View source for Template talk:Item

Carrying the discussion from Scribble over;  the template probably should have additional elements for ''autosell value'' (with a proviso that negative values mean "not autosellable"), ''quest item/untradeable'', ''power'', ''level requirement to use'', and anything else that appears "above" the extra linebreak in item descriptions in-game, that seperates the "enchantments" (i.e., +5% chips, in the cited example of the royal crown) from the item statistics.).   ''Weldable'' might also be considered for inclusion, although it gets listed below the break - it's not really a logical "enchantment" --[[User:Hen3ry|Hen3ry]] 16:29, 11 December 2007 (MST)

While I entirely agree with you, it most likely won't get done simply because it would make every single template we've done so far wrong. One day I might commit to it and change the template to fit, but for now, it'll probably just be worked around. - Satan
:*If you want to add it now, you could.. I've only gotten the first 70 or so done and there's only a few dozen after 300, and it's a minor change overall, so shouldn't be too hard to correct existing things.  It's preferable to get it done right first, before there's thousands of things that would have to be changed. --[[User:Valera|Valera]] 19:27, 26 January 2008 (MST)
::*I added notrade, nosell, autosell, power, level.  I'll be retrofitting items with the template over the next few weeks.. all items are still viewable and whatnot though, so it's not actually -broken- them, just gave them an extra line between normals and enchantment. --[[User:Valera|Valera]] 02:07, 12 February 2008 (MST)

Also, I deeply apologize for how the code is now somewhat cluttered on the template page.. however, due to the way the optional fields work, and the way it records every return.. even if there's not a <nowiki><br></nowiki> given, I didn't want to create a billion extra whitespace.  Ya know?  --[[User:Valera|Valera]] 02:12, 12 February 2008 (MST)
== Type/Category quantity agreement ==

Could we get a consumable= field too? --[[User:Livia|Livia]] 18:31, 22 February 2008 (MST)
:* I suppose so.  I can't think of any item that has it and a lot of other enchantments on them though, so I might not be able to get the placement just right.  If you can think of one that does, stick it on my talk page, and I'll look at it and correct the template.  --[[User:Valera|Valera]]
Several item Types are singular in quantity (i.e., Helmet, Accessory, Melee Weapon) whereas the wiki Category for those item types are plural (Helmets, Accessories, Melee Weapons).  To use this template for such items, should we go ahead and pluralize the Type so that the item automatically drops into the appropriate Category?
:* Aye, the same happens with Shirts, --[[User:Valera|Valera]] 17:36, 31 December 2007 (MST)
::*I don't know anything on adjusting a template, but couldn't it be set so that you have [Category:Shirts|Shirt] or something, for the plural ones?  Not sure if they work well with if-then type of statements... --[[User:Valera|Valera]] 19:27, 26 January 2008 (MST)
:::*TADA!  Quantities are CORRECT!  Even if you put shirt, or shirts, it'll recognize it, and make the type singular and the category plural!  Same was done for offhand items, helmets, accessories, and both weapons!  You're welcome, me.--[[User:Valera|Valera]] 02:07, 12 February 2008 (MST)

== Centering Stats ==

Might it be a good idea to adjust the template so that it auto-centers name, type, and enchantments?  I haven't really played with it to see how that might look, but I believe it -should- look better.  Not sure if the breaks for the enchantments might ruin it though.  --[[User:Valera|Valera]] 17:12, 5 January 2008 (MST)

== Redirects ==
Would it be possible to add some kind of "Go back to Items by Name" to the template automatically (preferably at the top or something)? [[User:Cristiona|Cristiona]] 23:25, 25 January 2008 (MST)

Done. - Satan

:Thanks much [[User:Cristiona|Cristiona]]

== Shortcuts ==
Not sure if anyone cares, but I added short words for the various types...  misc for miscellaneous items, offhand for offhand-items, full for full-body suits, acc for accessories, melee for melee weapons, ranged for ranged weapons.  If you object, or can think of something that's fairly annoying, or whatever, please discuss and let me know.  --[[User:Valera|Valera]] 04:53, 12 February 2008 (MST)

== How obtained ==

How about adding "how obtained" to the template? I find that I am adding it manually, and it looks different for any item (different number of spaces etc.) Just a thought--[[User:Muhandes|Muhandes]] 10:20, 21 October 2008 (MST)

== Bugs/Misbehavior in the template ==
Some of these are requests for improvements. Some are bugs. Some are open to discussion I guess.
* Adding a "usable=yes" field without adding a "used" one does not result an "incomplete page"
* Adding a "combat=yes" field without adding a "combatuse" one does not result an "incomplete page"
* Not adding a "uses" field results with an "incomplete item". This means that I have to add "uses=none" when I'm not (and none of us will probably ever be) 100% sure there is no use.
* The link to the items by number page is not working correctly. This is on all items with id>=100.
* There is a line break problem when there is a "used" field. See for example [[embiggening tonic]].
--[[User:Muhandes|Muhandes]] 03:40, 16 November 2008 (MST)

== References ==
No references section? --[[User:MagiNinjA|<font color=#701337><b>MN (#228)</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:MagiNinjA|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/MagiNinjA|C]])</small> 17:58, 30 November 2008 (MST)

If we do "References", might as well do "Notes". But aren't we over-templatizing? I think standardization is the goal and templatization is one way to get there. I'm not sure we have a standardization issue with references and notes, such as we had with other things, so I'm not sure this is needed. Just my thoughts--[[User:Muhandes|Muhandes]] 02:24, 1 December 2008 (MST)

That could work. I'd just like to have it because...they're references. --[[User:MagiNinjA|<font color=#701337><b>MN (#228)</b></font>]] <small>([[User talk:MagiNinjA|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/MagiNinjA|C]])</small> 13:05, 1 December 2008 (MST)
== Caffeine/Sugar ==
Anyone have an opinion about adding the caffeination and sugar levels to the template? Personally I don't feel like we need to add them, they seem just fine in the notes, but I'm open to other opinions.--[[User:Muhandes|Muhandes]] 14:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

== autocating ==

What do you think of autocating effects? That is, a way to add each of the effects, which automatically categotized the item, instead of the "See Also", which I don't like and is often forgotten. For example, say an item adds +3 Intellect. You write |modintellect=3, and it adds the correct text and categorized it under [[:Category:Intellect Modifiers]]. Alternatively the same effect can be achieved with a template. This would looks something like <nowiki>|ench={{modifier|intellect|3}}</nowiki>.--[[User:Muhandes|Muhandes]] 23:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
: Bump, any comments on this before I start implementing it? I think I like the <nowiki>{{modifier}}</nowiki> template better--[[User:Muhandes|Muhandes]] 23:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

== Range vs Level ==

This didn't matter until today, as no vehicles had a level requirement.  Now that the [[Dreamer's clock]] is level 15, the template display is different from the popup.  Namely, on the popup, range comes before level as opposed to the other way around.  I don't know if it's a big deal, but I thought I'd point it out.  [[User:Cristiona|Cristiona]]
: Fixed. --[[User:PKProStudio|PKProStudio]] 13:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

== Weapon Conflict ==

Something here is conflicting with weapon-types.  Take a look at, for example, [[The golem's Glock]].  The bolding isn't right and there's extra apostrophes.  Pretty much every weapon page has this issue, but I have no idea how to fix it. [[User:Cristiona|Cristiona]] ([[User talk:Cristiona|talk]]) 23:06, 12 February 2013 (PST)
:I'm pretty sure that the most recent wiki move a few months ago was when this started.  The new wiki format doesn't like having nothing between apostrophes for bolded and/or italicised font, especially since it then detects later apostrophes as the closing pair.  I think I've fixed this problem now.  --[[User:Hoyifung04|hoyifung04]] ([[User talk:Hoyifung04|talk]]) 23:36, 12 February 2013 (PST)