Template talk:Rune nav

Do not use
Whoa..... I hope you're not planning on using this. This is waaayyyy too huge. The reason I went on a navbar trimming spree for the location navbars is because they got too bloated. This is too big to be useful and just makes the pages look ugly. -- ab.er. rant  02:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And is it really nessecary to even have a separate page for each attribute rune? They are all exactly the same. Minor gives +1 to that attribute, Major +2, and Superior +3. There would be like a 2 word difference between pages. If you didn't know what a sup blood rune was, if you were redirected to rune and it told you that, I think you'd have to be quite dense to not understand it. JediRogue 02:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * if u don't like it then remake it to not look ugly. i'm treating runes just like insignia. if runes don't get a nav, then insignia don't either. i happen to think the insignia nav is pretty ugly & bloated too. -- VVong | BA 02:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * how bout this: i get rid of the min, maj and sup links and just link to the disambig pages u made. -- VVong | BA 02:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, do try to cut down the size of the navbar. I didn't mean anything when marking it for deletion. Feel free to remove that delete tag too. I just marked it to prevent you from adding it to all the runes pages before seeing my comment on it.


 * @JediRogue, yes, they are necessary because each of those rune pages represent an item. It the same reason why individual crafting material pages exist. Or why we have individual pages on a myriad of little little items like kits, and scrolls. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There's alot more you can say about the other things you've mentioned. This seems more like having pages on individual parts of an armor. Each is there own item but they are really part of one armor set and don't have pages of their own, do they? However, I understand your point and if I'm the only person who finds it silly, then I'll leave it be. JediRogue 01:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point about them being too short. I was originally considering putting all the info on minor, major, and superior runes of the same attribute under one page, like a Rune of Tactics page with all the other smaller pages redirecting to it. But I wasn't sure how best to format such a page so I used them as disambiguation pages instead. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 02:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, i had the same thought about something like Rune of Tactics but also didn't know how to organize it. and i agree w/ jedi that individual articles seem like overkill. but from the discussion i had w/ bex, bex didn't like my suggestion about killing the insignia articles, so to keep things consistent, i went the other way. so basically, this entire enterprise bugs me, but inconsistency bugs me more. if we can get rid of insignia articles, i'd agree to removing rune articles. -- VVong | BA 06:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Split by profession?
Would splitting the rune nav by profession help?

Not really sure if warrior colors are necessary. Tedium 04:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Still don't like this
I still don't like this navbar. It's just too tall and too fill with words... It just irks me for some reason, and I can't seem to re-design it into something good enough to be proposed as a replacement. Do we really really need this? Especially after the minor, major, and superior articles are now merged. Getting readers to click on Rune is much better than hoping that would use this navbar, which basically leads to another page that looks exactly the same except for profession, the color, and the attribute name. -- ab.er. rant  09:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like the tallness either, but it's helpful. Perhaps split it up like we do with the armor navs? General and then prof specific. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 09:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Like Tedium suggested above, I think splitting by profession would help. And include common runes in each nav, maybe. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 09:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we really need all this? If someone is new enough to need the info, they'd be better served by having the general concept of attibute runes explain. Backsword 09:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There doesn't appear to be any benefit to linking between runes that mostly says the same thing. Clicking on rune would be much more useful. Perhaps we could incorporate this navbar into the rune article itself if we want to maintain these links? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 13:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a better idea. No nav on the separate pages, only a (more beautiful one? :P) on Rune. There is currently no way of getting to the separate pages from Rune, iirc? - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 15:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)