Template talk:Crafting infobox

No icons?

Why should icons only be used in rare cases? Wombatt 01:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

{Icon} is only for when the filename doesn't match the pagename. Check the default value on that parameter. —Dr Ishmael 01:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I gotcha. I read it as meaning they should only have icons in rare cases. Derp. Wombatt 03:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Cost parameter

There needs to be a Cost parameter for things that are only available for purchase from NPCs (spools of thread and alloying lumps come to mind), different from Value. Wombatt 22:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at Lump of Tin - I've argued this in other places, and I think acquisition belongs as a section in the article itself. You have to give a text description of where/who/how to acquire it anyway, so splitting the acquisition info by putting the cost in the infobox doesn't really make sense. —Dr Ishmael 22:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly feel it's more appropriate in the infobox: it's a standard datum and should be easy to find and easy to run queries off of. Acquisition sections are always muddled (unless there's only 1-2 sources). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

But why split the information? As I already noted, you have to state within the article from whom the spools of thread/alloy lumps are purchased. But then you list the amount they charge you off in the infobox? I recognize your desire to make the information available to query frameworks, but for SMW at least, you can still do that within the article text - it exposes more wiki code to editors, yes, but the syntax is fairly simple: [[Property name::Property value]] (default display is "Property value" i.e. the property name is not shown; you can optionally pipe a display text, just like internal links).

Splitting the information between the article and the infobox makes the reader look in two different locations to piece together the information they need. So why do it? —Dr Ishmael 04:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

More types

I think it is good to limit the types, but I think there are some missing types like: Jewels and Rare crafting materials - Yandere 22:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we need a new type again. 'item' or something. The new crafting profession backpacks use items in their recipies and items are not component/refinement. Berizelt (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

They should be using {{Back item infobox}}, not this. —Dr Ishmael 01:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Name change

Common should probably be changed to Basic, since that's what it's called in the game (at the Trading post). Wombatt 23:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we should probably do that... I hope this will be not too much work. - Yandere 23:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that the name for the rarity level? Then that needs to be changed at {{rarity}} and rarity, not here. Unless the account vault also changed the name of the collection to "Basic crafting materials". —Dr Ishmael 00:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, at those two spots. Wombatt 00:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed the code, so that there is Basic material now. The problem is it is now a bit counterintuitive to type common and see basic. - Yandere 00:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey woah, please don't change the categorizing in this template without confirming that the account vault has changed. If the category needs to be changed, the crafting page will need to be changed as well. Undoing it for now, until there is confirmation. — Rari 01:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ancient conversation I know, but apparently ishmael was correct + only the rarity name was changed... the materials are still called "common crafting materials".. I wish I'd noticed + corrected this before ploughing my bot through all these pages to remove this infobox >.< -Chieftain Alex 16:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Item type / "Crafting Material"

Here it says at description not to repeat the item type, since it appears in the infobox proper. But we have in the mouse over info in the game something like "Ingredient" then new line and "Crafting Material:" with the requirements and professions. I think the "Crafting Material" should not be repeat because we have all this info in the box. And we should leave the "Ingredient" in the description because this is more something like a description something characters in the game would use to describe item. And this should remain that the description is not empty. The stuff with the numbers to the right in the box. Changing some of the stuff a bit now because I saw already a few others that were like I suggested it. - lordmd 09:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Also if we want the "Crafting Material" to appear again this should be below "Ingredient". Saw this at cooking. This is supposed to be a bit like the ingame tooltip and that tooltip is showing "Ingredient" first. - lordmd 09:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Need to Add Soulbound

This needs Soulbound added Rudhraighe 20:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I always thought craftion materials can't be bound... You see me confused. - Yandere 20:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please explain: what crafting materials are soulbound? —Dr Ishmael 21:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

To add to an old discussion: Settler's Intricate Gossamer Insignia is account-bound on acquire. There's no parameter to support that at the moment. ~ Sanna 10:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Erm support got added for "bound" since September 2012 (humourously before this discussion took place) -Chieftain Alex 12:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Conflicts with {{upgrade component infobox}}

I was looking at this template and {{upgrade component infobox}} this morning while working on more bot scripts for item icons, and I noticed that this template and the aforementioned infobox have overlapping regions for a few types, such as jewels and gemstones. I can understand why they would be put under crafting materials, but in terms of category sorting on the wiki, Category:Jewels and Category:Gemstones both fall under Category:Upgrade components. Therefore, I think it is wrong for these types of pages to use this infobox. (Addendum: in the case of jewels, they are sorted under both categories, but I think for the sake of documentation, we should choose to either mark every jewel with one or the other infobox, and remove the ability to mark a "jewel" on the other infobox). —Jyavoc 17:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)