Forum:Revisiting profession recipe page layouts

I fell down a rabbit hole today and found that none of the profession pages are consistent on how they display their main recipe pages (also they're all terribly outdated). In an effort to get some consistency to help make updates easier, I'm reviewing all of the layouts and combining them to what, personally, makes the most sense. Also, I found a really old relevant discussion: Naming of Recipe Subpages.

I'm testing this out on the Leatherworking patterns page since that's been my pet project. A few notes here. I added the proficiency nav on the top right. This seems to be present in at least half of the other profession recipe pages. Alchemy recipes and Tailoring patterns have alternate versions of this nav. I'm partial to including the "by type" and "by skill" division on the Alchemy page. Aside from the nav, I moved the faction and reputation related sections to the bottom. I added the ajax lazyload for each of the proficiency levels so that all recipes are accessible from this pages without having to click through to multiple pages.

I tweaked the Apprentice leatherworking patterns page as my second test. I added the same nav and removed the old footer nav, just to keep things simple with only one nav having to be updated. I also added a short blurb at the top to allow the page to stand alone (further reasoning found in this thread). I'm partial to the color coded skill cutoffs, but I've seen other layouts with a wide variety of column headings. I'd prefer to keep it as simple and relevant as possible. Something like Skill, Item, Category, Ingredients (or Materials?), and Source.

Anyone have any feedback before I go hog wild updating all the recipe overview and skill pages? -- 00:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me! PeterWind (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it! 10:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems good! Xporc (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've made some more tweaks on the table layout. There's two versions, skills on the left and skills moved over. I'm leaning towards the second one so it looks a little less cluttered. -- 14:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd agree. The alternate one with because the names are usually always on the far left and it just seems less cluttered. 14:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * i like the alternate one too, much easier to read :0
 * you might consider putting class="unsortable" in the Materials column, since sorting that column doesn't really do much. not super important but it'd make it look a tiny bit neater. also, you can find the "official" difficulty colors here... tho the yellow should probably be replaced with something darker either way, for compatibility with the lighter site theme. something like #FDCD00 should do the trick --Eithris (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestions! I'm going with the second table and I updated the colors as well.
 * How useful is listing out items by slot/type as done on this page for tailoring: Tailoring patterns/Tailored by slot? I thought of creating the nav shown on the right and that page for all professions but if it's not useful, I don't want to waste the effort. -- 18:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as being super useful, but others might feel differently. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As DarkTZeratul says, others might like it, but it's not something I'd use myself. PeterWind (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea just as DarkTZeratul said, others may like it. though if it were to stay. a brand new layout for the article would be suggested. 00:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback! I'm going to hold off on that piece for now and just focus on the other improvements that have been identified. -- 13:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * One more thing I was thinking about while working on Journeyman leatherworking patterns is that the source column gets really cluttered if it goes into detail about the quest or vendor that provides the pattern. I was thinking of just linking the pattern and removing the rest. People can click on the pattern if they want to know more. Any concerns against that? -- 14:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's already what Pete was doing on his side so it's OK to me. Xporc (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)