Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Drop research/December 2009-May 2010

First Thoughts
I still farm a lot. I'll try to help where I can ~ Kurd
 * Damn that was quick. I've just left messages on the talk pages of the 8 or so most prominent researchers that I've coming across when adding data myself. So I'm just waiting to see if I can get some input on the ideas before I go ahead and start moving stuff as I'm pretty new to wiki stuff in general and don't want to just start wildly creating a mass of new pages. Dakota
 * Sounds like a good idea. To the extent that it would be reasonable and permissible, it might be worthwhile to integrate with http://guildwars.wikia.com/wiki/Drop_rate as well (e.g. by linking applicable pages together).  --DryHumour 00:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks similar to what I'm aiming for here. One immediate difference that I seem to note from that page is that the seem to be listing drops under the enemy/chest that drops them whereas I'm planning on listing drops under the item (as has been done in previous research efforts here). I'm new to wiki editing all round so I'm not at all sure on the permissibility of external links (especially between here and the wikia because of the different attribution licenses they use) but I personally wouldn't have any issue with cross linking the articles so that the information is more accessible. Dakota
 * A very interesting idea. I think this would work pretty good and maybe a link from pages, where 'drop rates' are in like talk pages, etc. to here? -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 01:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if there's no objection to my proposals (which there doesn't seem to be as yet) I actually plan on moving the drop/salvage research from the item talk page (where that info is currently held) to a page of it's own. This will still be linked in the acquisition section of the item article (as is currently done) and will also free up the items talk page for other discussions whilst simultaneously giving the research its own talk page. It would be a simple matter to then link or tag all the research pages to here to provide more information on the project as a whole to those interested in the subject. Dakota
 * Agreed to that, I'd wait a few days and see what other people say. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 04:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How and when will we know if the proposed formatting changes are a go? I, for one, am anxious to begin. -- Threid User Threid sigicon.png 01:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's more a case of seeing if there's any additional input from any other users then anything else. Dakota 01:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sub-pages
You probably already had this in mind, but I thought I'd explicitly suggest that any drop research pages be made sub-pages of the main article. (Apologies if that was blindingly obvious.) --DryHumour 13:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's how I was planning on doing it. I did mention that somewhere on the project page but I'm not sure how clear it is. Dakota 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Some comments
iirc, all those old drop research tables were added by MisterPepe (or was it someone else?) a long time ago and there wasn't really any aim of those tables. I can help some but probably not often because I play GW quite sporadically these days. I don't think anyone will complain much if you start creating drop research pages because there's really not much interest in them atm (if ever).

For the research tables, you may want to think about how you plan on dealing with incomplete information. Once you have pages with research, ppl who see them will add in whatever they have, and that means incomplete data. For example, like me, I don't bother checking rarity, skin, and value when I pick things up. I only go through my inventory when I get back to an outpost so I have no idea who dropped which.

Lastly, for the Acquisition section, I disagree with listing just regions because there are items that's specific to an area, not a region, and it's be less useful if one has to click on the research page link just to find out which area it is. As for standardising it, I think some clean up needs to be done too, but that's better discussed at GWW:ITEMS. -- ab.er. rant  15:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, I was just trying to at least information the wiki users who I had seen regular signatures for on the current tables so they could respond with any suggestions/objections.


 * I think the two obvious solutions for dealing with incomplete data are either to add a separate table or to simply add another column that can be marked if that entry is incomplete, then when we get a complete combination that matches the values and quantities can be added in to the relevant row. personally I think this method would work best.


 * As for the acquisition, thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't really thought about the more specific drops, it was more a case of cutting the list down so they don't mention every enemy as the currently do. My original suggestion should really have been just to cut out the enemies so they just listed region/area, as the enemies will be noted on the research pages for those that want more detail and for items that have more specific drops then there wouldn't already be a long list to cut down anyway. I appreciate your input.


 * As an additional note although you can't check the value for white items, those that are blue (or rarer) have the value included in the tool tip that pops up when you hover the cursor over the item. Dakota 21:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the idea for the incomplete data. Well, you can get the value of white items, but the contributor will need to use id kits to get the identified sell price. -- ab.er. rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 05:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)`
 * Until earlier today when I saw it mentioned elsewhere I didn't even know you could ID whites. Dakota 06:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the project and it seems fine to me, but I'd suggest you post this on the GWW:ITEM/GWW:WEAPONS formatting guidelines and see if other people support the idea (and get more exposure). It's quite a huge project creating research pages for a lot of items and it would be best to get a consensus before making such a large project. Definitely like how you included the type of kit used in the salvage data. I rarely play the game, but if this gos ahead, I'll be sure to help when I play. Good luck! ~Celestia 09:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In Action
My latest drop was a Tall Shield and upon checking the page there, there wasn't a link to the research so I created a shiny new page complete with tables, categories and links and added the link to the main page so you can see this in action. It's only one row but you can get the idea from it.

Item Page/Research Page

Variation with removal of redundant columns for different item type:

Item Page/Research Page.

Let me know what ya'll think. Dakota 22:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For the current table, from what I read, if several others added data for the Tall Shield (using your example above) it would make the table like this:
 * This table is an example; data is not accurate

! Mode || Drop || Location || Rarity || Quantity || Value || Complete
 * N || Sickened Guard || Panjiang Peninsula || White || 2 || 7 - 11 || Yes
 * N || Sickened Guard || Panjiang Peninsula || Purple || 1 || 56 || Yes
 * H || Sickened Guard || Panjiang Peninsula || White || 1 || 67 || Yes
 * N || Kournan Guard || Kodonur Crossroads || Gold || 1 || 121 || Yes
 * }
 * Is this correct? The 'test' pages have a separate table underneath the old entries so I wasn't sure. (Might look nice with aligning the quantity and values to the right too, but that's just me picking annoying ;) ~Celestia 09:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Two questions: Why is there a "Complete" column and do we really need it? Shall I begin implementing changes to all drop pages I encounter? If so, shall I consolidate data from the talk page into the research page? If so, shall I delete said data from the talk page, or simply move it? I know you addressed this partly on the "Issues" section of the project page, but it remained unclear whether it applies to only incomplete data. In other words, if there are drop records that include mode/drop/location/rarity, may we consolidate them to the new table? -- Threid User Threid sigicon.png 17:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Using the sort order I listed (Mode, drop, location, rarity), the bottom row (for the kournan guard) would be moved to the top and the HM sickened guard entry would be moved into the bottom table. I probably should have made it clearer that the second table was for the HM entries. I was thinking that myself about the alignment but wasn't sure how to do it.
 * The complete column came about after reading comments further up the page. It basically allows us to include the data we currently have in the new tables by marking it incomplete, as it may be missing rarity or other pieces of data. Then once we have the same piece of data again the incomplete rows can be removed. I wouldn't begin moving things just yet. I made posts on the Item/Weapons pages earlier, so we should probably wait for any additional feedback from there first. Dakota 20:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Threid about the complete column. It just looks a bit...iffy...I (being the keyword) would rather see the field be left blank (or N/A/-) than have the complete field. It just looks a bit distracting and if people are beginning to add in their data then they will begin filling in the complete table. Alternatively, if I remember right, some pages use to have a separate table where incomplete data was "kept", but not sure where I saw that. ~Celestia 00:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're going to have different tables for hard and normal mode, there is little use for a "Mode" column. That said, I would prefer a table for each mode, rather than one table for both modes: fewer columns, easier to read/sort. -- Threid User Threid sigicon.png 01:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The complete column was just what initially seemed like the most obvious way of being able to include the existing data alongside the new data (rather than just ignoring it), it was also partially for ease of sorting. I think I did also have an alternative mentioned somewhere amongst all this discussion that consisted of using "unknown" in certain fields (with some fields being compulsory). Either way the "incomplete" data can be replaced/merged with newer, more accurate data as drops are added. The mode column can easily be removed, we'd just need to remember to add a Normal mode/Hard Mode heading so people knew which table was which. Dakota 02:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Using the sort order I listed (Mode, drop, location, rarity), the bottom row (for the kournan guard) would be moved to the top and the HM sickened guard entry would be moved into the bottom table. I probably should have made it clearer that the second table was for the HM entries. I was thinking that myself about the alignment but wasn't sure how to do it.
 * The complete column came about after reading comments further up the page. It basically allows us to include the data we currently have in the new tables by marking it incomplete, as it may be missing rarity or other pieces of data. Then once we have the same piece of data again the incomplete rows can be removed. I wouldn't begin moving things just yet. I made posts on the Item/Weapons pages earlier, so we should probably wait for any additional feedback from there first. Dakota 20:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Threid about the complete column. It just looks a bit...iffy...I (being the keyword) would rather see the field be left blank (or N/A/-) than have the complete field. It just looks a bit distracting and if people are beginning to add in their data then they will begin filling in the complete table. Alternatively, if I remember right, some pages use to have a separate table where incomplete data was "kept", but not sure where I saw that. ~Celestia 00:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're going to have different tables for hard and normal mode, there is little use for a "Mode" column. That said, I would prefer a table for each mode, rather than one table for both modes: fewer columns, easier to read/sort. -- Threid User Threid sigicon.png 01:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The complete column was just what initially seemed like the most obvious way of being able to include the existing data alongside the new data (rather than just ignoring it), it was also partially for ease of sorting. I think I did also have an alternative mentioned somewhere amongst all this discussion that consisted of using "unknown" in certain fields (with some fields being compulsory). Either way the "incomplete" data can be replaced/merged with newer, more accurate data as drops are added. The mode column can easily be removed, we'd just need to remember to add a Normal mode/Hard Mode heading so people knew which table was which. Dakota 02:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you got me interested in helping again (a little maybe ;P), so I added Longbow (wooden)/Research and a few others. I left the old research data on those talk pages though. Don't know what to do with them.

Overall, it seems ok (and I was using id kits while fighting and taking screenshots, lol!) but initially "HS" and "ISV" were very unintuitive. I think it's better to just use the whole phrase. If someone gets a template up, we can keep HS and ISV if we can get tooltips; but I think the whole phrase is easier for users who don't check the project page. I also moved the link to the project to the top of all the research pages and renamed the category to follow the wiki's convention. Hope you don't mind. We should also probably do something with Category:Ongoing drop research, maybe make it obsolete or something. -- ab.er. rant  11:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is Butterfly Knives/Research what you had in mind for the data from the talk pages? Contrary to what I mentioned above, I only did Longbow (wooden)/Research and Butterfly Knives/Research. I stopped when I saw the long acquisition list of Cane (Domination). I'm thinking those info should be preserved as incomplete data. I'll continue adding other items once you agree on how incomplete data should be entered. -- ab.er. rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 11:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The existing data can be moved from the talk pages to the new research pages as there added, there shouldn't be too many issues getting it to fit into the new tables. I decided to use HS and ISV rather than use the full names to prevent the table being widened excessively too much for columns that contain only a check mark, but I see what you mean and the tool tips would be useful. Thanks for correcting the category, I should have checked naming conventions first. I just wanted to make sure we had a way to group everything together. Watching one category page is easier than flooding my watch list with pages for every item. As for the existing category, the new one will definitely make it obsolete. All we need to do is remove the old category from the item pages and add the new category on the research sub pages. The pages you've done are pretty much what I'm going for. As we're using a table for each mode we can now drop that column and just add a heading above the tables. We could possibly also add a table for those entries where mode is missing, though mode is one of the entries I feel should always be included. Where quantity is unknown it can just be added as 1. As I mentioned above the existing data on the talk pages can just be moved to the new research pages. Remember to update the links in the acquisition section of the items main page to link to the new research page and not the talk page as is currently done. When I get some time I'll go over the project page and rewrite it with all the additional details in so that people can get all the info together. Dakota 14:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For the two pages I did above, and for the new Cane (Domination)/Research, I split the tables into 3 subsections and removed the "Mode" column. How's it look to you? Also, for weapons and such, having the quantity column seems redundant. I don't really have the time (or inclination, unfortunately) to come up with a template to make it easier though (although I did create this), but then again I'm not too good at advanced wikicode anyway. The best I could for this research page is something similar to what I did for Vanquisher. Anything fancier and we'll need to get assistance from other more wikicode-savvy users. -- ab.er. rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 14:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. I like how you made new subsections with the table headers, rather than using the the table header code: |+Table Header . Having editable subsections is definitely a plus. I don't think we need anything fancier than the template you made; it's clean and clear. Heck; I was impressed that you used red instead of just No.


 * What do you mean when you say the quantity column is redundant? I agree that it doesn't usually give much information - it's almost always 1 - but as the number of entries increase, we might see some statistically significant disparities between drops from one creature/location and another. Then again, such disparities would likely be due to some areas being farmed more than others. -- Threid User Threid sigicon.png 23:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aberrant suggested using tooltips to reveal the meaning of "HS" and "ISV" to those unfamiliar with the abbreviations. I did some research, and it appears there is some sort of mediawiki add-on that allows such functionality: via mediawiki. I am unfamiliar with the process of implementing such a feature on our wiki, but it would require someone with access to LocalSettings.php and the Extensions directory. If this proves impossible, given the wiki is managed by ANet, then perhaps unobtrusive links to the information (a la HS and ISV) would be okay. -- Threid User Threid sigicon.png 02:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Questions
So I've started creating a few of the research pages as subpages simply by adding /Research in the address bar and typing up all the tables. Is there some way that templates can be created for the different types of items (weapons (including offhands), trophies, salvage items, etc) so that the tables don't have to be a) typed from scratch for each item or b) copied from an existing page (potentially forgetting to change links or names).

Also I currently have a column for rarity in the salvage tables, do ya'll think we need one for requirements/other mods as some existing tables already do or is this overkill.

In addition to the comments from earlier I did consider dropping the value column from the drop tables but this won't really be nessecary as its been given as a range and any items other than white ones once identified list the value.

Another solution to unknown data would be to allow Unknown to be entered into the drop and rarity columns as this would then still allow for proper sorting. Value shouldn't be an issue due to it being a range as previously stated and to be honest if someone cannot remember the location they were just in they need to be worrying about something other than participation in this project.

Mode and location should be the minimum allowed data, drop and rarity can be gathered from the chat log if data is being updated from town (if I'm soloing or H/Hing I tend to update as items drop), or if needed can be entered as Unknown. Quantity is a simple count of the number of times the item has dropped in that combination and so requires minimal effort and value is just a range of observed prices from either the "tool tip" or selling to merchant.

Dakota 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Templates are certainly possible, but it might be simpler to just copy or else "subst-transclude" an entire existing page (e.g.   or similar) as a starting point.  -DryHumour 19:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that an additional column for requirements/mods is unnecessary. In addition, the column would be mostly empty for most objects that have already been added, as users did not bother noting it. Finally, such information is generally not useful to the wiki user, who is usually just looking for where something drops. I might even argue against a value column. Such information is interesting but generally not useful, except in gauging how close to max stats the item is. -- Threid User Threid sigicon.png 09:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, have you thought of using 'class="wikitable sortable"?' That way, you wouldn't have to bother with manually re-ordering the drop list if someone added something to the wrong place, and it could be quickly sorted by users according to any parameter. See example on this page. -- Threid User Threid sigicon.png 21:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about that and it would be useful however for the item pages which have more columns than that there are actually multiple sorts in place. In order:


 * Mode (by difficulty) then
 * Drop (alphabetically) then
 * Location (alphabetically) then
 * Rarity (by rarity) then finally
 * Quantity

All of these sorts are applied to the tables I've used whereas with 'class="wikitable sortable" only one sort is applied. Dakota 22:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the sorting that you're using. As users contribute to the table, however, it would likely become unsorted. Consequently, research pages may require regular maintenance to ensure conformation to the aforementioned standards. On the other hand, the single-column sort would enable quick sorting and would require little maintenance. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches, principally of the aesthetic/ease-of-use and ease-of-maintenance varieties. I'm willing to support your sorting method; I think that most wiki users are smart enough to throw their data in the correct row. I wished to present the table class option as an interesting tidbit (which I might apply to reward chest drops), rather than a challenge to your excellent sorting method. -- Threid User Threid sigicon.png 00:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For chests your sort method would work excellently. My epic manual sort just allows for what I personally thought was a particularly useable view. Either way as a newcomer to wikicode I've certainly set myself a Herculean first project. Dakota 02:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For Chests
I've done some work with the dungeon reward chest drop pages in the past, and am looking forward to bringing them up to the new standards. I would like some feedback, however, on which columns to include. If we agree that it would be best to use two different tables for NM and HM, we would not need a mode column. Since all drops from chests are of gold or green rarity (except gems), I think we can skip the rarity column as well.

Some chest drop pages currently have a requirement column (example). Most do not. Should this column be carried into the next generation of drop research? If so, the quantity column loses much of its usefulness, and many past entries will be incomplete. I do not think the requirement column is necessary. What do you think?

Finally, do we need a value column for chest drops? The true market value of items dropped from dungeon reward chests is often quite different than the merchant value, and the value of gold items obtained from chests is usually in the 200-300g range. Additionally, users are generally not looking for this information on a chest drop page. I'll put the tables I've cooked up here up for critique. I think they give the wiki user the information he/she is looking for in a compact, no-nonsense table.

P.S. Do you think "Quantity" is the best column header to use for chests? It may appear to some users as if that number of items is dropping from the chest. Perhaps something like "Times Observed" or even just "Observed" would be better? -- Threid  21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to know how drops with no associated mode are to be handled. A separate table, or not included in the new /Research page? -- Threid User Threid sigicon.png 23:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and created a new research page for Arachni's Spoils. Dumped mode-less data into "Unclassified" table. Updated link to drop research in main article and noted the move in the talk page (old drop section). Kept the old data as-is; I wasn't sure whether to delete it or not.


 * P.S. Should I be indenting these replies to myself? -- Threid User Threid sigicon.png 00:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I created new drop research pages for all the chests and copied the old data into the new tables. Left the drop research on the talk pages as-is, with a note leading to the new pages. -- Threid User Threid sigicon.png 05:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Working with Data in Excel
There is a large amount of table data to bring up to new standards, and I think that Excel can make it much easier for us. I made a simple, macro-free workbook (get it here, via my Dropbox) that generates the wiki table code automatically. I used a simpler version of this sheet to create the new reward chest drop pages (waiting here for approval). All you need to do is enter the parameters (drop, location, rarity, etc.). Then, copy/paste cell A1 into the wiki and - voila! - you should have a ready-made wiki table.

It's easy to use; I promise. Pardon the somewhat long-winded instruction; it's just in case some of you aren't very fluent in Excel. Copy the raw wiki drop data (the code from the "Edit" section, not the displayed table) into the blank worksheet, then use the delimit (text to columns) feature, with "|" as your delimiter. Check the box marked "Treat consecutive delimiters as one," click "Finish," and you will see the data split into organized cells. Using the autofilter and sort functions, you can make the data easier on the eyes, and then copy/paste it into the "Drop" or "Salvage" worksheets. Here's a preview of the "Drop" worksheet:



After pasting the table from the worksheet, you'll find it's nested between two " marks, which need to be removed. Also, if you didn't remove extra rows beneath your data in Excel, you'll need to remove them from the pasted data to avoid creating empty rows. I'm working on making the sheet easier to use. As things currently stand, I don't know if this will work properly in Open Office. If it doesn't (It should), and enough of you (n>0) want an OO-friendly version, I'll make an odf file as well. So give it a shot, and let me know if it's useful, or how it could be more so. -- Threid  06:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Fixed error in salvage table code. Users no longer need to remove unused rows when copying/pasting code. -- Threid User Threid sigicon.png 11:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For Monster Trophies
I know the focus of this project is on equippable items - as it should be. But does the scope of this project cover monster trophies as well? If so, then some columns are not necessary for this type of drop ("rarity" and "value" for drops, and "HS," "ISV," and "value" for salvage). I created a new drop/salvage page for Stolen Goods. Does it look okay? I will focus my efforts on equippable items, but if I encounter trophy pages, I may bring them up to the new standards. Oh, and here's a template. -- Threid  05:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Drop Research in GW2
We can do better for GW2. It has taken more than 4 years for us to approach a standard for drop and salvage research here on the GWW, and it has not been a particularly smooth or collaborative ride. Though it is too early to form a concrete approach to such research, it is not too early to think about how and by whom the project will be undertaken. A core group of contributors working toward a standard for GW2 drop research early on in the game's life will save us a lot of effort in the long run by stemming branched standards and the resulting incomplete data.

Much will be the same: Charting what drops where will still be important; it will allow us to form a general idea of the scope of the drop's availability. Is it area-specific, or does it drop all over? Is it dropped only by a certain kind of enemy? Such information is still unclear for some items on the GWW, and is often muddled by a long list of specific enemies that drop the item. We should strive towards a cleaner, clearer presentation of the data. The WoW wiki drop section is a good example of clear organization or drops: world, continent, zone, static (mob-specific) and boss. I think the GW2 wiki could benefit from a similar organization. If a drop can be classified according to location, the need for further drop research for that item is removed, allowing contributors to focus their wiki and game efforts elsewhere.

And, of course, much will be different: A "more robust" crafting system will be added GW2W:PvE which will likely affect salvage research in currently-unknown ways. The introduction of a persistent world may allow contributors to document drops from monsters they themselves have not killed. We do not know if the GW1 item upgrade or tier systems from will be carried into GW2; even if they do, there will likely be changes that will require modifications of existing research criteria.

I have posted this here, rather than on the GW2W, because this is where those of you who are likely to be interested in such a project are concentrated. Most of you will begin contributing to the GW2W upon the game's release; some of you already are. This project of Dakota's is worth carrying into the next instance of GW. A bit of coordinated wiki muscle-flexing at the beginning can save us a lot of heavy lifting later. See you there? -- Threid  04:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Youll also need to tie in the dynamically changing events that could effect drop rates. These would need to show which event, where, what dropped it, and number of players participating in event when it dropped.--Neithan Diniem User Neithan Diniem Sig.png]] 17:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)