Talk: Northrend gems by color

Comprehensive?

I changed "comprehensive gem list" to "extensive gem list" for the following reason:

The word "comprehensive" both means "extensive" and "easy to understand". I think the "easy to understand" part is questionnable.

Personally, I think the old format is getting more and more inappropriate for the increased number of gem types, especially for mixed colors (orange, green and purple). For exemple, if you want to find all gems with crit rating, you'll have a terrible time because you need to look in three different tables at many different places in them. I thought the tables where messy in the old page, now that there's twice as many different gems kinds that is just disgusting.

That's why I made a new format, hoping it would become the new standard. (See the 4 following pages Northrend uncommon gems, Northrend perfect uncommon gems, Northrend rare gems, Northrend epic gems.) I know that people don't like change and when I showed it to friends they were doubtful about the pertinence of the new format, but after a few minutes of arguing, they all agreed that the new format was way better for searches.

I think both formats will coexist for a while and we should let people decide which one they prefer in the meantime as they were probably made for diffrent approaches.

The only thing I'm saying is that the claim "easy to navigate" is questionable for the tables here because of those reasons. And so, I privilegiate a neutral vocabulary.

Xhamon (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Reason I created the Northrend gem page is I liked the original Outland gem above all the other gem finding pages when I'm looking for a gem for a specific slot. If I need a specific stat there are a few other pages I use. When I fist saw the page you designed it looked useless because the gem names are not listed at all. running dual screens I tend to look at the gem page, on my second screen, on the fly while I am doing something else and cannot afford to mouseover stats to get the name of the gem.

I removed the links to the other page as it is a dual link that is not necessary as you can get back to the Gems page to get to the other one.

Also Comprehensive does not mean easy to understand, but really meh on that wording choice.

I also pulled the extra header lines in the individual tables. I'm not sure how to be able to put in like a line in between sets like you would in Excel. I have the pages saved in the original format to make updating them easier for me.

Kaosian (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point for the dual screen usage. I really didn't have that in mind at the time and I'll have to think about what I can do to consider that. Also, I see where you are going, the tables may be a bit impractical when doing auction house (and I'll try to look into it).

When I designed those tables, my main goal was to create a tool for the non-jewelcrafter. A person who's asking itself "What gem could I put in that red socket knowing that I am a DPS rogue and I just love crit?" will find its answer quickly. Also, that person doesn't need to go back and forth between the game and the tables so much and it will probably have to hover only once to know the name of THE gem it wants.

You are right for comprehensive, actually I confused the definitions of "comprehensive" and "comprehensible". I'm sorry.

For the rest, I'm fine with what you say, now that I understand your point of view. Thanks.

PS: I'd be curious to know what are the pages you are talking about when you want to find a specific stat. Ok, I saw. http://www.wow-gem.com/ I tried it and I don't like it because I have to change the filters continuously.

Xhamon (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I added the link on the bottom of this page as an external link but the actual link is

         http://www.wow-gem.com/gems.aspx 

I actually made a suggestion to him to add another filter catagory to filter out by expansion They still list all gems from BC and beyond but it works. Being a JC myself on one of my 4 toons I tend to know what I need. I also tend to answer a LOT in guild questions for people. Using Firefox I have a wow session saved and the gem page is alway s one of those tabs.

Formatting question. Do you know how to draw a line like the border inside the table? I want to split the able a little bit for the different areas like before but not adding another whole line.

Kaosian (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what kind of line you want exactly, but you should be able to find an answer there http://www.wowwiki.com/Help:Table or there http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tables.

Xhamon (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please if you are going to edit the page beyond correcting my spelling and grammar. (yes I know they are not the best) Please put down what was done and why. Don't throw up some standard and expect me to read your mind. this formatted page was a direct copy of one that existed for almost 2 years and never once was wikified to meet some standards. I am new to actually contributing to wiki's and I will agree I don't know ecverything but after a page has been around a year I thought it was a good format to copy.

Kaosian (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Kaosian,

I did a lot since I last wrote here. I radically changed the format of my four pages, made templates, made a page fusionning all of them. For one thing I could say I am pretty proud of my work now (Northrend gems by quality). I admit the old tables were somewhat ugly and a bit impractical but now they are just perfect.

On second thought, having the names showing up is pretty much useless for someone shopping. And since I want to keep the tables with as little information as possible. I will leave them like that.

Your argument of having to hover the links being impractical doesn't make sense to me. My page has one advantage, you don't have to scroll. Your tables are so huge, you have to keep scrolling especially if you are trying to find something. If you are too busy to use your mouse to hover the links, you are too busy to scroll the page. I really don't understand your point.

I had one friend telling me this when I asked him to compare: "The 'by color' page contains so much information, I don't even want to try to understand." That is why I privilegiate to have as little information on screen at the same time, to avoid driving back people.

I understand that you are proud of your work as well and don't want it denigrated. Personally, I hate your page, but since it is not necessarily the opinion of everyone, I don't say anything more. I also hate wow-gem.com because the layout is impratical (at least right now).

Now your bias is pretty obvious seeing how you revert my changes and other people changes too. You know what? I could be as biased toward my own page but I don't change the redirect to my page, instead I made a redirect to a place where people can choose which one they prefer. And now, that is neutral. If a default page had to be chosen, first there should be discussion on whether there should be a default of not, and then there should be discussion on which page is to be the default. Neither you or I should take part in that discussion as we are biased.

Also, you said in an edit that my page was only a "stats page". This is highly diminutive. My page is at the very least as complete as yours.

I seperated my page and your page with the terms "by quality" and "by color". In reality, I didn't really know how to name them since mine really is "by quality, by stat, by color" while yours is only "by color". If you pay attention, you can see that my tables are 3D while yours are only 1D. I'd try to give you more credit but I can't.

If you are to make any other change about this dispute, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit_warring first. And then don't do the changes yet unless it really follow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. There is a template to ask for comments, use it if needed.

I'm somewhat new to wikis too, it doesn't mean I haven't read the policies.

Xhamon (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Northrend gems page as i was was specifically mirroring the original Gem page, which became the Outland gem page. the Northrend gems page is a comprehensive list of all the gems available in the game, arranged and handled the same way that Blizzard themselves categorize the gems. (by Color) Yes you can search by rarity in the game but when buying in the AH you can look at the individual (Color) categories first.

Having the name shown is what the original format was. It also presents the information in a more concise way up front. this page is not intended to be a shoppers or a jewelcrafters guide. It has everything you need to see without having to interact more than scrolling the page, which I have been able to do while healing or tanking. the idea is to present the information on one table without having to refer to other sources, which hovering over with the mouse is doing. Yes it works but nothing else has to be done. My tables are actually smaller than yours, and you only have to scroll up or down not side to side like you do with yours. Both tables require scrolling. your actuall also requires left and right scrolling. Honestly the tables are Huge, but that is because blizzard added more gems than previously used. I have used volumes before that redirect me to another book and then it refers me to another The Default page is the gem page. changing the Northrend Gems page was a disguised effort to redirect people to your page thru a "neutral" page. when you made or created by the color or by the quality (rarity) the Northrend Gems page should be directed and the new page. People that previously visited that page have it bookmarked are are being redirected to an incorrect page. that's one reason why I keep correcting the link. Also I there are other links directly to the Northrend gems page so redirecting to the gems page is wriong as well. Your page revolves around the stats of the gems. and then the color, which does work but then you turn around and use the tables designed for the Northrend Gems page. Which is half my work and half your work .... It destroy's your pages feel and also is ironic because you say you don't like how my page looks but you used my tables. Biased ... every point of the way you have tried to redirect people to your page. I have done nothing but try and maintain my own page. Northrend gems was my original page name if your changing the pages names ... the redirect should go to the new page not another page. I will continue to remove them list of gems at the bottom of the page because it contains all the gems that have been released. Yes someone has gone back and added the wrath gems to the list but the list is not exclusive to Wrath gems and really doesn't belong gem page dedicated to Northrend gems. I might take the chart and pull out the outated gems.

Kaosian (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps I made the new format because I thought the old format was lackluster.
• You try to make an argument saying that the way Blizzard categorize gems is by color so my page is wrong, and then you admit that my tables are by color as well so you destroy your own point. Good job.
• this page is not intended to be a shoppers or a jewelcrafters guide Mine is not a guide either, just a more visual way to sort everything. Yes I give a few instructions to use the tables efficiently but it doesn't tell people what gem they should get.
• It also presents the information in a more concise way up front. I strongly disagree with this.
• It has everything you need to see without having to interact more than scrolling the page, which I have been able to do while healing or tanking. That one made me laugh actually, I'm sorry. What kind of person is browsing gems while tanking or healing? Not only you are not paying attention to what you are doing, but I hardly see why you would care about that in the middle of an instance. The only possible thing I see is answering guildmates in between battles, but even then, I don't see why you wouldn't just refer them to wowwiki.
• My tables are actually smaller than yours Smaller? No. At least, not if you check the sum of them. Also yours are missing the epic gems that will come soon, so they are doomed to grow even larger.
• and you only have to scroll up or down not side to side like you do with yours. Checked it and you can fit one of my tables on a single page in 1024x768 (with normal text size). You only have to scroll horizontaly if you are in 800x600, and if you are playing wow in 800x600, that's pretty sad.
• changing the Northrend Gems page was a disguised effort to redirect people to your page thru a "neutral" page Disguised? No. It was pretty obvious. I had comments like this from guildmates and friends: "I find it sad that when we are searching 'northrend gems' on wowwiki we get on the old format and that there is no way to get on the page with the new format." Obviously a problem, eh? So I asked myself "What can I do that would be fair?" And I had this idea to change the redirect to something in between. If I was you I would re-change the redirect myself pretty soon. You risk being accusated of bias and edit warring.
• People that previously visited that page have it bookmarked are are being redirected to an incorrect page. A normal person will pretty much notice it and changing a bookmark really isn't complicated. On the other hand it is only temporary, I discuss my future plans at the bottom.
• then you turn around and use the tables designed for the Northrend Gems page Yes I do and that's cause my page is ALSO the 'northrend gems' page.
• It destroy's your pages feel and also is ironic because you say you don't like how my page looks but you used my tables. Primo, I can't really do better for meta gems because there is really no way to abbreviate 'chance to restore mana on spellcast' and the like. Secondo, what if I tell you that I don't have the time to update everything at once, and that these tables may be a placeholder?
• Biased ... every point of the way you have tried to redirect people to your page. What about you? You tried by every way to remove the links to my page. You even made a link to wow-gem.com instead of to my page, breaching wowwiki's policy that "externals links should be deprecated in favor of internal links" WoWWiki:Policies. Perhaps I removed the direct redirect, but that is because my page hadn't enough exposure in comparison to yours. The exposure should temporarity be the same for both pages. See "future plans" at the bottom.
• Northrend gems was my original page name if your changing the pages names You created that page at "13:47, 26 November 2008" and I created my four pages at about "03:40, 26 November 2008". At the time I was planning to make the 'Northrend gems' page with what 'Northrend gems by quality' currently is and didn't think that someone could prefer the old format. I was changing everything. You kinda stole my spot in that sense. While I cannot prove that this was my original intention, one could deduct that it was and you just gotta believe me. On the other hand, wikis doesn't work on a 'first come first serve' basis for domain names and you'll see where I am going.
• I will continue to remove them list of gems at the bottom of the page because it contains all the gems that have been released. Yes someone has gone back and added the wrath gems to the list but the list is not exclusive to Wrath gems and really doesn't belong gem page dedicated to Northrend gems. The purpose of a navbox is to be able to go wherever you want. If you limit it only to wrath gems, I think that's bad.

Xhamon (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Northrend gems is designed to follow the format used before for the original gem page. It is also how blizzard categorized their gems in the AH. There is no quality of a gem but it does have a Rarity. I also have the name available at a glance. You do not. Your information is not necessarily more concise. There is also a tool readily available out there that does exactly what you did with the Rarity/quality pages. That page is located at http://www.wow-gem.com/gems.aspx (and I never redirected any of your pages to that page)

• The purpose its to be able to have to have the information available to everyone not just one group or another. You page already duplicates http://www.wow-gem.com/gems.aspx for the most part. The Northrend gems page is intended to be comprehensive. Your page actually is not intended for a jewelcrafter. I chose Northrend gems to identify the page. But ever since then you are trying to eliminate the page.

• Your pages may have existed before I started the Northrend gems page but I had everything ther on the page and it is the same as the previous page which I used as a template. Ever since my page went up you keep redirecting things to your pages. You even admit it is a blatant thing to redirect it to your page

• Again the Northrend gems template at the bottom of the page was changed due to the fact that all the older gems are outdated. Yes there still ing the game but will be made mainly to level up and there is already a template for those gems. I cleaned it up and duplicated it to make it easier to deal with since most people wont care about the gems from before wrath at this point. Who is going to want an epic gem from BC that’s less than a green wrath gem.

Kaosian (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Future plans

I am asking the community the permission to move Northrend gems by color to Northrend gems (old format) and Northrend gems by quality to Northrend gems. Kaosian proved to me that some people prefer the old format so it should stay somewhere.

Pertinence of the new format:

• Tables which are sorted in three manners (quality, color, stat) are better than tables sorted by only one way (color).
• Less information on a page is more pleasant to the eye and doesn't drive people away like the old format did.
• Google already proved me right that the new format is what people want. The page with the new format is what comes first when you search "northrend gems" in google.
• No other concise tables sorted in that way exist on the Internet right now. I think this is a powerful tool that is destined to grow in popularity and that people will want to use.

Before doing any change this big, I have to ask the community before. Comments from everyone are welcome right under this post.

Xhamon (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the 'by quality'... I don't know anyone who looks for a blue-quality gem; they look for a gem that will fit whatever slot they have, then decide how much they want to pay for it. The price determines what quality you get. Not "I want an epic gem, now which one do I want", but "I want a gem with agility. This one costs X, that one costs X x 3, but only gives me three more points of agility

That being said, I like the horizontal format, but the abbreviations don't work...I don't search for 'hast', I search for 'haste'. If it has to be broken up into individual pages, which I don't see as necessary, I'd prefer to see 'Gems with X'. Gems with agility, gems with crit, etc. That's closer to how people look for gems. Look at the mods people use for jewelcrafting. The most common one, or multiple that work the same, let you whisper !agility (or whatever) to the jewelcrafter, and the mod will answer with links to the gems that have that stat. Google rankings don't really mean anything. It means that someone has put the link onto a lot of pages. I could do the same thing with my talk page.--Azaram (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I know someone out there thought it was a great idea to make the backgrounds of cells multiple colors, but I think it makes the usability of the tables poor. I hate how the tables are full of neon green text on a rainbow background on the "by quality" page. I also really dislike how these tables can't be sortable - on either article. I'll try to come up with some other organization, and put it in the discussion page.

As a Jewelcrafter, I think "by color" will always be more useful - we want to know what patterns are where and how to get them. In principle, the "by quality" page should be more useful to the general public, but I think the current format is a) really hard to read and b) still way too overwhelming.

However, I know people have been working hard on these pages, so let me congratulate you on your work so far - but I think we can do better. -Howbizr (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this some more, and I might put my "ideas" into a more general page, rather than give yet a third format to these two pages. But I would strongly encourage you to either make the links plain colored, or change the background back to black and gray. That sea of bold green text is really hard to read... -Howbizr (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that I am with Howbizr on this one. The tables on Northrend gems by quality are not useful to me either as a JC or as a gem buyer. The colour (and I am English, so I will use British spellings on the talk pages!) scheme alone makes my eyes water. What I would like to see is a sortable table that lists: Colour, Name Group (e.g. Runed), each stat as a separate column and the value in that column, pattern source, raw gem. If there are too many stat columns, then some sort of split is required. I suggest tank, DPS, healer, mixed may be a start, but 3 char column abbreviations should be possible? Tequima (talk)

Pertinence of the new format: Arguments to keep the old

• Tables which are sorted in three manners (quality, color, stat) are better than tables sorted by only one way (color).

--> the color pages are grouped by stats as well.Your page also mixes up the order of hte gems attributes to sort them by the attributes for color, so you have a lot of duplicated information that makes it harder to look thru.

• Less information on a page is more pleasant to the eye and doesn't drive people away like the old format did.

--> The old format as you call it is a comprehensive on that is usable by everyone. I believe it is used more by a jewel crafter than your page which already is duplicated at http://www.wow-gem.com/gems.aspx Ironically the old format is the only way you can find all the gems organized in a single complete list that is on one page.

• Google already proved me right that the new format is what people want. The page with the new format is what comes first when you search "northrend gems" in google.

--> Google page ranks can be manipulated very easily. There was one a few years ago when you goolged geaorge bush you got he was a failure page.

• No other concise tables sorted in that way exist on the Internet right now. I think this is a powerful tool that is destined to grow in popularity and that people will want to use.

--> http://www.wow-gem.com/gems.aspx is that exactly and you can sort the page according to the color, what bonuses the gems give, rarity, and how you obtain them. Kaosian (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest leaving the current disambig version of Northrend gems and make all the tables subpages that can be used as transclusions into Northrend gems by color and Northrend gems by quality. For those who want to see all the tables on the same page (which would take awhile to load) should look to Northrend gems/All where we will put them. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:07 PM PST 15 Dec 2008

Could you clarify which is new and which is old? Thanks! -Howbizr (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing Northrend red gems is an example the old format and Northrend uncommon gems#Table is an example of the new format. Personally all that bright green drives me crazy. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:21 PM PST 15 Dec 2008

Agreed, while the sorting and layout of the new tables can be handy for people interested in the stats specifically... the styling of the table makes my eyes bleed. And when I look into the code and see liberal use of breaks in the tables... my eyes bleed more. TeжubԎ Ҩ Ѡ 23:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

the Northrend gems by color is the original northrend gems page. the Northrend gems by quality is the page that Xhamon is trying to supplant in its place.

Kaosian (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback everyone! With those comments I've done some experiments. Can you guys tell me what you think of this: Northrend_gems_by_quality/dev? (Thanks to Howbizr for the stat by stat table idea.)

-- Xhamon (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC) [edited]×2

...Wow. Way too busy. Reminds me of old Avalon Hill tabletop wargames, where you had to look up 'this unit does X except against units with Y unless Z'. --Azaram (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I like your latest Northrend table. In fact I was thinking that in building a comprehensive page that it should be included on mine. (hell its already there at the bottom.) What I wondering is your page was reworked a bit. Basically m0ving the legend below the table and pulling the materials table to their own page so it could be placed in the list earlier. with that table I think your original rarity table pages have become obsolete.

I just wanted to say i think this page is very useful in its current form and thankyou for all your work! :) WoWWiki-Daos (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

wow-gem.com

There are a lot of problems right now that makes this site unusable. It has potential, but right now it has the following problems:

• Outdated: A lot of gems are missing, a simple search like http://www.wow-gem.com/gems.aspx/cmt/def+/rare should yield 4 results, not only one.
• Filters are lackluster:
  • The stats filter are not sorted by color, and the rare meta stats are mixed in them which makes it very difficult to find which filter you might want.
  • Outland and northrend are mixed together, there is no way to seach only "northrend rare" gems.
  • No way to search for perfect uncommon.
  • Filters by material should use some sub-categories too.
  • Some filters should be hidden by default, there are so many filters that they are filling 2 pages and a half alone.

I think all links to this site should be removed until these problems are fixed.

-- Xhamon (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

http://www.wow-gem.com/gems.aspx/cmt/def+/rare Gives you one selection because you selected a specific gem type Monarch topaz,

http://www.wow-gem.com/gems.aspx/cr/def+/rare gives you more results and yes he does need to be able to separate the old gems out when looking for rare gems that give defense that are crafted

Kaosian (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't understand, there are FOUR rare gems made with monarch topaz that has def: [Champion's Monarch Topaz], [Resolute Monarch Topaz], [Stalwart Monarch Topaz] and [Glimmering Monarch Topaz].

The first three are not there on wow-gem. That's what I'm talking about. The site is incomplete and thus, unreliable and thus, unusable.

Xhamon (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually were both wrong .... http://www.wow-gem.com/gems.aspx/cmt/def+/rare only gives one gem because wowhead has a lot of the gems that are not currently in the game. [Champion's Monarch Topaz], [Resolute Monarch Topaz], [Stalwart Monarch Topaz] are not in the game yet .... I have been finding more and more of the gems we have listed are that way as not being in the game yet. Kaosian (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Archived talk

Stub reason

I may be blind, but I can't see a key to explain the letters in the Source column of the tables. Is there one? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:02 PM PST 15 Dec 2008

I've had the same problem, but haven't thought to ask. I figured the "cool" kids knew and the nub was just missing something obvious again. A lot of pages seem to use it - could someone make a template "legend" that could be imported? -Howbizr (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be here: Outland_gems#Sources. The cool kids must suck. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 2:09 PM PST 15 Dec 2008

Forgot to say, I added it a few days ago, this is fixed. Xhamon (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Audience

I really don't know if I personally have the will to overhaul these pages (which is so badly needed) but I wanted to put down some thoughts for anyone who might be doing this effort. Consider if the following questions can be easily answered to someone who is scanning the page, and is not interested in reading multiple long articles:

• What does jewelcrafting offer to me at level 80, to increase my dps/healing/tanking/pvping? What's involved to get to that point?
• Where can I get the new cuts?
• How would I powerlevel jewelcrafting?
• I'm a completionist. How many world drops are there? What reputations are required? What quests should I be aware of to get the Dalaran cuts faster?
• I'm a healer with a blue socket. What healing gems fit in the socket? (Generically, for <role> and <socket color>, what gems should I use?) Similar question I get asked a lot, what's the best melee dps gem? (again this could be any number of roles, tank, ranged, spell dps, HoT healer, ST healer, pvper combined with any of these as well)
• I have a yellow gem. Which cut is the most valuable?

Food for thought. While it seems useful to show the BC and the [Wrath] gems in one place, I totally agree with keeping them separate. All the BC cuts were completely and utterly eclipsed by the release of Wrath. It's really only useful to know about the old cuts, for either a completionist, or from the perspective of someone leveling the skill from scratch.

With that in mind, it would be best (IMO) to organize information based on role, or audience, instead of by skill level or color. -Howbizr (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

---

> The big problem with the gems is that they have too many facets to really organize them in one way ... (Yes the pun was intentional). The color and quality are the first ways the game really does this. This is a GEM page and not a jewelcrarafting wiki. Now it should be included as part of the jewelcrafting wiki as a redirecting link.

• If you start taking in the completionist route it will be a PITA ... simply because you cannot truly exclude the BC gems and recipes. Likewise if you would have to craft as many pages for each of the roles, and you would have to take into account the class as well. For example melee gems you have to look atthe gems from the standpoint of each class. STR is better for a DK, warrior or enh shammie, whereas agi is more beneficial to a hunter, rogue or druid. then you also have to throw in the attack power gems it becomes more of a preference thing ... it delves into the nuances of each class

• Now if someone made a page that would go thru how to acquire certain cuts thru reputation or world drops and then made another section int he most efficient way to power level a jewwelcrafter. Adding a section for the most profitable gems to cut is more than likely a losing battle since it relies on the particular server and economy on that server and hell the time of the week for that matter.

• If someone made a more comprehensive JC page them I'm sure the page could be trimed down to the tables of gems and a brief into on the page. Again this is about the gems and not so much about the profession.

Kaosian (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of a collection of articles. Like a collection of smaller guides might be useful for crafters. But what would be useful for just "consumers" of cut gems? The pages like "agility gems"? Maybe we just need to see how enchants/enchantments are organized for ideas.  Howbizr^(t·c) 12:55 PM, 12 Aug 2009 (EDT)

Jewelcrafters have a unique issue though when you deal with stats of the gems themselves. there are usually 2 stats it can be organized under. Now the All in one Northrend gems table is actually a good cross reference on both colors and stats, even with the little bit of overlapping. If you broke things down to agi gems then haste gems you would have to have duplicated information on both pages. yes it would help but ultimatly be a lot more work to do it and maintian it that way, and possibly end up with conflicting data. Kaosian (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is just that, I think these articles as they stand fall into the "too long didn't read" category, as in, not a very useful page, IMO.  Howbizr^(t·c) 6:36 PM, 13 Aug 2009 (EDT)