Author Topic: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles  (Read 29065 times)

Sekoia

  • Titan Network Admin
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,828
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #40 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.

Sekoia

  • Titan Network Admin
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,828
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #41 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.

Sekoia

  • Titan Network Admin
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,828
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #42 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


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.

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)".

Sekoia

  • Titan Network Admin
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,828
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #43 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)

Codewalker

  • Hero of the City
  • Titan Network Admin
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,740
  • Moar Dots!
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #44 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.

GuyPerfect

  • Mary Poppins
  • Titan Staff
  • Elite Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,740
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #45 on: April 16, 2012, 10:39:02 PM »
Let's not forget that most sets also have purchased varieties.

Sekoia

  • Titan Network Admin
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,828
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #46 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.

Thirty-Seven

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
  • Keeper of the Sacred Number
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #47 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.

eabrace

  • Titan Moderator
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,230
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #48 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.
Titan Twitter broadcasting at 5.000 mWh and growing.
Titan Facebook

Paragon Wiki admin
I was once being interviewed by Barbara Walters...In between two of the segments she asked me..."But what would you do if the doctor gave you only six months to live?" I said, "Type faster." - Isaac Asimov

Sekoia

  • Titan Network Admin
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,828
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #49 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.

Sekoia

  • Titan Network Admin
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,828
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #50 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.

Thirty-Seven

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
  • Keeper of the Sacred Number
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #51 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?

eabrace

  • Titan Moderator
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,230
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #52 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.
Titan Twitter broadcasting at 5.000 mWh and growing.
Titan Facebook

Paragon Wiki admin
I was once being interviewed by Barbara Walters...In between two of the segments she asked me..."But what would you do if the doctor gave you only six months to live?" I said, "Type faster." - Isaac Asimov

Thirty-Seven

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
  • Keeper of the Sacred Number
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #53 on: April 17, 2012, 05:49:39 AM »
Good point.

Aggelakis

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,001
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #54 on: April 17, 2012, 06:25:14 AM »
I'm still in preference of option 1.
Bob Dole!! Bob Dole. Bob Dole! Bob Dole. Bob Dole. Bob Dole... Bob Dole... Bob... Dole...... Bob...


ParagonWiki
OuroPortal

eabrace

  • Titan Moderator
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,230
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #55 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.
Titan Twitter broadcasting at 5.000 mWh and growing.
Titan Facebook

Paragon Wiki admin
I was once being interviewed by Barbara Walters...In between two of the segments she asked me..."But what would you do if the doctor gave you only six months to live?" I said, "Type faster." - Isaac Asimov

Thirty-Seven

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
  • Keeper of the Sacred Number
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #56 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?

eabrace

  • Titan Moderator
  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,230
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #57 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.
Titan Twitter broadcasting at 5.000 mWh and growing.
Titan Facebook

Paragon Wiki admin
I was once being interviewed by Barbara Walters...In between two of the segments she asked me..."But what would you do if the doctor gave you only six months to live?" I said, "Type faster." - Isaac Asimov

Thirty-Seven

  • Elite Boss
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
  • Keeper of the Sacred Number
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #58 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.)


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.

GuyPerfect

  • Mary Poppins
  • Titan Staff
  • Elite Boss
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,740
Re: Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles
« Reply #59 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?