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)