Talk: Hooks

Consolidating Hook Information

This page (Hooks), the hook page, and the Grappling Hook page could use some merging or cleanup. I came here trying to figure out what hooks I could make with gems and why/how they were different and was left confused and wandering among pages. Camelotcrusade (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree and feel the cleanup should include making better distinction between "Hooks (class)", which should be named exactly that, and the crafting item. Also, whoever does any page moving/renaming should remember to make sure that the respective talk pages get renamed too, rather than having talk pages that talk about a redirect...--Macks2008 (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"Hooks (class)" isn't a bad idea, although since its not intuitive, Hooks would still need to redirect there and cause similar confusion with Hook (I think...). The existence of a Hook, Grappling Hook, and Hook tools makes this a pretty difficult thing to distinguish. I'm not sure that there is any ideal solution, aside from the developers changing the in-game names of these items. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:06, 2 Dec 2014 (UTC)

The redirect would stay. I just meant the talk page would need to move with the respective article. Having said that, perhaps a good solution would be to have:

• "Hooks (class)" (with redirect from Hooks and disambig. pages "Hook" and "Grappling Hooks"),
• "Hook (crafting item)" (also on the Hook disambig.),
• "Grappling Hook (tool}" (also on the Grappling Hooks disambig.)

there would also be a few "this page is about 1. did you mean 2" templates on these pages. There's clearly some way to rework this for improved clarity, even if the above idea would not work. --Macks2008 (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as no one else has chimed in, and there is the nose further discussion since the 7th when I detailed my solution, I'm going to give it a shot. This discussion is still open as far as I'm concerned, I just want to see how the change works in practice. If everyone (or the majority) likes it, we keep it, otherwise we revert it.

Actually, first, let me check in with our benevolent admin Equazcion. No administrator left behind!--Macks2008 (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

If "Hooks" still redirects to the class article, I'm not sure if anything is really solved. People looking for the class or crafting material can still end up in the wrong place and confused. If anything, I think I would make "Hooks" into a disambiguation page ("Hook" would also redirect there), then have "Hooks (class)" and "Hook (crafting material)" be the separate article titles. Though this would cause all internal links to "Hook(s)" to lead to a disambig page... We could edit all the current links, but there would be confusion for future links too. As I said I don't think there is any ideal solution, but if anyone has thoughts on any of the ideas so far, or a new one, I'm all ears. Equazcion ^(talk) 07:53, 26 Dec 2014 (UTC)

I decided to move the crafting material to Hook (crafting material), leave Hooks alone, and redirect Hook to Hooks. The crafting material is a bit less relevant now that there are so many other means of acquiring Hooks, so I think most uses of "Hook" or "Hooks" will connect to the right page. If that makes sense. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:10, 29 Dec 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I see where you're coming from. Your solution sounds good for now. personally I feel that the hook crafting material should be removed altogether, consdering that the Grappling Hook is sold by the Goblin Tinkerer

Bat Hook range

Can we get a proper range indication for the Bat Hook? It can't have the same range as the Spooky Hook, the comparison picture on the Bat Hook page indicates it's at least 3 blocks less.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LiumD (talk • contribs) at 16:04, 3 November 2013‎ (UTC)

unsigned user, please add 4 tilde characters next time (that's wavy mark that looks like this ~ mark). The tildes will automatically get replaced by some information that signs the post. You can add them automatically with the signature button at the top of the editor (The button looks like a blue pencil). The signature itself looks like this:

--Macks2008 (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is standard procedure for talk pages--Macks2008 (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

unsigned user was identified as LiumD (talk). gotta love the page history.--Macks2008 (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Bat Hook is about 3 tiles short of the Spooky Hook. The numbers on this page seem to be accurate (32 vs 35). I've just tested this in-game. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:54, 2 Dec 2014 (UTC)

Skeletron hand

so i made a giant asphalt bridge and just so happened to get a skeletron hand as well but when i extended and started running away from it while wearing frostspark boots i outran it, haven't tested with all hooks but this one does it, with dual hook nope so can someone add that in a bug section or something?

Amount of hooks

Why is it stated that the dual hook has 2 hooks and the fish hook 2? You can fire a third hook without the other two dissapearing until you hit something with it, similarly to the dual hook and lunar hook.

Wings?

What wings are those in the Anti Gravity Hook image? Zsashas (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

They look to me like Stardust Wings —Ferretwings (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Trivia section

In the trivia section, there is one talking about a glitch with the static hook, is this appropriate to have in the trivia? TOTORO01 (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Amber Hook

Does the amber hook have just one hook prior to 1.4? BunnyBandit (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Just built the Amber Hook in 1.4. It seems to only have 1 hook. Arphahat (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The ruby hook OR the ivy hook reach are wrong.

My ruby hook is better than my friend ivy hook, there is a mistake --Nanoxgen (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

All Hooks need links?

Don't all the Hooks need links? I feel like they should have their own page, especially the hook of dissonance. Piostephanie (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it would not be a good idea to give every hook its own page, because that would cause an enormous amount of redundancy. Take all the gem hooks, for example: They're functionally completely identical. Group pages like this one exist because of these similarities of items. It is acceptable to describe the intricacies of a unique hook like the Anti-Gravity Hook on a separate page, but that is not a solution for all hooks. --Rye Greenwood (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Hook of Dissonance, which as you say is unique, does have its own page though so it should be linked as the other unique hooks are. Metalax (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

That's right, it should. I've added the link now. --Rye Greenwood (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)