Path of Exile Wiki talk:Community portal

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

The Awakening to-do list

Here's a partial to-do list. Feel free to add new things or notify when you're working on something.

• Area progression changes (levels and structure) in the first three acts (Qetuth is working on this)
• New leech mechanics
• Reduced Mana and Enlighten changes
• Gem vendors
• "Shotgunning" changes
• Arctic Armour
• New Maraketh base weapons need to be added (Domokingu is adding these as well as updating any other bases that need it.)
• New skill gems and skill gem balance changes (Status: TheMipchunk is working on this. Most active skill gems have been updated, support gems still need work. Estimated completion in a few weeks.)
• Passives (especially Keystones) need updating (Domokingu has updated the notables and will be working on the regular passive skills.)
• New unique items
• Info about jewels
• Mention of div cards on the items they produce
• Add the new maps and new map icons. (You'll have to figure out which image belongs to what map, because they're just called "map12" etc in the game files.)
• Update map upgrade table
• Map mod changes
• New map levels
• Legacy items
• Changes to base items
• Changes to flasks
• Item affixes changes
• Map-only drops and particulary Item drop restrictions have been changed

Some act 4 stuff that needs work:

• Quests pages need to be created
• Highgate NPC's
• Monsters and bosses
• Flavour text of the new zones (no idea where to find these, I don't play the beta)
• Zone and monster screenshots

--Climmels aka SirProblematique (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I can take on the task of rewriting the leech article. Although I won't be starting on it right away. —Vini (t|c) 12:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the points from character to keystones, major changes to positioning for MoM and Vaal Pact, and the changes to Vaal Pact and Eldritch Battery functionality, currently working on div cards and respective items —lutem 13:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I wanted to do a thorough overhaul of the leech article, but I overestimated the time I would have to work on wiki stuff. I haven't even had much time for playing PoE lately. —Vini (t|c) 12:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll be going through items/gems/zones/mobs updating their Version History as soon as the patch hits. Iamacyborg (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on skill gems. I don't expect to do all of the articles but I am prioritizing new skills gems and skill gems that have received major changes in the patch. Other skills with only minor changes have low priority. TheMipchunk (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I realized, that on some old gems (don't know how many) the xp values are still the old ones. If someone wants to do it... ;-) --Lord joshi (talk)

I plan on creating/updating pages with the new 2.0 uniques, in my free time. I'm also uploading the official art images (offline version of the images hosted on poe's cdn servers) for each of them - Haaxxx (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going through the notable passives and updating them as needed, then moving on to the regular passives. - Domokingu (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I was working on item affix 2.0 when i got a message from Vini, i guess i did a mess so later i'll take a deep look to the wiki help and continue, tnx to Vini for the advice. Fucrem (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You didn't necessarily do anything wrong. I just gave you a welcome message on your talk page with some basic tips for wiki editing to help you get started. Thanks all, no big deal :) —Vini (t|c) 20:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears that some existing uniques have been changed as well (specifically, my Blackgleam differs from what is listed on the wiki page). Not sure how exactly to handle this as a single sample doesn't show the stat ranges, but I guess I'll just leave the information I have on the talk page of the unique in question for now. Alacia (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I am updating the act pages. In the less direct acts (2 and 3) the progression tables we had were kind of hard to read. I tested giving borders to the arrow cells and find it much clearer, please compare old revision to new revision and tell me what you think. I think a background colour would be even better, but before I add that, I was thinking it'd be a good idea across all those tables to have the style saved in one place rather than copy and pasted everywhere. Before I do that, I'd like to know whether you think that kind of thing is better off in common.css or in a code inserting template like the version history tables use. --Qetuth-(talk) 10:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I am planning on adding the new monsters that have been added in act 4, as well as updating the old monster pages to reflect their appearance in new areas. However, I am having trouble finding classifications of monsters: names are easy to find in-game, but some monsters on the wiki seem to be classed by some kind of system that I can't figure out. For example, on the Monsters page, Birdman refers to avian retches, and Spiker refers to porcupine goliaths. Are these just arbitrary names given on the wiki just for a point of reference? Or are they referred to in the game files as such? SpamNinja (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The internal files do have a system for the different varieties of monsters such as skeleton or zombie, as well as a classification structure above that for things like undead, animal, humanoid. Most but not all of the wiki categorization comes from that system - Spiker for example I think was the type name from the internal files for porcupine goliath-like creatures/bosses, which shared common resources such as a spiker AI or sound effects. Other type names we couldn't find or make sense of from the files and so made up arbitrarily or based on community terminology/ggg announcements. We never did finish unraveling and wikifying the full system discussed at Monster category, which is used for example by map mods. I had planned to try and figure out how the act 4 stuff fits in but won't get to that any time soon, so feel free to try and figure it out yourself or just leave that info out to be added later. --Qetuth-(talk) 23:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll be updating the skill progression pages soon (i.e. in a few days probably). I've written a program that will extract the info from the game files - I'm currently fixing up a few loose ends and working on automating editing the wiki pages. The only thing that is still somewhat experimental are the stat requirements, but for the test samples I've used I've got it working. Means also editing pages that already have been edited, as most gems have a progression up to level 30 in the files. --OmegaK2 (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice, this means I can stop updating the skill gem stats? =) TheMipchunk (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It might make sense to update the info box though if there were any other changes. Anyway I've done it for the support gems now, it would be nice if someone could check on the stat requirements and tell me if there are any inaccuracies, before I proceed editing the normal skill gems and vaal skills --OmegaK2 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Updated the progression on all pages. If there are issues with something please drop me a message or post here.

Known issue: The skill gems don't exactly include the stats for summoned minions or totems (other then the minion level and the relative increases), it's something I'll be looking at next. --OmegaK2 (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm currently traveling so I can only glance at your skill gem changes on my tiny mobile screen, but firstly the experience values are wrong; you've output the cumulative values rather than the per level values. Of course this can be easily fixed. The second thing, and really the only thing I have a real issue with, is that your script has undone a variety of custom formatting and data that I spent a good amount of time working on on a per-page basis (including minion stats, as you've mentioned already, as well as labeling effects, rounding numbers to match in-game gem display, and a variety of other small things). This is an understandable side effect of using a script but I'm not really keen on redoing all that again. I don't mean to sound harsh; this is a big step forward for keeping the wiki updated. TheMipchunk (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is with the custom formatting I don't really think there is a feasible way of detecting it (programatically). The number of columns given in the header may wary, the order may vary, the meaning of the columns and the wording of the columns; additionaly when people edit it manually there may be spelling mistakes and other mistakes that might cause it to be undetectedable (-- and inconsistency, I had to update a few pages manually prior to updating them since they didn't use the gem progression section properly). So unfortunately the only working way is just to replace the whole gem progression.

I've been considering adding a list of abbreviations programatically, but that involves some work again, it's essetially re-implementing the the entire number of translation strings from the ggg files that are relevant to skill gems which is not a small metric. The way the translation works it would probably also be easier to do it based off the resulting translation instead of the identifers they use internally (since you probably don't know: intenerally there might be multiple identifiers for a single translation - i.e. that's how you get "added x-y damage" for example, it's reffered to by minimum_added_damage and maximum_added_damage for example)

I've updated the script already with the fix to experience and support for abbreviations. But before I'll update the pages in a second round minions and the actual abbr strings need to be done. I'll actually be keeping the total experience (in addition) - it has always annoyed me that it was missing from the tables previously.

I'll be focusing on the minion gems as it's more work then simply adding abbrevations (I've got some mentions from chuansing that will help), but if anyone wants to do them please send me a pull request - I've put them in a huge dict in the gem parser for the relevant strings:

https://github.com/OmegaK2/PyPoE/blob/dev/PyPoE/cli/exporter/wiki/parsers/gems.py

--OmegaK2 (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess I feel like the fastest way for me to restore some of the work I've done would actually be to revert rather than edit, and it seems like that defeats the purpose of the hard work you've done. I think the ideal solution would be for the script to accept some custom parameters, such as rounding scheme, label abbreviations. The script would only automate making numbers, with formatting chosen by the script runner. Full automation seems more complicated anyways. For example, there should be support to generate the columns in a different order. I have consistently tried to have the order of the columns match the order in which the relevant stats appear in-game on the gem itself. I also have always used the long dash for damage ranges. I should also remark that I was already using the game data to make the skill progression, but I only used it to get the numbers, not to make a table automatically, precisely because of the formatting concerns. TheMipchunk (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ To be honest, I don't see your point here:

• reverting is unnecessary; just rerunning the export once will fix all the issues found and incooperate suggestions made
• the numbers in the game files are NOT what you see in many cases; in addition to what I explained earlier, translations strings already specify how to format/handle the values already (see translations.py if you want to know what's going on)
  • If there are discrepancies I need to know where these are to look at them
• rounding scheme, label abbreiviations, label order as parameters would actually complicate the code more much then it is already and actually open more potential for reduced consistency
  • for abbreviations in particular, it's easier to simply define them in the script file which will also gurantee they are consistent within the wiki; in other words, it will ensure "Adds x-y Fire Damage" is always "Fire Damage" and not something like "Fire", "Fire Damage", "Fire added", etc (you get the idea)
  • as for the order, for the stats that are not manually retrieved but based on the stat_ids, it should be exactly the same order the game uses (at least for the skills I looked at)
  • for stats that are not shown in game (like minion damage etc), the same applies again - order will be consistent

Otherwise, I forgot about the –, but it's in the code now. But that's a wiki-only thing, the game just uses -. --OmegaK2 (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

All right, I'm confident you'll resolve any issues. Another one I noticed was that some base damage values were listed as modifiers rather than absolutes (see Whirling blades). Also some values should include percentage signs or units. I can look over it more carefully once I'm back from travel. I spent a lot of the past few months on stylistic formatting so I guess I would prefer it was somehow preserved. Even if it isn't, I would just like to make sure that if I make changes again now (eg restoring the labels), that these changes are not repeatedly reverted upon running the script again. As for rounding, this is purely stylistic. I prefer that values be rounded in the same way as displayed in-game. This appears to be on a per-stat basis which was why I was doing it manually. TheMipchunk (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you can look over the abbrevations and let me know if you think which ones need adjusting.

I took the base damage value right from the files (where they are actutally in 10000ths), but yeah it's no problem to add 100 (/10000) so looks like the base damage. I'll also rename it to reflect that...

I didn't originally add a percentage sign since they are technically incorrect if they're also in the header (% * % = 1/100 * 1/100 = 1/10000), but it might be good for readability still, I can certainly add that.

Rounding seems to be bit of a problem though, not sure what people think it's best. I thought rounding to at least two significant digits is good. Could also do an approch of rounding to two digits if they're non-zero on all columns otherwise use the least siginifcant digit (like integers if all ints, 0.x if only up to 0.x values, 0.xx if up to 0.xx values etc) --OmegaK2 (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite a few skill gems that are hybrid STR+INT have their stat reqiurements reversed (ie summon flame golem.) --RicochetSaw (talk) 04:58 25 August 25 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Fixed that in the script.

On a side note, if no further things come up, I'll be updating the pages again tonight or tommorow --OmegaK2 (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I have done many legacy versions of unique items. I went through the patch notes and i think i've got all of them (even the undocumented change for Kongor's Undying Rage). What still needs to be done is recalculating the damage/AS/crit chance of many unqiue weapons, where the base types have been changed. But that has nothing to do with legacy versions. I have also updated base items of several base types, but not all of them. Just check the base types and if one item has been updated, all of this base type have been updated. --Lord joshi (talk)

I have also completely renewed the Maintaining Low Life site. May not be very important for most of us and is also not in the list yet, but is something that comes exactly from many 2.0.0 changes. --Lord joshi (talk)

Launch Options page

I think we need one with a list of launch options and explanation what they do. TheFrz (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Make one. —Vini (t|c) 18:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Done, but I think I need some help with it --TheFrz (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, what do you need help with? Iamacyborg (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Item filter list ("moderated")

I see people adding their own item filters to the current page. I've had the thought for a while, but I believe we should separate item filters into their own page.

In addition, we should make it somewhat moderated - I've kinda seen it on other wikis, but often things can have potential to end up in edit wars - (people removing other people's filter, people thinking filter X is better then Y and remove it, and so on, filters becoming outdated / dead links etc). The second thing is we probably want stucture and some basic information about filters. If we have a list with 100 filters called XXXs Item filter or whatever, it won't be really helpful to people other then being a collection of filters. Instead, I suggest something like this (ALL required if someone wants to add their filter):

• Author and a means of contacting the author, e.x. reddit / GGG forums account / email / etc
• Name of the filter
• Link to where the filter is published
• Link to the filter to a place that makes it easy to see updates (e.x. github)
• an overview of what the filter does, possibly this could be split into a check box type of thing for generic features
  • leveling suitable
  • endgame suitable
  • hiding items
  • modifying certain aspects of the default
    • colour
    • borders
    • font sizes

Possibly also some other optional information such as:

• ingame screenshots/examples

Besides that, I think inactive or outright broken filters (i.e. author does not respond/update it anymore, in particular if people find out issues) can then be moved into their on section on the page, only keeping the maintained ones there. As for the moderation, basically just oversee that people follow the rules, remind they to follow them if they don't and act if needed (i.e. delete entries, or in the worst case of edit wars protect the page for a bit).

Anyway, first I'd like to hear what other people here think, in particular the wiki sysops, whether you think we should do this at all and maintain a policy regarding it. In the next step I'd post the info on reddit/GGG Forums for user feedback. --OmegaK2 (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I need to understand what the issue is, exactly. There are already two pages (at least?) pertaining to loot filters. One of them is a general overview and missing some critical information. The other is a more comprehensive guide. It is my opinion that the information presented in the Item filter guide article should be merged into the Item filter article. Despite the fact that it's lacking certain information, Item filter is the main article. I don't see why we would need more than one article. —Vini (t|c) 04:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

My post was basically about expanding section Item filter#Popular item filters into it's own, moderated page (for reasons mentioned above). I didn't put it on the talk page because it also involves moderation and a page-specific editing policy, which is a bit larger scope then just chaging that page.

Regarding the guide vs the main page, I agree that so much duplicate content is not OK (strangely enough the user who created it links to a thread where some people had the wiki had "none", even though it evidently did for over a month). Some of the item filter guide contents are a bit over the scope or inaccurate as well. For example, I believe colours should get their own wiki page (Colours used in Path of Exile for example), since it's something that basically unrelated to the item filter itself and sees uses otherwhere (for example application programmers might want to look at it to match poe's colour scheme!). Same goes for a list of item classes (I mean, we don't really want to list every single item that's in poe there either -).

Then there is also the question of how much information should remain on the page, I think a more concise page is best, mostly because users aren't greeted by a giant wall of text when they're only there to read about what they do and how to use one. I.e. the information on how to create one could very well go into something like Item filter creation

That I would have usually discussed on the talk page of the filter though. --OmegaK2 (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

While it looks like a good idea there is a bunch of questions about how it would look like, who is going to moderate it and so on. I don't say I am against this idea but I can't imagine it at least right now.

On the other hand there is a problem Vini has mentioned few times already that there are 2 articles about the same stuff. Also Item filter guide has been written in the first person style and it's rather a forum post than a wiki page. In my opinion the whole new article should be written based of 2 existing ones. —TheFrz (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The two pages have never worked out the way I pictured when I was thinking a guide page and a base page would be a good pair. To be a good guide, the guide needs most of the basic info the base page should have. I was originally thinking a step by step instructions page and a definition page would be quite different.

On the list of filters, I agree it is not that useful right now - each link is to a forum post, which then links to an external site for the code, and has differing amounts of explanation and advertising. Even most of the forum posts don't actually give a very good explanation for what the aim of the filter is and what kind of player it is for. We could of course have our own summaries to go with the links, but I don't know about keeping that maintained. Also note I think only two of the filter links we have were posted by the author.

On a related issue, how do you all feel about some standard filters being hosted on the wiki rather than a forum or upload site? I am thinking more of base files with some very common changes for other people to edit rather than start their own from scratch, so not files that should need updating (outside of expansion level patches). A "defaults" code which individually sets everything to default appearance might also be good to provide. But also, if we are going to have a "submission" process, we could use that to choose a handful of the best to host here if the author wanted it. --Qetuth-(talk) 23:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I spoke with Iamacyborg and he mentioned something about having the wiki's own loot filter. That could be an option. —Vini (t|c) 01:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it could be a fun project. Iamacyborg (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, the wiki having it's own filter and having examples are two different things. It would need a maintenance as well. Maybe this could be something like a "community edition" filter? --OmegaK2 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I made a mockup on my userpage of what I had in mind basically User:OmegaK2/test --OmegaK2 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That looks good to me. In terms of the user submissions process, how do we see that working? We could use something like a Google Form to notify admins. How would we approve filters for inclusion on the page? Iamacyborg (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd generally think leaving this in-wiki is good. It's not a problem to put the page on the user watchlist and use the patrol feature to approve of the changes. I am usually for lettings users edit it as long they follow the rules there shouldn't be much intervention required. The only time I see when it needs to go into protected mode is when people start to vandalize it or start edit wars, then I'd use the talk page for user submissions. --OmegaK2 (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If nobody minds, I'll post to reddit and see what people think and then deploy that User:OmegaK2/test page. It seems the item filter page is already getting what I anticipated, with ziggy and hellcat editing and removing filters. Pinging Qetuth, Vinifera7, Iamacyborg :) --OmegaK2 (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Qetuth-(talk) 08:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That looks good to me too. The edit war yesterday was completely unnecessary, we'll have to lock down pages and hand out temp bans if people continue dicking around. Iamacyborg (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Move to remove redundant boss videos on map pages

I would like to propose that we remove the redundant boss videos on map pages. If these boss videos should go anywhere on the wiki, they should go on the articles of the unique monsters themselves. The map walkthrough videos can stay on the map articles. This change should be uncontroversial. —Vini (t|c) 19:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I think most people are likely to be looking for that info on the Map page itself, but your reasoning makes sense. I would think that a map walkthrough video that also happens to cover the boss encounter would be appropriate on the map page though. Iamacyborg (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree - map walkthroughs on map video, boss specific on monster page once it exits. However, one thing I would really like to see is all map pages have text info on boss location - own section of the map or not, minions, does the room seal, etc. I added the info to some maps a while back but I really don't play maps often these days --Qetuth-(talk) 03:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Master Page change request

I would like to change a few things about the master pages, but I'm not entirely sure if this is the correct area to post this, so I apologize in advance if I am doing something wrong.

The decorations sections seem to have no ordering whatsoever. I tried to figure out if there was a reasoning behind the entry order but could not figure it out. If there is no order, may I change it either to alphabetical, list by cost, list by level unlocked, or list by view from purchase window top>bottom left>right? I was planning on adding all missing decoration entries, but if I could do it in some semblance of an order that would be much easier.

Secondly, I believe the unique item list that is still on all master pages is not necessary as it seems that all masters sell any droppable unique. Can we remove the unique item list to remove clutter and unnecessary information from these pages? Or are we waiting for a direct GGG confirmation before removing these lists? SpamNinja (talk)

I'm working on the unique item list thing. I'm compiling the prices for all the uniques first. These prices will then be listed on each unique's page directly. About the decorations, I would personally organize it by cost, but anything you think would make it look nicer is probably fine. TheMipchunk (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

When posting on the talk page, please do not forget to sign your posts with ~~~~.

The decorations are orderable by clicking on the table columns; I assume you're talking about the initial order, I'd do it by level unlocked (and then alphabetical) since it's easier to check if anything is missing per level up.

For the unique list, it might make sense to move it to it's own page and combine all the lists into one for now. It does look like they're all selling the same uniques, but the list isn't complete and there is whole lot of uniques that aren't sold be the same masters. I'd only remove it and say they sall all uniques if it's absolutly certain it's actually the case. --OmegaK2 (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on having a separate page with the unique list and taking it off the master pages. I think we decided to do that somewhere in another conversation but never actually did so? For the decorations, I think the original intention of at least some editors was purchase window order, but we didn't always stick to that. By required level might be good, or even by type/size of decoration in different tables. I personally think decorations should also all be moved to their own page, as I think the wiki deco list would be more useful telling players which master to go to to get the deco they want, than what decos they can get from a specific master. --Qetuth-(talk) 11:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually that's a pretty solid idea. I think however we really need to start taking screenshots of the decorations as well, simnply having the name is good to locate something if you know what it is. But if you don't screenshots would really be helpful. Anyway, I created a stub for the unique list: List_of_unique_items_sold_by_masters. Unless someone wants to edit it all manually, I'll try to create a program that merges the lists from the other pages later --OmegaK2 (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not think that having a list is useful in this case. What users want to know is whether a specific unique can be found. It is not clear that all uniques can be sold, but what is clear in my mind is that all masters can sell a given unique, if it can be sold at all. My solution is that a short section on each unique page will mention whether or not it can be sold by a Master, and for how much. Regardless of whether we will keep a list page up, I will be implementing this addition once I get some extra time. TheMipchunk (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I thought that any unique that can currently drop without restrictions can be sold by a master. I like the separate page for the master uniques, I suppose that will just have to be updated manually by people that have level 8 masters until we get a clear answer. Should we add edits directly to that page or still to the individual master pages? On the topic of the hideout decorations, should we create a Decorations page, and link to that under the Hideout page and each individual master? I don't know if I would even have the authority to create a random page like that. Also, if I wanted to start uploading pictures of decorations, is there a guideline for the quality? The thumbnail given by the masters would be extremely simple to screenshot and upload, but they are rather small and not very representative of what the actual decorations look like. On another topic, is there any place that I can learn tips for the formatting used here? I have been deterred in the past from posting anything because I couldn't find any real rules or guidelines on what should or should not be posted. Also, if this is not the place to have this discussion, what is the correct place? SpamNinja (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That is the leading theory, but nobody knows for sure. Currently about 80% of all non-drop-restricted uniques have been publicly reported to be sold by a master. As for wiki permissions, there's nothing stopping you from creating a new page. Anything that would streamline the presentation of information seems worthwhile. TheMipchunk (talk) 01:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Feel free to create a decorations page. Formatting guidelines written as a guide we do not have but it would basically match any such guide written for wikipedia, but it's often easier to copy and paste as much as you can from other similar pages. And hit preview a lot when trying to get those darn tables looking right. For the individual decorations and their images, it depends whether we want to have an individual page for each decoration like we do for items and mtx so they can be transcluded. I think this might be overkill, but it would mean we were being consistent how we do things across the wiki, and makes it easier to eventually give each decoration its own screenshot. I think for the existing passive/item icons, they were extracted from the game files or the website somehow? That would be a better place to get the shop image than a screenshot. See Drillneck for example, in the infobox we have the high quality imported image, then elsewhere on the page we have screenshots of game use. --Qetuth-(talk) 04:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

All the pages that I've edited so far have been through a lot of copy-pasting of similar pages, so I was just wondering if there was a simpler way. I am unfamiliar with datamining, so I wouldn't be able to add high quality game files images. Are you suggesting to not upload low-quality screenshots then? A page for each individual decoration does seem like overkill, but it would be difficult to display multiple variations of every single decoration on a single page. I'm not entirely sure what a good solution to that would be. SpamNinja (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The images added from the game files are usually 2D Art images that are easy to convert and extract. For decorations that means the inventory icons, not the 3D models - these would require reading GGGs model format, and I don't think anyone has made a program for that yet (so screenshots it is). Search for VisualGGPK2 if you want to extract files, though I use a progam I wrote myself since I found VisualGGPK2 a bit clunky to use.

As for I don't know, having decorations have their own page doesn't seem too bad generally, since it means we can use templating (which includes support for variations), but I dont know about hitting transclusion limits again if a lot of these are transcluded into the same page. Besides it's probably something that could be added to the item template (since they're basically just items anyway). --OmegaK2 (talk) 12:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Templating Pages

I think most pages should really be using a template. We are already doing this to some extend with things like the item info boxes, but not enitrely. Basically this applies to anything that has largely repeated content (so any kind of item (=skills, decorations, cards, items, uniques, currency, etc) , quests [done this for quests already], etc).

The point is that most pages are setup in a very similar fashion, e.g. most skill pages go like this essentially:

• infobox
• skill functions and description
• gem progression
• quest rewards
• vendor rewards
• version history
• navbox

Basically it's no problem to just set that up in a template.

The only downside I can see is that basically editing sections will not work (as those sections would be generated on the template, i.e. people would be promoted to edit the template, so naturally you disable it), so people would have to edit the page basically.

The other is that it adds a bit of inflexibility in terms of extra sections, while that is kind of the point to streamline the pages I'd think it would be best to simply leave an "extra" variable for placing them (i.e. so when people add extra stuff, it doesn't appear in "random" places, i.e. below or above the normal stuff, in middle of version history or so), but always in the same place. Generally, however there is no need to write the same things over and over in a ton of pages - and more importantly, since the format isn't fixed, users may simply forget certain sections - I've noticed this when I was going though adding quest/vendor rewards a while ago, sometimes pages are missing sections entirely or order them entirely differently. It would help sure the pages always look the same roughly and have the information they should have.

It also could make future generation of content easier. For example, if there was an update that largely changed how something works it could simply be added to the template; i.e. people will see that the information is missing and should be able to fill it in. Additionaly with the variables, if we for example deceided it would be nice to have new categories, it would no longer be required to add them to each individual page, but simply have them autogenerated by the templates. Or if we had a central place we get the informaiton from it would also make changes to the individual pages rather trivial (one change in the template vs. editing hundreds of item pages)

But anyway, the main reason still stays the repetition of things. By no means it is decent to have people to copy the exact same sentences from every page into the other page, and then just ajust it. It can as well be filled in by a template just as easily. --OmegaK2 (talk) 12:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The inflexibility for non-standard pages, and inability to edit sections, and the added barrier to new editors, are pretty major imo. Even as an experienced editor I have trouble sometimes tracing imported or generated data or finding fixes to a page can't be made because the error is coming from something a template does automatically. So getting everything on the page completely inside one template might be more trouble than it

's worth. However I think there are a few more things that could be simplified with more templating, and more things our current templates could be doing. Doing gem progression tables the way we do version history tables, for example. I wonder if there is a way to have the version number recorded in the gem progression so things like out of date templates can happen automatically? Gem categories could also be done automatically from the keywords.

One of the big things that could be fixed though is the number of places data has to be (in almost but not quite identical form) in both the infobox and the text of a page. I would really like to see a way to fix that, and maybe having the page text in a template to has the answer there. --Qetuth-(talk) 05:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, people can still edit sections. It's just that the [Edit] will be missing next to the section, and instead the page is edited (i.e. variable changed). I should probably write up an example to show it would work/look.

I believe we can probably condense gem progression even further; I believe the gem progression is technically the same for gems that share the same base level (except some bugged outliers possibly), so that could be filled in by default based on the max gem level and gem base level. Same with the stat requirements.

We can put a version number in there and update the template then warning that the page is out of date or so, but the question is when we want to do that. If we do it for every minor update all the gems would be out of date all the time; I mean technically we could do it for specific gems, but simply adding a note on the specific page is better. And we don't get huge updates like awakening every often that overhaul pretty much all the gems. I don't think it's needed.

And regarding the duplicate info, that's pretty much exactly what I had in mind. For those sentences "x is a y and can be found at z" those can just be generated automatically. I'd just leave some fields open for people to enter text manually inside the template (i.e. to fill in triva, item mechanics or similar stuff). --OmegaK2 (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Bandwidth-Heavy Ads

I've recently noticed that if I leave the Wiki open in the browser, it sucks up my internet bandwidth constantly loading advertisements. Is this a recent change in Gamepedia? The problem goes away if I use an ad-blocker (which I would prefer not to do in order to support the site), so it appears clear to me that the ads loading is the problem. TheMipchunk (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing's changed as far as I know but an ad provider could be slipping in bad ads. Could you keep an eye open on which ads are causing the problems and send them my way, I'll bring it up to the adops team who'll be able to blacklist them. There's also this if you want to submit reports yourself: http://support.curse.com/hc/en-us/articles/204270395-Reporting-Bad-Advertisements Iamacyborg (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Damage per second calculations (Weapon lists etc.)

Hi, not sure if this is the right place to post this since I'm fairly new here/to wikis in general, but I think the Weapon DPS calculations that are used on the weapon list pages (not sure if they appear anywhere else) - e.g.: Sword - could use a change, though I don't know how to do that. They currently factor in the weapon base critical strike chance and use the base (150%) critical strike multiplier. That doesn't seem very useful to me though, so I'd like to exclude those and only calculate dps off average damage * attacks per second.

Reasoning: 1. For an RT character, this screws up sorting by DPS, as he wouldn't care about the base crit chance but would have to do the dps calculations himself. 2. A crit character would value an increase in critical strike chance much more highly, as he would have increased critical strike chance from tree and gear, and more importantly an increased crit multiplier as well, so that sorting doesn't help him much either. 3. There are probably builds who don't use either RT nor have crit scaling, but I'd think those are the minority. For these people the dps would be accurate. 4. Both PoE.Trade and https://www.pathofexile.com/item-data/weapon use my suggested way of calculation.

This is a minor Issue (values are at most 3.5% too big), but still something I'd like to see changed (opinions?) since it seems unnecessary to me and I stumbled upon it trying to figure out what the best base weapon for my crit reave build would be to craft from/look out for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lame4Fame (talk • contribs) 14:25, 6 August 2015‎ (UTC)

This seems pretty reasonable. Any objections to this change? —Vini (t|c) 19:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

List/Overview of path of exile related applications & websites

Do we currently have such a thing? Searched a bit but haven't found it on the wiki.

If there is no existing list or so to start off I'll go ahead and create a page for websites (List of Path of Exile related websites) and applicaitons (List of Path of Exile related applications) each.

People generally seem to be interted in what kind of tools and utilities there are for path of exile. How else are people supposed (aside from asking) if we don't list things like VisualGGPK, Procurement/Acquisition, PoEBuilder and other cool apps a lot of people use? --OmegaK2 (c | t) 05:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. This post on the subreddit already lists a good number of tools (maybe a bit outdated) and might be a good place to start. --Climmels aka SirProblematique (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Something broke the item tables

The item tables are broken right now (see the tables at Helmet for an example. They have an extra column saying "strength", "dexterity" or "intelligence" based on what is required, and the values of armor, evasion and/or energy shield are being pushed to the side. This happens with the lists of unique items as well. Any idea of what caused this? Testante (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

fixed (edit: it may take a bit for the changes to affect the pages due to caching, if you hit edit and preview, it should be correct) --OmegaK2 (t|c) 22:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Testante (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Info: recently installed extensions

I've got in touch with the curse staff and had some extensions installed here on the wiki.

1. SyntaxHighlight
2. Labeled Section Transclusion
3. Math
4. Semantic Mediawiki

A few use cases:

1. Used to highlight source code, i.e. useful for documenting the scribunto modules
2. Allows to create sections which you can then transclude. This should be helpful if we have pages with a lot of text which could also be useful on another page without having to resort to creating templates or so.
3. Math allows the use of latex syntax, so formulas can be formatted properly on the wiki Example
4. SMW is probably the largest and about the best thing we can want on this wiki. It can help us dynamically query pages and insert page content into a database basically, which should help combating content-duplication and the generation of xyz lists; there is however a lot of work involved and existing templates need to be reworked to include this behavior (more about this in an extra section)

--OmegaK2 (t|c) 18:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been trying to read up on SMW. I still have no idea how it works. —Vini (t|c) 18:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I've found the documenation difficult to understand. Basically you can properties to a page which will populated into a database with [[My property::My value]] or with the set parser function. Then you can query those with the ask parser function like {{{#ask: [[Category:Forsaken_Masters_NPCs]] }}

There is a lot more you can do however then those simple examples, the queries are complex and kind of similar to SQL I think --OmegaK2 (t|c) 18:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we're replicating a lot of it's functionality already with our templates, which while complicated are a pretty elegant solution. I need to look at what other wikis are doing with SMW though, see where we can improve. Iamacyborg (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)