Category talk:Sets that improve Ranged Defense

From Paragon Wiki
Revision as of 23:23, 22 May 2014 by Sekoia (Talk | contribs) (Issue in table)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Issue in table

There's an issue with Numina's in the table. The bonus reads: "3.75% Template:InvSetOverviewClassName.dpl.default|| 5 || 1.25% " I have no idea how to solve that issue, since tracking through templates and stuff gets me somewhere I shouldn't mess with. Also it has ".dpl" and it's my understanding that dpl is some sort of base code or something for the wiki, which I have no idea about. Felderburg 17:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an issue with Overwhelming Force or Overpowering Presence, one of them is probably missing something or has something new that the templates aren't set up for. I don't have time to investigate further right now, but I'll come look into it more later. -- Sekoia 23:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Overwhelming Force was the culprit. It doesn't use {{InvSetOverview}} in its overview, which was causing the failure. The Archetype Enhancements have that same issue, but it was suppressed because the DPL was excluding their category. So I just tweaked the DPL reports to also exclude Overwhelming Force. Not an ideal solution, but better than having errors. At some point we should probably rework things so that these templates work with attuned enhancements. -- Sekoia 01:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
So it caused the issue in Numina's entry because it's next alphabetically, I guess? Also, it seems like you're saying the attuned enhancements and Overwhelming Force don't show up in these tables. That's... a bummer. Felderburg 14:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Overwhelming Force is one of many things that were added late to the game that we never fully got around to dealing with on the wiki. There was much discussion on Re-evaluating Recipe/Enhancement articles, and I think a general consensus was reached on formatting between Agge's and Guy's suggestions. I'd be willing to start tackling the changes needed (because red links) if none of them will screw up things on the back end with DPL or SMW. Blondeshell Sig.png talk / contribs 21:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't really think a consensus had been reached, personally, but it was ages ago. In any case, making those kinds of changes would have significant impacts to the DPL/SMW queries; everything would probably have to be reworked. In fact, it should probably involve migrating from mostly-DPL-based templates to SMW-based templates since we were looking to eventually phase out DPL. -- Sekoia 23:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Correct, it showed up on Numina because it was next alphabetically. -- Sekoia 23:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)