Talk:Engineering recipes

100,545pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Revision as of 20:32, April 13, 2009 by Eirik Ratcatcher (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ←Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Reworking Edit

I am currently reworking the recipe page to look something similar to the leatherworking page, feel free to help me out. --Sidewinded (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Guide_to_obtaining_every_engineering_recipe now contains most of the additional value I find in such pages as you list. You might examine how Jewelcrafting/RecipeTable is composed and formatted; you seem to have started on a monolithic page, which is marginally less helpful. Also look into {{lootsure}} as a means of keeping the parser sane. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Schematic/Schematics Redirect Edit

I have taken the liberty of turning the Schematics page into a simple redirect to this page. The old version of the Schematics page was very similar in content to the opening lines of this page, essentially a definition of the word and it's usage, and had no unique content. This page, on the other hand, gives a much more complete definition as well as having all the related information an Engineer could want.

MikeKozar 04:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete comments Edit

this list needs to be expanded for TBC  - CJ talk / cont  03:35, 1 February 2007 (EST)

there are 8 more Engineering recipes to be added from patch 2.1.0

Peer review request Edit

I have no goblin engineers, so I cannot verify firsthand any goblin engineer information. And there may be recipes I missed, or misplaced. But really, I'm looking for style feedback.

I removed the goblin/gnomish recipe details back to their cubby holes, and gave those sections a treatment like I did the general recipe section. The gnomish and goblin tables better belong on those pages off the "schematics" bar.

I think the schematics bar itself may be less than helpful, but am unsure how best to improve the situation. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I love this page. It's EXACTLY what I wanted to construct but I saw someone already beat me to it :P This is very well done, albeit a few bits and snips of improper grammar in some areas but it's perfect.

Now all we need to do is remove any ambiguous articles that contain content like this but are less organised.

I approve of this page. I'll add extra recipes/schematics if necessary while looking through Allak or Wowhead and the droprate from specific mobs are verified. Evankimori 14:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking over the profession recipe pages to see if I could standardize the layout. This page is completely different from the other professions. I like that you have a seperate page for each pattern, which gives detailed information about that specific pattern, but that does mean it's a lot more work to create this page.  ;)

I would like to see a spreadsheet on the recipes page that lists everything in one table. Seperating it by vendor bought, trained, quested, etc. makes it hard to figure out what you can make at each engineering level.

I plan to clean up the other professions and try to standardize the table layout somewhat. I won't be touching this page, at least for now, since it's so different and you put so much work into it. -- Mordsith - (talk|contr) 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

On closer inspection... I'm relatively new to wowwiki myself. It seems that every recipe for every profession has it's own page. The other professions link to the page as well. I suggest you reorganize your plans into one spreadsheet with a column that tells you how to learn it, rather than making several spreadsheets. The way you have it set up now, it's not as useful for anyone who has less than 375 engineering. -- Mordsith - (talk|contr) 21:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Neither this page, nor the other profession pages is terribly useful for the person who is at rank X and wants to know where to find the recipes at that rank. Take a look at The_Compleat_Engineer and see if it is more what you were thinking of, Mordsith.
For me, the problem with the other profession recipe pages is that while it is useful if you want to plan out what you need for a project, it doesn't help very much towards getting the recipes. The Engineering recipes page, on the other hand, isn't broken down by skill rank (Apprentice, expert, etc), and is shy on some of the details you'd want if you were hunting the recipe down.
I've been tackling Blacksmithing Recipes for a Compeat Blacksmith article. Unlike Engineering, there are lots and lots of recipes both dropped randomly and requiring faction to acquire. It is startling how easy Engineering is to complete... --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if you still care or are maintaining the page, but since the peer review request is up I figured I'd give you my 2 cents.  ;) I think the information you have here is awesome, didn't realize that there wasn't a page for this in the first place, but as for layout, I prefer it in the style like Tailoring patterns or the Jewelcrafting recipes. It's a neat way to consolidate the information. If you want to make it so people can find it by sorting (so that you can still have it by trainer, faction, gnomish/goblin, etc), perhaps check out the way the table is laid out on the Instance page. --InnocentlySassy t | c 11:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Having recently made a Compleat Engineer's guide, I have to be careful about which page I'm talking about. I can even agree to a consistency argument for altering this page in line with Blacksmithing, tailoring, Jewelcraft. But what I don't really see is what I would USE such a page for. I find I really don't have a lot of use for a listing of ingredients when I'm looking up a recipe.
At least the tables we have in place on those other pages don't sort. Or I couldn't get them to do so. I know there is a sortable table out there, just not on those pages. Don't suppose you could take a few lines from one of those tables and draw up an example that sorts well, to show what sort of changes would be required?
and would you also comment on the engineer's guide listed above? That actually does a slightly better job of what I want to find. So much so that I've been working on a similar one for blacksmithing. --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with levels Edit

I'm at 380 engineering, and I have the belt clipped spynoculars... but the table for the WOLTK recipes says it's 390. I dunno how to edit the tables without buggering them up, tho... --Azaram (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Table layout Edit

The current table layout looks appealing, but causes major problems if changes need to be made. When one item needs to be changed or removed the whole contents of the table needs to be moved around. The tables look like they are organised by column, with the next column continuing the previous column. The source however is organised by the row. For example, the table looks like this:

1 20 35
5 25 40

But the items in the source are in the order: 1, 20, 35 ; 5, 35, 40. I suggest using a nested table where every column is a sub-table of the "darktable" class. This way the items will be in sequence in the source and can easily be moved from one column to another, if required. The Apprentice Engineering table would then look something like this:

Skill Item
1 Inv ammo bullet 02 [Crafted Light Shot]
1 Inv misc dust 01 [Rough Blasting Powder]
1 Inv misc bomb 06 [Rough Dynamite]
30 Inv misc gear 06 [Handful of Copper Bolts]
30 Inv misc bomb 09 [Rough Copper Bomb]
Skill Item
50 Inv weapon rifle 03 [Rough Boomstick]
50 Inv misc wrench 01 [Arclight Spanner]
50 Inv gizmo pipe 02 [Copper Tube]
60 Inv misc spyglass 02 [Crude Scope]
65 Inv gizmo 03 [Copper Modulator]
Skill Item
75 Inv misc bomb 06 [Coarse Dynamite]
75 Inv ammo bullet 02 [Crafted Heavy Shot]
75 Inv misc dust 02 [Coarse Blasting Powder]

So the layout is essentially the same, but the maintenance would be a lot easier. --Hops Splurt (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, I have this vague memory of suggesting this very change. Or of really really wanting it... Sing it, Brother Hops! --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki