Module talk:Crafting

Upcoming parameter
Would it be possible for this template to not categorize articles as Category:Upcoming if they're already in Category:Planned, like Upcoming does? can be used for this. —F‌enhl 15:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If they are upcoming, then they should be in the upcoming category... –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs ⎜ 03:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's not how the category is being used. Articles about upcoming features (as marked by Snapshot) go in Category:Planned, other articles with references to upcoming features fo in Category:Upcoming. (It does however help that Planned is a subcategory of Upcoming.) —F‌enhl 03:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it seems that planned is being used as a duplicate of upcoming, and future is being used for what planned is meant for. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs ⎜ 04:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Red Sandstone Category
elseif v:find( ' Red Sandstone$' ) then v = 'Red Sandstone' needs to be added before elseif v:find( ' Sandstone$' ) then v = 'Sandstone' Or red sandstone recipes get tagged as sandstone. --KnightMiner  (t 18:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Category for repair recipes
Can code along the lines of: elseif v:find( '$Damaged ' ) then v = 'Damaged' be added? (is that how you search the beginning of the string?)

Basically it would allow all the tool/weapon repair recipes to be pulled up automatically using crafting usage on Item repair and other such pages. --KnightMiner  (t 15:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * But any two of the same damaged item can be crafted together to get a repaired one, it's not just particular ones. What value is there in having 50 crafting recipes showing almost the same thing, which could just as well be stated with a single sentence? –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs ⎜ 05:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The main value would have been the automatic, and with our page format, that would contain only 10 recipes right now. Otherwise I could simply merge and  them all, but new tools would need to be added manually. --KnightMiner  (t 14:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about making it automatic, I'm talking about having it on the page at all. All damaged items can be repaired by putting two of the same next to each other in the crafting window. That sentence is enough to explain it just as well as the 50 recipes (including animations), so I don't see the need to have them at all. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs ⎜ 01:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The main reason was it was not getting stated at all, except on an article that was rarely linked to, or in rare cases it got stated as trivia. Also, there really was no place to put the sentence on the page that still looked fine, as stating next to the crafting table that you can also use this unshown recipe to repair the tool was a little odd. --KnightMiner  (t 03:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about the usage on item repair. The usage on the item pages themselves would be the same regardless. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs ⎜ 03:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that page would likely look fine without it, although I would have to find a good place for the  parameter if we still want them to load the repair recipes using Module:Recipe list. I will likely just add it on the pages themselves, although it would be a bit too much repetition with seven different tool pages to load. (plus two combat and one transportation) --KnightMiner  (t 04:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Description column
Can the code if ( args.description or  ) ~=  and f:callParserFunction( '#dplvar', 'craftingdescription' ) == '1' then table.insert( row, args.description ) end Be changed to	local descriptionCell = args.description or '' if f:callParserFunction( '#dplvar', 'craftingdescription' ) == '1' then table.insert( row, descriptionCell ) end Basically if the description column is set, it will display an empty cell rather than an missing cell. Empty cells do visually look better than a missing cell, and it would look slightly more professional.

--KnightMiner  (t 02:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * . –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs ⎜ 04:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Shapeless recipes marked as shaped recipes
Why are some shapeless recipes marked as shaped recipe ? I'm talking about the code following "Automatic shapeless positioning".

The consequence is recipes like this one http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Coal#Crafting don't have the indication that the recipe is shapeless (= you can place the block of coal where you want in the grid). --Rom1504 (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That isn't what shapeless is. Almost all recipes that aren't too large can be placed anywhere in the grid and even flipped horizontally. Shapeless means the ingredients can be placed in any order, if there's only one ingredient, there's only one way it can be placed, and therefore isn't shapeless. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 02:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay I understand better the logic behind that, thanks for the explanation ! --Rom1504 (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Want to add 'Any of the same Wood Planks'
As I've set up an alias for this in this edit (which has since been improved). The use case is to differentiate between where the wood has to be all the same, and where it can be different.

The issue with this now is that it links to of the same Wood Planks. I would have to put an branch in here that tested for '^Any of the same ', in front of the branch on line 79 that already tests for '^Any '. Is this okay? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 19:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It should function fine, and I see this as something worth noting. The name might be a bit long, maybe use something like, leading to the new test  ? – KnightMiner  t/c 19:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Aha. What about 'Matching Wood Planks', as that makes grammatical sense, plus does away with the notion of 'any'? – Sealbudsman talk/contr 20:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The reason I'm coming here of course is that someone with permissions can take this up -- didn't know if that was clear. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 20:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Matching Wood Planks" sounds like the best name so far. (I figured you were asking for someone with permissions, I just always like to leave a vote of support if I agree with an idea that requires such attention). – KnightMiner  t/c 03:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)