Talk:Items

Max Stack
While I would consider arrows to be a consumable, don't they stack to 250? --KoreRekon 01:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

How do we remove X number of items from a stack? Clicking always picks up the entire stack. - Spinfx 01:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right click to remove 1 from a stack, and hold down right mouse button to remove more.--GauHelldragon 04:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds so intuitive I don't know what the hell I'd been smoking. Thanks! Gonna add this to the controls page as well. - Spinfx 05:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Item despawning
I'm just chilling in my newly created ocean mob farm that utilises shallow lava moats to kill off unwanted mobs, and of course it reached what I assume the item cap is since some Tattered Cloth and Gel had despawned, silly me for not grabbing it when the Goblin Scouts and Slimes had died. Anyway, I'm just confirming that the article is correct unless item despawning also relies on a timer. --92.6.238.141 20:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Can a source-diver confirm if loose item stacks actually can merge?
I've been using conveyor belts to try and bundle drops into stacks, but I just realized that I don't know if the code actually supports that. Can someone with access to the source code check if items stacks actually do merge on contact, or would they just be a bunch of individual items occupying the same tile? --MentalMouse42 (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, loose items do merge into stacks. I can confirm this by experience. If they didn't, the loose items limit would be reached to often and additional items would be lost. From what I gather from the source code, it applies to loose items within a 1.5 tile radius of each other. – ReedemtheD3ad!  ( talk ) 18:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks! --MentalMouse42 (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

More tags in item data?
I have in mind that it would be good to add a couple of flag fields to item data, or better yet a general "tag" mechanism. Specifically, I'd like to have "biome" tags according to item affiliations, and "class" tags extended beyond the damage type to include things like "defense" ("armor" as a separate tag is already coded separately, right?), "healing", "immunity", "movement", "buffs", and so on. I'm thinking primarily accessories, but even some armor and weapons could usefully be tagged. So Frost Armor might be tagged "snow [biome], melee, ranged", while an Obsidian Rose would be "accessory, underworld, immunity". What I don't really know is whether the existing infrastructure would support that as a "simple addition", or if it would get out of hand. --MentalMouse42 (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC) Edited --MentalMouse42 (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * already has a  parameter which is what you want. See its documentation for more details. And for "snow [biome]",you can use multiple tags such as "biome/snow" or "biome/biome-snow" for easier query. If you want   to save any other attributes(some cate, type， etc.) into tags, please tell me, I can modify   to implement it.  Westgrass (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --MentalMouse42 (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * So, looking at the template docs, they seem to get their info ultimately from the source code, while I more or less want to annotate that. (I presume the source code doesn't actually provide biome info etc, or it would be there.)  How would I then add an tag to a given item?  By putting its page in a category, or setting up my own data file??  In my comment, the bracketed [biome] was meant to be a comment rather than syntax; how would something like "biome/snow" be useful? --MentalMouse42 (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * will auto retrieve some tags from source code, and you can manually add others if needed. Just use ,for example, in the   of that item. We can use cargo query to retrieve them later, for example:   will retrieve all items with "yoyos" tag. Multiple tags may make some query easier, for example, if you use , that item will hold both "biome" and "snow" tags, so we can use   to retrieve all items with biome info, and use   to retrieve only snow biome items. This is not the only option, you can also use   to tag them, by doing so we can use   and   to do the same queries.   or   are feasible options too. You can decide which one to use, and the point is to be consistent. --Westgrass (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * So basically the "biome" tag would just mean "this has a biome", but that would easily be worked around with a biome- prefix. But... I'd need to edit the tags separately into each item page, which is :-( .  If I came up with lists (e.g., "these names get the biome-snow tag"), do you think someone could sic a bot on the task?  Or better -- if you have to change the info* templates anyway, perhaps designate a central file/dir on the Wiki for such "supplemental information"? --MentalMouse42 (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about creating such a central file with this information, since we already have these kinds of tags (or "listcats", simply category names), like westgrass mentioned, – yoyos, hardmode, drop, etc. – which are all stored on the individual pages. Of course, these could be extracted, removed from there, and put in the central database with a bot, but although I'm generally an advocate of centralization and standardization, that might not be the best decision in this case. That is because, as with all undertakings of this kind, it makes editing the wiki harder. While that is not as dramatic for data that is taken from the source code anyway (i.e., doesn't need to be edited until an update comes out and we do a single automated update to the databases), it is more of a problem with this "soft" information. New editors might notice that a page should be in Category:Hardmode-only items (especially with the new entities bound to be introduced in 1.4), but might have no idea how to add it and end up adding the category manually to the page. Again though, I'm not sure, and I definitely see the clear advantages of a central file.
 * Whatever the case may be, rest assured that the tasks bots are able to accomplish are mostly only limited by the programming capabilities of the person behind them (if you're interested, take a look at the MWParserFromHell package for Pywikibot, it opens up an incredible number of possibilities), so don't think of what bots can do as a limiting factor (at least at first; of course there are boundaries). Also, what steps to take depends a bit on what you are trying to achieve in particular – this is not totally clear for me yet. Do you want to be able to print a list of all items with tag x, do you want the items to be categorized in additional tag categories, ...? Maybe the solution is already built-in.
 * --Rye Greenwood (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I had gotten the impression that most of the info was mechanically taken from the source.  If some of the existing categories are already "homed" in the infoboxes, then yes, the new ones probably should be likewise -- as you note, it's much more natural to edit a value in an infobox template, than to hunt down a central database.  But yes, definitely gonna need a bot for the initial setup, not planning to edit 1000+ pages by hand!  --MentalMouse42 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As for plans -- those are somewhat inchoate, mostly realizing that there are a couple of natural classifications that aren't yet represented in the wiki. I'd at least want to be able to do lists or tables of, e.g., "jungle-based items" including not just things harvested in the Jungle, but the crafting-chains based on them, and stuff like the Leaf Wings which are an NPC buy but still linked to the Jungle.  Or "summoner items", and automatically pull up not just weapons, but armor, accessories, the Bewitching Table, and the Summoning Potion. --MentalMouse42 (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Alright, to me it seems the tag/listcat solution westgrass suggested would be the best option then – it's very flexible and doesn't require modification of $($item infobox}}. I guess the next step is to list the new tags you have in mind? We could get an overview and decide on a consistent system then. --Rye Greenwood (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)