Titan Network

More Titan Projects => ParagonWiki => Formatting and Standardization => Topic started by: Sekoia on April 01, 2012, 04:21:38 PM

Title: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 01, 2012, 04:21:38 PM
Consider this article: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Absolute_Amazement:_Chance_for_ToHit_Debuff

This article is actually for two distinct items: a recipe and an enhancement. The article starts by saying "This is an enhancement..." and proceeds to display several info boxes that reference it as an enhancement. Then we get a series of info boxes that reference it as a recipe instead. Then we get to "Effects" where it is once again an enhancement. Then we get to "Recipe" where it is once again a recipe. The final paragraph of the article is: "This recipe is considered level 50 for crafting purposes. The requirements for crafting this enhancement are: ...".

The article does not make a clear distinction between recipe and enhancement. I would imagine that this would be very confusing for a very new player trying to get a grasp on things.

New players aside, I think the combination approach to these kinds of articles is starting to break. We now have Archetype Enhancements (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Archetype_Enhancements) which are only enhancements. They do not have recipes, and thus break the above mold. This means they won't work with all of our templates and DPL queries, which are built towards the Invention System exclusively.

It's worth noting that ATE's are not the only item that break the mold. There are also Store-Bought Enhancements (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Store-Bought_Enhancements), whose article presently links to the Invention System articles as if they were the same thing--but they're not. SBE's have no recipes. They are also attuned and account bound. An SBE is quite distinct from its corresponding IO enhancement.

And while it's easy to overlook them in this context, there are also Training Origin, Dual-Origin, and Single-Origin Enhancements. There are Special Enhancements: Hamidon Origin, Crystal Titan Origin, and Hydra Origin Enhancements. And we mustn't forget the Going Rogue Pre-Order (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Pre-Order_(Going_Rogue)) enhancements or the enhancements sold by Mr. Yin (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Mr._Yin). None of these kinds of enhancements have their own articles presently.

So at this point, I think we need to think about how these articles should be structured. We may even need to start from scratch and then go try to make what we have fit an entirely new mold.

Before getting into how such articles should be laid out, I think we should resolve a larger question first regarding the IO articles: do we split them or do we keep them merged?

Option one is to split the merged IO articles apart. If we go this route, I propose we add two new namespaces: "Recipe:" and "Enhancement:". For IO articles, it would be trivially easy to link between the two. If necessary, we could also transclude summary info from each into the other. We would then rework our templating system to disentangle the recipe stuff from the enhancement stuff, which are presently somewhat tangled together. It's worth noting that while we have enhancements that do not have recipes (the point of this thread), we also have recipes that do not have enhancements such as costume pieces and respecs; distinct namespaces would better reflect that separation.

Option two is to keep the IO articles merged. However, within the articles, we should make two distinct sub-articles: "Enhancement" and "Recipe". Even if the two are highly related, they are in fact two completely distinct items and they warrant distinct sub-articles. This would allow us to accomplish many of the same goals as the first option; the only difference being that the distinct articles would live in the same page.

(I can't think of any other options other than "merge" and "split", if you can, please share!)

Some additional considerations to keep in mind with respect to the above:

Categorization. Merged articles get categorized as both recipe and enhancement. Split articles obviously only get categorized for their own topic.

Store-Bought Enhancements. I believe these items are all named identically to the corresponding IO enhancements. If we have separate articles for recipe and enhancement, then do we also have separate articles for the IO and SBE versions of the enhancement? Or do we have a single merged enhancement article? For a merged article the answer is more obvious, but we'd need to decide whether the article gets three main sub-articles ("Recipe", "IO Enhancement", "SBE") or two main sub-articles ("Recipe" and "Enhancement", with the later covering the differences in a less distinct manner).

Enhancements other than IO, ATE, and SBE. Do we want to consider giving them articles? If we do, does that influence whether we want separate namespaces or not?

Migration. Whether we migrate to distinct articles in separate namespaces or to a different format for the merged articles, it is likely I can throw my bot at the problem to minimize manual work required to migrate. So by-and-large, this shouldn't be much of a consideration.

Redundancy. We want to avoid having the same information manually maintained in multiple spots. However, even if we have multiple articles, we should be able to easily set up templates to transclude details from single sources. So by-and-large, this also shouldn't be much of a consideration.

Okay, I'll stop rambling here so people can express opinions. :)
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: GuyPerfect on April 01, 2012, 06:23:54 PM
Many IOs nowadays have store-bought counterparts, which are very similar in most regards, but are nonetheless distinct and qualify as a third version of a given item, after the recipe and the IO itself. To keep it tidy, we really should have three different articles, then a fourth that connects them all. Something like this:
That fourth one there would tie the other three together. And the other three themselves would at least link to each other in the See Also section.

Alternately, we could use Recipe: and Enhancement: namespaces to keep them a bit cleaner, but then there's the fact that the store-bought and crafted versions are Enhancements with the same name and would still need parenthetical titles. What would we do, introduce a Purchased: namespace? What of all the other Enhancements, then? We would need namespaces for those to be consistent, right?

I think instead of namespaces, it might be better to use sub-pages. Consider the following:
The items I've put bold there are special-case and are right off the top level. They really can't be categorized any further, so they get to hang out in front. The master pages for set Enhancements would be there, which in turn transclude certain content from the Invention, Purchased and Recipes articles.

And why stop there?
Some of this could conceivably be categorized further, like Inspirations/Small/ or Salvage/Incarnate/Rare/. If we're gonna do this right, I really think it would be worthwhile to apply it to all inventory/collectible elements in the game.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 01, 2012, 07:32:53 PM
Another factor to consider in this that I can't believe I didn't think of sooner (pretend I put this up in my earlier post):

Enhancement sets. In addition to having articles for the recipes/enhancements, we also have separate articles for the sets. Depending on how we re-organize things, we may also have to update the set articles as well.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 02, 2012, 01:41:16 PM
I haven't fully processed everything above, as in I am getting close to sleep time and may not have fully incorporated all the angles, but the idea of additional Namespaces (with a few article types involving parentheticals) seems to be preferable to what seems to be a rather complex "directory" structure of nested sub-pages whose organization may not seem obvious to the end-user.

I will have to think more on this before I can really help puzzle all this out.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: taosin on April 02, 2012, 10:24:41 PM
Loving the thread.

Not much I can add apart from some thoughts:

(A) What is being described is a 'thing' (for which we have no name in general other than the name of it i.e. Mako's Bight) which could be any or all of recipe, enhancement, SBE, recipe, ATE, ... it could be could be part of a collection (set), be attuned, account bound, purchased (went's), crafted, store bought..

Some of the qualifiers in the above para are boolean, some not; and some booleans then have added fields (levels  of attunement?)

Some descriptive text in the above common (what it does!) are common.

I guess any categorization structure works if the info is in one place once, and the categorization fits the purpose.

For now prefer to focus on recipes/enhancements, and ignore Guy's other ideas (Insps, salvage) except to be aware whatever is done for recipes may later be relevant in some waysfor them (keeping the ambit focussed).

Going back to (A), and considering what little I know of templates, is it possible to have a universal template for the thing that spits out the links/pages for the things that are enabled? And/Or defines the articles transclusions we see and can add (and expect to have?) (Thinking of recent talk on Enemy Template, considering contact overview and others; noting these can spit out links, categories)

It just seems with no research a 'thing' can be described by a lot of booleans and then additional if some booleans are true - all I mean by this is that the thing can be systematised/structured strongly enough to reliably be documented. Spitting out required links which are predictable and thus able to be transcluded.

I'm not sure (and am not expert at all) that namespacing everything is the way to go. 


Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 09, 2012, 10:57:55 PM
Going back to (A), and considering what little I know of templates, is it possible to have a universal template for the thing that spits out the links/pages for the things that are enabled? And/Or defines the articles transclusions we see and can add (and expect to have?) (Thinking of recent talk on Enemy Template, considering contact overview and others; noting these can spit out links, categories)

It just seems with no research a 'thing' can be described by a lot of booleans and then additional if some booleans are true - all I mean by this is that the thing can be systematised/structured strongly enough to reliably be documented. Spitting out required links which are predictable and thus able to be transcluded.

I don't entirely follow everything you've written there. However, we can definitely do a lot with templating--and in fact, already do. It should be pretty feasible to set up a template (or set of templates) to spit everything out given the appropriate parameters/booleans.

The more a template is generalized, the more complex it tends to get. If you generalize it to include several very different kinds of assets, then you could end up with an unmanageable mess. However, that can be mitigated some with sub-templates.

So I would say that you can probably assume that we can accomplish almost anything relevant via templating, given enough time and the appropriate parameters.


Also, consider this a "bump" for further discussion. :)
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 10, 2012, 04:39:36 AM
Unfortunately, with another set of ATOs on the way... we kinda need to figure out a method so that we can at least properly document the ones we have.

I do sorta question why we don't just have a Set page that lists all the information for the recipes and then links to the seperate enhancer pages.  Do we really need seperate pages for both all recipes and all enhancers?
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 10, 2012, 11:28:22 AM
I do sorta question why we don't just have a Set page that lists all the information for the recipes and then links to the seperate enhancer pages.  Do we really need seperate pages for both all recipes and all enhancers?

Are you proposing that set pages such as Absolute Amazement (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Absolute_Amazement) include, in addition to their current content, the crafting requirements for each enhancement? And that then the individual articles such as Absolute Amazement: Chance for ToHit Debuff (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Absolute_Amazement:_Chance_for_ToHit_Debuff) contain only the information specific to the enhancement?

One critical problem with that idea is that it'll make DPL queries even messier if not impossible. For example, all of the salvage articles such as Alchemical Silver Salvage (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Alchemical_Silver_Salvage) are generated using DPL queries that require that each recipe be its own article. I think we have a number of other such kinds of DPL queries as well. So that makes the idea a non-starter. :/

If that wasn't what you meant, please clarify. :)
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 10, 2012, 11:32:13 AM
No, that's precisely what I meant.  Silly DPL ruining my plans.  I guess I don't use the Salvage Pages ever so I didnt think of it.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Aggelakis on April 10, 2012, 08:47:31 PM
In my ideal world:

Recipe:Achilles' Heel: Defense Debuff
Enhancement:Achilles' Heel: Defense Debuff
Achilles' Heel [[for the set page, in the main namespace]]

**ALTERNATELY**

Achilles' Heel [[set page]]
Achilles' Heel: Defense Debuff [[enhancement page]]
Achilles' Heel: Defense Debuff (Recipe) [[recipe page, obviously!]]

With either setup, the recipe page would include salvage, crafting cost, etc, and ways to buy/obtain the *recipe*. The recipes would link to their crafted enhancements, and an overview line ("This recipe is part of the [[Achilles' Heel]] [[Category:Sets for improving Defense Debuff|Defense Debuff]] set.") would link to the set page in main namespace.

The enhancement page would include enhancement values and ways to buy/obtain the *ready-to-slot enhancement* (note some items may only have one way to buy or obtain the item). The enhancement page would link to the recipes (if they exist) and a similar overview line would be used as in the recipe page to link to the set page.

The set page would function almost exactly the same as it would now, except linking to both the recipe and enhancement pages -- perhaps a table that allows a side-by-side list, or a (Recipe) link after the full-text enhancement link, e.g.
* [[Achilles' Heel: Defense Debuff]] [[Achilles' Heel: Defense Debuff (Recipe)|(Recipe)]]



In addition to the overhaul of the enhancement pages, we need to overhaul the categories as well. Most of them are referencing the Invention System, which not all of these are anymore.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 11, 2012, 01:21:00 AM
Totally agreed with that system, and preference here to the first naming convention without parentheticals.  And yeah, some pretty major re-templating and re-categroizing would need to go with that.  I mean, pretty much every template call uses 'IO' in it somewhere.  Even the shortcuts to display the Proc and Global images.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 11, 2012, 01:24:25 AM
Agge, how would you handle SBE versus IO in your proposed scheme?
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Aggelakis on April 11, 2012, 01:31:24 AM
The enhancement values are all exactly the same, so that doesn't need changed. The procs are different between crafted and SBE, so you can have a subsection for each.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 11, 2012, 01:37:19 AM
Agge, how would you handle SBE versus IO in your proposed scheme?
Personally, I would go with a subsection on the Enhancement page since the majority of info is the same, except for proc rate.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 11, 2012, 03:32:12 AM
SBEs also scale to your level, whereas IOs do not.

At the moment, enhancements with the same name have the same general values, so subsections could work. Should we consider planning for the possibility of that changing? Is there any reason to suspect they might introduce something that would warrant having separate articles?
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Aggelakis on April 11, 2012, 03:40:53 AM
If they introduce something worth separating the articles, it can be its own article since it wouldn't match up with any of the data on the enhancement page.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 11, 2012, 08:05:34 AM
So with that seeming to be in a state of 'consensus,' any thought on how the actual formatting of a page should change so that a standard can be applied?

Does that about sum it up?  Oh no... not quite... *Categories*
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 11, 2012, 08:36:20 AM
So with that seeming to be in a state of 'consensus,

I don't know that it's fair quite yet to say we have a consensus, but we appear to be heading that way.

I think it's safe to keep the SBE and IO together in a single article. If anyone disagrees with that specific sentiment, please say so and why.

Focusing solely on Sets, Recipes, and Enhancements, these seem to be the viable options on the table:

Option 1: Separate Namespaces
Set: Achilles' Heel   (main namespace)
Recipe: Recipe:Achilles' Heel: Defense Debuff   (new Recipe namespace)
Enhancement: Enhancement:Achilles' Heel: Defense Debuff   (new Enhancement namespace)

Option 2: Dual Parenthetical
Set: Achilles' Heel   (main namespace)
Recipe: Achilles' Heel: Defense Debuff (Recipe)   (main namespace)
Enhancement: Achilles' Heel: Defense Debuff (Enhancement)   (main namespace)

Option 2a: Dual Parenthetical with Disambig
Like Option 2, but adding a disambig page at: Achilles' Heel: Defense Debuff

Option 3: Parenthetical for Enhancement
Set: Achilles' Heel   (main namespace)
Recipe: Achilles' Heel: Defense Debuff   (main namespace)
Enhancement: Achilles' Heel: Defense Debuff (Enhancement)   (main namespace)

Option 4: Parenthetical for Recipe
Set: Achilles' Heel   (main namespace)
Recipe: Achilles' Heel: Defense Debuff (Recipe)   (main namespace)
Enhancement: Achilles' Heel: Defense Debuff   (main namespace)

Option 5: Subpages
Set: (I don't know?)
Recipe: Recipes/Achilles' Heel: Defense Debuff   (main namespace)
Enhancement: Enhancements/Achilles' Heel: Defense Debuff   (main namespace)



Agge, Thirty7, and myself are all apparently in favor of Option 1: Separate Namespaces. So far that seems to be the developing consensus. If anyone wants to argue in favor of any of the other above options, now is the time.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 11, 2012, 08:43:07 AM
  • And all Enhancement pages need to be made to keep in mind Enhancements like ATOs that don't come from recipes.
  • And of course an extra section will need to be added to each Enhancement that has an SBE version discussing PPMs and Attunement (both of which will prolly require some new formatting templates)

These two points actually underscore a slight shift in thinking we need to make. The points assume that enhancements are IOs, except for a few exceptions. We need to think about enhancements first and foremost as enhancements, and only think about where they came from secondarily.

Most of what we have to say about any given enhancement is pretty independent of how it came into existence. For example, most enhancements enhance an aspect of a power by a given percentage. That particular mechanic works whether it's an SO, IO, Hami-O, AE, or any other kind of enhancement you want to toss into the alphabet soup. Many enhancements also work in sets and give set bonuses; where that mechanic is present, it applies regardless of origin. Many enhancements have a proc effect; that, too, appears to work regardless of origin. (The Going Rogue enhancements have a proc effect, and they aren't IO or AE for instance.)

So really we need to decouple "source" and "effects" as much as possible.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 11, 2012, 08:46:09 AM
I spooooose I did jump the gun a bit.

But yes, Option 1 has my vote.  One thing though... with this movement to more namespaces, can we justify not making a Salvage namespace?  Also... are we in favor of making articles for TOs, DOs, etc., etc.?
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 11, 2012, 08:56:12 AM
One thing though... with this movement to more namespaces, can we justify not making a Salvage namespace?

All salvage items are currently named "ITEM NAME Salvage". None of the items in-game are named "blah blah Salvage". So we're already tweaking the item names to give them a more identifiable pattern.

If we use namespaces for Recipes and Enhancements, then I'm in favor of using namespaces for Salvage as well.

Otherwise, we should probably either rename all of them from "ITEM NAME Salvage" to "ITEM NAME" -or- to "ITEM NAME (Salvage)".

And then that also raises the question... should we do the same with Badges? There is a badge "Apex". There is not a badge "Apex Badge". It should be "Apex (Badge)". Or it could be "Badge:Apex".

Yes, this could be a slippery slope we're starting to slide down, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't slide down it.

Also... are we in favor of making articles for TOs, DOs, etc., etc.?

Personally, I am in favor of doing so. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 11, 2012, 09:49:03 AM
Definitely a slippery slope... we will have to see just how far we slide down it.

I am beginning work on a prototype page: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Thirty7/Sandbox/Hecatomb (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Thirty7/Sandbox/Hecatomb)  feel free to do whatever to it.  At the moment, i am avoiding all templates I can to avoid categories an any IO baggage.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 11, 2012, 10:00:05 AM
So. Many. Wrinkles!!!!!

Also, ther is no article on just "Crafting" so far as i can tell... or if there is, that search doesn't redirect there.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Codewalker on April 11, 2012, 11:43:14 AM
Well, is there a disadvantage to namespacing? Patterns like X Salvage and X Badge are effectively a poor man's namespace as it is - is there any benefit to not formalizing it?
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: eabrace on April 11, 2012, 12:43:23 PM
So. Many. Wrinkles!!!!!
Oh yes.

Side note:  Please do not consider my silence in this thread up to this point as a lack of caring or dismissal of the matter at hand.  I think that you guys are handling the discussion just fine and I don't have anything constructive to really add at the moment.  (That and I'm not sure how much time I'll personally be able to commit to helping reorganize right now, so I'm leaving to the people that I think are probably going to be leading the charge to make the changes.)
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 11, 2012, 12:43:46 PM
Well, is there a disadvantage to namespacing? Patterns like X Salvage and X Badge are effectively a poor man's namespace as it is - is there any benefit to not formalizing it?
I don't think there is a disadvantage per se in terms of functionality... but there is in terms of workload.  Also, where does it stop?  Do we need an Inspiration namespace if we ever make seperate articles for them like had (sorta) already been started?  Do we need a "Pet:" namespace?

(No I don't think we need either of those ridiculous examples... However, future game changes could well necessitate such things.)
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Aggelakis on April 11, 2012, 07:14:57 PM
Set page: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Aggelakis/Hecatomb (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Aggelakis/Hecatomb)
Recipe page: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Aggelakis/Recipe:Hecatomb: Damage  (Superior) (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Aggelakis/Recipe:Hecatomb: Damage  (Superior))
Enhancement Page: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Aggelakis/Enhancement:Hecatomb: Damage (Superior) (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Aggelakis/Enhancement:Hecatomb: Damage (Superior))

My suggestions.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: eabrace on April 11, 2012, 07:47:59 PM
The only real thought I had looking at those examples was this:

* The set page links the recipe and the enhancement.
* The recipe and enhancement pages link the set page.
* The recipe and enhancement pages do not, however, link one another.  Is this due to oversight or intent?
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 11, 2012, 08:43:31 PM
Well, is there a disadvantage to namespacing? Patterns like X Salvage and X Badge are effectively a poor man's namespace as it is - is there any benefit to not formalizing it?

There are only two mild disadvantages:

1. For searching, you'd have to search for "Salvage:X" instead of "X Salvage" to jump to the article directly, which is less intuitive. However, we already redirect from "X" to "X Salvage" anyway. I'd be fine with putting in redirects from "X" to "Salvage:X". (Though that does beg the question, for recipes and enhancements: Do we want "X" to be a disambiguation to "Recipe:X" and "Enhancement:X"?)

Aside: searching will still hit these namespaces (since I'll configure it to do so). I'm only talking about the behavior where you type an exact article name in and hit go above. Even without the redirects, such a search will still show the page you're looking at the top of the results.

Aside benefit: you can configure the search to exclude namespaces or focus on specific namespaces, so it may actually improve advanced searching abilities. There is no way to accomplish that outside of using namespaces.

2. For linking, it's fine to use [[X Salvage]], but it'd be awkward to use [[Salvage:X]]. However, this is actually an improvement. [[Salvage:X|]] automatically turns into [[Salvage:X|Salvage]] when you save it due to special piping magic. (Similarly, [[X (Salvage)|]] also would turn into [[X (Salvage)|X]].) So really, we'd be gaining a benefit in this area even if it doesn't look that way at first.

(That and I'm not sure how much time I'll personally be able to commit to helping reorganize right now, so I'm leaving to the people that I think are probably going to be leading the charge to make the changes.)

I'd prefer feedback from people even if they haven't the slightest intent in contributing to making the changes happen. If you use Paragon Wiki? Your opinion counts. So please, if you do end up having feedback, give it.

* The recipe and enhancement pages do not, however, link one another.  Is this due to oversight or intent?

They do, but the links aren't obvious. Look at the words "enhancement" and "recipe".
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: eabrace on April 11, 2012, 08:49:27 PM
They do, but the links aren't obvious. Look at the words "enhancement" and "recipe".
Aha.  So they do.

I'll blame "only had a few seconds to look the pages over". :)
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Aggelakis on April 12, 2012, 04:34:15 AM
* The recipe and enhancement pages do not, however, link one another.  Is this due to oversight or intent?
My examples link each other.

Recipe: Crafting this recipe creates the [enhancement] of the same name.
Enhancement: This enhancement can be obtained by crafting the [recipe] or it can be purchased on the Consignment House.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Aggelakis on April 12, 2012, 08:33:43 AM
Added an example of an IO/SBE combo page:

Set: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Aggelakis/Performance_Shifter
Recipe: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Aggelakis/Recipe:Performance Shifter: Chance for +Endurance (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Aggelakis/Recipe:Performance Shifter: Chance for +Endurance)
Enhancement: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Aggelakis/Enhancement:Performance Shifter: Chance for +Endurance (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Aggelakis/Enhancement:Performance Shifter: Chance for +Endurance)

Also, I cleared up the enhancement/recipe confusion on the set page by using small indicator icons instead of a bulleted list with parenthesized recipes. I'm not sure I like the ndash separator between the two (especially in combination with the unique/proc/global flags) but I couldn't think of anything better. I REALLY don't like the table format from Thirty7's sandbox.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 12, 2012, 03:14:04 PM
Honestly, I didn't like the table much either, but couldn't think of a way to make it obvious.  I wonder if a bullet would be better than the En Dash?
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 12, 2012, 08:36:39 PM
I have stolen Agge's formatting, deleted my prior attempts, and tweaked a few things in terms of order... some wording changes... some images movements, etc:

http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Thirty7/Sandbox/Performance_Shifter
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 13, 2012, 12:14:16 AM
I personally see absolutely no reason why we need to include recipe links on the Enhancement Set page. The page is about the set of enhancements. It's about the properties of those enhancements as a set. None of that information applies to the recipes themselves. How you obtain the individual pieces are something I feel is better left to the enhancement articles. Especially since the recipe isn't the only way to get a lot of them, and not all sets even have recipes.

For parity, if recipe links are included, then something also needs to be included that references the fact that they're also available on the market. Of course, that would just make an even uglier mess out of it.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 13, 2012, 12:20:40 AM
While I can see your point about not including the recipe links... If you go in-game and hover over a recipe, does it not display the Set Bonuses?  I really think that the purpose of the Set Page is as a central nexus for everything about that set, recipes included.  It is a jumping off point.

As for including a note about how to obtain it on the Set Page?  To me, that is what the Enhancement and Recipe pages are for... telling you how to make/get them and what they do.  The Set Page as I see it is a collection of the pieces, links to the information, and a description of set bonuses.  Nothing more.


Also, I wanted to note that I like the recent tweaks Agge did based on a few things that I included in my tweaks of her originals.  Hehe.  I love that sentence.  Do note, Agge, that I left a comment on one of your UserPages about something I thought of regarding the "how to purchase" information.  I wondered if instead of having the type of currency listed as the primary area, instead to have the Vendor by the main part, and list the currency used in the description.  As in here: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User_talk:Aggelakis/Enhancement:Performance_Shifter:_Chance_for_%2BEndurance
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 13, 2012, 12:27:44 AM
While I can see your point about not including the recipe links... If you go in-game and hover over a recipe, does it not display the Set Bonuses?

If you hover over the recipe, it gives you the enhancement's information. Looking at a random recipe I have in my current character's possession, it starts with "Enhances the accuracy of a power...". The recipe doesn't enhance the power, the enhancement does. None of the enhancement's information belongs on the recipe page. None of the recipe-specific information belongs on the enhancement or the set pages.

I really think that the purpose of the Set Page is as a central nexus for everything about that set, recipes included.  It is a jumping off point.

So it's two hops to get to the recipe from the set page instead of one jump. I don't see that as a problem. Not everything has to link directly to everything else that's somewhat related.

As for including a note about how to obtain it on the Set Page?  To me, that is what the Enhancement and Recipe pages are for... telling you how to make/get them and what they do.  The Set Page as I see it is a collection of the pieces, links to the information, and a description of set bonuses.  Nothing more.

If you don't think we should include a note on how to obtain the enhancement on the set page, then the recipe link doesn't belong there. Because the recipe link is telling you how to obtain it. Not including the market information alongside it means you're implying that the recipe is the only way to get the enhancement.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 13, 2012, 12:34:24 AM
Not including the market information alongside it means you're implying that the recipe is the only way to get the enhancement.
I don't see that at all.  I really don't.  I see it as they both have the same name, and are related.

However, the more you force me to justify my position... the more I begin to realize that I think you might be right.  After all, there will soon be 24 (2 sets of ATOs and 12 AT sets each) set pages that have 0 information about recipes... because there AREN'T recipes for those sets.  *Ponders*
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 13, 2012, 03:20:58 AM
When I look at it, one of the things I try to keep in mind is "How would this look to someone who's brand new to the game?". While it might not mislead you or me, it may very easily mislead someone who isn't already familiar with City's complexities (which get more and more complex every issue it seems).
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Aggelakis on April 13, 2012, 03:44:19 AM
...the recipes are part of the set. Why would they not be listed on the set overview page? They are directly linked to the set name.

The purchasable enhancements are linked...they're the enhancement link. The enhancement pages list every possible way to get them, including the Paragon Market if applicable.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 13, 2012, 03:51:14 AM
...the recipes are part of the set.

I disagree. The recipes are used to craft enhancements. The enhancements are part of a set. There's nothing about the recipes that suggests "set" except for the name -- and the name only suggests that because they're named after the enhancements, which are in the set.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 13, 2012, 08:12:00 AM
I went ahead and added namespaces for "Recipe:" and "Enhancement:" (and their corresponding talk namespaces). Both of them are searched by default, like "Mission:". So, once we're ready to use them, assuming consensus doesn't shift away from them, they're ready.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 14, 2012, 09:09:57 AM
So here's something interesting.

In the interface to purchase recipes with Hero Merits interface, I see this listed as something I can buy:
Luck of the Gambler: Defense/Increased Recharge Speed (Recipe)

Hovering, that item has this name:
Luck of the Gambler: Defense/Increased Global Recharge Speed

When I buy it, I receive this message in my chat:
You received Luck of the Gambler: +7.5% Recharge Speed (Recipe).

When I look in my Recipes window, I see this listed:
Luck of the Gambler: +7.5% Recharge Speed (Recipe)

When I hover over it, I see this again:
Luck of the Gambler: Defense/Increased Global Recharge Speed

I go to the auction house and drop it in the auction house inventory and it shows up as:
Luck of the Gambler: +7.5% Recharge Speed (Recipe)

I click find, and it shows up the same:
Luck of the Gambler: +7.5% Recharge Speed (Recipe)

I hover over either of the two entries in the market and see:
Luck of the Gambler: Defense/Increased Global Recharge Speed

Okay, I decide to craft the sucker. The crafting interface displays it as:
Luck of the Gambler: +7.5% Recharge Speed (Recipe)

I craft the sucker and out pops an enhancement. Hovering over it shows:
Luck of the Gambler: Defense/Increased Global Recharge Speed

I drop it in the auction house. I click find. I hover over both spots. They all agree:
Luck of the Gambler: Defense/Increased Global Recharge Speed

I go to the market and look it up there. The textual description describes the enhancement as:
Luck of the Gambler: +Defense/+Increased Global Recharge Speed

I'm not inclined to buy one, so I can't say what kind of name it pops out with if you do. I'm inclined to guess that the unique text in the description above is completely unrelated to what the enhancement itself would say.

When I hover over the enhancement (or anything else that gives similar info) and look at the list of the pieces in the set, it shows up as:
Luck of the Gambler: Defense/Increased Global Recharge Speed

I visit Paragon Wiki and look the item up. It's listed as:
Luck of the Gambler: Defense/Increased Recharge Speed (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Luck_of_the_Gambler:_Defense/Increased_Recharge_Speed)


Summarizing some observations...

The enhancement is consistently called:
Luck of the Gambler: Defense/Increased Global Recharge Speed

The recipe does not have a consistent name. It is called:
Luck of the Gambler: +7.5% Recharge Speed (Recipe)
Luck of the Gambler: Defense/Increased Recharge Speed (Recipe)

The text you see when you hover over a recipe is not the text for the recipe itself. Instead, it's the text for the enhancement the recipe creates.

I did some further searching. Every IO recipe I looked at had a distinct name from its corresponding enhancement. For example, "Invention: Accuracy (Recipe)" for "Invention: Accuracy". Or "Cloud Senses: To Hit Debuff/End/Rech (Recipe)" for "Cloud Senses: To Hit Debuff/Endurance/Recharge". Two observations:
- IO recipes always have a "(Recipe)" suffix.
- Even if you drop "(Recipe)", the names are often different.

Non-IO recipes do not have the "(Recipe)" suffix. As examples, "Costume Piece: Bat wings", "Respec Recipe", and "Temporary Power: Backup Radio".


I think this makes it very clear that we should have always had two articles, since a given pair of enhancement and recipe aren't even actually named the same. This also suggests that it's probably a good idea on the set page to given them separate listings, as I did on my sample set page (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Sekoia/Sandbox/Performance_Shifter).

It also means we can't automatically link between the Recipe and Enhancement with template magic since the two often will have different names. It also means we can't fully automate the process of creating all these articles. Most of our IO articles are named for the enhancement, but we clearly have a few errors (such as the LoTG above, which doesn't perfectly match any of the names I found in game). But even ignoring those errors, we have no way to automate determining what the recipe names are because they just aren't on the wiki. At all.

We also need to decide, which recipe name is right? It seems like the merit vendors use a different naming scheme than everything else for them. I'm inclined to go with the names we find in the auction house.

This may be cause to re-assess whether we still want to split these out into separate namespaces. It looks like the recipes and enhancements have distinct names. The costume pieces and their recipes have distinct names ("Bat wings" versus "Costume Piece: Bat wings"). The temp powers and their recipes have distinct names ("Backup Radio" versus "Temporary Power: Backup Radio"). Are there any instances where naming isn't distincts? If we have separate namespaces, our recipes will have names like this: "Recipe:Luck of the Gambler: Defense/Increased Recharge Speed (Recipe)".
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 16, 2012, 08:55:48 PM
A bit of a bump. Reviewing the options, which do people now prefer? I added a new option, Option 6, for keeping them in the main namespace. I dropped 2a as disambiguation doesn't apply any longer.

Note that some of the options (2 and 4) have double parentheticals, which is very awkward; I think this may be the first time where we've encountered something significant that incorporates a trailing parenthetical in its actual name. However, if we don't double the parenthetical, then it's unclear whether the parenthetical is part of the item's actual name or not based on article title; though that's easy enough to clarify in the article.

The former consensus was formed under the assumption that recipes and enhancements share a name. They don't, so that undermines the consensus.

My personal preference is still towards sticking with Option 1 (Separate Namespaces), as namespaces have some intrinsic advantages and since not all recipes have the trailing "(Recipe)" (such as costumes and temp powers). Plus we have no guarantee that there aren't won't in the future be any name conflicts between enhancements and recipes.

Option 1: Separate Namespaces
Set: Luck of the Gambler   (main namespace)
Recipe: Recipe:Luck of the Gambler: +7.5% Recharge Speed (Recipe)   (new Recipe namespace)
Enhancement: Enhancement:Luck of the Gambler: Increased Global Recharge Speed   (new Enhancement namespace)

Option 2: Dual Parenthetical
Set: Luck of the Gambler   (main namespace)
Recipe: Luck of the Gambler: +7.5% Recharge Speed (Recipe) (Recipe)   (main namespace)
Enhancement: Luck of the Gambler: Increased Global Recharge Speed (Enhancement)   (main namespace)

Option 3: Parenthetical for Enhancement
Set: Luck of the Gambler   (main namespace)
Recipe: Luck of the Gambler: +7.5% Recharge Speed (Recipe)   (main namespace)
Enhancement: Luck of the Gambler: Increased Global Recharge Speed (Enhancement)   (main namespace)

Option 4: Parenthetical for Recipe
Set: Luck of the Gambler   (main namespace)
Recipe: Luck of the Gambler: +7.5% Recharge Speed (Recipe) (Recipe)   (main namespace)
Enhancement: Luck of the Gambler: Increased Global Recharge Speed   (main namespace)

Option 5: Subpages
Set: (I don't know?)
Recipe: Recipes/Luck of the Gambler: +7.5% Recharge Speed (Recipe)   (main namespace)
Enhancement: Enhancements/Luck of the Gambler: Increased Global Recharge Speed   (main namespace)

Option 6: Main Namespace, As-Is
Set: Luck of the Gambler   (main namespace)
Recipe: Luck of the Gambler: +7.5% Recharge Speed (Recipe)   (main namespace)
Enhancement: Luck of the Gambler: Increased Global Recharge Speed   (main namespace)
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Codewalker on April 16, 2012, 09:01:44 PM
How about this?

Option 7: Separate Namespaces, sans redundancy
Set: Luck of the Gambler   (main namespace)
Recipe: Recipe:Luck of the Gambler: +7.5% Recharge Speed   (new Recipe namespace)
Enhancement: Enhancement:Luck of the Gambler: Increased Global Recharge Speed   (new Enhancement namespace)

IOW, drop the parenthetical (Recipe) from articles in the Recipe namespace.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: GuyPerfect on April 16, 2012, 10:39:02 PM
Let's not forget that most sets also have purchased varieties.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 17, 2012, 12:20:13 AM
Let's not forget that most sets also have purchased varieties.

Yes, the consensus earlier was that we use a single article for both purchased and crafted. AFAIK the names are the same for both versions of the enhancement. (Please correct if wrong.)

(And the sets themselves don't have purchased versions. The set comprises any mixture of purchased and crafted enhancements, so there's only one variety of each set presently. Unless my understanding on that is wrong. I'm assuming you meant enhancement though.)


Regarding Option 7: The parenthetical "(Recipe)" is part of the item's name. Do we really want to change the name of the item when creating the article? I agree it's cleaner, but it's also wrong.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 17, 2012, 01:56:15 AM
It may be wrong, but in a way that can't possibly cause confusion.  At least I can't see how it could.  Worst case scenario we make a redirect for each page redirecting from the with (Recipe) page to the one in the Recipespace.  I am with Codewalker on this one.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: eabrace on April 17, 2012, 02:08:51 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the plan to to make the search button automatically check Main, Mission, Enhancement, and Recipe spaces?  If only one article matches the search criteria exatly, that page is returned as a result of the search by default.  What happens if two articles in two different namespaces match the search criteria exactly?

I'm leaning toward Sekioa's point about "(Recipe)" being part of the actual name of the item.  It may be part of the Recipe namespace, but the fact that the game actually shows "(Recipe)" makes me think we should keep it.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 17, 2012, 02:53:22 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the plan to to make the search button automatically check Main, Mission, Enhancement, and Recipe spaces?  If only one article matches the search criteria exatly, that page is returned as a result of the search by default.  What happens if two articles in two different namespaces match the search criteria exactly?

In order to count as an exact match, the namespace prefix must be included. So if the article name is "Recipe: Example", "Example" wouldn't bring it up -- but it'd be at the top of the results.

Probably wouldn't be hard to code up an extension to change that though, in which case, we can specify the order of precedence as we like.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 17, 2012, 03:19:35 AM
Probably wouldn't be hard to code up an extension to change that though, in which case, we can specify the order of precedence as we like.

In fact, I just tweaked the "InsensitiveGo" extension to do exactly that. If multiple namespaces have an exact match, they're prioritized in the order listed if you click on "Search" and open up the "Advanced" thing to see the list of namespaces.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 17, 2012, 04:57:40 AM
I thought we just determined that pretty much every Enhancement has a different name than its Recipe... wouldn't that make a search only turn up one result if given an exact name?
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: eabrace on April 17, 2012, 05:46:07 AM
I thought we just determined that pretty much every Enhancement has a different name than its Recipe...
There's always going to be an edge case or two somewhere.  I'm just trying to think of what could go wrong before it does go wrong.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 17, 2012, 05:49:39 AM
Good point.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Aggelakis on April 17, 2012, 06:25:14 AM
I'm still in preference of option 1.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: eabrace on April 17, 2012, 12:20:37 PM
I'm still in preference of option 1.
Given all of the options, that seems the cleanest and most accurate method for reorganizing with the least amount of potential implementation pitfalls.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 17, 2012, 12:57:47 PM
What would be the pitfalls in removing the redundant "(Recipe)" piece?  I mean, how many people really type in the entire name including the recipe parenthetical exactly?
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: eabrace on April 17, 2012, 01:39:15 PM
What would be the pitfalls in removing the redundant "(Recipe)" piece?  I mean, how many people really type in the entire name including the recipe parenthetical exactly?
1)  I would consider leaving that in place to qualify under "most accurate" rather than "pitfall avoidance" under most of the options presented.

2)  I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I would personally like to be able to specify a difference between "Invention: Accuracy" and "Invention: Accuracy (Recipe)" in the search if I'm specifically looking for the recipes for common Accuracy IOs.

3)  Removing "(Recipe)" from the name of the recipe article only really becomes a pitfall if we're leaving enhancements or recipes in the Main namespace.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 19, 2012, 04:00:18 PM
In a totally different vein, I have been thinking about the comment made, I think by Sekoia, on one of the Example pages' talk sections regarding the various IOFlags we use now and how much vertical real-estate they take up to convey very little information more than their symbols already do.  So, I got to thinking that maybe something like the top part of the below image could be used... with links from each symbol to a relevant article and Alt-text that gives a brief description of what it means.  (Of course the ProcFlag in use on the example page would be removed, I just grabbed a screenie of what I had now for the purposes of illustration of the idea.  Also also, all of the symbols are in use on a page where they don't apply... but they are all there to demonstrate how multiple different symbols would look together grouped like that.)

(https://paragonwiki.com/w/images//2/20/Example-Flags.jpg)
Obviously the symbols in this image are brand new... I have been tossing around ideas in my head to overhaul them to gain a more consistent visual look.  Somewhat similar to how I re-did the Drop Pool Icons to all have similar elements and shapes.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: GuyPerfect on April 19, 2012, 05:07:13 PM
The AO icon is composited incorrectly: the gearshift should be on top of the border...

How many of those did you upload, pray tell?

(https://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y255/bgng/Gearshift.png)
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on April 19, 2012, 05:35:30 PM
...one.

I only made one as a stand in for the Example pages we were creating.  And it doesn't appear in any actual article.  I apologize that I couldn't be bothered to make it right for a dummy article.  :P

Also, I have never purchased an SBE, so I wasn't sure on the formatting... and knew it didn't matter one iota.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: GuyPerfect on April 19, 2012, 05:51:04 PM
Since we're talking about it, I have a serious peeve with calling these "store bought" or even "purchased" Enhancements. While it's true that's the only way to get them right now, there's nothing intrinsic about the items themselves that says they have to be bought.

The term we should be using is Attuned, which is exactly the way they're differentiated from Invention in the long-text descriptions. SBE, therefore, should be a redirect to Attuned Enhancements
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on April 19, 2012, 07:16:41 PM
Thanks for point about Attuned, Guy. I'd never seen the long text description. I wonder what the best thing to be calling the IO versions is? We often use either "Invention Origin" or "Crafted", which are more analogous to "Store Bought" and "Purchased" than they are to "Attuned".

In a totally different vein, I have been thinking about the comment made, I think by Sekoia, on one of the Example pages' talk sections regarding the various IOFlags we use now and how much vertical real-estate they take up to convey very little information more than their symbols already do.  So, I got to thinking that maybe something like the top part of the below image could be used... with links from each symbol to a relevant article and Alt-text that gives a brief description of what it means.

Yep, I had made that point and had done something similar on my test page as well. I was putting the sample icons in the relevant section though instead of at the top of the page:
http://paragonwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Sekoia/Sandbox/Performance_Shifter:_Chance_for_%2BEndurance&oldid=224988

One of the things we'd potentially want to flag is "This can be bought and sold on the Market". That only applies to one of the two versions of the enhancement. There may be other things we want to have available via quick-ref icons as well that only apply to one or the other. I'm inclined to keep the icons in the individual sections where they apply. That also means if there's a ton of icon flags for an enhancement, they get split up a bit to make them less of an icon-dump.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Codewalker on April 19, 2012, 07:22:44 PM
The term we should be using is Attuned, which is exactly the way they're differentiated from Invention in the long-text descriptions. SBE, therefore, should be a redirect to Attuned Enhancements

Which also gets confusing because technically the store-bought enhancements are both Attuned and Account Bound.

Contrast with (non-superior) ATOs, which are Attuned but not bound and can be traded.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on May 09, 2012, 01:18:38 PM
So.... the forum tells me it has been more than 10 days and I might not want to post.

Have we thought about this anymore?  I would love to begin doing some formatting and Template re-creation, and such... but it doesn't seem like we are even close to that stage yet (let alone re-categorization).  Also, we prolly will need to draft the handy Sekoia-Bot or somesuch to knock out some of the work as well.

(In case you didn't know... this is a BUMP in disguise, like a sneaky little bacalao!)
Title: Re: Overwhelming Force
Post by: GuyPerfect on June 28, 2012, 06:04:48 PM
Some notes all jotted-down-like.

Enhancement Set
Official term for a group of Enhancements. Slotting multiple Enhancements from the same Set into the same Power will activate Set Bonuses.

Invention Enhancement
Official term for crafted Enhancements. These originate as Recipes, which must be Crafted with Invention Salvage (statistically; some non-Enhancement Recipes don't use any Salvage). Colloquially, these are known as "IOs".

Archetype Enhancement
Official term for Enhancements that can only be used by specific Archetypes. These exist only in Enhancement form, and can be traded between players and sold on the consignment. Colloquially, these are known as "ATOs".

Attuned Enhancement
Official term for an Enhancement that scales to your Combat Level rather than having a fixed value or shutting off when you level up too far. These also exist only in Enhancement form. Some can be traded, others cannot. There is currently no colloquial term for these. Since all Archetype Enhancements are also Attuned, ATO is sufficient for describing them. The other Attuned Enhancements are different versions of Invention Enhancements available only in the Paragon Market, and the wiki has been calling these "Store-Bought Enhancements," or SBEs.

Account Bound
Official term for an Enhancement that cannot be traded to other players, but can be sent to one's own global handle via global e-mail. The term is not reserved for Enhancements, though currently it only applies to them. I understand the devs do want to support Account Bound Salvage to let players send Enhancement Catalysts to themselves.

Overwhelming Force
A particular Attuned Enhancement Set that is acquired through special means. It is not an Archetype set, nor is it an Invention set. The phenomenon I've experienced is that the player base is for whatever reason averse to referring to this as an "Attuned" set. People have been taking to calling it a "Universal Damage Enhancement" set, or UDEs, and have begun lumping the Archetype Enhancements under the same term. This is dangerous, because there's nothing that says future Attuned or Archetype sets will be damage-based.
Title: Re: Re: Overwhelming Force
Post by: GuyPerfect on June 28, 2012, 06:36:59 PM
To rework all Enhancement articles, I would like to see the following take place:


Move how-to-get off the top of the page
Currently, the first thing you see for any Enhancement is how many Merit Vendors don't sell it (at least, I think that's the lesson I was supposed to take away from this). The first thing you should see is what the Enhancement does and at what levels you can slot it. That's currently sandwiched between how-to-get and how-to-craft, which I wouldn't say is all that helpful for the curious browser.

I would reorganize all Enhancement articles thusly:
This will accommodate other Enhancements like Single-Origin or Hamidon as well, without plugging up the page with Invention-related fluff that doesn't apply.


Ditch the notion of "special" Enhancements

All Enhancements can be classified in some form or another, and I don't think it's appropriate to just lump any under the "special" label just because we don't feel like doing anything with it.


Redo the categories
We're currently banking pretty hard on the notion that all Enhancement Sets and their Enhancements pertain to the Invention System, which is no longer true. We've got a pretty information-rich article called Invention Origin Enhancement Sets (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Invention_Origin_Enhancement_Sets) which is no longer a comprehensive list of Enhancement Sets. It should become an article titled simply "Enhancement Sets" and contain all Enhancement Sets regardless of type.

I'd rework the categories like this:
In the case of Synthetic Hamidon Enhancements, I think those should be redirects to their non-synthetic counterparts, since they are in all capacities identical except for the name. The Hamidon Enhancement articles should simply have a note that the word "Synthetic" appears if you get it through a Task Force rather than the Hamidon Trial.

In addition to the generic categories, a few specific categories may also be useful:
Title: Re: Re: Overwhelming Force
Post by: GuyPerfect on June 28, 2012, 07:05:24 PM
I've created a mockup for how I envision the new Enhancement articles looking:

Hecatomb: Chance for Negative Energy Damage (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:GuyPerfect/Hecatomb:_Chance_for_Negative_Energy_Damage)
Title: Re: Re: Overwhelming Force
Post by: Thirty-Seven on June 28, 2012, 08:11:28 PM
WOW!  Lots to read here, but the example mock-up looks really good to me.

My only suggestions would be that we alter the IOFlag-type "banners" to be all in one box and take up less space while we do it.  And of course, auto-add to non-invention related categories.

Oh, and what of the notion of the new Recipe: and Enhancement: namespaces?
Title: Re: Re: Overwhelming Force
Post by: Cannonfodder on June 28, 2012, 09:15:24 PM
I think we're also going to have to edit some of the definition articles (or things that should now be definition articles).

Take for example the widely different format/styles of:  http://wiki.cohtitan.com/wiki/Attuned, http://wiki.cohtitan.com/wiki/Account_Bound, http://wiki.cohtitan.com/wiki/Archetype_Enhancements.   The style of each article varies widely.  I think they should mostly follow the style of definition articles with the use of See Also and Examples included on each page as needed.

It seems the new article structure (GP's, which I like) would change many of these varying types of pages over to straight definitions or disambig pages (with definition being listed first/primary use?).  Some of the details from each could be worked into existing articles (something like Invention [disabig for definition, invention system, invention origin] vs. the Invention System itself [which has many of the details from the current Invention page]).

I don't think it needs to be done right away compared to the revision of the structure of enhancements as a whole (higher priority!) but I wanted to put it on the radar so we can think about it and remember to do it along with the enhancement changes.

(Boy, am I thinking in parentheses today!)  ;)
Title: Re: Re: Overwhelming Force
Post by: Sekoia on June 28, 2012, 11:21:32 PM
Oh, and what of the notion of the new Recipe: and Enhancement: namespaces?

This is something that had been agreed upon previously, so I'm strongly inclined to transition to separate Recipe and Enhancement namespaces. Especially since the Recipes generally have a moderately different name than the Enhancements. Any proposal for a modification to the system needs to mock up separate Recipe and Enhancement articles.


I would reorganize all Enhancement articles thusly:
  • "Overview" section, possibly not labeled. Contains name, icon(s) and description
  • "Effects" section, listing strength by level where applicable, as well as any other effects as plain English
  • "How to Get" section, describing how to receive the Enhancement
    • Since most Invention Enhancements also have Attuned versions that are interchangeable, both versions should be documented
    • For Invention Enhancements, list how to obtain the Recipe, then its Crafting requirements
    • For all other Enhancements, list the tasks or purchases required to obtain the Enhancement
  • "Vendors" section, describing only those Vendors (Merit, Ticket, Candy Cane) from which the Enhancement or Recipe can be obtained
  • "Sale and Trade" section, indicating whether the Enhancement can be traded or sold on the consignment, and for how much it can be sold to NPC stores

I'm supportive of the general direction you went with this. A few things:
- I'm not a huge fan of the huge banners we use for things like Proc and Unique flags, or for things like vendor purchases. Those details do not need that much screen real estate. I proposed before that we collapse these down to simple icons (like this (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Sekoia/Sandbox/Performance_Shifter:_Chance_for_%2BEndurance)). The relevant information can then also be communicated in text form, either with normal bullet points or in paragraph form. That gives something for our eyes to quickly find at a glance (which is what those banners are likely intended for) while still keeping all the information present.
- For Invention Enhancements, we should not list crafting requirements. That information belongs in the recipe article. That will also make the enhancement article much less busy.
- Vendors that sell the recipe should be noted on the Recipe's article. Vendors that sell the enhancement should be noted on the Enhancement's article in the "How to Get" section.
- "Sales and Trade" is also a method of "How to Get". The two sections should be merged.

I'd rework the categories like this:
  • Enhancements - Top-level category for all Enhancement sub-categories
  • Enhancement Sets - Top-level category for all Enhancement Set sub-categories
  • Invention Enhancements - Sub-category of Enhancements
  • Attuned Enhancements - Sub-category of Enhancements
  • Archetype Enhancements - Sub-category of Enhancements
  • Training Enhancements - Sub-category of Enhancements
  • Dual-Origin Enhancements - Sub-category of Enhancements
  • Single-Origin Enhancements - Sub-category of Enhancements
  • Hydra Enhancements - Sub-category of Enhancements
  • Crystal Titan Enhancements - Sub-category of Enhancements
  • Hamidon Enhancements - Sub-category of Enhancements
  • Going Rogue Pre-Order Enhancements - Sub-category of Enhancements
  • Invention Enhancement Sets - Sub-category of Enhancement Sets
  • Archetype Enhancement Sets - Sub-category of Enhancement Sets
  • Attuned Enhancement Sets - Sub-category of Enhancement Sets
In the case of Synthetic Hamidon Enhancements, I think those should be redirects to their non-synthetic counterparts, since they are in all capacities identical except for the name. The Hamidon Enhancement articles should simply have a note that the word "Synthetic" appears if you get it through a Task Force rather than the Hamidon Trial.

In addition to the generic categories, a few specific categories may also be useful:
  • Unique Enhancements - Sub-category of Enhancements
  • Account Bound Enhancements - Sub-category of Enhancements
  • PvP Enhancements - Sub-category of Enhancements
  • Very Rare Enhancements - Sub-category of Enhancements
  • Proc Enhancements - Sub-category of Enhancements
  • PvP Enhancement Sets - Sub-category of Enhancement Sets
  • Very Rare Enhancement Sets - Sub-category of Enhancement Sets

I'm supportive of this categorization framework.
Title: Re: Re: Overwhelming Force
Post by: GuyPerfect on June 28, 2012, 11:49:21 PM
"Sales and Trade" is also a method of "How to Get". The two sections should be merged.

No no nonononononono. Sale and Trade is how to get rid of it, not how to obtain it. All the time people are asking "Cool, so now that I have one, can I give it to other players?"
Title: Re: Re: Overwhelming Force
Post by: Sekoia on June 29, 2012, 12:15:41 AM
No no nonononononono. Sale and Trade is how to get rid of it, not how to obtain it. All the time people are asking "Cool, so now that I have one, can I give it to other players?"

They're two sides of the same coin. Sale and Trade are a method of obtaining items, as well as getting rid of them. You acquire when a Vendor sells an item to you, you get rid of when you sell to a Vendor. You acquire when someone trades an item to you via the Auction House or via the Trade interface, and you get rid of when you trade the item to someone else via those same means.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: GuyPerfect on June 29, 2012, 12:35:13 AM
Then we'll be documenting one-way vendor sales in the how-to-get section. |-:
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on June 29, 2012, 12:42:34 AM
Then we'll be documenting one-way vendor sales in the how-to-get section. |-:

You can always give the section a different name. It doesn't have to be "How to Get".

I suppose they could be split into two separate sections, but both would need to reference trade.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: eabrace on June 29, 2012, 12:55:42 AM
Maybe just "Marketing Information"?  Trading is a form of marketing, as are buying and selling.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on June 29, 2012, 01:30:43 AM
Not all recipes are obtained via purchase. Random drops, for instance, wouldn't fall under "Marketing Information", but I would include it in that section.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: GuyPerfect on June 29, 2012, 01:34:55 AM
I really want to stress that How to Get refers to the tasks or actions required to get ahold of the recipes/Enhancements. That is to say, "have someone else give it to you" is not the same thing as "earn it." You earn a Hamidon Enhancement by defeating the Hamidon. To me, that's not even in the same time zone as "pull one out of base storage."
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: eabrace on June 29, 2012, 01:37:53 AM
Well, maybe if you figure out how to pull one out of someone else's base storage...
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on June 29, 2012, 01:53:41 AM
I really want to stress that How to Get refers to the tasks or actions required to get ahold of the recipes/Enhancements. That is to say, "have someone else give it to you" is not the same thing as "earn it." You earn a Hamidon Enhancement by defeating the Hamidon. To me, that's not even in the same time zone as "pull one out of base storage."

That may be your intent, but that's not what "How to Get" means. Your intent would be better reflected by "How to Earn".

However, I think it's more useful to list the methods of acquiring an item rather than simply the methods of earning it.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: GuyPerfect on June 29, 2012, 02:01:07 AM
However, I think it's more useful to list the methods of acquiring an item rather than simply the methods of earning it.

That's precisely what I object to. (-:

There's a massive distinction between transferring inventory between players and coaxing the game into generating one for you. How to produce one is a concept in and of itself, and then once you have one, what you can do with it is a different concept.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on June 29, 2012, 03:18:30 AM
There's a massive distinction between transferring inventory between players and coaxing the game into generating one for you. How to produce one is a concept in and of itself, and then once you have one, what you can do with it is a different concept.

If I'm interested in acquiring a given enhancement, I'm not interested in differentiating between "Can I make the game generate one?" and "Can I acquire one in a way other than having the game generate on?". I'm simply interested in "How can I get it?". I'm certainly not interested in only seeing a list of "How can I make the game generate this?" to the exclusion of non-generation methods.

And you keep phrasing it as if it's a binary situation: "how to produce" and "what you can do with it". It's not binary. There's also "how to obtain without producing". It'd be absurd to exclude methods of obtaining something simply because they aren't methods of producing.

I'm not saying we have to detail each and every method by which a player can trade. Simply saying that it can be bought and sold on the Auction House and can be transferred to other players is sufficient. "Transferred to other players" encompasses anything from trading through the trade interface to plucking it out of base storage.

Really it boils down to a mere sentence or two.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Aggelakis on June 29, 2012, 04:55:48 AM
== Acquisition and Sales ==

omg I managed to put it all under one header. :)
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on June 29, 2012, 05:24:02 AM
== Acquisition and Sales ==

omg I managed to put it all under one header. :)

Hurray! Let's use that. :)
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: GuyPerfect on June 29, 2012, 06:48:16 AM
If I'm interested in acquiring a given enhancement, I'm not interested in differentiating between "Can I make the game generate one?" and "Can I acquire one in a way other than having the game generate on?". I'm simply interested in "How can I get it?".

This right here is where the article diverts from objectivity and brevity; both things that we want to maintain on the wiki. On the technical level, answering the question "how can I put one in my hands?" will, at best, produce hypothetical fluff that is not focused on just the simple facts like it should be. This is what I'm trying to avoid.

Let's try an analogy.

Long ago I was watching an episode of Bill Nye The Science Guy, but I don't remember what it was about... But! There was this old footage that looked to be from the 1950s of a city boy in a supermarket being asked some questions by a reporter. "Where does food come from?" the reporter would ask. "Well, from the supermarket," the boy replies. "And where does the supermarket get its food?" "Um... from... a bigger supermarket!" "Have you ever seen a cow?" "Well sure!.. On television."

In this Enhancement context, the conversation would look something like this: "Where do Enhancements come from?" "Well, from other players." "And where do other players get them?" "Um... from... yet more players!" "Have you ever seen a Recipe?" "Well sure!.. At Wentworth's."

It's begging the question. It's prolonging the issue. It's beating around the bush. Trading with other players is simply not an appropriate "how to get" method.

What we're looking at are attributes, not tasks. If it can be traded, that's a property. If it's account bound, that's a property. If it can be converted, that's a property. If you have to complete the trial assigned by Woodsman to get one, that's not a property.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on June 29, 2012, 07:20:26 AM
This right here is where the article diverts from objectivity and brevity; both things that we want to maintain on the wiki.

A lot of what your posted amounts to semantic fluff. If you want to call "it can be traded" a property, good for you.

The fact remains that when someone wants to know "How do I get this?", one of the things they'll want to know is "Can I get it via the AH?". When someone comes to PW looking to find out whether or not they can get it that way, they are likely to expect to find the answer in the section named "How to Get" (or "Acquisition and Sales"). For that information not to be there is poor design.

As for objective... what's not objective about stating that an item can be traded? An item is either tradable or not. Either you can get it from other players, or you can't. That's objective. None of the beating around the bush you did in your example needs to go into the article. Believe it or not, most people don't find their minds spiraling into a hypothetical maelstrom of confusion when they see "This item can be traded". :P

As for brevity... as I said, the information can be conveyed in one or, at most, two sentences. I fail to see how that diverts the article from brevity.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on June 29, 2012, 08:41:39 PM
Hurray! Let's use that. :)
Agreed... I think that sums it up nicely.

We might also want templates that can create a little "This item is tradeable/account-bound/not tradeable."  Yes, I know we want to focus on what can happen... but the fact that something isn't tradeable goes against the vast majority of items in the game...

*prepares for a long list of untradeable things... to refute my claim*
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Cannonfodder on June 29, 2012, 08:56:00 PM
I woke up with a thought about a new structure for the enhancement-type articles.  I thought of structuring the article in "chronological order".

Here's an example applied to a page:  http://wiki.cohtitan.com/wiki/User:Storyteller@fuse.net/Hecatomb:_Chance_for_Negative_Energy_Damage

I haven't laid it out yet, but an alternate structure for the page could go in reverse chronlogical order with the same headers.  This would bring the Effects section closer to the top (which is what I think is the information most often desired).

Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Aggelakis on June 29, 2012, 09:30:34 PM
There is way too much junk in your version. I'm sorry, I just don't like it at all. Additionally, you are not separating out the recipe data vs the enhancement data vs the set data, which was agreed upon earlier in the thread.

Quote
Modify a template so that it does not automatically include categories such as "Sets that improve"
I want to call this a terrible idea, but that seems rude. How else do we aggregate this data for use? An article seems silly when it's so much simpler to categorize it.

I updated my pages listed before:
Set page: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Aggelakis/Performance_Shifter
Recipe page: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Aggelakis/Recipe:Performance_Shifter:_Chance_for_%2BEndurance
Enhancement page:
-- Special enhancement: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Aggelakis/Enhancement:Performance_Shifter:_Chance_for_%2BEndurance
-- Standard enhancement: http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:Aggelakis/Enhancement:Performance_Shifter:_Endurance_Modification/Accuracy




(NOTE: my pages have deliberately removed all auto-categorizing templates so that they don't show up in main categories. All appropriate auto-categories and manual categorization would exist. I just don't want my user content in the main categories.)
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sekoia on June 29, 2012, 11:03:35 PM
How else do we aggregate this data for use? An article seems silly when it's so much simpler to categorize it.

Semantic Mediawiki introduces something called "Properties". It's something to evaluate on a case-by-case basis, but Properties may be better for some things (such as this, likely) than the massive system of categories we currently use.

But we shouldn't get rid of the categories unless and until something else is in place that makes them redundant.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on June 30, 2012, 11:48:55 PM
To further de-couple Enhancements in general from the Invention system, I am working on a new set of "Drop Symbols" that use generic enhancement rings and re-colored Hami-O rings... that way they look like something merely associated with Enhancements in general and may be made applicable to other things.  Thoughts?

(I will post an image of my initial pass shortly... it will be quite WIP and I may just use the rings kinda willy-nilly in order to present some options.)

Update:
(https://paragonwiki.com/w/images//1/1b/Drop_Symbols_%28New%29.png)
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: GuyPerfect on July 01, 2012, 03:52:31 PM
Aha! We'll call the section "Item Details" to describe A) where the Enhancement comes from and B) what you can do with it, which are two separate and otherwise not-lump-together-able things!

Also, in regards to that Reward Merit icon, it looks kinda funky with two borders...
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: GuyPerfect on July 01, 2012, 04:17:48 PM
So I was looking at the Enhancement Sets page and saw that all of the Archetype Enhancements were being labeled as Obtained by Special Means. That label is generally reserved for time-limited things like the summer and winter events. We probably need a new icon for Obtained from Super Packs, since that can be done at any time of the year.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: CmdrAdeon on July 01, 2012, 06:33:29 PM
Yeah I did that as a temporary means until we had a better solution. My suggestion would be a "Super Packs" symbol for the standard ones and a "Enhancement Catalyst" symbol for the Superior ones.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Cannonfodder on July 01, 2012, 08:52:14 PM
We've been talking about this issue for 3 months off and on.

I mean I like many of the things proposed in this thread, but we don't seem to be coming up with any overall consensus quickly.

Can we set a time limit to propose all the options and then have a poll or something for each part (article structure, article divisions, categorization, symbols, banners, terminology, preferred templates, etc.)?

Give some people (founders vs. admins vs. editors vs. contributors) weighted votes and maybe assign someone with ultimate veto power, forcing a re-poll.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: GuyPerfect on July 01, 2012, 10:18:14 PM
[...] we don't seem to be coming up with any overall consensus quickly.

With the exception of what to call the "how you can get it and what you can do with it" section, we've all pretty much settled on a new organizational schema and article layout. Take a look (http://www.cohtitan.com/forum/index.php/topic,4679.msg43324.html#msg43324).
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Sleepykitty on July 02, 2012, 02:21:57 PM
z.z I'm a cat, and I would nap on top of that article.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Cannonfodder on August 01, 2012, 08:41:35 PM
It's been 31 days with no further discussion.  I think everyone has given whatever input they have into what structure we want.  Now we just have to go ahead and convert articles to the new format and categorization. 
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: GuyPerfect on August 07, 2012, 05:28:46 PM
We gots work ta do (http://na.cityofheroes.com/en/news/game_updates/issue_24/overview.php)

Quote
  • Improved Enhancement Set Bonuses: Invention Origin Enhancement set bonuses, such as XP debt reduction and specific mesmerization/mental control resistances, have been replaced with more useful set bonuses. These new set bonuses provide more powerful resistance against a broader variety of damage.
  • New Invention Origin Sets: Four new Invention Origin Enhancement sets debut with Issue 24. Annihilation (targeted AoE), Unbreakable Guard (damage resistance), Reactive Defenses (defense), and Preventive Medicine (healing). These new sets all offer different and specific bonuses, such as decreasing an opponent's resistance, increasing a character's maximum hit points, improve resistances, and even granting an absorption shield.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: Thirty-Seven on August 08, 2012, 12:16:33 PM
Is the issue that there are so many folks who have had input that we don't know where to begin or if we should be waiting on something?

Maybe the best way to go forward is to create an article like the one for Mission documentations guidelines outlining our plan so that work can begin on Categories, Templates, SMW stuff (instead of DPL) and get this ball rolling!  I think putting an article together on the Wiki might just provide momentum (and an easier way to reference our finalized plan) to start putting this into action.
Title: Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
Post by: GuyPerfect on August 08, 2012, 04:54:49 PM
After learning the right and wrong ways to do nested categories, I've established the category hierarchy for the Enhancements revamp.

I've also started a done/todo page for us to edit as things get worked out:

http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/User:GuyPerfect/Enhancements_Revamp