This thread's purpose is to determine how we shall go about creating gem articles. Personally, I think it should have the same setup as Phrozen's Rune tables. After that, we need also:
Text
Description of the gem graphics
Personal reasons for using the gem
Types of gems
We need to utilize all forms of the specific gem onto one page. We can setup redirect pages for their actual names, which will lead them to the basic names of them (e.g. Topaz, Diamond).
Rune comparison
We then compare the gem's usefulness to the rune's usefulness. This includes stat comparison and rarity.
Navigation bars
A navigation bar that has a complete list of every gem (including skulls) should be implemented.
Graphics
And also, all images of the gems should be uploaded.
Templates
We may also want to consider special templates (i.e. For the gem's infobox).
Categories
Finally, the proper categories are called for.
Now, the only thing I am unsure of is the naming; should 'Topaz' send you to all forms of the yellow gem? The discussion board is open.
Well I think Topaz should send you to the normal quality of topaz. Because though it does make sense to have it send you to a page with a list of all topaz, it may get annoying when specifically just looking for topaz.
On the other hand though if you type in topaz and it takes you to the topaz gem page the varying degrees of other topaz should be right there in front of you to click in the article itself. So it's kinda the same way that way.
The text of the ruby article is a missing a little, it doesn't mention it adds fire damage, and it doesn't mention that it adds fire resist in shields. Otherwise good.
Types of gems
We need to utilize all forms of the specific gem onto one page. We can setup redirect pages for their actual names, which will lead them to the basic names of them (e.g. Topaz, Diamond).
I think you mean that we should put chipped, flawed, normal, flawless and perfect gems oft he same type (e.g. ruby) on the same page, and not split them up, and I think that's a good idea.
So what I'm saying is that all ruby gems all link to the same article.
Rune comparison
We then compare the gem's usefulness to the rune's usefulness. This includes stat comparison and rarity.
How are you going to compare a gem's usefulness to a rune? There's not a whole lot to say, most of the time runes are superior, unless you're smacking a helm or shield full of p. topazes or such. But that's not a comparison to runes, more a general description of their usefulness.
Navigation bars
A navigation bar that has a complete list of every gem (including skulls) should be implemented.
It think it's sufficient to have the category at the bottom of the page. After all, we will only have 7 gem pages in total, and they will all fit perfectly well in the bottom category of the page.
Graphics
And also, all images of the gems should be uploaded.
Definately.
Templates
We may also want to consider special templates (i.e. For the gem's infobox).
Yes, and I think the gem template table current?y used could be improved.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
On the other hand though if you type in topaz and it takes you to the topaz gem page the varying degrees of other topaz should be right there in front of you to click in the article itself. So it's kinda the same way that way.
http://wiki.diablofans.com/index.php/Ruby
The text of the ruby article is a missing a little, it doesn't mention it adds fire damage, and it doesn't mention that it adds fire resist in shields. Otherwise good.
I think you mean that we should put chipped, flawed, normal, flawless and perfect gems oft he same type (e.g. ruby) on the same page, and not split them up, and I think that's a good idea.
So what I'm saying is that all ruby gems all link to the same article.
How are you going to compare a gem's usefulness to a rune? There's not a whole lot to say, most of the time runes are superior, unless you're smacking a helm or shield full of p. topazes or such. But that's not a comparison to runes, more a general description of their usefulness.
It think it's sufficient to have the category at the bottom of the page. After all, we will only have 7 gem pages in total, and they will all fit perfectly well in the bottom category of the page.
Definately.
Yes, and I think the gem template table current?y used could be improved.
And that part seems to be mostly done already.