User talk:Trang Oul

Suggestion

Hey Trang Oul,

May I suggest that before you add a D2R RW to a new attribute page that you change existing "yes" for "Ladder" to "yes (LoD only)" until we have found a better solution if it hasn't been done yet? Otherwise we'll have both "yes (D2R only" and plain "yes" on a page which is even more confusing, as can be seen on the "cannot be frozen" page before I changed it. Thanks! Best, Naturelover (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2024 (EDT)

Sure. I'm thinking about using a template (multiple or, better, one parametrized) for all those "Yes (LoD only)" and so on ladder/availability descriptions. Then we'll be able to change all pages at once, if we decide to change those labels. Trang Oul (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2024 (EDT)

individual rune pages

Hi again!

I won't be using the individual rune pages (like Eld Rune or Ko Rune at all, so don'T care about the format. So would you prefer seperate columns for LoD and D2R patches / ladder or integrated into one column for patch / ladder? Just let me know that we don'T do any work twice, thanks. Naturelover (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2024 (EDT)

I'd go for atomic (separate) data. Sortable and more readable. Trang Oul (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2024 (EDT)

Patches

Hello again,

me once more. I just noticed that Blizzard use a 2.x.y format for their patches for d2r (current is 2.7.3 e.g.) and not 1.ab like they used to with d2 and lod. So all my 2.00 2.40 and 2.60 edits were wrong and should've been 2.6 or 2.6.0 instead. I don't think I'm going to change it. But just wanted to let you know that I screwed up in this regard. :( Cheers, Naturelover (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2024 (EDT)

Hi Naturelover,

In my edits I've used x.y format (i.e. only major and minor, without patch (as defined here)). This is the format used in news (examples: 2.4, [1]), and also used by the community, since only the "big" patches introduced new features. But maybe we should be more detailed here? On the other hand, unlike LoD, I don't think it is even possible to install older D2R patches, so that information is purely historical.
PS. Shall I answer you here or on your page? :) Trang Oul (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2024 (EDT)

Hello TO,

answering here is fine.

I'll leave it to you how we/you record the patch number. As you said, it's purely historical anyway. :)

Cheers, Naturelover (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2024 (EDT)

PS: What's the difference between
and
 ?

Fortunately there are few pages with patch numbers, so it's not a big deal.

Speaking of br tags, it's a long story, but I prefer to close the tags (i.e. <br/>) instead of leaving them open. After all, explicit is better than implicit. Trang Oul (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2024 (EDT)

Item Type page

Hello TO,

just to let you know that the png at the beginning of the page doesn't display for me. I'm using Firefox on a Win 11 Pro system, all patched.

Image: same here. If you open the image page (https://www.theamazonbasin.com/wiki/index.php/File:Item_Types_weap_armo.png), you'll see it broken. The same if you open one of the thumbnails, say, https://www.theamazonbasin.com/wiki/thumb.php?f=Item_Types_weap_armo.png&width=1024 . It seems the thumbnail generating script is broken (as everything here...). But you can open the "Original file": https://www.theamazonbasin.com/wiki/images/a/a1/Item_Types_weap_armo.png Trang Oul (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2024 (EDT)

Second thing: You have created a group of Spears and Polearms?! What is that grouping based on? The game clearly differentiates between those two (barb has a mastery for each one, amazons can rock spears and javs, but not polearms) - so why group them together? Based on what? ANd why D2R only? Naturelover (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2024 (EDT)

Spears and Polearms: D2R data files, namely itemtypes.txt (definition) and monstats.txt (usage; new columns with hirelings equipment, moved from hireling.txt). This is a grouping item type, with no items directly using this type, like Swords and Knives. And D2R only simply because it didn't exist in LoD. Trang Oul (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2024 (EDT)

Thanks. And a comment: On the small/large/grand charm pages you wrote "Called Charm xxx in the game data files in LoD" - do you really mean LoD or maybe d2r? Naturelover (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2024 (EDT)

LoD. In D2R in misc.txt they are called "xxx Charm", as seen in the game. It seems in LoD files those names were "beta"/"dev", and in D2R "production". Example: "viper amulet" in LoD vs. "Amulet of the Viper" in D2R, "Skeleton Key"/"Key" (the key to open chests, not keys for Ubers), "Saphire"/"Sapphire" and so on. Trang Oul (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2024 (EDT)

After further investigation, I found a possible reason to create sppl item type. In LoD hireling gear was defined in hireling.txt in columns WType1 and WType2 - two columns. These columns are absent in D2R. Instead, in monstats.txt new columns were introduced (in 2.4): rightArmItemType and leftArmItemType - one column per slot (and also canNotUseTwoHandedItems to handle dual/2h barb mercs). So, it seems that to allow desert mercs to use both polearms and spears, a new item type had to be created as a container for both of them. Again, it's only my guess, but seems plausible. Trang Oul (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2024 (EDT)

One more discovery: D2R also introduced none item type, which is used to indicate that some hirelings cannot equip a second weapon (monstats.txt, col leftArmItemType). Maybe after D2R changes this column cannot be just left empty? Anyway, I haven't decided to create the page for that item type (yet), as it seems to be too technical. Trang Oul (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2024 (EDT)

Nice findings - didn't know you were sniffing out the code. :D Naturelover (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2024 (EDT)

Stun

I rolled back your edits of the Stun page because you had copied and pasted the Bash page over it.

Sorry, too many tabs open. Trang Oul (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2024 (EDT)

You cannot change edit summaries once you save changes, and they remain in the revision history. FFS, indeed. Onderduiker (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2024 (EDT)

malcontents

lol Nice! Naturelover (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2024 (EDT)

Subtypes

I understand that javelins are a subtype of spears in the .txts, but I don't know that we really need to adhere to that so strictly in the AB wiki, I think to the layperson it just looks like anything that specifies "spears" will be exclusive to them and not also include javelins. Like your change to the Safety craft page that changed it to only "spear" and not the "Spear/javelin" that it was for example. I think we could at least add a little subscript thing (the small numbers or dagger mark) that mentions that spears also include javelins, just to make it more clear to the average D2 player. Your thoughts? DarkMasterMan (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2025 (EDT)

That would be useful, but to be consistent, we should include such a tooltip for other item types as well, for example: axes† (also throwing axes), bows† (also amazon bows). Item types with deeper hierarchy are problematic, though: spears† (also amazon spears, javelins and amazon javelins)? Maybe nested: spears† (also amazon spears and javelins† (also amazon javelins))?

Anyway, I think technically it'd best to use a wiki template - there are so many pages that reference each item type, so hardcoding such tooltips would make future changes cumbersome. One template would allow to make changes in one place, both to improve style (such as flat vs nested example above) and to accommodate eventual future game changes. Trang Oul (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2025 (EDT)

Yeah doing it for the other types makes sense to me, a wiki template also makes sense. I'm out of my element when it comes to that stuff (and also admittedly lazy xP) so I'll leave that to someone else heh. DarkMasterMan (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2025 (EDT)

(any) shield

https://www.theamazonbasin.com/wiki/index.php/Any_shield consists of shields and 3 other subtypes. For https://www.theamazonbasin.com/wiki/index.php/Vigilance you added all 4 subtypes. The other shield rws only have shield as an item type. But I know they can be created in auric shields. So does that mean that "shield" actually is what you have in "any shield" and contains also shrunken heads, aurics, ...? Naturelover (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2026 (EST)

From runes.txt: Vigilance has 4 itypes: grim shld head ashd, that is, Grimoire, Any Shield, Voodoo Head and Auric Shield.

Grimoire, Voodoo Head and Auric Shield are leaves of the item type hierarchy, that is, they have no subtypes. So far, so good. But Any Shield is a supertype containing these three and also classic non-class Shield (shie)!

So, it seems like sloppy development. Not strictly a bug, but at least inefficiency. If Vigilance is to be created in any shield, classless or class-specific, it should either have Any Shield as a base, or all its subtypes, including Shield instead of Any Shield.

And it's not the only redundancy I've found. For example, all 4 Warlock summons have physical Sunder (item_pierce_damage_immunity) listed twice... Trang Oul (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2026 (EST)

Good to know. Thanks. Naturelover (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2026 (EST)

/item pages

I've noticed that you've created 21 /item pages for some miscellaneous and Reign of the Warlock Unique items, so you can transclude the contents to the relevant Unique item pages. I don't know your plans but, unless they're also going to be transcluded to other pages in the future (or you want that option), I wouldn't recommend creating many more: there are well over a hundred, and possibly hundreds, of Unique items in total, whereas there are only a few dozen Unique item type pages.

You're right, that was my plan. I wanted to have one page for both item stats and the redirect (with a clever use of "include" tags), but I was unable to do so. That's why I created sub-pages. We already have pages for all the unique and set tems - as redirects. Is it an issue (style-wise? performance-wise?) of having also a sub-page for each of them? If so, I can put everything in a single page, but having it more atomic seems easier to manage - for example to embed a single item in another page, or to reorder unique swords not only by normal -> exceptional -> unique, but also by 1H and 2H). Trang Oul (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2026 (EST)

I'm not aware of any issue with performance or style. All /item pages are currently listed under Uncategorized pages, but categorization doesn't really concern me (even though it's been quite a while, I think you could just put Categories in <noinclude> tags)... particularly since being uncategorized makes them easy to find.

Editing is another matter. There may be dozens of pages for Sets and Unique item types, but there are hundreds of individual Set and Unique items. If you only have to make changes for a particular Set or Unique item then that's fine, but if you have to make changes that affect most, if not all, Set and Unique items then you could have to edit hundreds of pages, rather than a few dozen. Obviously, you'd want to create a template that covers all existing parameters, and allows you to make changes to style or format that affect all /item pages without needing to edit them all individually.

I thought about creating a template (or templates) that would take params like charged BloodGolem 9 15 and "translate" that into an English description of a property. And similar ones for item/item type. That'd automatize creating new entries a lot (even more if done programmatically), and also standardize formatting across pages. Trang Oul (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2026 (EST)

Less advanced, but I was thinking of something like Template:Rune Word, but for Set and Unique items. If you can create something more advanced and automate the process, be my guest, but I might not have the expertise and our wiki might not have the infrastructure to provide support. Onderduiker (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2026 (EST)

Ideally, the need for Set and Unique item redirects could be removed by linking directly to page sections instead but, even though I now know how to make a template to simplify this (see StrategyWiki's Template:S), this would still mean editing hundreds of pages (all modifier and skill pages at a bare minimum). I don't think it would be worth it unless you were planning to add more information to /item pages than what's to be transcluded elsewhere. Onderduiker (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2026 (EST)

I've also switched from Template:Ub to Template:U: since the Unique names are section titles, they don't need to be bold (and making them so also makes them bold in any Table of Contents). Onderduiker (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2026 (EST)

Thank you! Trang Oul (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2026 (EST)