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

Page generator

Will get to here too... Have additions, know that there were uniques... Will make a page generator for here too (I thought I had that done, may have overwritten it :S).

  • Also note that you aren't parsing UNICODE correctly: "“Avoiding Dummies for Dummies” book" should be "“Avoiding Dummies for Dummies” book". I saw some changes that had been manually done to " or ', though may have been original.
  • Also note that you removed the legend key and the anchors.

Felai (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2013 (GMT)

Spurious hyphen

Fixed.png Fixed

I restored the Artifact Types legend-table to this page, from an old 2013 revision before it was lost to the mists of time. In the process, I added section headings and did a little formatting cleanup.

Observant readers will notice a spurious hyphen between the Artifacts heading and the table below it. That hyphen has actually been occurring on the page for some time, although the section heading certainly serves to shine a big spotlight on it.

It must be coming from somewhere in the wikitable code below, though for the life of me I can't figure out where. Anyone who manages to spot the source of said hyphen and kill it wins bragging rights for a good week or two. (Some restrictions apply. Offer void where lame.) – FeRDNYC (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I finally managed to whack this! I ended up making a copy of the code to a sandbox page, then splitting the table up into smaller and smaller chunks by inserting duplicated section and table headings above the existing alpha-sort headers. That allowed me to find the location of the hyphen by observing which section the hyphen stayed with.
Once I'd narrowed it down to the "S" section of the table, it was easy enough to read through that code and spot the extraneous character. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


Tick.png Done

I found a method to make our no-column-headers list tables sortable from the index row (the natural place to perform sorts), and am applying that to all of the relevant "List of..." articles. However, for lists like this one to be properly sortable the data will require extensive further changes.

The problem comes from all of the rows which begin with a special character. The default wiki sorting will sort those rows by that character, when it should't. So, for instance, "Do Disturb" sign will be sorted directly after "Crash Testing for Dummies" book at the very beginning of the table, in an ascending sort, because by default the wiki sorts in ASCII order and the first three printable characters in ASCII are SPACE, !, and ".

Confusingly, by contrast, entries that use "smart quotes" ( and ) will sort to the bottom, because is a high-order symbol in the character table. It's not actually part of the ASCII character set at all, rather (for our purposes) it's Unicode glyph U+201C.

This can be fixed, by adding a data-sort-value="" parameter to each row that needs its sort order adjusted. That parameter would be set to the cell data as it should be interpreted for sorting, with any special characters removed. So, for instance, the wikitext for the "Do Disturb" sign row currently reads:

| [["Do Disturb" sign]]   ||   ||  

To sort properly, it would be changed to:

| data-sort-value="Do Disturb sign" | [["Do Disturb" sign]]   ||   ||  

This must be done individually for every row starting with ", ', , and the like. I will try to work through the list tables making these changes as I'm able to find time, but assistance is welcome and appreciated. Even if you only do a few entries, or one entry, it helps make the data more sortable. There's no real downside to a half-fixed table, it just means we're halfway to having proper sorting. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have now done this for (hopefully) all necessary entries up through the "M" section. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
UPDATE 2: This is now completed for all entries, and nothing is sorting out-of-order. (Also, of no particular relevance, because of the way sort keys are handled for Special section entries the sort key for ends up being data-sort-value="ZZSpecial snowflake", which I find amusing.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

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)
  • 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)
  • "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:
My cool artifact B@U
Some special info about the artifact
vs. a table like this:
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)