I had the idea to try to "embellish" a bit the gem pages, particularly the infoboxes, an example:
The current Daze Plus becomes Daze Plus test.
Note that, IMO, the gem and crystal differentiation at first sight or with quick view is rather useful, I think.
What do you think? Do you agree? If you agree with this, I will build two special infoboxes or proceed on each page with the bot.
The more I look at it, the more convinced I am that the layout I linked to before is not a good layout for the gem pages. That layout works well for armour, materials, and weapons, but with gems there is more information to present, and different pieces of information are important.
I think your reworking of the current format looks great is easy to read. I also think Flanqer had some great ideas about the Gem Stats section. There are also some elements from my page that I do like.
Because of that, I've put together a sample page that combines elements of Flanqer's, yours, and my ideas. There are still a few more things I want to see if I can work in to it, but it's too late here to do any more tonight.
Excellent! I really think this is the best layout! The idea of regrouping the gem sources is great, this increases much more the easiness to read, just two gems and crystals source tables.
Sample page looks really good!
I like UB's last sample page, but use the "xeno-table" class to avoid specifying the background colors.
I'm tired this evening and not going to do much wiki-wise tonight, but I did want to reply to this thread.
Primary and secondary
I don't know how to explain this very well in a few words, so I'll use an example. Say I'm looking for Rank III Agility Up crystals. If I try to get them from a Makna Eks, it may take me a while, because Makna Eks' crystal drops are:
Bleed Defence III / Strength Down III
Bleed Defence III / Agility Up III
If I try to get them from a Plasma Deinos, however, I'm likely to get Agility Up crystals much faster because Plasma Deinos' crystal drops are:
Agility Up III / Electric Plus III
Agility Up III / Daze Tension III
That's what I was calling "primary" and "secondary" on the page I made, but the explanation I provided was not very good.
I don't think it's necessary to distinguish between what you called "primary" and "secondary" sources; just give the combined drop rate. That's what I did on User:Flanqer/Dropped By/Crystals. For example if an enemy's drop table includes:
| Agility Up I / Ether Def Up I | 35.7% |
| Agility Up I / Ether Up I | 35.7% |
then I listed that enemy's drop rate for Agility Up I as 71.4%
I'd have to do a little more work to convert that page to the right format, though.
My main concern with that is that even if we explain that on every page, we'll still get people who see that the drop rates don't match between the gem and enemy pages and will then change one of them to match the other.
Another concern is that the format we've been talking about for gem pages doesn't include drop rates for gems. I find I like it that way. Aside from the fact that it looks cleaner, drop rates on gems are usually so high that I don't think it's necessary to know the specific drops rates.
As an alternative, we could break the Enemy Drops into three sections:
So all the enemies that I was calling "primary" would go in the "high rate" section, all the "secondary" enemies would go in the "normal rate" section, and enemies that don't respawn or which have a 0% drop rate would go in the "low and QE" section.
If we omit drop rates from the crystal pages, we'll probably get people adding them in, and they might enter the rate for only one crystal.
For a cleaner look on gem pages, we could put the drop rate before the enemy name, like so:
We could also indicate the doubles as
or
or just use a footnote symbol and explain it at the bottom.
I prefer the second example: 2 x 35% - Evil Rhangrot
About the gem pages, I am still thinking about all of these points.
So to summarize what has been done recently, in June, about the Gems:
Then I have opened this thread.
Then what has been done very recently:
However, it remains the new format proposal for the Gem pages still in discussion.
