it did for you Infinite. It was the superscripts that were not playing nice in Firefox. 18:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yay, it looks prettier now! I would propose to remove the horizontal separation line between the item stats and the rune bonusses. Or make it white instead. :) - Infinite - talk 18:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

mmmm i use Firefox v11 and IE8 and i see good. Well, in the case, I marked the line blank. The reason she was to make a small gap and would not have much data. Lasha 21:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Upgrade for Rune

I was thinking, even though it hurts, if it would be interesting to make a single template for armor upgrades (sigils, runes, jewels...) and apply to all. For the moment I see sigils and runes have the same format. With a few changes could be used to jewelry. Don't? Lasha 14:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

A different approach

With more detailed rune information available to us, I'd like to propose a different direction for the rune infoboxes. It is simply not feasible to include the rune bonusses in the infobox itself; it will be cluttered and not very convenient to read. Per example;

• Rune of the Flock – As you can see, the effects for 2, 4, and 6 runes of the same (superior) kind are lengthy in their descriptions (which are quite concise already).
• Rune of the Pack – This superior rune is even worse.
• Rune of Divinity – For this one it'd work alright, but it's basically the only superior rune where this is the case.

As seen above, the rune bonus information needs to be documented in another fashion. I created a prototype of a completed rune article on "User:Infinite/Runes/example" (minus categories due to this being an example). Looking at the example, a few things come to mind;

1. Every grade of rune is documented individually on one page. This enables us to keep different grades of runes documented on overview articles.
2. There is currently no rune infobox, so it is using item infoboxes. Admittedly, these infoboxes don't look all that improvised and work quite well.
3. The stats are located on the left, contrary to being included in the infobox on the right. On bigger resolutions this will give us an astonishing amount of whitespace.
4. I can't see how there will be more than 1 recipe link per grade of rune, so a total of 3 recipe links exist (albeit the example doesn't use links, to keep the destinations off the wanted pages).
5. Since these runes share a base name, the notes and trivia sections can encompass all grades of these runes together.
6. We could even code the future rune infoboxes to automatically format the encyclopedic line at the top, which briefly introduces the runes. An example of formatting can be found on "User:Infinite/Runes".

And other than that we simply need to discuss the actual infobox some more. I linked the example to help envision what a (possibly ideal) rune article might look like. - Infinite - talk 15:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

1. That will actually be helpful when we apply SMW to runes - the infobox can set an internal object to group all the properties for that tier of the rune together.
2. We'll definitely want a dedicated infobox for the SMW usage I just mentioned to reduce the amount of spaghetti logic in the generic template.
3. That already happens with most infoboxes that include a game description and a {clear} at the end, it doesn't bother me.
4. If we're going to store the recipes for runes as separate articles, we should be consistent and do that for all items. We could still transclude the recipe box onto the item article, but having it distinct from the item would make it much simpler for SMW to keep everything arranged nicely.
5. /agree
6. I suppose that could work.

This isn't related to the infobox, but as I stated here, the "Stats" subheader under each tier is unnecessary. —Dr Ishmael 15:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)