Talk:Elegant Huntsman's Backpack

Merger

Each of the following has 7 almost identical pages that could easily be merged together (leaving redirects) to facilitate future updating. This would be similar to the way almost identical pages are merged for variants of Platinum Ring, Mithril Ring, etc.

• Simple Huntsman's Backpack and 6 more merged into "Simple Backpack"
• Sturdy Huntsman's Backpack and 6 more merged into "Sturdy Backpack"
• Practical Huntsman's Backpack and 6 more merged into "Practical Backpack"
• Intricate Huntsman's Backpack and 6 more merged into "Intricate Backpack"
• Ornate Huntsman's Backpack and 6 more merged into "Ornate Backpack"
• Elegant Huntsman's Backpack and 6 more merged into "Elegant Backpack"

SMW does not appear to be an issue for the rings. What about backpacks? ~ 1Maven (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No, not in this case. They all have very distinct appearances, which would be a clusterf*** to show on a single page.

Also, each one is for a different discipline - Template:Craft table is written with the assumption that all entries are for the same discipline, and it would be a nightmare to rewrite that. —Dr Ishmael 13:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The different images might be included with each name and/or in a separate gallery on the page. All backpacks on the same page would have identical rarity, rating, level and stats. Is there another issue with my taking a crack at creating a "backpack-variant" of Template:Craft table? ~ 1Maven (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

...The effort? The current state of the pages is good enough as is, without the need to complicate and/or push existing content into an incoherent mass. As Ish said, it would be too large of a bother to rewrite the template to support such a trivial change. —Ventriloquist 15:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand. I am volunteering to make "the effort" as an educational exercise. It would be done without affecting any existing pages until and unless a community consensus approves the changes. It would facilitate future changes, like adding a note 56 different places that "When used as an ingredient, all items in upgrade slots are lost and stats must be reset." What I am asking is: does this suggestion violate any wiki architectural policy, which would make the effort pointless? ~ 1Maven (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me for being blunt, but I'm pretty sure you don't have the necessary knowledge of wikicode and SMW to be able to rewrite that template.

Why add that note anyway? It's being used as an ingredient, that means the original item is consumed and a new item is created. Nothing from the input item will transfer to the output item. —Dr Ishmael 18:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I forgive your bluntness ;) You had no way of knowing that in "another life" I did programming professionally and I was quite good. While it is true that I am both out of practice and unfamiliar with the wiki architecture, learning it is merely a matter of time, effort and practice. Thus, the "educational exercise".

The note was merely an example, not something, as was correctly pointed out, that needs inclusion. ~ 1Maven (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We absolutely avoid sticking items on the same page if we can. All the backpacks have different names apart from Elegant. There are actually 64 pages if I count correctly: 8 disciplines x 6 backpack pages per discipline. The two elegant backpack versions are on the same page. The only issue SMW cares about is the two versions of the elegant backpack, which is covered by our recipe subobjects. I'm not seeing a reason to merge.--Relyk ~ talk < 00:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Relyk, please explain how the following, "absolutely avoid sticking items on the same page" as it relates to SMW ~ 1Maven (talk) 06:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Copper Amulet	Copper Earring	Copper Ring
Silver Amulet	Silver Earring	Silver Ring
Gold Amulet	Gold Earring	Gold Ring
Platinum Amulet	Platinum Earring	Platinum Ring
Mithril Amulet	Mithril Earring	Mithril Ring
Orichalcum Amulet	Orichalcum Earring	Orichalcum Ring

Those items have different prefixes, share the same appearance (invisible), are crafted by the same discipline, and we have precedent for combining items with different prefixes (e.g. Iron Sword (loot) with 151 versions.

These backpacks are A) crafted with different disciplines, B) have different appearances and C) have different names.

To take it to an extreme example: If we permitted you to merge these (which is very unlikely) we might as well merge every single weapon in the game (all with different names and appearances) into one article. -Chieftain Alex 10:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

(indentation off)

“

btw I will happily block you for expiry time of 3definite </3

— ‎Chieftain Alex

Threats are unnecessary. As I already stated, I have no intention of screwing up the existing protocols. I am asking questions to better understand how and why things are done. Your explanation helps to resolve what I perceived as inconsistencies. I realize that this would be a drastic and perhaps unacceptable change, which is why I am discussing it here. Isn't that what I am supposed to do? ~ 1Maven (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

my edit summaries are barely ever serious.

Asking questions is the right thing to do, but certain answers should be self evident, e.g. combining different items in a confusing way, or adding disambiguations for things that people will likely never search for -Chieftain Alex 11:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. Since I don't know you, I cannot tell when you're being serious. "I have no sense of humor." Is the prior quote from you that made an impression.

Many things that may be "self-evident" to you are not so to a less experienced person, like myself. Nevertheless, I will endeavor to be more "perceptive" in the future.

One of the "luxuries" of not being a moderator is that I can edit "things that people will likely never search for" and not feel guilty about ignoring more pressing issues and moderator responsibilities. Until and unless they get deleted, they're still part of the wiki and fair game. ~ 1Maven (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Alex should never had made that comment... Yeah, one of the reasons for the jewelry is the fine and masterwork versions share the same name. Another is the craft table solves the issue of prefixes/suffixes on jewelry where people create page names including the suffix since the item comes with an upgrade component when you could change the upgrade component and therefore the name. We actually have the {{fm table}} that does a similar job, but it specifically handles the items from vendors. Because these are a set of items that follow the pattern in the crafted items (like "all the same discipline"), it's suitable to use {{craft table}}. You obviously are dealing with a much larger set of items there as well.--Relyk ~ talk < 16:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)