Talk:List of Artifacts

From GodWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Artifacts article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies
  • Opinionated research if possible
  • Neutral point of view when appropriate
  • Humour
  • Verifiability
  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • No personal attacks
  • Do not bite the newcomers
  • Respond in a mature manner
  • Be welcoming
  • Maintain civility at all times


This page has an archive

Old and/or inactive discussions have been moved to the /Archive subpage.

Entries requiring confirmation

If the correct variant of the following items could be confirmed in-game by any sharp-eyed editors, that would be grand. These variants come from duplicate entries or mismatches across List of Artifacts and the Omnibus List which couldn't be resolved by forum searches and common sense. Please feel free to add to this list anything you think merits checking. If you have an observation, some evidence, or act on anything in this list, please share a note here to help future editors! Please be sure to sign and timestamp (using --~~~~) your notes. --Djonni (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Dragon Dungeon map/Dragons Dungeons map/Dragon dungeon map etc. A quick forum search of each variant only showed evidence of "Dragon Dungeon map", but the most recent of those is from 2013, so I consider that unconfirmed. --Djonni (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Confirmed Dragon Dungeon map in my inventory today. --Djonni (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Suspect package/suspicious package. Are they both really in the game? A search for each on the forum shows nothing for either (nothing indicative of in-game presence, anyway). --Djonni (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
suspicious package is definetely in the game. Got it a few days ago (2020/10/14). --germandan
  • Viscious circle/vicious circle/vicious cycle. Forum records sighting of viscious circle from 2017. Do vicious circle and vicious cycle also exist? --Djonni (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm clueless about the proper formatting for this, but I can confirm that "vicious cycle" is in my inventory. 15:03,14 September 2020 --Almighty Kaity

  • "Your god loves you!" poster/"Your deity loves you!" poster. The 'deity' variant has never appeared in the forums, and the 'god' variant not since 2014. I'm inclined to delete them both — my guess is it was QC'd since the extant version ('god') didn't inflect for god{|||ess} gender, and the 'deity' version never actually appeared in-game. --Djonni (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Part of the problem with entry-confirmation is the same as the issue with retired monsters/artifacts: You can't prove a negative. There's really no way of knowing for sure that something isn't in the game, the only thing we can say is whether or not anyone's seen one. So, we might perhaps eliminate some of these, should current "sightings" be offered for both variants (positive confirmation). But no matter how many people say they haven't seen something, that doesn't really prove it doesn't exist.
About the only hope we have for eliminating any of these questionable entries is for the person who added it to come forward and say, "Oh, yeah, I probably just typoed that, I wasn't looking at {my hero's diary, the crossword, etc.} when I wrote it." Otherwise, they're likely just going to be there forever, questionable as they may be. Which isn't the worst thing in the world. (In the cases where an article ends up getting written about one of the variants, we could certainly redirect/link the other(s) to that same article. I don't think competing spellings / wordings prevent us from considering two variations on a theme as being the same artifact.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
We obviously have very similar thinking when it comes to the problem of evidence of absence 😊
You are right, of course, unless there are (unlikely) changes to the API. That said, listing them here isn't useless — it just so happens that my hero has one of the artifacts I listed above in his inventory right now, so I'm striking it from the list in this edit :) --Djonni (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Artifact types

I think the taxonomy of the current Artifact Types scheme is neat, but perhaps no longer adequate since the advent of fishing. There are now activatables that are not bold; there are now items that can only be gained by fishing, not represented in the current taxonomy.

I'd propose introducing an additional category — F — for fishing artifacts, and then adding all relevant tags to the type column in the table. So, for example, the orange box would have F and @ in the type column, but not B, since it is a non-bold activatable that can only be gained by fishing.--Djonni (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

And perhaps an L for laboratory parts? --Djonni (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Somewhat along the same lines, I'm wondering if the "U"nique artifact type shouldn't perhaps be designated "M" for "Monster's artifact", instead. Because:
  1. That's what we call them in the Monsters' Artifacts article about them, and it's the name of the associated category.
  2. I don't believe that anyone has ever actually indicated that those artifacts are, technically, unique — in other words, there could be a dozen heroes walking around with Brutal smiles, if each of them killed a Cheshire rat.
Non-unique "unique" items just seems misleading. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Thinking about this more, I'm kind of down on the idea of turning the Type column into some sort of encoded artifact telemetry. Not that I'm saying the information shouldn't be in the table, just that I'm not sure how much good it's doing to maintain an inscrutable encoded column for it. Especially if that column holds more than one character.
If 'Type' is just one of @/B/H/U or nothing, then you could make the argument that the column is sortable (though we don't currently allow sorting by the column), which could make finding all of a certain type of artifact easier. But if it can contain multiple flags, which can also (therefore) be in any given order, then it isn't even really useful for that. So I'm not sure what the win is of having a table like this:
Artifacts
My cool artifact B@U
Some special info about the artifact
vs. a table like this:
Artifacts
My cool artifact
[bold, activatable, monster's] Some special info about the artifact
...The downsides are:
  • additional typing involved
  • greater possibility of users introducing variation in things like capitalization, formatting, etc.
The upsides are:
  • simpler source text formatting (one fewer || per line)
  • you don't need a key to translate the type flags
  • you can use the browser's Find In Page functionality to search for artifacts with those flags. (There's no way to search for a "U" in the type column without it matching every letter U on the page.)
-- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Are body parts really artifacts?

The list currently has a number of entries like [[Eye of the %monster%]], [[Fur of the %monster%]], etc. By giving each a table row and wikilinked title, the implication is that each entry is an artifact worthy of an article about it.

But I would argue that these entries are less like the other artifacts than they're like the prefixes in the List of Monsters, or the abilities for Boss-monsters. There's no value in a wiki article about "Eye of the _____", and a separate article about "Fur of the _____"... any more than there would be in an article about a "Loaded _____" or an "Overhearing _____", separate from the article about the "_____" monster itself.

As such, I think the selection of monster body-part artifact prefixes should be handled the same way: in a separate table or list at the start of the article, rather than being scattered throughout the main table of artifacts itself. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Separate out the seasonal / short-term artifacts?

In addition to / concert with my previous item, the set of "limited-time" artifacts has once again grown with the arrival of this year's April Fool thing-in-itself. (Not to mention, somewhat reductively, all of the other container types it can itself contain. Not that I feel those generic containers should have individual articles of their own, under any circumstances; heck, I could easily be convinced they shouldn't be in the list.) But even ignoring those, we still have (in addition to thing-in-itself) artifacts like: 🎉3000-days gold coin🎉, 🦃Roasted turkey, The many Christmas Artifacts (Bengal light, Christmas cracker, Christmas miracle, Fireworks set, Priceless gift, Really priceless gift, Tinsel pack, Vial of holiday spirit, Xmas stocking), and the various snow-related artifacts, many of which I believe are seasonal.

I'm torn between two desires:

  • Wanting to just list everything in alphabetical order, for easiest searching/updating/reference.
  • Wanting to separate the seasonal/temporary ones out, so they can be documented differently. Possibly adding a column detailing when each appears, instead of relegating it to the Notes field. Or just having an area where more involved explanations are expected, so that for example the thing-in-itself entry could also include a list of the different containers that might be found inside, or a discussion of its godpower progression (or, regression).

Being split on this even just among myself isn't great, since those two goals work opposite each other. (Although they don't have to, I suppose. For instance, the main table could contain short entries, with anchor-links down to the table of additional data. I just thought of that so I'm not sure what I think of it yet.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course, only now I discover that the thing-in-itself was added way back in October 2017... is this not the first time we've seen the recursive-artifact effect? Or is the item a year-round one that just received temporary special powers? (I notice it wasn't originally listed as activatable.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, both possibility have their pros and cons and we could probably talk about it for years. Having one list allow easier referencing as you said, while an apart seasonal list help notify them as seasonal.
Personnaly, I'd go with the second one for two reasons : firstly seasonal artifact are not there all the time; secondly: it helps searching for those special artifact when the event is on, and last but not least, it will display the fact there is special events. --WardPhoenix (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
That's three, three reasons! (I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition!)
Kidding aside, yeah I'm sort of leaning that way myself. It'll allow us to document the special things so much better.
The main argument I can see for not separating the list — to keep everything in alphabetical order for both completionists and crossword-solvers — I suspect wouldn't be an issue really. Not unless seasonal items show up in the crossword even when they're not currently in season. I could be wrong, but it would surprise me if that occurred very frequently, or at all. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

A letter for normal artifacts?

I have been wondering for a while... should we put a letter for all normal artifacts (probably an original letter N)? My point of view would be to distinguish normal artifacts from artifacts that aren't labeled.

Alternatively, we could turn the idea upside-down and add a ? to artifact we are unsure which type they are, but don't know if that's a better idea to be honest. Thoughts? Edit:Bump--WardPhoenix (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Heh, sorry, I have actually been thinking about this!
Personally, I'm not sure that we need to explicitly indicate that an artifact is non-bold, non-activatable, and non-healing (what I would understand to be a "normal" artifact, if I understand you right). The overwhelming majority of the game's artifacts are this kind. It might just be me, but I would feel like an empty type column is functionally identical to an explicit "normal" type and makes for a cleaner, clearer, easier to read table, n'est pas...?
That said, it has always bothered me that, when fishing was introduced and the first non-bold activatables appeared in the game, we never started to differentiate between bold and non-bold activatables. So, in the specific case of activatables, I'd support distinguishing between bold and non-bold, be that by use of @B vs @n or similar, or some other method.
I do see some appeal to the marking of all unconfirmed artifacts with a ? until they are confirmed; this also scratches my itch to confirm the continued existence of many of these artifacts, as it is so hard to be sure sometimes when the list time an item was actually confirmed seen in the game. So, I think adding the ? to any artifact which doesn't have an article with a confirmed artifact type listed, and adding the ? to the artifact type table with an explanation makes some sense. -- Djonni (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
So if I resume your idea, we would add a ? to all non-articled artifact who are not categorized, and basically remove the ? everytime we checked this is a normal (or anything else artifact). I do think, as you do, that the empty column makes it easier and cleaner for the table but since sometimes artifacts are not categorized (because pulled out of the damned omnibus list) I found it confusing when comparing inventory and list : "have the artifact changed category, does both exist or wasn't the list correctly updated?".
Your idea is probably a good alternative, we could pull it on the list, though it will be a long term things to confirm back normal artifact and we might lose trace of what was confirmed (hence my original idea of putting a letter instead, but breaking table lisibility.)
As for the activatable artifact case, that's something I agree on 100% --WardPhoenix (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)