Legacy version table
Does anyone have an idea about how to add Rainbowstride's second legacy version without messing up the table? - Climmels (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I would just add a new line. Then maybe merge the cells on the last column. I'm not sure to understand what you consider "messed up"? Chriskang (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- I've just added in some rowspans to the Rainbowstride sections. Working in email marketing has the occasional benefit, HTML table mastery being one of the few. Iamacyborg (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Suggestion
I don't think we should list uniques with no stats changed except their implicits. It should IMO be enough to list the base item and skip the redundancy of listing the unique as well (Example: Astramentis). I cannot think of any instance where these changes are significant to the use of the unique except maybe Astramentis (where the idea is to stack stats) and Thief's Torment (the slightly less res may be more impactful when you can't use a second ring, but that's a stretch tbh). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheOneTheOnlyTheMoses (talk • contribs) 10:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- The purpose of doing so is to have a complete list of unique items with legacy variants. —Vini (t|c) 14:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Seperate page for Legacy Items
I think we should go back to a seperate page for legacy items, since The Awakening will introduce at least 50 new ones on top of the already high number. This will also help in managing the template cap on this page (which we are almost hitting, I think?). --Climmels aka SirProblematique (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yup, that makes sense. Iamacyborg (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say a page for legacy uniques and a page for alternate artwork, both linked to from this page. I'm guessing much of the time it will be the legacy unique part players care most about and the rest of the current page is largely padding for them. --Qetuth-(talk) 03:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. However there are also some base items that have legacy variants, not just unique items. So either put all legacy items on the same page or split it into two pages: Legacy base items and legacy uniques. —Vini (t|c) 08:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Is someone already working on that? --Lord joshi (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. However there are also some base items that have legacy variants, not just unique items. So either put all legacy items on the same page or split it into two pages: Legacy base items and legacy uniques. —Vini (t|c) 08:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'd say a page for legacy uniques and a page for alternate artwork, both linked to from this page. I'm guessing much of the time it will be the legacy unique part players care most about and the rest of the current page is largely padding for them. --Qetuth-(talk) 03:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Old Maraketh bow base type
Chin Sol and Darkscorn have legacy base types (the old Maraketh Bow) which doesn't exist anymore in the wiki (since 
Maraketh BowMaraketh BowBow
Physical Damage: 44-66
Critical Strike Chance: 5.50%
Attacks per Second: 1.40
Weapon Range: 120Requires Level 71, 222 Dex10% increased Movement Speed
is the new one). Or at least i didn't find the old page. Should we keep the legacy variants without a link to the old base type or should we restore the page of the old base type (with another name for sure) and link them to that page? --Lord joshi (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessary to create a page for the old Maraketh Bow, since it was effectively changed to Assassin Bow and a brand new Maraketh Bow created in 2.0.0. —Vini (t|c) 16:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yep, true. I'll remove the old base type from the page, since all Unqiue bows got the new base type, even if they still have the old implicit mod, which new Assassin Bows don't have. --Lord joshi (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)