Talk:Guide to Item of the Week Farming/Previous Tips

Monthly archives?
This page is almost at 100,000 bytes. I propose splitting it into archives, similar to what we do with the game updates and news pages. Any suggestions on the size and contents of the archives? I was thinking monthly, but we could do quarterly.  Random Time   12:27, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. I'm thinking like the first three or six months be in an archive at a time... Thoughts? [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]]riyen 17:01, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * This page may only grow til November when things start repeating. Another consideration is the fact that most of the farming information is obsolete due to skill changes; making this page near worthless as a guide. You may want to just cut it in half for now and decide what to do after the repeat happens.  Bottle  07:43, June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Great idea. I like monthly: 4 guides is a reasonable page size...and it's easy to remember when/where to split. While the skill techniques might be useless when Nick repeats himself, the location of the farms will always be helpful (in fact, that can be helpful outside of IotW farming). &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 04:29, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Plan B
I've changed my recommendation: Unless there's major objection, I think we should store these at Guide to Item of the Week Farming/Item. Is there any strong reason to avoid creating individual articles? (Aside from the workload, which I volunteer to assist with.)
 * 1) This makes individual farms easier to find.
 * 2) The farms are often useful for reasons other than Nick requests; no reason to make ppl scour to find the listing
 * 3) We could update the Template:ItemInfo to include an optional farming link.
 * 4) With individual articles, we can recycle old farms (2 years from now, if anyone is still playing) via DPL or just simple transclusion.

Another place to store these would be under Item/Guide to Farming, which would be more work to setup. On the other hand, it's a more logical spot (since, again, there are other reasons to farm some of these). &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 21:15, August 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I dunno about adding a link to the infobox. There's 3 ways that could be done:
 * It always displays the link, which results in a redlink on the vast majority of item pages and clutters up Special:WantedPages (which is actually useful now, after years of being plagued by build-wipe remnants).
 * It uses #ifexists: to hide redlinks; unfortunately, this still clutters up WP because of how #ifexists: is implemented.
 * We add a boolean parameter to the template like, and it only displays the link if this parameter is set.
 * 3 is the best in terms of limiting unintended consequences, but it requires additional effort in terms of "turning on" the link.


 * Here's an alternative to your overall idea: just add a "Farming" section to the item's article instead of creating a subpage. Several trophies already have this, like Skree Wing, Plague Idol, and Bog Skale Fin.  As long as the section is consistently named, which shouldn't be that hard to get right, it can be grabbed by DPL.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 23:26, August 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like where this is going and it seems to me that #3 above and your alternate aren't mutually exclusive. We're trying to satisfy a few requirements (of differing value):
 * Usefully archive IotW Farming tips, so that they can be found (and therefore re-used);
 * Automatically update IotW farming after e.g. week 138;
 * Make it easy to use those farms elsewhen;
 * Make it easy to review past IotW farming tips;
 * Put the link to the farm tips in the infobox (bonus requirement; probably work >> value)


 * There are two good ways forward:
 * Tips are placed in a new, standard section on relevant trophy pages, Farming
 * Tips end up on their own subpage, Item/Farming
 * Tips end up on a subpage of IotW. (No longer seems sensible.)


 * Which do people prefer? (The tasks/effort for either are much the same.) &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:08, August 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1, definitely. The reason we have historically used subpages was because we needed a way to store content in a single location but display it in multiple locations.  DPL can do the same thing without needing a subpage - the content can be stored on the primary article (e.g. weaponsmith info would go on the weaponsmith's page) instead, making for a less complex system.  Technically, we could go back and replace all the existing subpages with DPL, but since that system works just fine and DPL wouldn't provide any significant advantages, there's no real reason to do all that work.


 * The code to use such a system on this guide is pretty simple. We get Nick's weekly index number, we pass it to SMW to get the name of this week's item, then we tell DPL to include the "Farming" section from that item's article.


 * And here's an example of this idea in action, using different sections, and inserting a header for each:

Demo


 * We'd probably want to do a multiple-section include like that anyway, in order to get the "What drops it" list. &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 03:20, August 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * All this sounds great!  Bottle  05:37, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Following comment copied from Template talk:Nicholas the Traveler
 * Do we need subpages? Probably not, but to start with, it's much easier to copy/paste the farms into a subpage linked to the main article than it is to standardize. I think we have about 60 farms covered, only about 40 of which follow a similar format (but we've evolved that, too). I'd rather transform the farming into subpages soon and not care if we ever bring it into the main article. The alternative is to undertake an even more massive effort to review and edit 70+ articles. In other words:
 * Move 70+ sections as-is (as-are?) now and replace Guide to IotW Farming with links (on articles and as noted above) to the sub page. Review/edit and merge to main article in the future, at leisure.
 * Determine a new format that suits current articles. Review/edit 70+ articles and move one-at-a-time.
 * I can manage (1); I personally don't want to start (2) b/c it would be bad to stop in the middle. &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 21:44, September 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * You're going to have the formatting-inconsistency issue regardless of which option you go with - the first option just seems like a procrastination measure. &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 22:13, September 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly my point. The formatting-inconsistency can live in a sub-page that is linked to the main article. Postponing that work means we can begin making it easier for people to find farms, whether for Nick or not. &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 00:05, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * So... my point is, why hide the farming info on subpages at all? Why postpone it?  As you say, there will be people who want this farming info, regardless of Nick.  Take what we've got and put it out there, maybe throw together a custom  tag (like what we use in armor galleries) with a link to a new/revamped S&F article, and let "the community" clean them up.  You don't have to do everything on your own.  (Yes, I know exactly how hypocritical it is for me to say that. :P )  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 01:19, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * 5-10 articles? Sure. 70+? Uh-uh.


 * The thing is, (as you know) it's a lot of work to touch that many pages at all. I'm not interested in doing any work if the results are going to look that bad to start with. I'm certainly not keen to spend the effort on 70+ pages only to have them all look bad.


 * Let me put it another way: would you be willing to do all the initial copy/paste? If that's the case, I'll join the clean-up team (starting with setting up a straw-man design for how we should including farming on the page). Otherwise, if I'm initializing the project, I'm going to start with something that makes me feel I'm doing something useful (rather than moving the mess someplace new).


 * Plus, I think we both expect that there will be considerable discussion about what looks good on the page. Bad enough to copy/paste the 70+ times, but some of those pages are going to go through 2-4 or even 10 iterations of edits to get the farming part to work for this wiki. I'd rather discuss that before merging the farms into the primary articles.


 * In the meantime, I don't think it serves the wiki well to leave the farms lost in the Item of the Week archives, where they are unsortable and in random order. &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:34, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to merge the farming info into the articles until we have finalized S&F, then where's the advantage in moving it to subpages during the interim? It'll be just as "lost" there as it is here (if you put a link in the item's article, it could just as easily be a section link to this page).
 * Hijacking your argument: "Bad enough to copy/paste the 70+ times" when you know that all 70+ pages you're pasting to are eventually going to be merged and deleted. And I don't buy your line about "10 iterations of edits", either - all you need is to get S&F set up first, then edit everything once.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 02:27, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm, the point is how motivated I am to do the work. Putting the farms on their own near to their main articles makes me feel that I'm making progress; the other way makes me feel as if I'm making things worse. If someone else is doing the work, I have no opinion about how they want to go about it.


 * I am almost willing to bet that even if we have a good idea of the format, at least 1-2 articles will undergo extensive revision as reality meets design. It's rare that a design meant for 230 articles (eventually) won't need to be tweaked substantially.


 * You didn't answer my specific question, though: do 'you want to start things off by cutting/pasting to 70 articles? (I don't mean that as a dare &mdash; I'm reminding you that it's a lot of work that almost no one will want to begin.) &mdash;Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:47, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * willing paster. just need target location or example and about a week time. -- Bottle  05:45, September 8, 2010 (UTC)