Talk:Recipes

Perhaps a way to Sort columns by their type? For example, clicking 'Ingredient 1' will sort the rows alphabetically based on their first required ingredient. This will be useful in working out how many Jungle Roses you need to make all the Underground Jungle items, or how many Hellstone Bars you require to make a full set of armor etc. (-cardinal ps. can't remember how to link my name in a wiki)

it would help to know what station (table, anvil, etc) you need to make each of these. --65.31.192.132 09:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add it as you figure it out :D This is the information that the developers were kind enough to provide for us. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  10:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Recipe Layout
Just kinda toying with recipe layouts, how does this one look? Its a tad cluttered (trying to change the outlines and spacing a bit, but taking some heavy tweaking), I'm new to most of table design on wikis, so any advice would be a great help. - Shadowclaimer 19:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are going to add icons give them their own column. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  19:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Toyed with icons in columns, the original icons line up properly if put in a column but as for the separate ingredients, even though its cluttered they look nice next to the text directly as opposed to in columns. I still think with darker borders (if I could figure out how to make dark borders) would help lessen the clutter. - Shadowclaimer 19:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I like that design but one question, is it possible to merge the top cells? So that the Ingred Icon/qty/name is without lines down the middle of it, and so is the result? Just to make it easier to tell what's under what header. -Shadowclaimer 19:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I really hate the x's would prefer to keep the header, and on the page this kind of layout is going to bloat the coding to the point where people with slower machines are potentially going to have trouble with it. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  19:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand the hatred of the x's lol I just thought they helped direct what goes where, but yea I can see the issue with it taking too much on the page for older machines. What if we divided the recipes by toolbench in pages to help alleviate that? So the Alchemy Station gets one, Forge gets one, etc. Also couldn't we do away with the quantity columns? Having the quantities next to the names doesn't seem that bad (Either "2 Lesser Healing Potions" or such) would also lower how many columns the page needs. -Shadowclaimer 19:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally think the icons make it too busy... I was really liking the clean look, but it's not just up to me. I am not so into getting rid of the quantity column. I think it makes it easier for people to understand. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  20:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a sucker for pictures, they just make it look so much nicer, dammit where's a third opinion when you need one.. -Shadowclaimer 20:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In most instances where I have high quality images available, I agree. I think these however just make it look cluttered. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  20:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I completely disregard your opinion and am preparing a revolutionary army to overthrow your leadership of this wiki solely so I can have icons on the recipe page. Slow computers be damned. <3 -Shadowclaimer 20:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just want to add that I love the pictures, but too hate the xs.. however, without them, it's a lot less obvious what the random floating 2s mean. Hmm :/ --FungusTrooper 15:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hence the dilemma, how about (2) instead of x2? -Shadowclaimer 15:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that looks pretty good, much better than using x. --FungusTrooper 16:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thought the same thing, can I get the go-ahead to start implementing this layout on the recipe page? -Shadowclaimer 16:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Removed second table (as it made navigating to edit the first table annoying after awhile). I'm also intending to take a shorter screenshot for the alchemy station icon for this page instead of the current one (Which is very tall and skews the table and looks bad) for now just leaving the table one as a placeholder. -Shadowclaimer 16:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The ingredients column would look a lot cleaner if the icons were smaller (maybe 15px?) and on one line. Or, just the icons on one line, linked directly to their associated pages instead of having the text beside them. Same for the Workstation column. Khalija 16:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As much as I like the idea of only icons, I almost think the text is necessary. Smaller icons however I do agree with and I'll look into shrinking them and trying them out. Correction, I can't do it on my work computer because there's a lack of transparency preservation software. -Shadowclaimer 16:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First... point of wiki etiquette.. you don't just remove stuff from talk pages.... secondly, yes text is necessary if anything the icons aren't. This page is already pretty huge... adding all the icons alone is going to bloat the code... let me see if I can come up with something else, though I really think the icons unecessarily clutter it up. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]]  talk  16:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies then, wasn't intending to cause any issues by removing it and figured I'd get yelled at, but the code was getting in the way >< I'm still very adamant for this layout as I think it brings a lot of very nicely organized flair to the page and when in full bloom is a massive improvement over the wall we have now. As previously stated, maybe we should split up the crafting recipe lists into multiple pages anyway to help keep it more organized. -Shadowclaimer 16:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

THANK. GOD. The current page is awful. We need this format more than anything. Also, please keep the icons. It looks so much better. The last thing we need is a gray, featureless crafting page. The best kind of recipe page is one that has icons and a nice table. Look at the Terraria wikia wiki. Theirs is superior to ours in every way, people on Reddit have said how much they prefer it. Ours is pretty useless. People don't know what they're crafting. --Tylerburrito 03:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What about something like that... the alignment has to stay left for the results and the ingredients and it's still going to be super heavy codewise, but better anyway.... -- Wynthyst  talk  16:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I really do like that, I'm making a subpage on my user to toy with the design on a large scale to give a proper example I'll implement that and notify you when its ready if you'd like. -Shadowclaimer 17:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we going with that? I'm trying to make small recipe tables for each individual item (i.e. a recipe list just for Copper Bar), but I'd rather not really get into it if the template will be changed. EDIT: Also, I'm an utter noob at Wikiediting. How can I make the third column stretch among several result items? To me, it'd be more aesthetically pleasant to group crafting items by their workbench and share that column among the items it can make. (See the Copper Bar page to see what I mean). MarekkPie 23:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just take that code and edit to your liking. Bobb1118 03:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to thank you guys for the code you already had up for everything. Got all the new potions and ingredients up in no time. Alaska<3

Recipe Update
Not sure how all this works, but I just wanted to let you guys know that the workbench table stills shows silk on it. I'd remove it myself, but I don't know how.
 * I see it listed as an ingredient but not as a craftable item.  Equazcion ( talk ) 14:50, 18 Aug 2011 (UTC)

Any specific ordering?
As far as I can tell, the tables are listed randomly. The only feasible ordering I can think of is what order the items are listed in on the crafting bar. &bull; iLiaWneK &bull; T &bull; C &bull; 18:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been on my mind as well for quite a while now. I'd like to pin down both the order of items in the table and the order of ingredients in the recipes. Is it according to in-game menus? If so, is this ideal or should we consider another option? I see no pressing reason to follow the game when it serves the interests of the wiki better to use a more intuitive form of organization.
 * I suggest alphabetical for items in the table. For ingredients, list them first by quantity needed then break any ties alphabetically. For example, in the Lesser Healing Potion recipe, Mushroom should be last, since fewer of those are needed than any other. Bottle is then on top because it ties with Gel for quantity, but comes fist in the alphabet. This arrangement would act to highlight the ingriedient that you'd need to collect more of. -- Rhombus (T ♦ C) 01:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (Actually, it's not nearly that simple, what with groups of related objects and the like. Anyone with a workable idea?) -- Rhombus (T ♦ C) 01:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal preference would be to sort each crafting station alphabetically, then each output item alphabetically, then finally the ingredients by quantity. Items required of the same quantity would then be sorted alphabetcially. Does any of that make sense at all :/? iLiaWneK'''|talk|contributions]] 15:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes perfect sense to me. The one virtue of the current system (?) is that similar items, like all of the various coins, are found right next to each other. I'm torn on whether to maintain that in part or go with your suggestion. -- Rhombus (T ♦ C) 01:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't really establish a proper "standard" if we go with what you suggested, because people will argue over which item belongs next to which item etc. If we go with what I said, There'll be one basic rule to go by, and nothing else. iLiaWneK'''|talk|contributions]] 09:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're perfectly right. No one else seems to have an objection (yet), so I guess we're clear to go ahead with it. -- Rhombus (T ♦ C) 06:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)