Talk:Massive Item Listing

This is a pretty good list! Obviously it needs splitting up, but it really is quite comprehensive :) 20:01, 17 Jun 2005 (EST)

Thanks. I spent a couple weeks writing down every single salvage result. I'll have to do it more, though; data on pre-Searing and post-Ascension stuff is underrepresented. Tanaric 02:52, 18 Jun 2005 (EST)

Not sure where to suggest this, but some items/skills are linking to "fire" and some to "fire damage." Maybe we can make a "damage" category with subcategories for each type, and then put things that deal that sort of damage in those? --Fyren 22:07, 29 Jun 2005 (EST)

would be sufficient, and would apply to all things (weapons, spells, etc.). I think we should use that as the base. However, that doesn't address your concern about inequities in the item names. Nor does it address the concern that we do actually need to make pages for each type of damage. " damage" is probably best for maintainability, so I'll use that from now on. "Damage Type:  Damage" looks slightly silly though; if anyone wants to edit the template, go for it. &mdash;Tanaric 22:24, 29 Jun 2005 (EST)

I'd edit the template to something better if I knew how, but I'm unsure and don't want to futz around with it. I'll leave that for brighter minds. I'm not sure if there need to be articles on each damage type. One damage types article might do. --Fyren 23:29, 29 Jun 2005 (EST)

Yes, I agree Damage types would be a better article, as there are only a dozen or so, and having a seperate article for these would be ineffecient (in my opinion). Something like the Conditions page would be useful. 23:39, 29 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * That flies in the face of convention around here; we've used smaller, specific articles for everything so far. That's why, for example, the pre-Searing guide needed to be broken up.  While I agree that damage types would be a useful article, fire damage and the like would also be useful articles.


 * Allow me to once again use the laziness argument. Please compare "You should use a weapon that causes fire damage" to "You should use a weapon that causes fire damage." &mdash;Tanaric 01:29, 30 Jun 2005 (EST)
 * In that case I guess you'd actually want to link to the (theoretical) does fire damage category. But anyway, what is there to say about damage types?  Shadow ignores armor, holy does double to undead... and?  Fire does good damage in the Shiverpeaks?  I might not be thinking of everything, but it seems a stretch to come up with more than a sentence or two for each type.  --Fyren 01:38, 30 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * Well, yeah Fyren, that was the argument behind having all the conditions on one page. Perhaps there is no need for links to  Fire Damage  but instead a link to Fire  Damage ? This way we could simply explain what kinds of damage exist. I don't know if I like that suggestion or not :P 01:47, 30 Jun 2005 (EST)


 * I still disagree. See fire damage for why. &mdash;Tanaric 18:43, 30 Jun 2005 (EST)

The entry "bolt of raw clothes" already exist in Bolt of Cloth. Should we delete it from the listing in this article to avoid duplicate entry ? jissai 18:03, 15 Sep 2005 (EST)

Over the last few days I've been looking at crafting materials, salvage items, and other items. I came across this list and find it very helpful. It contains a lot of info that isn't in the individual item articles yet. I'll go ahead and start doing what Tanaric intended this list to be used for: Move the information to the individual articles. --Tetris L 23:14, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Sweet. I got distracted.  However, I'm noticing some issues among items linked here.  As there may have been consensus to do this, I'm not directly interfering yet, but look at (for example) Bone.  All that data is stored on the page itself, it seems.  I created categories like Category:Contains iron for a reason, as that simplifies data maintainence for everyone.  With simple lists like this, using categories as databases make sense -- a Category:Requires iron might be good, too, to simplify the other lists on that page.  Was there a discussion about this I missed? &mdash;Tanaric 04:07, 6 Oct 2005 (EST)

opps didn't realize what this was!