Template talk:Quality

Quality template broke

Someone broke the Uncommon color for items in the quality template

example: Chromite Girdle and Ancient Crystal Talisman

they are showing up grey when they should be green.
 ∙ Zurr  Talk ∙ Contr 07:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm, those are green to me. Edit: because you just fixed it, I guess User:Kirkburn/Sig3 07:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

took a look at it, someone turned Uncommon into Incommon.
 ∙ Zurr  Talk ∙ Contr

Someone broke it again =(
 ∙ Zurr  Talk ∙ Contr 03:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It now uses css instead of templates. Seems ok to me, what is broken exactly? --GRYPHON^tc 03:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is all showing up like a normal link, not using different colors. ok, never mind, it was one of my Firefox addons messing with it.
 ∙ Zurr  Talk ∙ Contr 04:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Title clobbering

Any reason why {{Quality}} includes a title attribute in the declaration? It clobbers the title attribute for the link to the item in tooltips. See  [Mark of the Champion] as a quick example. Hovering over the purple "Mark of the Champion" line at the top yields a tooltip with "Epic" instead of the name of the item in it or the page it links to. The same thing happens when the tooltip's transcluded, as in The Phylactery of Kel'Thuzad/Rewards. Is this intended? --k_d³ 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Why use quality vs. loot?

Is there any reason to use this template instead of {{loot|enchant|Enchant Bracer - Minor Agility}}? With the quality template, I'm sometimes having the problem with "title clobbering" mentioned above even though the links seemed to work moments earlier. But the loot template never gives me problems and seems to provide the correct result. -- Mordsith - (talk|contr) 16:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Quality was design for use inside other templates, where a loot-link style link created by {{loot}} (square brackets and changing based on existance) is not desirable. Most obvious example is in the use inside {{tooltip}}. It's not meant for linking items (or in this case, echants) in articles and such. -- 

• <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png%7CUser:Zeal</imagelink>
• <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png%7CUser talk:Zeal</imagelink>
• <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png%7CSpecial:Contributions/Zeal</imagelink>
• <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png%7CUser:Zeal</imagelink>

  06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Superior versus Rare

I realize that common nomenclature calls blues "Rare" but technically if we're talking quality, it's Superior, not Rare. Flat out changing it would break a lot of pages, but could we perhaps at least include Superior at an alternative name for Rare? Lostdrewid (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

While "superior" is used from time to time, and is certainly valid, the official name is "rare". It's in the game's localization as such:

ITEM_QUALITY0_DESC = "Poor";
ITEM_QUALITY1_DESC = "Common";
ITEM_QUALITY2_DESC = "Uncommon";
ITEM_QUALITY3_DESC = "Rare";
ITEM_QUALITY4_DESC = "Epic";
ITEM_QUALITY5_DESC = "Legendary";
ITEM_QUALITY6_DESC = "Artifact";

User:Tekkub/Sig 22:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I've added superior as an acceptable alternative for wiki markup purposes though. --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 22:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit

Okay, this template should be edited to link to Artifact (quality) instead of Artifact, but it's quite complicated ... Xporc (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)