Template talk:Recipe/Archive 1

What a nice idea ! I have two complementary ideas : first, can we add a

| number mat-x=

because somes items needs more than one material. And second,

| discipline2 =

because in videos we look that crafting may improve two disciplines... Thanks - Nisador -- (T) 17:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

At most two disciplines? Yeah, I'll add that functionality. & for the ones with duplicates of one material, I don't think it's a big issue to fill out mat-2 through mat-4 with the same thing.-- Shew 17:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, duplicates just for mat-1 :) - Nisador -- (T) 17:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's not a big deal; that'd be optional anyways.-- Shew 17:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I mean...it's not that big a deal to just put the same item in mat-2 & mat-3 either; it'd just be one more parameter, and it'd save a lot of space.-- Shew 17:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hold up a bit before you start adding it to articles. I've gotta figure out a way to have the recipe box below the info box.-- Shew 17:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I like where you're going with that...didn't realize putting it in a new section would fix the issue.-- Shew 17:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Tell me when it's ok to use the template. And i show a "mistake", the workstation doesn't appear (ex: Green Carved Burl for Workbench) - Nisador -- (T) 17:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, careless error. :) It should be okay now.-- Shew 17:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and good job ! - Nisador -- (T) 17:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Hurrah, and much obliged. I do want to note, however, that not including duplicate functionality will run into issues should we encounter the not-unlikely probability of recipes that have 4 different materials all requiring multiple amounts. The ones we have documentation on were only novice level, after all. Redshift 10:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Currently, I can't think of any reason not to have "1. <x> x <material 1>". We know only very basic recipes, and some of the recipes we do know have four ingredients required; alternatively, it would look/it does look awkward when you have 1. Green Burl, 2. Green Burl, 3. Greenburl... Aqua (T|C) 21:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, order should not matter. Therefore, I don't quite think that a numbered list would be the best way to proceed. It may give the impression that order is a requirement. Venom20 22:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement about that; I was discussing whether it should be "X x Material" instead of "Material br/ material"... Aqua (T|C) 02:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we know if any recipes can use more than 1x of a material per slot? If so there needs to be a "X x Material", if not I think it should be left as it is. One because the 2 materials would be taking up 2 slots during crafting and the way the template is now more accurately shows that. And two, adding the 1x would mean at least 2 more parameters would need to be added which will make the template more cluttered/confusing to use. I had thought that the 2 different burls was odd looking at first, but thinking of adding the 2x and keeping the burl icon sounds just as awkward looking. Mattsta 09:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

While on my "crafting edit spree" I have found that it does use a X x material thing. So I'll update it. Aqua (T|C) 20:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Recipe list

I just had a look at how works skills lists on GWW and they use something called DPL, which makes it automatically, by searching the infos inside the infobox. It could be great if we try it on recipes at first, and then expand it to other infobox.

Links : [1] [2] [3] [4]

--Till 18:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting; will look into it.-- Shew 18:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

DPL is something that several of us have already been looking into. The main reason we don't have it implemented yet is that we want a more artistic DPL than the blocky table they use. Aqua (T|C) 19:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

For various examples on this wiki, see here. - Infinite - talk 19:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Till034/Sandbox2 Well if someone can make a css class (I can't modify the css), it could be as artistic as other pages.--Till 10:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed update

I've created a new version of this template (seen here) based on the actual crafting/recipe interface. Opinions? Aqua (T|C) 05:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

+1 approve Venom20 13:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

+1 Lasha 14:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Amazing design, but I'd move the icon of the to-craft item to the right, as per the other icon-displaying infoboxes. Other than that +1. - Infinite - talk 17:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

More cowbell or Discipline

Would like to increase the Disciplines to at least 4. Found in video from press beta at least one crafting that has 4 attached to it. The Bronze Ingot is done by Artificer, Huntsman, Armorsmith, and Weaponsmith. Kenrid 06:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Workstation

I have noticed in Press beta video done at Massively that Weaponsmith work at a Lathe, Armorsmith was working at an Anvil. It seems each Disclipine has their own station type. When station is moused over it says "Weaponsmith Station" but in the crafting panel it says "Lathe" Plus the station looks like a lathe or anvil. I am wondering if we should take Crafting Station off the recipe template. Recipes have multiple Disclipines, which we list, and if each has its own it seems redundant to put the multiple stations. What do you think? Kenrid 03:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the profession it should be sufficient. Lathe, Anvil or other is indifferent. Lasha 06:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Workstation is indeed linked directly to discipline, so the current state of the template - 4 possible disciplines but only 1 station - doesn't really work.

In the same vein, crafting level and rank are also directly related - Novice is levels 1 - 100, and Initiate starts at 101. This template should be simplified to remove both the 'station' and 'rank' parameters. Dr ishmael 19:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Experience

As seen in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fan8dbzWEYU#t=205s the experienced gained towards crafting professions is based on your current level in that profession; as you gain a higher level, lower level recipes return less experience. Because the mechanics work this way should we remove the experience section from the Recipe template? 67.172.91.186 20:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

We could just change it to "base experience"... Aqua (T|C) 21:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

this and css

Why isn't this an infobox css class? That will keep its style uniform with other infoboxes Alfa-R 06:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done this with infobox class here. This way it will work with different skins but will still look the same. Any thoughts on it? Alfa-R 18:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It isn't because css is only updated once in a blue moon (well, actually, rarer than that, but still) and I wanted to do something cool with the colors. And it looks great, though I lament the loss of the dark brown. Aqua (T|C) 19:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean border color? that can be easily added. Also, i think that this template is a little redundant as is, because it has both stations and disciplines (which are afaik in one-to-one relation). Also, item's level is shown in recipe's properties at the bottom. Imo it either should be moved to item's description at the top, or omitted at all, as item's infobox has that information already. Alfa-R 19:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

One thing i have to say is that the higher your level the less Experience the craft gives. So either make it clear like "Experience at minium craft level" or you might has well remove it until someone decides to make a graph or decrypts the formula. Another information that would come handy is the level at which the recipe is avaiable(the required), the level at which doesn't award that much experience(Blue colored recipes) and the level at which no longer awards experience(Grey recipes). However I feel it's just too much information. Might make the infobox crowded.UkranyPt 13:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Should the template be updated based on the April BWE?

It looks like some of the information used in this table is obsolete or unnecessary. I propose making the following changes to the temple. I may even try to make some of these changes in my sandbox, but I'm HORRIBLE at wiki coding.

{{Recipe
| name = 
| link = 
| desc1 =
| desc2 =
| desc3 =
| mat-1 =
| amt-1 =
| mat-2 = 
| amt-2 =
| mat-3 = 
| amt-3 =
| mat-4 = 
| amt-4 =
| discipline = 
| discipline2 = 
| discipline3 =
| discipline4 =
| rank = <---------Can the rank be automatically set by the level and removed as a parameter?
| level = 
| station = <------Should be removed as a parameter as there is only one station per discipline
| exp=
| dexp = <------Add a parameter for the amount of XP you get by discovering this recipe (optional parameter)
}}

Jfarris964 16:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I noted above that rank and station are unnecessary inputs, because they are derived values of level and discipline, respectively. Station shouldn't be displayed at all, in my opinion, since that's always a 1-to-1 relationship. Rank isn't all that important, since the game always references level directly, but I could see some people wanting to keep it for display here. —Dr Ishmael 00:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree station is redundant but required rank is not players need to know what rank they have to be to attempt the recipe, i agree that exp and discovery are also important as long as we identify the class the station is unnecessary Rudhraighe 00:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The station parameter is unnecessary, but we still need to have it in there somehow since you need a station to craft the recipes at. Could just change it from Station | Forge to something like [[Crafting station|Discipline appropriate station]]. I don't think we need to have an extra parameter for discovering experience. It goes the same route of it is dependent on the experience parameter and we don't even have the first experience for most of anything yet. The only reason I am not with you on making rank automatic is that there are still quite a few recipes that don't have levels. While that isn't too bad atm, once we get higher level recipes it could confuse the matters where being able to put in the ranks would narrow down what levels they could be. 00:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Level doesn't reset as you get higher ranks. At level 99 you are novice rank, at level 100 you are initiate but you still level 100, 101, etc down the line. So it isn't what rank you need to make something, it is what level which is why they want to remove it. 00:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

All the recipes and items I saw in-game indicated a required discipline level, not rank, e.g. 25 or 175. That's why I don't think rank is necessary - it seems like it's just a shorthand for saying "I'm between level X and Y" without any other usage.

All Chef recipes are crafted at a Cooking Station, all Weaponsmith recipes at a Forge, etc. That's why I don't think station is necessary - the relationship is pretty obvious and we can save space by not displaying it. —Dr Ishmael 00:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I created a Sandbox to test out some of the things I suggested above. There is still an issue with the default putting up an expression error and I'm not sure how to fix it. Maybe it can be fixed by using a switch? I don't know. If you want to check it out, visit the sandbox I set up to test these changes. Jfarris964 18:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I fixed your default error J, and taking the rank onto the end of the req level looks good for having it there for those interested in that but still kindof removed. The station is a requirement of the recipe so it needs to stay on the recipe template in some form. We are not scrapped for space that we need to save space by removing it completely either. We don't need the parameter but station still needs to be part of the recipe. Still think that we shouldn't have discovery exp, 1) for now since we don't know hardly any of the regular experience, 2) it is slightly redundant off of exp since discovery exp is based off what you get for regular exp (mentioned already on crafting), and 3) it can be confusing to new wiki'ers with 2 different experience values. 21:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Forget any arguments about saving space, I still say that station and rank are totally meaningless here.

• Discipline and station are directly linked, so if you know the discipline you know the station - in fact, the exact name of the station doesn't make any difference even in general, most people will think of it as e.g. the "armorsmith station" rather than "Anvil". If the issue is with being able to identify the correct station on the map so you know where to go, I've added the icons to the Discipline listing, which is what people will have to find on the map anyway (the station name only appears as a pop-up).
• Rank, as far as I am aware, has absolutely no relevance, in-game or out. I noticed that even in the guild roster, it displayed each character's crafting disciplines with the level, not the rank.

—Dr Ishmael 15:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

One take away I had from the BWE was that some professions used the mat starting at level 75, others starting at 25 or 150. I believe the level is less an indication of how hard it is to use the item, but more a cue of 'You won't have any recipes that use it until this crafting level'. A subtle distinction, yes, but one that helps users understand the experiment mode. 97.118.203.172 16:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Who are you talking to Dr. No one has been saying that we need to list Discipline named stations on the recipe. I have been saying it just needs to essentially say You need a crafting station like how it is set up now. You need a station to craft the recipe, so station is a requirement for the recipe, which means station needs to be listed in the recipe as a requirement. And you were the one that changed the rank to what we have been talking about changing the rank to. What are you arguing for? 17:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I made the edit to the rank display as a temporary compromise - there obviously doesn't need to be a parameter for it, so I took that out. Personally, I don't think it's useful at all, but since other people seem to think it is, I made it a derivation based on level. That doesn't mean I can't continue trying to convince people that it should be removed completely. If I am reading the consensus wrong and people do agree that it's not necessary, then that's my mistake and I won't object if the new derivation is removed.

How is linking to Crafting station useful? Yes, you have to craft recipes at a station, but that is an inherent characteristic of the crafting system that I don't see the value in linking to that article from every single recipe on the wiki. And as I keep re-stating, if you know the discipline, you know the station. It's not like you have to think, "Huh, this is a Cook recipe, I wonder if I can craft it at an Anvil?" No, only Armorsmith recipes are crafted at an Anvil, which is identified by the icon that now appears next to Armorsmith in all Armorsmith recipes. There is no additional information on Crafting station to make the link have any value. —Dr Ishmael 18:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dr Ishmael. Station is redundant information totally defined by a discipline and should be omitted as such. Alfa-R 18:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Gah, yes, that's the word I was looking for all this time - redundant! My brain is slow sometimes. :) —Dr Ishmael 18:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

you are welcome ;-) Alfa-R 18:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

While it is true that the station is only related to the crafting discipline, it is not that obvious for begginners. Some of them might be used to craft things wherever they please in previous games and would atempt to do so. I do believe that the crafting station should have some presence while players navigate through their discipline recipes, but not on each and every recipe. Like adding a description in the Weaponsmith page:" Weaponsmiths craft their itens in the Weaponsmith station. For a list of Weaponsmith stations click here. For a list of diferent displine stations click here.". That would create an emphasis that the player will need to be at a station to craft, but we dont need to crowd recipes withstatic information.UkranyPt 13:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Icons FORCE .jpg when icons should be .png for materials?

For some Reason the .png Icons for crafting components will not display i was under the impression that ALL crafting material and crafting components were to be in .png format?? Rudhraighe 23:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

fix it now and i will work on replacing the icons before things get too far out of hand, it may take me a few days but i am willing I Promise to work as fast as i am able Rudhraighe 00:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. —Dr Ishmael 00:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Gee thanks now put a HUGE note somewhere on the template that all Crafting and Component materials are Required to be in .png format while i clean up the mess ;) GriN Rudhraighe 00:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

PPS you did do a search .jpg replace .png everywhere on the template including the usage and format example i hope Rudhraighe 00:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Jpg was the old standard for all icons on the wiki. It wasn't until this beta when we were able to get png's directly from the source that we have been switching over to that. Looks like Dr already switched it over to that. 00:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I got a rhythm going gonna hunt and convert existing mat and component jpg's for a few days Rudhraighe 00:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

AArrrg completed items should still be .jpg? weapons armor bags? just asking or are we gonna go totally .png? Just asking better to do it now than later but then you will need to fix a lot of other templates the images are not a problem today but after next few beta's it will be daunting to convert all the new uploads Rudhraighe 00:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Completed items? I don't know what you mean. The default icon, for when it can't find one with the item's name, I left as "File:Skill.jpg". If there is an icon for something, though, it should be using the .png version. Yes, we should definitely be using .png for all icons going forward - please point out anything that is still using .jpg.

Also, it's going to take the wiki some time to re-parse all the pages that use this template, so you may see some of them still using the .jpg versions for a few hours. —Dr Ishmael 00:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

i finished all the icons i could find if i missed some just e-mail or post in my talk with the links or reference pages listing the links. i think i found most of them i avoided skill icons and their like but i'm not that familiar with where wiki hides everything i just wish i had access to the a detail list of the file directorys and could do a search function on files under a certain pixel & or k size let me know how it turned out Rudhraighe 05:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Those Pesky little Component .jpg icons are overriding the .png icons in the material component area of the template see the Tiny Totem in Healing Jute Insignia Rudhraighe 17:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing an outdated thumbnail based on the old version of File:Tiny Totem.png, but I'm not seeing any .jpg images. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way to force MW to purge thumbnails short of deleting the file from the server. —Dr Ishmael 17:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Purge the image page :) --Tera 14:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that feature was introduced sometime after MW 1.16, because I've tried that repeatedly on this image and nothing happened - it's still showing the old thumbnail. —Dr Ishmael 14:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

are you sure it has nothing to do with ":Skill.jpg" still being in the template even after the forced change to .png and "File:Tiny Totem.jpg" still in existence,!! someone must have missed some punctuation somewhere in all that mess a missing "[" somewhere??? maybe ! Rudhraighe 18:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, if that were the case you would be seeing "File:Skill.jpg" instead. That should only be happening if the item does not have an icon uploaded to "File:{{{item}}}.png". And if a bracket were missing somewhere, it would be extremely obvious. —Dr Ishmael 20:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you guys talking about the 20px thumbnail in the recipe? As in this image? For me it's showing the new icon of File:Tiny Totem.png, did you clear your cache? --Tera 08:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm seeing it too, now. I don't know what happened. MW's relationship with images has always seemed a bit mystical to me. —Dr Ishmael 13:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that images don't change their URL when they are updated, so browsers cache them for much longer. Add some server side caching (Varnish) to that and it will cause a lot of confusion. :) --Tera 07:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Headers

This template is mostly used on item pages, if I understand it correctly. On an item page, we have an infobox and a recipe box, both looking very similar and having the same header (the item name). Why repeat the item name in the header on every item page, why not just say "Recipe"? (And in turn remove the obsolete header "Recipes") Example: Jute Chestguard Padding. It says "Jute Chestguard Padding" everywhere. - anja 07:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

To my understanding we will eventually have split articles for items and their recipes, where only a link to the recipe article is left on the item page. - Infinite - talk 14:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there really enough information to warrant that, especially on simple/beginner items? Why split them? (Where is this discussion, if there is one? :) ) - anja 14:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Certain items have multiple variants of the same recipe, And the recipes themselves are items on their own. As for that discussion, I'll go dig it up if I can find it, which may take a while. - Infinite - talk 14:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't find the discussion (or am overlooking it), but an example of my first point is Bronze Dagger. This dagger is the base for various variants you can craft. Keeping all those recipes on the (base) article (of which will already have many different variants, stat-wise) will result in possibly the most cluttered article types on this wiki to date. I feel that we can go with your approach for consumables, and other static craftable items, but we'll need a different system for equipment, I fear. - Infinite - talk 15:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm kind of torn if we really have to document all those recipes, if the only difference between them is the inscription (or similar). It seems you can add this Festering/Mighty/Vitality component to most any weapon and get a variant. Maybe we should document it differently? (a note saying which inscriptions this weapon takes, for example). It won't be finalised until well after release of course, because we still don't know the exact system, but I don't think every such recipe needs it's own article :) - anja 15:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no, that isn't what I was suggesting either (sorry for the confusion there). Like with a base weapon article, we'd also have a base recipe article. The amount of variants may be a little overwhelming at times, which is why I'd argue it's best off split (better safe than sorry, with all these discoveries). The amount of dynamics in GW2 is cool and all, but it makes documenting a very delicate, exceptions-riddled project. :P - Infinite - talk 15:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It will be a nightmare :P But we will do it anyway, as always. Maybe bigger projects (like this) should wait for release anyway. Just document things we find as we find them during beta, and organize later when it's finalized :) - anja 16:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Tweaks for genericised recipes

I'm looking at making a few tweaks for genericized crafting.

1. An 'icon' for each input, used to override the default icon. The purpose being to allow for a specific icon to be pulled and used in a generic recipe, such as I've started to set up on the Ingot page.
2. Not for generics, but needed anyway: A 'creates-qty' or similar (parameter tbd), that indicates how much of a final product a given recipe makes. Sole recipes (for footware) always make two. Alloy recipes make 5. I'm sure there will be others. Torrenal 16:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Your choice of 'amt' is easily confused with the existing 'amt-#' parameters for ingredient quantities. —Dr Ishmael 03:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

fair nuff. Also holding off on genericising the template for now. I'll rename it to qty tomorrow, out of time for today for mucking in templates. :/. Torrenal 03:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Got my work done early, so I nabbed it same day. Looking at Bronze Ingot, I'll want to modify my quantity support some. I like how bronze ingots got by without the qty, but we'll want it for semantics, and the "5 Bronze Ingots" page is a bit tacky. Torrenal 05:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we rename the 'qty' parameter to 'quantity' before it's changed everywhere? There is no reason why it should be shortened (and I actually had to think for a while to get what it does). — Rhoot 12:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, I'd prefer to have all the shortened parameter names renamed to full. 'mat-n' -> 'material-n', 'amt-n' -> 'material-amount-n', 'exp' -> 'experience'. The 'amt' one at a very minimum, it makes no sense if you just look at the parameter name. — Rhoot 12:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The ingredient inputs will be completely reswizzled when I update this for SMW, so changing them now would just be additional work. And as long as I'm talking about that, I should probably describe my idea for that. With the #arraymap function from Semantic Forms, they'll all be reduced to a single parameter:

| ingredients = 3 Mushroom, 1 Jar of Vegetable Oil, 1 Packet of Salt → Grilled Mushroom

#arraymap will split the input on commas, then pass each element to the processing code, which will assume that the first "word" is the quantity. —Dr Ishmael 12:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Judging by how long it took for gw1w to have mediawiki updated though, it could take a while. ;) — Rhoot 13:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

will we be able to, say, put all the soup recipe data in one page, and have all the individual recipes query from that list? Would make maintenance easier. Torrenal 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it has to be exactly opposite - every distinct soup recipe has to be placed on a separate article. The overview "Soup" article can query the individual recipes to display a summary. —Dr Ishmael 14:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

qty, mat, amt

I'd like to change these to "quantity", "material", and "amount" - infoboxes should be as clear as possible, as they're complex enough to understand (for the casual editor) already. These are unnecessary abbreviations. pling 18:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on qty, but per your comment to combine this with the accessory dash bot task, it isn't used on any accessory pages - currently only used on Bronze Ingot and some potions. (DPL commented below) They could be updated manually.

The others are going to be combined into a single, comma-separated ingredients value once we get SMW, so is it worthwhile to make an intermediate change? —Dr Ishmael 18:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the info. In that case, update "qty" manually, leave the others for now. (edit: aaand I just noticed that the above thread already addressed this. Bah!) pling 18:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove the Level Requirement

Is there a way that we could remove the level requirement for the Mystic Forge Recipes. Anzenketh 05:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

See my post here, I think we need a separate template. —Dr Ishmael 12:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing Historical tag

can't use "historical = y" to mark things as historical content. can we get an update? thx Previously Unsigned 00:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This template isn't meant to be the primary template on a page - it's not even meant to be a proper infobox template. Historicity should be defined in the primary infobox, not here. —Dr Ishmael 01:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)