Talk:Update 17 named items

Too Big!

too many inclusions on one page, wiki doesn't like it Neouni (Contributions • Message) 11:21, February 14, 2013 (EST)

Page takes to long to load. Plain text with links should of been use instead of templates. Don't know how much more this page can take but its near the breaking point:

• Post-expand include size: 1915876/2097152 bytes.→ Bladedge (Contributions • Message) 15:58, February 14, 2013 (EST)

I created a faster version: Update 17 Named Items (Faster Load). It's already much faster, but I still have a bunch of links to remove to get it up to the speed I'd like. EllisDee37 (Contributions • Message) 1:41, February 20, 2013 (EST)

Yeah it's slow. Ultimately, I was thinking to keep only Gianthold+CitW info here and just link all the other loot articles. Having two versions now is not ideal... Considering that people are going to start posting pics of new/changed items soon. Updating stuff twice... --Cru121 (Contributions • Message) 02:52, February 20, 2013 (EST)

Fair point. I'll just say that with U17 a mere hours away, I need to plan out what gear I need and the original wiki page is essentially unusable on my slow computer.

I'm not convinced that limiting it to just GH/CitW would help, especially with how many more entries each augment will be getting.→ EllisDee37 (Contributions • Message) 4:20, February 20, 2013 (EST)

Actually it may not be too bad... Once EllisDee37 (Contribs • Message • Email) is done, I'll protect the raw page so it's unwritable by non-administrators.

Then, I can check the main page for it at least every few days and copy paste it into Notepad++ on my computer, do a simple replace to replace "{{" with "{{SUBST:", then copy and paste it to the raw page and save it. That should cause the wiki to replace any thing that is templated with the contents of what was templated. This should remove the inclusion of "most" of the templates and just leave us with mostly popups... Once I have finished reformatting the templates to all use the popups in the same way (I'm about 1/3 done at the moment, but know that at least 3/4 of the ones left to go already use it right) I can then re-edit the raw page, copy and paste it to Notepad++ again, and apply a regex replace to strip everything except the effect name (it should be {{Long popup|Here between the two pipes|Blah-blah-blah}}). So, a ReGex replacing "\{\{Long popup\|(.*)?\|(.*)\}\}" with "$1" Then there should be no more non-Meta templates  used on the page.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 08:03, February 20, 2013 (EST)

What about splitting into "naned items (new)" (GH stuff) and "named items (updated)" (everything else)? Page is still glacially slow, not sure if other work that was being done to address this has been completed. Cdr (Contributions • Message) 14:19, February 20, 2013 (EST)

Oh sorry for the confusion; I finished last night just before the U17 maintenance started. I saved the faster version to my hard drive, so if you end up deleting the page, no harm no foul. At least now I can plan out my gear. EllisDee37 (Contributions • Message) 20:19, February 20, 2013 (EST)

I am slowly moving non-gianthold stuff to separate articles. But I have another idea: let's use plain text for version level 12-24 and use templates only for lvl 25 loot. And perhaps slots, because I like it colorful. Whaddya think?

I have changed madstone crater loot to use this new paradigm: Update_17_named_items#Madstone_Crater→ --Cru121 (Contributions • Message) 03:49, February 25, 2013 (EST)

I wonder, is also a link like {{Item:Moonhowl Axe}} slower than plain old [[Moonhowl Axe]]? Is this the way to go: [[Item:Moonhowl Axe|Moonhowl Axe]]? The article has a lot of item links...

--Cru121 (Contributions • Message) 05:18, February 26, 2013 (EST)

It has nothing to do with the usage of Template:Item. What I am thinking, and have mentioned somewhere (maybe in the next section down on this page), is that we should remove all of the "use to be" information for the items from this page and put that information on "loot history" pages for each individual story-arc (preferred) or quest. That should substantially reduce the size of this page in of itself. That history information really doesn't belong on a page that is intended to show everything that is NEW from Update 17. Also, I agree as someone above pointed out, template usage should be reduced to only the highest tier item for multi-tiered new items, with an exception for if an effect is in a lower tier but not the higher (if "Blurry" becomes "Displaced" or some such thing).

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 06:56, February 26, 2013 (EST)

Perhaps we can just remove all the template links to the item properties and just leave plain text listings. Every item should have its own page anyway and I am working on completing 'variant' pages for each item. Do we need any template data on this page?

→ Snake (Contributions • Message) 08:36, April 8, 2013 (EDT)

Item changes and the history of said items

I'm not exactly sure how we should handle this. I know there are a few items on the wiki that are history items because the item changed but it wasn't a retro-active change, exactly like what we are facing now. The old item pages were moved and the updated items took their place. I'm not sure that is appropriate for this change, and I'm thinking that the old changes should be revisited as well for uniformity. I'm thinking a new argument should be added to the Named item templates  of |history= which will allow you to type in a link to a history page that shows the changes made to the item. "History of item:" would be the text in the right column. Like all of the things changed for Abbot loot could link to that history page, the stuff from GH to it's own history page, and the U17 item overhaul to its own history page. Thoughts on this?

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 08:40, February 21, 2013 (EST)

My initial thoughts would be to add a field for which update the item was introduced, and a field to indicate the most recent update that changed the item. I dismissed the idea because I'm not sure how useful the information is versus the investment to record the information. A history section for items that have been updated ( but not retro-actively which causes multiple versions of an item to exist) I think would be good. Perhaps structure the item pages to have a "item name" page which will be the current version of the item, and "item name (update XX)" which will be the version of the item that was introduced in that update. item name base page can reference the "item name (update xx)" in it's history section. Not sure when you reference "history page" if you're thinking of trying to have an item link to it's own revision history. Although it's a cool concept, I think that we would run in to more problems with that approach. What comes to mind immediately is that any page / template refactors might break a page's particular revision, then, how do you go and edit a pages historical revision. Also, page revisions dont get included in categories. I think we would WANT to include different versions of the item in the category.

Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 09:54, February 25, 2013 (EST)

I wasn't thinking revision history at all, I was thinking more along the lines of pages like Ascension Chamber loot history and The Reaver's Fate loot history. I'm trying to navigate away from a single named item page of every version of every item... I'm also thinking that Update 17 named items should NOT have what the old version of the item was, just what the new version is. That would reduce a lot of the page and the load times. If we group things together on "Blah loot history" pages, then on Update 17 named items we could similarly group the new items (and replacements) with the section headers linking to the "Blah loot history" for that section...

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 10:18, February 25, 2013 (EST)

Those pages do show a nice collection of the changes pushed for items based on adventure pack. I think if the item changes were peeled out instead of having details for 20 items displayed on one page grouped by adventure pack, if there were 20 individual pages then the item change page could indicate a category for the adventure pack associated as well as the update the change was associated with. A group structure like Update XX Item Changes and another group structure called <Adventure Pack XX> Item Changes.

I DO see value in having item pages in the wiki for items that still exist in the game. Especially with better categorization of items, it will be easier to find the particular item that fits your needs. Say for instance the next update the developers want to reduce the blood stone seeker value from +6 to +4, BUT for that item that has already been generated, those will remain in tact. Someone may want to find all items that give +6 seeker bonus with the intent of shopping AH or trade channel for the historical version of the item. Without keeping the item history pages in the wiki (and adding them to the category), one would have to go through all the item change pages searching for the original modifier to see if any item exists?

Joenuts (Contributions • Message) 20:05, February 25, 2013 (EST)

At this time, the templates don't categorize "loot history" pages unless those pages are in the Item: namespace... All of that categorization would have to be manually done, as it should be anyways. Those items don't really belong in the standard categories for item effects, but more in a "history" sub-category for them.

ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 07:01, February 26, 2013 (EST)

Do we have a direction on this? So far I've been creating disambiguation pages for the U17 changed items, each page has a 'historical versions' section. Is this OK or is there a better plan? - 2013-03-15 Snake