User talk:ProgrammerDan

Search by property links

I don't think that "Search by property" links, when! mixed-in the general page text in a way that's indistinguishable to normal page links, it going to be perceived by general RoB browsing users as a helpful or consistent.
Its probably better to limit those kind of links to the main subject page in question (like the Carpentry page), while making it clear those are property related links.
For having property related links on individual subject pages (like Clogs page) it makes more sense to do so trough the infobox templates, instead of adding them on a per page-case base. (Although I currently see no good way to incorporated property related links in the infobox templates ... other than perhaps adding a listing of related (Gild in this case) objects by way of a #ask query)
--.MvGulik. 15:19, 18 January 2019 (EST)

I figured they were better then what was happening at present, which was often a link to the Attribute -- which has absolutely nothing to do with Gilding Attributes, in general. I'm fine with whatever, just that the current "standard" had me confused for a good long while and I figured I'd do something about it. It's probably easy to integrate into the infobox template, if that's preferred; then I'll just go back and standardize the general page text to have NO links, to avoid the prior confusion. Thoughts? ProgrammerDan (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2019 (EST)

>"current "standard" had me confused"
Well, technically there is no real specific RoB standard, other than perhaps some general wiki stuff.
>"standardize the general page text to have NO links"
Think that would be would be overshooting in the other direction. Unless you mean not linking attribute-words when there context is gild related. (which I guess you did with those links) >"mixing Attribute impacts with Gilding Attribute classes; they don't really have anything to do with each other" I see your point. But think the property-Search-links idea could have used some more thinking. (switching to other post)
--.MvGulik. 22:28, 18 January 2019 (EST)

Yes, you understood me at the end -- meant removing the misleading links only, not all links :D. Sorry for confusion -- wrote the reply quickly. Replied in other spot too. ProgrammerDan (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2019 (EST)