Template talk:Itembox

Discussion

Made this as a version of {{Reagentbox}} since adding icons and quality of items took too much time to make it useful.--g0urra[T҂C] 10:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

hey good idea, typing icon images is just alili harder. thanks--Andersmusician$ 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Reagent Box Template

This template is indeed much easier and faster to use than the {{Reagentbox}}.

I just don't see the reason to pollute pages wich use reagentbox with a warning about the template being deprecated. Vmerling (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The point with the {{Deprecated}} template is that it's to easier categorize the pages using {{Reagentbox}} and tell that they should instead be converted to use {{Itembox}}. --g0urra[T҂C] 14:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should they be converted?? The new template looks exactly the same. Why generate all the extra work? New pages should use the new template, but converting the old ones is a waste time.Vmerling (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it's much easier to use this template - you don't need to look up the icon in order to use it, and the quality of the item is pulled automatically. In case the quality of the item changes, then the template will change it automatically. --g0urra[T҂C] 14:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agreed it's much easier from the very beginning. But it's easier only for NEW items. For items already using reagentbox it's easier to leave them the way they are since both templates look the same. Vmerling (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For another reason, Vmerling, see below. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Changing the look of Itembox

My primary objection to Reagentbox (and to this successor template) is the humongous icons. A secondary gripe is the dual columns. I've created a prototype of the changes I would like to see in this template, starting with a demonstration. (You can work your way backwards through the templates involved.)

An addition (regardless of the merits of icon size) is zebra striping.

For those who didn't go look, the other changes are: text-height icon size, right-aligned quantities, single column (vs 2 columns currently; the smaller icon size makes up for the increased text lines), and additional-column for cost (which would not work as smoothly -as is- in a dual-column list). This largely echoes tables on vendor pages, and could probably be extended to duplicate those.

Note also, it's a prototype. Not intended to be plugged in without edits.

After appropriate discussion, I'd like to see the changes that survive applied to Itembox.--Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I created an example to make it easier to see what you mean here to show the difference. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for also illustrating the problem of itembox being used for certain vendors. It shows why having 2 lines is needful for the 2 column format, thus excusing the icon taking two text lines as well.

I think that the more standard darktable format with column headers looks a lot better for that application. (And see my comment on that page...) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

labeled vs unlabeled params

I could, yes, I COULD go in to the code for this and make it work for 8 (or 30) unnamed parameters.

Or I could just state that as I write this, it only works for up to 7 unnamed parameters, or up to 30 Item#/q# entries. The Darkmoon Faire decks (Prisms at least) got hit with this fault. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

7 has been a little low, I changed it to allow up to 12 items of unnamed parameters. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 20:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)