Template talk:Item infobox

Early discussion
Before things get too far along or out of hand, shouldn't the community decide on what the parameters should be? --JonTheMon 21:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do agree that discussion is necessary. At this point however, the items that are there are based on the information provided by the developers. You can't simply "remove" items you feel are unnecessary. I have protected the template until discussion and consensus is reached, since this template is used on so many pages. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  21:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I might have dived a little too fast into editing an important infobox, so my apologies, but would you care to explain why there is a "Mana Heal" category, and what its use is? There's already a "Mana Regen" category, so it can't be that. If it's supposed to be a category for how much flat mana it resores, why isn't there a "Life Heal" category? Why is there a section just called "Mana"? Why have a category specifically for "Potion"? Why is the "Power" category stat called "pick"? Is the "Shoot" category supposed to be for projectiles? Why have the "Tool", "Accessory", and "Body Slot" sections, along with the other ones I removed, when you can just specify them as "Sub-Type"s? I assume "Use Time" is supposed to be for how long something lasts, like the Light Orb, but it was a stretch for me to guess that. And on a final note, having a stat called "rare" makes me think it's asking if the item is rare, not what rarity it is.
 * Those are my thoughts on the subject anyway. Take it as you will. Spacebear 22:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's do this one thing at a time. I didn't set up the initial names, but I can probably figure out the intent.
 * Mana Heal - Probably a straight "how much mana does this recover"
 * Mana Regen - "How fast does the mana regen"
 * Life Regen - Yeah, I could see it also needing a "how much life" parameter as well
 * Pick - Yeah, the name is a bit ambiguous, but what else has power?
 * Shoot - Probably what the item actually shoots (like for a wand)
 * Tool and Accessory - could probably go, since we can detect that from the type
 * Body Slot - (+weapon) I can sorta see either keeping the specific categorization separate (in case you want multiple ways to categorize an item), but having a Sub-type doesn't sound too bad
 * Use Time - if a parameter is unclear, you can make the example/description better
 * Rare - rarity does sound a little better.
 * Anyhow, part of making this better is going through the process of discussion and consensus. --JonTheMon 22:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The variables were provided by the devs in the information I used to initially build the wiki. I do agree that the infobox needs tweaking and things, but you can't simply change variable names, and add/remove stuff. This infobox is on every single item page. By changing the variable pick to power, you eliminated the values provided by the devs across the board. By changing the variable rare to rarity, you eliminated the dev provided rarity values across the board..... Your earlier edits that I didn't notice already removed the shoot speed values because you changed the variable sspeed to simply speed, but did not correct it on any of the pages where it was used. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]]  talk  22:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (Shit, ninja'd while I was typing this up) Alright, I understand that I made a mistake, but that doesn't change the fact that some of the variable names are confusing at best, and that some stats would be much better off being combined into a single variable. To JonTheMon, the Hammer and the Axe both have power ratings.
 * Now, my suggestions for changes and reasonings are as follows:
 * Change "Mana Heal" to "Mana Restored", and add "Life Restored". Associated variables should be changed to "mrest" and "lrest" respectively. You can't "heal" mana.
 * Change "Mana" to "Mana Cost", with associated variable changed to "mcost". I have to assume that this was the original intent of the variable, considering there is no item that just flatly affects a players total mana, aside from the Mana Crystal, and that item only serves to increase the max once.
 * Remove "Potion", "Tool", "Accessory", and "Body Slot" variables. Replace these with an all encompassing "Sub-Type" variable. The way this would work out is that an item would have a "Type", being a "Weapon", "Equipment", "Tool", and one other type for everything else, probably "Miscellaneous". Each type would then have sub-types. Weapon sub-types could include "Sword", "Flail", "Projectile", "Explosive", "Wand", and "Spell". Equipment could include "Helmet", "Shirt", "Pants", and "Accessory". Tool could include "Axe", "Pickaxe", "Hammer", "Hamaxe", and perhaps things like the Bucket, Grappling Hook and the Magic Mirror, depending on if you classify those as tools. Miscellaneous could have sub-types like "Furniture" and "Bricks", etc.
 * Change "Shoot" to "Projectile Fired", rename variable to "pfired". Again, just assuming this was the original intention of this variable.
 * Change "Speed" to "Projectile Speed", rename variable to "pspeed". Clarification
 * Change "Rare" to "Rarity". I guess the variable can be left as is.
 * Add "Speed" variable, used to denote the swing speed of weapons and tools.
 * Change "Use Time" to.... Something, I'm not sure. It needs to be clarified that this variable is for how long an item lasts.
 * Change "pick" variable to "power". Hammers and Axes have power ratings too.
 * All that, and then have it be reordered so that the more important variables are higher up. The way I ordered it in my previous edit is how I think the ordering should go.
 * Spacebear 23:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For "Use Time" change to duration? And what about rate of fire? Would that fall under the generic "Speed" parameter? And we might not end up needing projectile fired. I'm still not completely sold on the "Sub-type" variable. It seems a bit too catch-all, and might blow up later. Lemme think on it. As for "mrest" and "lrest", you could make them easier to figure out by having them be more spelled out ("manarestored" and "liferestored" or "mana_restored"). Short names can be good, but not if you have to sacrifice clarity. --JonTheMon 00:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, wow, how did I manage to forget about the word "Duration"? That will work perfectly. I actually much prefer having the variable names spelled out completely, I was just trying to keep it consistent. I'm not sure what you think the problems with the Sub-Type section could be. Perhaps you're worried about items like Starfury and the Hamaxes, since they fit multiple categories? You could always list an item under multiple sub-types, such as Starfury being a Sword and a Spell. -- Spacebear 00:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it just doesn't fully sit well for me, I'm still not sure why. Maybe someone else can bring light to it. Anyhow, do we need fields for "durability", or for armors "protection"? --JonTheMon 14:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Somehow you and RBrandon are completely missing the "defense" stat right between "damage" and "pick. It's already there man. A "durability" stat could be handy for showing how strong each building material is, but I'm not sure how you could show that in anything other than words like "takes three hits from x". -- Spacebear 18:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Somehow you and RBrandon are completely missing the "defense" stat right between "damage" and "pick. It's already there man. A "durability" stat could be handy for showing how strong each building material is, but I'm not sure how you could show that in anything other than words like "takes three hits from x". -- Spacebear 18:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I agree with Spacebear (and JonTheMon who ninja'd me). Currently the infoboxes read like a developer's config file, which I guess is exactly where they pulled the data from. We should start with the headings, which need to be made user friendly. "Potion" and "Accessory" are clearly flags used in the code. As far as the wiki is concerned they duplicate "Type" and therefore are redundant. "Shoot" needs to be clarified, I have no clue what it means, rate of fire maybe? "Mana" should be changed to something like "Mana Activation Cost". "Body Slot" is a bit of an enigma, I'm used to seeing it code to refer to head, torso, legs and footwareslots but in Terraria only body armour has a non -1 value which makes me think that in terms of the wiki it should be disregarded. "Use Time" is also irrelevant to armour or permanent effect items, so why include it? If you are loathe to take these values out completely, then maybe just make it so that the template hides them from read view, can it be done so based on "Type"? Values need some work too. The "Rarity" values don't impart much information to the new user, who will ask is a value of 1 rare or common? What are the units of "Use Time", "Knockback" or "Shoot". Oh ... and I wouldn't make templates editable by everyone either. You need to set up an editorial group to oversee that or limit it to editable by yourself based on the outcome of discussion pages. Dephelis 22:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, and as soon as we an get clarification from the developers regarding what the values represent those kinds of changes can be made. I do agree that there are some that can be currently removed from view. You guys have to understand.. I was given this information on Tuesday and told to have the wiki live by Wednesday.... I didn't have a lot of time to track down the devs to get clarification. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  23:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, no complaints from me here. I was impressed at how fast it came up in the first place! I think the simplest way of moving ahead is to hide what we're not sure about or that seems obvious pending confirmation. That way, if it turns out we were wrong to hide them, they can be revealed with no data lost. My first candidates would be the true/false flags like "Potion", "Tool" and "Accessory" as their purpose is clear. Dephelis 23:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * One of my complaints was going to be some of the information that is useless in some cases (damage value on non-weapon items for example) so good to hear that it's still being worked on. One thing that I still find strange, however is the absence of a defense value. This would probably be the most important piece of information for armor pieces, and there are several accessories that add to defense as well. I'm not sure if this information is lacking from the source, but even if it is the individual armor values are listed on the Armor page. --RBrandon 14:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Also, the item infobox would be a great place to put an item's monetary value. --RBrandon 15:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(reset indent) So, after looking at some random pages, I can see a possible use for the Tool parameter: what is the ideal tool to use to break/remove/harvest a block/item. Is that a plausible use? --JonTheMon 14:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's the only use it can have. What would it be for otherwise? Mith - Talk 15:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

New parameter(s): Dimensions/Length and Height
Placeable items have 2 dimensions: length and height. For example a furnace is 3x2: 3 tiles long, 2 tiles tall. A parameter should be added to either each one of both in the same variable. Remember that when defining sizes, the order is usually length, height and then width, but in 2D we don't have width. I recommend adding the new paramentes:
 * length =
 * height =

And show them like this in the infobox: It comes in handy when planning constructions to know the sizes. MithranArkanere 16:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Dimensions: [length]x[height]

Price (Buy & Sell) fields
Suggestion, there should be fields for Buy and Sell price. You could consolidate this to a single field at the cost of having to calculate one or the other based on the NPC buy cut.
 * Is there any correlation between buy-sell price? Like sell is always 1/2 the buy? --JonTheMon 19:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, all items have a sell price 20% of the buy price, excepting musket balls. For example: if buy price is 5, sell price is 1. Mith - Talk 23:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You could always have both and calculate if the other is missing. Assuming that the math really is that simple, that is.  I would think it could be given in one of two ways (maybe both?)
 * Price in copper (ie 5 silver 15 copper would be 515)
 * Price as component (ie 5 silver 15 copper would be 5s15c, or equivalent)
 * Preferably, something human readable on the code side would be preferred (this is wikicode after all) --~Markus 01:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. I just found that the 'Sell price' is ALWAYS 'Buy price'/5, rounded down. 1 Musket balls would be 8/5=1.6->1, but if you try to sell 4, you'll get: 4*8=32/5=6.4->6. So it seems both prices are not saved, and the sell price is calculated 'on the fly' based on the buy price. Mith - Talk 19:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

&lt;-- I suggest we inform the buy price in the template, as well as display that, as it would appear that is the defined value (sell price is dependent on buy price, and not the other way arround). This is even more important that apparently, selling 4 of an item is not the same as 4 times the price of a single copy. happypal (talk &bull; contribs) 12:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That wont work well or make sense for items you can't buy. Besides that, it's only an issue with items that stack, where it's possible to sell more than one at a time.  Since stackability is something that the template checks for, it would be easy to omit or modify it when an item stacks.  ~Markus 13:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A buy price can make sense if you state it as "Value" instead of buy, and I also agree with the buy/value instead of sell. --JonTheMon 13:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the "Value" field. I can insert this into the table. happypal (talk &bull; contribs) 13:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be misleading to list the Value of an item you can't buy as what you would be able to buy it for. Further, I think it should be explicitly stated what something will sell for. Stackable items could have their value shown as price per stack instead of individual price.  This is less misleading as you now know the most you will get for the items. ~Markus talk 13:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But isn't it then just as misleading to have a sell price but then be confused why the buy price is so much higher? Some items (like musket balls) you're likely to only buy, so when you look it up here it seems extra cheap but when you go to the merchant it's 5x higher. A value field would be more reasonable b/c "Oh hey, it's worth 1 silver, but since it's a merchant I'll only get 1/5 of the value for selling". --JonTheMon 15:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For now, I can insert some "buy"/"value" fields. These can be used for buyable items. I think sell-able items need more discussion, although I don't see the problem with giving a "value" to non-buyable items, as they're sell prices are obviously their "value"/5. I'd rather finish the discussion actually. happypal (talk &bull; contribs) 10:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you were on the right track. Because some items may only be bought, some may only be sold, I would like to see separate, self-explanatory fields that we can use as applicable, such as "Buy for" and "Sell for". ~ SgtKlaos ( T / C ) 18:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Price Fields part 2
This conversation seems to have died, so I'll try to resurrect. I think the best would be to have a single "Value" field, even for items that are not buy-able. This allows for a standardized price, and is how the game does it internally anyways. The Word "Value" in the box can link to a page that explains the buy/sell mechanics of the game. happypal (talk &bull; contribs) 06:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so unless somebody has more input, that's what I'll be doing. happypal (talk &bull; contribs) 09:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm for it. --JonTheMon 15:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, but I'm not sure how I feel about the linked "Value" field: It's color is in sharp contrast with the other fields... Maybe I should make it a "black" link? happypal (talk &bull; contribs) 06:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about the contrast. A black link would defeat the purpose of putting the link there, a link no one can see it's a link becomes rather pointless. And sooner or later, there will be either articles each one pf the other terms, or a glossary that put them all together. Mith - Talk 14:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I should have posted this in the 2nd Price Fields section and I hope the discussion is still open: I think you were on the right track (in the last section, where you crossed it out). "Value", besides being an ambiguous term, especially if we agree to define it as the buy price, will not be applicable for most items, right? Can't we sell far more items than we can buy? Because some items may only be bought, some may only be sold, I would like to see separate, self-explanatory fields that we can use as applicable, such as "Buy for" and "Sell for". What do you think? ~ SgtKlaos ( T / C ) 15:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no "self-explanatory" sell price. If you can tell me what you would put in the sell price of Musket Ball, I'm all ears. "Value" is not ambiguous, and perfectly explained in the page. happypal (talk &bull; contribs) 15:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you divide different sized stacks of Musket Balls by it's sell price in single Musket Ball increments, you'll find the values fluctuate between just below 1.6 copper coins and exactly 1.6 copper coins, the dip under 1.6 no doubt from rounding away fractions of a copper coin when the true selling value is not divisible by 1.6. A sell price of 1.6 copper also matches up perfectly with the given buy price of 8 copper, since we accept that buy prices seem to be 5 times the sell prices. You can take that price to the bank. (and see the below response) ~ SgtKlaos ( T / C ) 17:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * EDIT: Value is applicable to any item that is either buyable or sellable. happypal (talk &bull; contribs) 15:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A buy price ("value") is not as applicable to the ~120 items you can't buy. No one needs those numbers - they will have to crunch numbers every time they plan to cash in on an item they found or crafted. "Sell prices" for those would be usable on sight and no one would need to click a link and read through another page to find out whether "value" meant for buying or selling. ~ SgtKlaos ( T / C ) 17:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We could indeed use a comma value for the 1 object where it isn't a round number. For buy-able items though, you are suggesting we have both a Buy and Sell field? I'm not against it either, but I fear it might be bloated? I'm fine for doing it that way too. Anybody against? happypal (talk &bull; contribs) 18:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would prefer we keep it to a single field, not both buy/sell. Other options would be to switch value to the sell price or have the field be "Buy/Sell" and the entry be "8/1.6" --JonTheMon 19:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think JonTheMon found a good compromise; his idea prevents bloating and gives all the information in an obvious format. The only thing that still bothers me is this would still give too much useless information: all those buy prices for 120+ items you can't buy. Shouldn't we keep that out? The ~20 items you can buy could have a "Buy/Sell" field and the rest just have a "Sell" field; or the ~20 buy-ables could have the two separate fields. ~ SgtKlaos ( T / C ) 19:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In this solution, we'd only put the buy price on buyable items. happypal (talk &bull; contribs) 20:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because who is going to sell stacks of things you can buy? Sell prices seem mostly not applicable for the buy-ables. ~ SgtKlaos ( T / C ) 03:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

&lt;--I don't know, you can sell sunflowers for money... happypal (talk &bull; contribs) 06:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Item type
Rather than categorising all weapons as just "weapon" why not separate melee weapons and ranged weapons? --Demian 09:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There should be some way to add different types, and/or nested types. Look at Bottles:
 * They are 'furniture'.
 * They are part of a 'tool' (alchemy station).
 * They are also a crafting material.
 * Same with weapons. A melee weapon is both a weapon and a melee weapon, but it cal also be a sword, or a magical item, etc. Mith - Talk 12:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Consumable
Consumable doesn't appear in the actual item infobox, only adds the category. It should appear in the infobox like with 'placeable'. Mith - Talk 12:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is triggered by the Consumable = True variable that was provided by the developers. While many things are consumable, not everything that is consumable is placeable. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  03:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand what I mean. When you set 'Consumable = True' it adds the category, but not the info in the infobox itself. Mith - Talk 20:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand exactly what you mean. I'm just pointing out that correlating it with "Placeable" doesn't make much sense since they are two separate subtypes. If you mean that you would like to see an additional "subtype" field in the infobox, that should be part of the initial discussion on the page. -- Wynthyst [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png ]] talk  20:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just mean that when you set an item with "Consumable=True", the infobox should show a line that says: "Consumable | Yes", like already happens with 'Placeable=True", no additional fields, no relation whatsoever with Placeable, no extra subtypes or anything like that. It adds the category, but it doesn't appear as part of the drawn infobox table itself, like this:


 * I don't see the need for additional subtypes, just show in the infobox the type that appears only in the list of categories, but not in the infbox. Mith - Talk 12:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see either adding the consumable item to the infobox OR adding a generic "Properties" field, which might show, say, "Consumable" or "Consumable, Placeable" or just "Placeable". --JonTheMon 15:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal
Ok, this seems to have died down, but I think we have a better idea of what's going on so we can actually have some proposals.
 * pick -> power
 * mheal -> manarestore
 * mregen -> manaregen
 * hregen -> healthregen
 * +healthrestore
 * -shoot (remove)
 * sspeed -> shootspeed
 * +speed (rate of fire/swing)
 * tool -> what tool is used to remove the block
 * use -> duration
 * rare -> rarity
 * +value (theoretical buy price)

Any other thoughts/objections? --JonTheMon 18:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

"When added" field
A field in which you can insert the version in which the item was added would be great. With this there wouldn't be this information in the text.
 * I think that kind of thing fits better under a 'trivia' section, since the date of addition doesn't affect the current version and its gameplay in any way. Mith - Talk 09:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Type2
The item infobox needs a type2 like the npc infobox has. Things like the Empty Bucket or the Jungle Rose are both vanity and something else (tool and crafting material respectively). --Gez 10:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since one item can fit in several different categories, it would be simpler just to add multiple categorization:
 * Placeable= Yes/No.
 * Equipable= Yes/No.
 * Material= Yes/No.
 * Consumable = Yes/No.
 * Vanity= Yes/No
 * Ammo = Yes/No.
 * And so on. Mith - Talk 15:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good solution. Another example this would work well is a Fallen Star: Ammo, Material, and Consumable (like potions, it restores 20 mana). ~ SgtKlaos ( T / C ) 17:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good solution, could probably work on sunflower (item) and sunflower ~ Null ( T - C ) 17:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm against it, because it's not even data that appears in the infobox. These things serve no other purpose other than categorization... Why not just explicitly categorize said objects? happypal (talk &bull; contribs) 18:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm still a little ignorant of the "invisible" categorization you're talking about. We should categorize them. Additionally, I was thinking these things would be in the infobox, just like they are in the tooltips in-game. Doesn't the infobox sort-of represent a detailed tooltip? ~ SgtKlaos ( T / C ) 19:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (de-indent) I think it's better to have categorization handled by the template anyway. So that, for example, if the categories are modified, you just have to edit the template to update all pages. --Gez 22:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)