Path of Exile Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 4

Archives

no archives yet (create)

Revisiting weapon categorization

I've been thinking about revisiting weapon categorization, but I'm not sure which scheme to use (if any). Let me know what you think.

Current	Option 1-A	Option 1-B	Option 2-A	Option 2-B
Axes Bows Claws Daggers Fishing rods Maces Staves Swords Wands	One-handed axes Two-handed axes Bows Claws Daggers Fishing rods One-handed maces Two-handed maces Staves One-handed swords Two-handed swords Wands	Axes One-handed axes Two-handed axes Bows Claws Daggers Fishing rods Maces One-handed maces Two-handed maces Staves Swords One-handed swords Two-handed swords Wands	One-handed axes Two-handed axes Bows Claws Daggers Fishing rods One-handed maces Sceptres Two-handed maces Staves One-handed swords Thrusting swords Two-handed swords Wands	Axes One-handed axes Two-handed axes Bows Claws Daggers Fishing rods Maces One-handed maces Sceptres Two-handed maces Staves Swords One-handed swords Thrusting swords Two-handed swords Wands

—Vini (t|c) 03:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

2B makes the most sense to me. Iamacyborg (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

With options 1-A and 1-B it's a simple matter to generate categories automatically. With 2-A and 2-B I'm not sure how to distinguish thrusting swords and sceptres with only the data currently available. —Vini (t|c) 12:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

In that case, 1-B would be the best, as it more closely reflect the weapon categories within the skill tree. Just FYI, I fixed what I assume was just a typo in the table, with Maces incorrectly labelled as Axes in 1-B. Iamacyborg (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm good with the categorization now, but I don't quite like how I have the pages themselves set up currently. I'll work on improving this. —Vini (t|c) 23:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Pages that exceed post-expand include limit

I noticed that there are a few pages which exceed the post-expand include limit, namely list of unique items and Full Item Index. This is an issue where the total include data is simply too long. We might not be able to use these extremely long item indexes. —Vini (t|c) 22:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, just having a look now. It's a pain in the arse, particular the full unique page as that's one of the most popular pages on the wiki. I guess we'll need to look into the best way to present those pages now, and how they'll need to be reworked. Iamacyborg (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a little experiment to see roughly how many item tables would fit on a page before reaching the post-expand include limit. I specified in the wiki code to output all unique item tables and I also doubled the number of uniques displayed in each table by repetition. As you can see, the result is not promising. As GGG releases more and more uniques, we will be able to show fewer on the page at once. I don't exactly have a solution for this. The item templates are extremely convenient, but simply don't lend themselves to this sort of mass inclusion. I currently know of no way to make the templates more efficient in terms of inclusion data length either. —Vini (t|c) 03:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about using the current unique item page as the main hub, linking down to individual item type lists through top and bottom navboxes? Those individual item list pages would then all link to one another again through navboxes placed at the top and bottom of the page. I know it's not an ideal solution, but I can't see a reasonable way of keeping all the pages up to date without creating many times more work for everyone involved. Iamacyborg (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What if we redirect list of unique items to the unique item page, and rework that page so that the lists are more accessible? —Vini (t|c) 17:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I had in mind. We'll also want to improve the navigation between the individual unique item list pages so people can more easily find the items they're looking for. Iamacyborg (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Jumping in here because I told some random stranger in 5055 that I would. Why? I dunno, really. Anyway, he asked me to put forth the suggestion that rather than break the unique items page into sections for each individual item type, you break it into broader classes like weapon, armor and jewelry. While this would only be a temporary solution, I am all for anything that reduces the number of unique pages.

As for my own suggestions, would it help any to use inline links? They're clickable anyway, so if you want to go to an individual item's page to see more information, you can. Another idea, which I honestly don't know is even possible on a wiki, is to embed the individual "list of unique boots" etc. pages into one master page. Would that get around the limit while still being able to function the way it used to? EDIT: Aaaand I forgot to sign. ∞ The one, the only, the Moses

Thanks for the suggestions. What you suggested at the end there is essentially what we're already doing. And no, it doesn't avoid the post-expand include limit because "embedding" (actually it's called transcluding) the pages contributes to the limit. The fact that we're trying to transclude all of the individual pages into one super long page is why the problem exists. —Vini (t|c) 07:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Lua extension

I thought we had the Lua extension installed, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Am I just remembering incorrectly? If so, is there a way we can get this installed perhaps? —Vini (t|c) 03:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll ask! Iamacyborg (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It's now been installed, let me know if it's not working as you want it to. Iamacyborg (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be installed correctly. I created a test module and was able to invoke it without issue. —Vini (t|c) 22:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I've spent several days experimenting with Lua and I believe I've traced an error that has been haunting me to the frame:getTitle() function. As described in a talk thread on Mediawiki, the getTitle function was added in the version of Scribunto for Mediawiki version 1.23. In order to get access to this function, we'd have to update Mediawiki as well as Scribunto. How difficult would it be to upgrade? —Vini (t|c) 05:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Updating Mediawiki should be fairly simple, although Curse tend to update all wikis at the same time. I'll check with Ben to see when the next scheduled update is. I'm not sure about Scribunto, I'll have to check on that as well. Iamacyborg (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm that the update to MediaWiki 1.23 that Curse made in September fixed this issue. —Vini (t|c) 02:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for merging the Vaal Orb and Corrupted pages

I don't really think there's any point to having two pages when the two concepts are so closely tied together. I've created a page here to demonstrate how I wish to arrange the information. It also contains more detailed information not present on the original pages. What I'd like to do is change the Vaal Orb page to the linked page, then either link the corrupted page to the Vaal Implicit section or keep a small amount of information regarding corrupted areas and vaal skill gems (though both of these have their own pages already, so IMO this is not necessary). Looking for ideas, suggestions, corrections, etc. ∞ The one, the only, the Moses 04:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm fine with consolidating the information specifically regarding Vaal Orbs on the Vaal Orb article. However, I don't agree that the article about the corrupted modifier should simply be merged into the Vaal Orb article. Corrupted has other distinctions besides Vaal Orbs, so there should be two pages. —Vini (t|c) 04:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Which distinctions, though? Again, corrupted areas and vaal skill gems both have their own pages. Is there something else that I'm missing? If not, would it be enough to make a small note on each page? Something like, "Due to the corrupted modifier, this (gem/area) cannot be modified by currency." ∞ The one, the only, the Moses 05:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Vini, a lot of the information should be consolidated onto the Vaal Orb page, but we should maintain them separately for the time being, at the very least it would be useful to keep it separate as a disambiguation page. Iamacyborg (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Any objections to these Vaal Orb and Corrupted pages? I'll move the info to the main pages today if no one objects. ∞ The one, the only, the Moses 10:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm good with it. —Vini (t|c) 11:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Happy with both those pages! Iamacyborg (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Allow a redirect from Corrupted to Vaal Orb Implicits. Removed icons from inside table, the heading icons needs to be bigger or in text. I would be alot better if they were organized by weapon first then armours. 1BLOOBERRY (talk) 1:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I recommend using text, rather than the icons. —Vini (t|c) 17:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleting User Pages?

I vaguely remember being told that only admins could delete pages. I was wondering if things could be changed to allow users to delete sub-pages of their own user page. If not, please delete User:TheOneTheOnlyTheMoses/Corrupted and User:TheOneTheOnlyTheMoses/Vaal_Orb. Also, if there's already a way to do this and I just am not seeing it, please correct me. ∞ The one, the only, the Moses 23:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There is not a way for normal users to delete pages, even if they are merely sub-pages of their userspace. However, you can mark pages for deletion using Template:Delete and an admin will eventually take care of it. —Vini (t|c) 21:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Supporter newsletter numbering issues

Probably most of you didn't realize this, but there has been a problem with the numbering of the supporter newsletter issues. The issue that was released on July 20 was the seventy-fourth issue, but it was erroneously published by the GGG staff in charge of the newsletters as issue #73. You'll notice that the subreddit thread is correctly titled #74 though. This is because I informed beastfsho of the problem and he created a new thread. However, since that time GGG has not rectified the numbering problem and continues to be off by one each time. The seventy-fifth issue was put out as #74, the seventy-sixth issue was put out as #75, and so on. This is really annoying since the numbering in the archive does not match the published issue number. What can we do to fix this? The simplest and best option in my opinion would be for the GGG staff in charge of the newsletters to fix the numbering by releasing the next issue as #78 (not #77), but if they can't or won't what should be done? —Vini (t|c) 03:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't expect this latest issue to be the last issue ever, so I guess this point is rather moot now. Oh well... —Vini (t|c) 04:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Forsaken Masters

Hi, since there has been no info related to Forsaken Masters on the wiki yet, I went ahead and created some pages for it, which in turn need a lot of updating when it is actually released or more is available. All Pages related to the update are in Category:Forsaken_Masters with a sub category for the new masters Category:Forsaken_Masters_NPCs.

--OmegaK2 (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the good start. Lots more for us to catch up on as well. Iamacyborg (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that I have a chance to comment on this, I want to say that I dislike the idea of using this categorization. The distinction of "pages related to the update" becomes largely arbitrary and useless the farther away from version 1.2.0 we move. If people want to see what content has been introduced by the patch, they can simply read the patch notes. Please don't misunderstand me; A category for the masters actually does serve a purpose, however I would like to rename it to simply Category:Masters. —Vini (t|c) 00:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with this category being used as a parent category for the new features specifically added in this expansion, such as masters, hideouts, beyond/corrupted monsters. Similarly a SotV category could be a parent to the categories for strongboxes, invasion bosses, and corrupted areas. But I don't think it is appropriate to use such categories for skill gems or uniques, as this is not a fundamental property of the skill gem so much as a coincidence of timing. We could create an entire "Skill gems by Version introduced" tree, but a list page (Skills by Release Date) should be sufficient for this. --Qetuth-(talk) 00:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. Looks like the skills by release date page is another project that needs working on. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Helpful Tip on Updating Old Skill Gems

To who haven't realized this yet, poe.xyz.is and player's shop posts are generally a very, very easy way to find updated/reworked gem information. Its a little slow/laggy to do this since you have to check each gem level in a totally different shop usually. Of course this isn't as useful with brand new gems as its unlikely anyone is going to be putting those in a shop for awhile. Ebonmourn (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a note on this for future reference: While this is a great way to collect some gem data like mana costs, there are some modifiers which the website interface and hence xyz's data rounds to less accuracy than in game display. Claritys mana regen is an example of this. --Qetuth-(talk) 00:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. We should always display it on the wiki the same as in game. —Vini (t|c) 01:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Fan portal in sidebar

I would like to revisit the links displayed under the fan portal section in the sidebar. First of all, is ExileStats even a site that people use anymore? It's listing ladders from Anarchy and Onslaught. As for shop indexers, poe.xyz.is is still the main one that people use. Unlike poemarkets, poe.xyz.is provides a tutorial and doesn't have missing character glyphs in the user interface. Shouldn't we link to poe.xyz.is instead of, or at the very least in addition to, poemarkets? Are there any other widely used online tools or fan sites that we want to link to? —Vini (t|c) 13:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe link to Procurement? Or at least, the thread on the forums. Happy to swap the market site to xyz, and to get rid of ExileStats. Iamacyborg (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think linking directly to the page for Procurement on Google Code is fine. It gives a good description with images and links back to the forum thread. —Vini (t|c) 14:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool, I'll update. Iamacyborg (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Tilesets

I'm wondering what we can do with tilesets: Most maps and corrupted areas reference them (and hideouts too!), but I'm not sure if there is any purpose to a page for each. There are monster type tendencies connected to the tilesets, but not absolutes.

I was thinking of a "List of areas by tileset" type page, and also categorizing areas by tileset. What does everyone else think? --Qetuth-(talk) 11:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestions sound good for now. I don't think we need anything more complicated than that for the time being. Iamacyborg (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I have made a start at sorting them at tilesets - I'm not sure how closely to group some tilesets - a lot of areas have the same basic terrain but a few distinct doodads setting them apart (eg the act 1 outdoor areas). Any advice there would be appreciated --Qetuth-(talk) 05:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Searching by wiki code, or some other way of finding old pipes

Is there any way to search pages by wiki code, or a list of piped links or something? I am asking because I keep coming across pages with old links piped to a current page, eg "[[Unique Monsters|Gneiss]" or "[[Unique Items|Death's Harp]" and with so many pages legitimately linking to these master pages it is hard to find the ones that shouldn't be. --Qetuth-(talk) 03:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, actually. Go to the Unique Monsters page and click "What links here" in the sidebar under tools. It will list all of the pages that link to to that page. —Vini (t|c) 03:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I use What links here a lot. It lists links to the page and links to redirects to the page which is great. My problem is I don't know how to distinguish, among the 320 or so pages that link to Unique Monsters, which ones are links in templates, which are piped links, and which are straight links. At least without checking each page individually. --Qetuth-(talk) 11:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There are only a handful of pages to check though, and some of these you don't even need to check since they are user pages or talk pages. —Vini (t|c) 13:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hideout pages

I think it would be useful if hideout pages had at least one image of what the hideout looks like (when you first get to it) so they can be compared. That would be one way to get those pages a little more fleshed out. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The current hideout pages are largely stubs and could definitely do with more stuff, including pictures. Go for it. Long term I was thinking the rather cluttered individual Master pages could be split into say Elreon with the overview, crafting, and store info, Elreon missions with the list of quests, monsters, areas, experience, and Enlightened Hideout with the decorations list (they could do with pictures too!). --Qetuth-(talk) 00:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't want me to take pictures, I play on 1024x768 fullscreen with minimum settings and texture quality 4 :P. I'll leave it to someone who can get good quality ones. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Dead-end pages

Most of the pages in Special:DeadendPages could have links added for the equipment type, microtransaction type, etc. Proposed examples:

• Abyssal Sceptre: "Abyssal Sceptre is a normal one-handed mace."
• Acid Scorpion Pet: "Acid Scorpion Pet is a type of pet obtained through microtransactions."
• Acid Weapon Effect: "Acid Weapon Effect is a type of weapon item effect obtained through microtransactions."

Not really much to say, since each list of items has pretty much the same information. Individual pages don't have the flavor text contained on the listing pages though, so that could be added if you want to give those pages a bit more content. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

For mtx it would be good to have the flavour text from the store, and the basic non-discouted cost. For weapons, I don't think linking to rarity is that useful (since really the Abyssal Sceptre page is the page for all Abyssal Sceptres) but I don't know what else could go there. Maybe a basic DPS calc for comparison with other weapons? --Qetuth-(talk) 02:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, that makes sense. DPS display sounds useful. We might as well build all this into the Item template, if possible. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why it's even necessary to display prices for MTX on the wiki. I don't know if the prices actually change very often, but it's just one more thing that has to be maintained. Nobody is going to come to the wiki to look up prices for MTX when they are right on the website. —Vini (t|c) 05:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

On individual MTX pages maybe, but on skill pages I think it's useful to display the MTX price. The categorisation on the official site is pretty sucky, so it's not easy to find all MTX for one skill. Iamacyborg (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you've convinced me that it has some utility at least. Tell me what features are needed and I can build them into the item templates. —Vini (t|c) 21:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Video link and price for sure, can anyone think of anything else? Iamacyborg (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for cleaning out unused Korean translation pages

I would like to suggest cleaning out (ie, deleting) any of the many unused Korean translation pages that are cluttering up the wiki. In a whole year, nobody has edited these or added more Korean translation pages. Not only are these pages severely outdated at this point, many of them are merely placeholders and do not even contain translated text. —Vini (t|c) 08:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed most of those, and the Japanese ones as well, are out of date, referring to old area names or incorrect data etc, so this seems like a good idea. Is there a way to see how often they are viewed? (I remember using such tools at wikipedia, but can't see it here) --Qetuth-(talk) 09:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The Korean pages have had about 12k pageviews total since January 1st, so I'm more than happy to scrap them all, particularly as they're way out of date now. Japan's had a fair few more at about 44k, but I'm happy to get rid of them as well as they're not at all maintained. I don't think there's a tool that's accessible for non-admins, but I can ask the Gamepedia team if they can put something together. Iamacyborg (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Very well. I am scheduling the nuclear launch to wipe out all Korean and Japanese translation pages for November 27th. If anyone disagrees with this action, you have two weeks to say your piece. —Vini (t|c) 07:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

S'all good with me. Iamacyborg (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Purge complete. —Vini (t|c) 13:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice one. Iamacyborg (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Math extension

According to the Gamepedia Help Wiki, we're allowed to install, the Math extension. This has been requested before and I would also like to request it. Can we get this extension installed? —Vini (t|c) 23:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for Unique Item Rarity

I'd like to propose adding a column on unique item tables entitled "Rarity" to denote a unique item's drop/chance frequency. This can be very simple information conveyed by a single letter such as C, U, and R along with an asterisk where necessary. Add an key to the bottom of unique tables:

• C = Common Unique. These are items that you could expect to drop while leveling a character. It is likely that dedicated players will see multiple of these items.
• U = Uncommon Unique. These are items that you could expect to drop within the span of a couple months (one league). Dedicated players may see these drop.
• R = Rare Unique. These are items that only a few players will see drop. Some players may play for years without getting one.
• * = Special (Added on to any of the above. Example: R*). These items are league-only drops from past leagues or no longer available.

Exacting accuracy is unnecessary. But if something like this could be added, I think it would be VERY helpful for the many folk who use this site thinking, "I'll make a build based around X unique because X looks like a lot of fun!" only later to find that the unique in question is super rare / out of price range / no longer available in temporary or permanent leagues without Zana.

(P.S. Thank you to all of those who maintain and update this fine site. It's an amazing piece of work that has saved countless players many hours of frustration!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sederien (talk • contribs) 06:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

While I do think it could be useful to have such information displayed on the wiki, I'm not aware of any official source that divulges the rarity (or even relative rarity) of unique items. If based on independent research consisting of extensive data gathering, it might be considered trustworthy depending on the methods used. On the other hand if it's based on personal experience and conjecture, it's really not suitable for inclusion on the wiki. —Vini (t|c) 07:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point and I fully agree. Perhaps someone with trade data could look at the availability of items in the market as a proxy for rarity. It's not a perfect proxy, of course. (Items that may be used vs. traded, desirability of items, etc.) Yet, I think we could generally agree that with very broad categories of rarity, items with thousands of copies for sale vs. a handful could give a decent impression of the data. We might have to have a "not enough data" tab for some of the harder to track/newer items. (EDIT: Of course, methodology can be included on the wiki itself so players have this information as well.) --Sederien (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Quest Rewards page timing out

The Quest Rewards page seems to be timing out when users attempt to edit it. Can we get the Curse people to look into this? —Vini (t|c) 20:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll make sure they see it. Probably related to the previous issue with skill pages. Iamacyborg (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's the same issue. Those templates aren't used on the Quest Rewards page. —Vini (t|c) 22:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

True, but maybe the page being slow caused the issues with the templates. Iamacyborg (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't see how the two things could be related. Those templates don't have anything at all to do with the Quest Rewards page. —Vini (t|c) 02:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I've also been getting time-outs editing Summon Raging Spirit. --Qetuth-(talk) 22:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the other issue we were talking about. Probably many of the skill pages are having this problem. What we need to do is manually populate the Quest Rewards section on each skill page, rather than using {{QuestReward/Skill}}. If you want to start on that, you can. —Vini (t|c) 22:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, we need to get around to manually fixing all the skill pages. I did some of the newer ones but there's a load left to go through as well. Iamacyborg (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we want to replace it with just the link to the quest rewards page (lacks data the reader may be looking for, but never needs updating, a copy of the current info, or both? Or maybe we could subst the current template calls, so it only needs to be edited once per page, and again whenever rewards get changed, but shouldn't interfere with other editing? --Qetuth-(talk) 02:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't use subst on {{QuestReward/Skill}}. It won't do what you think. Not all templates are meant to be used with subst. —Vini (t|c) 06:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

My choice would be to link to the page, just for the sake of it being easier to maintain over time. Having people check another page will be better than people complaining because some info isn't up-to-date. Iamacyborg (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Passive skill tree image

Could we get an updated image for the passive skill page? It's still showing the tree from 1.0.0. I don't know how to get such a large image (or if I even could on my system). ~Bobogoobo (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll need to see what's possible for getting the image. I don't think there's any version of it available anywhere so we'll have to hack our own one together. Iamacyborg (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In-game item screenshots and Hideout items

It'd be great to show what items look like in-game on relevant pages. How does everyone feel about starting off this process by creating some image guidelines to kick this off? Iamacyborg (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Starting off by creating guidelines sounds like a good approach. —Vini (t|c) 23:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

540 x 800 size should be good to see the item in enough detail. That's assuming a fully zoomed in screenshot that's been cropped down to see the character. Using the Marauder would be a good base as well to keep things consistent as his character model doesn't have too much going on. Screenshots should be taken in the Tidal Island as there's good lighting there. Character should only have the item to be shown equipped. Screenshots should be taken with the character facing forwards, backwards, left and right to see the item properly. How does that sound? Iamacyborg (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Improvements to item templates

In this post I will explain the improvements I made to the item templates. Initially I didn't want to bother writing a post about this, because 1) nobody cares and 2) I'm lazy; but for those who are interested in wiki editing and how this wiki in particular works, please read on.

Recently, I rebuilt the item templates from scratch using Lua. As of writing this, these templates are used on well over a thousand pages on this wiki. They are what allow you to do neat tricks like typing {{il|Coral Ring}} and getting Coral RingCoral Ring+(20-30) to maximum Life (mouse over the link), which uses the data taken straight from the Coral Ring page. It makes editing the wiki extremely convenient, because we can take that same data and format it in lots of different ways, like putting it in a table.

Previously, this was all done using intricate features of Media Wiki's template syntax, which if you've ever worked with you know is more akin to writing regular expressions than anything in a modern programming language. The Lua module functionality added by the Scribunto extension allows you to create complex templates using actual, readable code. Better still, running Lua is also much more efficient than the wikicode parser.

The new implementation is also leaps and bounds better for pages that transclude a lot of templates. We previously had an issue where at the end of long pages, templates would not get transcluded. This is because Media Wiki has a hard limit on the amount of data that can be generated by templates. The new implementation doesn't "fix" this—the limit still exists—but it greatly cuts down on the amount of data contributing to the limit. I didn't bother recording metrics to illustrate this, but trust me, it makes a big difference.

I also added a feature in the new implementation that cuts down redundant fetching of item data on pages that want to display the same items many times on the same page, such as the vendor recipe system page. It does this by saving the data output by the template; in this case, I'm talking specifically about Template:Il. If that same item has already been displayed on the page before, it will simply re-use that data rather than fetching it again from the item page. So in other words, if I type {{il|Chaos Orb}} {{il|Chaos Orb}} {{il|Chaos Orb}}, displaying Chaos OrbChaos OrbStack Size: 20Reforges a rare item with new random modifiersRight click this item then left click a rare item to apply it. Chaos OrbChaos OrbStack Size: 20Reforges a rare item with new random modifiersRight click this item then left click a rare item to apply it. Chaos OrbChaos OrbStack Size: 20Reforges a rare item with new random modifiersRight click this item then left click a rare item to apply it., it will only fetch the item data from the Chaos Orb page once!

Cool stuff, right?

—Vini (t|c) 12:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Awesome work, thanks Vini. Does this mean we can make a Unique Item Index again? --Climmels aka SirProblematique (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It certainly appears that way: http://pathofexile.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=List_of_unique_items&oldid=96656 I'm not sure whether that's something we really want to be doing though, particularly with an extra 70ish uniques coming out with The Awakening. Iamacyborg (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure if it's such a good idea. If people just want a list of unique items, there's Timeline of Unique Items. —Vini (t|c) 20:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I know people have been wanting an easy way to search all unique items for specific things, for example spell block, which the single page makes relatively easy. I guess we could always try it out once the new uniques are in place to see if it even works, I do prefer the current system we have though. Iamacyborg (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to explore the limit of uniques on one page now? If, let's say, the limit is 500, I think it's worth it to create a page since it won't reach the limit for at least a year. If it's lower, it's not worth it since we'll have around 400 uniques at the release of The Awakening anyway. It was one of the most popular pages on the wiki and like you said, very useful for finding all uniques related to a specific mechanic. --Climmels aka SirProblematique (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Damn dude, you're a wizard. Iamacyborg (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

That's awesome. But I draw your attention to The_Awakening#Unique_items among other pages - can that be made to look less....red? At least some of those are il templates pointing to non existent pages, but at least one is an il template with a typo, and it's basically impossible for a regular editor to tell the difference. --Qetuth-(talk) 23:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any way to avoid a fatal script error if the page doesn't exist. I realize that most people aren't used to seeing a mess of script errors, but actually checking whether the page exists is a costly operation. The method I'm using is the best I could come up with in terms of performance, which is more important than avoiding the words "script error". I'm not sure how this makes life particularly difficult for editors, considering on the page editor it gives you a list of the templates/pages you're trying to include and displays the ones that don't exist in red. —Vini (t|c) 14:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Awakening Content

Hey. What are your guys thought on adding the awakening content already into the wiki? I've seen some stubs being added already.

A lot of stuff is subject to change I guess, but I think it may be good to start gathering info and data. Since some existing pages might be changed, it may be good to create subpages, like ... Gem/beta and merge them later into the main page as the update goes live. As well as using "Category:Awakening" or so to make things easier to find for people. --OmegaK2 (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

See The Awakening for list of beta related links, and conversation at Talk:Path_of_Exile_Wiki#Upcoming_Closed_Beta_patch_notes which kind of stopped before coming to a decision. I think though a new section on a page is better than a subpage. --Qetuth-(talk) 23:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't create subpages of articles in the main namespace. If you want to gather data and need a place to put it, you can always create pages in your userspace. —Vini (t|c) 23:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)