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)
- 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.
(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. (Sssss/Slithered) 20:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Replacement
Since this template is marked as deprecated, what table or template should I use to update all the remaining itembox templates still in use? Should they all be a "darktable sortable zebra" wikitable? SirWeltschmerz (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just use the tables. — Surafbrov T / C 17:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- We have a few different options that could be used, depending on the context that itembox is used in. A lot of bosses use itembox for loot; that should typically use lootbox. For crafted items, we've got some profession-specific templates. And quest rewards frequently can just be replaced with a bulleted list. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Was thinking about the limited quantity and stack size. Currently, itembox shows them nicely with orange color and (and a brighter white?). Would you want to preserve that color (with a template maybe), or is plain use enough? --
Mordecay (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah was just thinking about that too, when I saw that edit. PeterWind (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
This looks... weird. Good that we try to use templates where possible (even tho costs are most of the time incorrect), if there are cases that have two tiny tables and additional bullet points (??), I'd think a simple table with everything should be enough. If Blizz will ever make changes to those sold items, then we would have to go back and update manually. Thoughts, or any other suggestions how to list sold items?
| Item | Stack | Cost |
|---|---|---|
 [Crystal Vial] |
20x | 4
|
 [Distilled Death Extract] |
9
| |
 [Greater Healing Potion] |
(2) | 5
|
 [Herb Pouch] |
10
| |
 [Mana Potion] |
(2) | 4 80
|
-- Mordecay (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. If it's just 1 item I don't see the need for a template. I might even end up converging some vendor templates since they overlap so much. SirWeltschmerz (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- yeah, barring vendors with a lot of items or who sell different stuff in classic, i'd say we should stick to putting everything together in a single table where possible.
- as a side note, what would you guys think about moving the quantity column to the left and making it more of an unnamed catch-all for little details like quantity and profession quality? like here: Mimzy Spazzlerock's Second Evil Twin --Eithris (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)