Talk:List of consumable items

Hey, Tinctorius, good job with the tables. Well, the Djinn and equipment ones, at least. The one's here I'm not too sure about. I mean, they look good, and it's not like you took out anything out. It's just that I was planning to expand this section later on. Mostly I feel that there's more we could say about these items, but those kinds of explanations don't work well in table format (at least in my opinion). I think I'm at the rambling point, so let me just try to clear my mind and say this simply (more for my sake than for clarity):

Table-ifying the page was a good move considering how little and what type of information we had here. The problem is that I'm hoping to expand this page someday, and to do that effectively I may have to change it back to the list format.

Now, I don't know when (or even "if", at this rate) I'll get around to it, so I'm sure we've got plenty of time to talk this over, like if someone thinks expanding it is a bad idea or if they have an alternative in mind. The world&#39;s hungriest paperweight 22:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * An issue I'm not too sure about myself. While the Djinn tables and Equipment infoboxes are great, I think we should avoid tablizing everything possible (we should, for example, keep the List of Long Swords and the other equipment lists in their current paragraphish format). This page might be better off in the List of Long Swords descriptive-paragraph style because these consumable items pretty much appear in a lot of other articles in pretty much the same style of tabled format, so it'd almost be a waste to have the same minimally-descriptive table format here. Erik Jensen (Appreciate me here!) 01:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll revert my changes here then. I do have reasons to do this kind of edit to every List-of-items page, but since it seems that not everybody agrees with that, I'll just keep my hands off of it for now ;) Another option might be the use of templates for items on these pages, just like I did with the Djinn. Their output format can easily be changed to the 'old' form (descriptive-paragraph style); I could even make it an option to the templates, if necessary.
 * Anyway, I agree that this edit looks kinda ugly. --Tinctorius 06:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)