Talk:Giant Wintersday Gift

Chat Links

• 1x Giant Wintersday Gift = [&AgGTlQAA]
• 2x Giant Wintersday Gifts = [&AgKTlQAA]
• 3x Giant Wintersday Gifts = [&AgOTlQAA]

68.108.59.74 15:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Drop research

← moved to Giant Wintersday Gift/research

Magic Find

Does Magic find affect the drop rates of the Gift? And if so, can people please put down their magic find when they opened the presents.

Magic Find ONLY effects monster drops and is calculated at the time the monster is killed. — Poki#3 23:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

2013

I think the drops are different now, from looking at what I'm getting from the gifts.Yutsi (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I moved the drop rate subpage, someone will need to make a new one for 2013. —Dr Ishmael 22:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Now, they drop Bloodstone Dust, Essences of Luck, Charged Quartz Crystals, Empyreal Fragments and Dragonite Ore in addition to the wool sweaters and such, of the rare drops, I don't know.Tuomir (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I opened 1000 Giant gifts and got in 1 of them (yes, in only 1 of them) 50 (yes, 50) dragonite ores, for a total of 65 dragonite ores from my 1000 giant gifts. Did anyone else get that same drop? I have no actual proof beyond my good faith, so I'm reluctant to actually edit the page. 80.78.0.37 13:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Expandable tables vs normal lists

In my opinion, expandable tables are a dramatic improvement from normal lists; they allow you to easily streamline large chunks of information without being intrusive or making an article confusing for readers. For those who think the tables feel awkward, do you think a "show all" and "hide all" functionality would help alleviate this? :o I have no clue how someone would add that to the template, but it could make the tables even easier to use and significantly more polished. :D

-Somohexual (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm with Poke on this one, I feel like they just degrade the page's contents. Most readers want a quick list that instantly shows all of the page contents, no one wants to click 2-3 or more "show more" links to get to the actual part they want to see. Maybe if the whole expandable table was better...formatted (?), it'd be better, but as it stands, I feel it does look awkward and is a downgrade from the previous version(s). --Ventriloquist 21:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The main problem I have is that those lists require clicks (in a very small location) versus normal scrolling behavior to acess the information on the page. From a user experience point of view, scrolling is a very natural interaction; there is not a single internet user who won’t be used to it. On the other hand, clicking one or even multiple “show” links that are not consistently placed and not prominently visible is pretty annoying. Also, it’s likely that users visiting the page either want to see all the possible contents, or all the possible sources (possibly even both). The categorization we add are only there to process the available groups of things but don’t really help if you don’t “drill down” and look at the individual items. For example, knowing that recipes are contained in the gift alone isn’t helpful at all. The number of possible recipes is far too large, and there are only very few recipes that actually drop. So every reader would have to look at the individual recipes anyway; making the categorization into “recipes” only useful for processing the individual items.

In general, there is nothing wrong with long, or longer, articles. We have the TOC to allow quick access to interesting things, and people who just want to scan over the content can do that easily while scrolling over it. Hiding content does not really improve this but rather makes it more difficult to access the content. poke | talk 21:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I can see what both of yall are saying, I guess my brain just prefers that style of organization. When do yall think it would be appropriate/best to use expandable tables?

-Somohexual (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Rarely. I used it on the generic loot equipment pages (e.g. Iron Sword (loot)) because no one really cares about the stats of non-level-80, non-exotic equipment, and not collapsing those would have created a truly gigantic page (the lists on this page are tiny compared to that). I still felt we needed thorough documentation of all the variants, mostly to support the chat link search functionality, so collapsing the table sections was the best way to handle it.

One additional thought: nested collapsible elements are truly annoying and should never be used, IMO. —Dr Ishmael 02:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by a "nested" element? :o What are yalls' thoughts on using expandable tables for:

1. "Strategy/Walkthrough/Tips/etc" sub-sections (mostly NPC and Event pages rather than Activities, Jumping puzzles, etc)
2. Long "Dialogue" and "Quotes" sub-sections
3. "Trivia" sub-sections that contain multiple historical facts. Ex: Giant Wintersday Gift#Trivia (not the best example as the trivia section isn't SUPER long)
4. Any sub-sections that use Template:Spoiler (maybe the template itself could be adjusted to automatically condense information into an expandable table?)

Also, what do yall think about the idea of adding a "show all"/"hide all" functionality to expandable tables? I think it would make click-to-navigate elements much more intuitive while also helping to alleviate the issue of inconsistent or unclear "show"/"hide" link placement.

-Somohexual (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"Nested" means when you have a collapsible element inside another collapsible element, like you had done in the "Contents" section on this page.

1. Never. That's usually the most important and most useful content on the wiki.
2. Maybe. Dialogue is usually one of the last sections on a page, in which case there's little benefit to collapsing it in any case.
3. Never. Like Dialogue, Trivia is one of the last sections on a page.
4. Template:Spoilers, but again, it's usage depends on the situation. Don't use it on obviously-spoilerific pages like jumping puzzles, you'd be hiding the entire page.

—Dr Ishmael 16:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, there is really nothing wrong with pages being long; scrolling and navigating via the TOC is far too easy that we need a mechanism to make the page shorter. And as soon as you start using collapsed sections, you could as well just remove the content completely from the article. poke | talk 16:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info guys, looks like I was just derping again, lol. Do yall want to remove the "nested" tables on Generosity's Reward too? I see now that expandable tables are very situational, but they seem to work flawlessly for Generosity's Reward and/or Gift from Mawdrey II. -Somohexual (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Those pages actually show a different problem we have with {{contains}}. If something can contain for example any fine crafting material, we shouldn’t need to list those individually but should rather have some better mechanism to just say “Can contain any fine crafting material”. poke | talk 19:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That reminds me of an issue with {{drops}}.

Example: Heavy Bone is listed as a drop from Grawl Berserkers but the template doesn't tell you where, or at what level, the berserkers drop this item. Instead, it shows you every zone berserkers can be found in and every level they can be encountered at, which isn't very helpful in that situation. Ugh, I wish I knew how to fix some of these things. x.x

-Somohexual (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Feedback 2015/12/16

2015 MF receipt now not working —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.242.112.198 (talk • contribs) at 23:47, 15 December 2015‎ (UTC).

Yup confirmed, not working for me either, would seem to indicate that recipe has been "retired". --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 00:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)