Talk:Gems: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: I have a feeling that this page is going to get very unwieldy. It may be better if we use size/gem type only instead of colour/type/size/gem type - unless we can determine that DOES play ...) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I have a feeling that this page is going to get very unwieldy. It may be better if we use size/gem type only instead of colour/type/size/gem type - unless we can determine that DOES play into value. Also, do we want to use values of gems that have not had PG/CV cast on them? --[[User:Ysselt|Ysselt]] 20:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
I have a feeling that this page is going to get very unwieldy. It may be better if we use size/gem type only instead of colour/type/size/gem type - unless we can determine that DOES play into value. Also, do we want to use values of gems that have not had PG/CV cast on them? --[[User:Ysselt|Ysselt]] 20:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:I think this should be fine for the moment, and we can (soonish) break it off into real item pages and use Semantic MediaWiki to include the gem types/colors into the page. --[[User:Callek|Callek]] 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:32, 8 January 2009
I have a feeling that this page is going to get very unwieldy. It may be better if we use size/gem type only instead of colour/type/size/gem type - unless we can determine that DOES play into value. Also, do we want to use values of gems that have not had PG/CV cast on them? --Ysselt 20:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think this should be fine for the moment, and we can (soonish) break it off into real item pages and use Semantic MediaWiki to include the gem types/colors into the page. --Callek 20:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)