Category talk:Bloodstones: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "==Materials Template== I wanted to put this up for discussion before all the Category gems got updated. I am not 100% sure these should be given the template, or if they are,...") |
TEVESHSZAT (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
For instance, "Required for Alterations" being "No" makes sense for the common bloodstone, but since this is a Category which also lists the variations, "Tidal bloodstone" DOES need to be provided. So in this instance, "Required for Alterations" should be "Varies" or something similar. Same with "Rarity", the creature drops are clearly common, but the Tidal bloodstone is rare. <br> |
For instance, "Required for Alterations" being "No" makes sense for the common bloodstone, but since this is a Category which also lists the variations, "Tidal bloodstone" DOES need to be provided. So in this instance, "Required for Alterations" should be "Varies" or something similar. Same with "Rarity", the creature drops are clearly common, but the Tidal bloodstone is rare. <br> |
||
I guess I just feel the template is problematic for the Category pages since it was designed focused on individual material types. The Categories are going to have a wide range of possible inclusions that will make those top-right box entries misleading or incorrect unless all the results are a "Various", which isn't that helpful IMO. [[Kythryn]] 19:52, 12 July 2021 (CDT) |
I guess I just feel the template is problematic for the Category pages since it was designed focused on individual material types. The Categories are going to have a wide range of possible inclusions that will make those top-right box entries misleading or incorrect unless all the results are a "Various", which isn't that helpful IMO. [[Kythryn]] 19:52, 12 July 2021 (CDT) |
||
:People already had to tell the difference between a generic bloodstone and a special class of bloodstone. I'm comfortable waiting and seeing if anyone else believes this can causes confusion for others before pulling the other gem "types" into the new template, as there are plenty of other materials to tackle. --[[User:TEVESHSZAT|TEVESHSZAT]] ([[User talk:TEVESHSZAT|talk]]) 22:10, 12 July 2021 (CDT) |
|||
Latest revision as of 21:10, 12 July 2021
Materials Template
I wanted to put this up for discussion before all the Category gems got updated. I am not 100% sure these should be given the template, or if they are, there should be some different notes for that top-right at a glance box.
For instance, "Required for Alterations" being "No" makes sense for the common bloodstone, but since this is a Category which also lists the variations, "Tidal bloodstone" DOES need to be provided. So in this instance, "Required for Alterations" should be "Varies" or something similar. Same with "Rarity", the creature drops are clearly common, but the Tidal bloodstone is rare.
I guess I just feel the template is problematic for the Category pages since it was designed focused on individual material types. The Categories are going to have a wide range of possible inclusions that will make those top-right box entries misleading or incorrect unless all the results are a "Various", which isn't that helpful IMO. Kythryn 19:52, 12 July 2021 (CDT)
- People already had to tell the difference between a generic bloodstone and a special class of bloodstone. I'm comfortable waiting and seeing if anyone else believes this can causes confusion for others before pulling the other gem "types" into the new template, as there are plenty of other materials to tackle. --TEVESHSZAT (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2021 (CDT)