Breaking up pages

Jump to: navigation, search

It came up in AIM chat that certain pages need to be broken up, or we need a better way of handling them. Particularly for mobile/low bandwidth users.

Figuring out a logical scheme to break up the pages would be nice, if we can preserve the utility of the pages.

Pages that are a problem are like LotS/items/Officers, too much template expansions and expensive parser functions. LotS suffers from it the most, however LoH does have quite a bit of a problem as well.

zoytip may help this problem and we can reduce some of the formatting by removing the description possibly. However this is still in development.

This is only really a problem for huge pages. But these pages do impact overall site performance. Breaking the page up in a logical way seems to be the best bandaid solution to me for now.

Zoycite (talk)22:57, 30 July 2013

Well, the main use of those pages is to compare officers quickly. If I asked a question like: "What's the best Melee officer that a free player can easily obtain?", I can sort by AV ascending and then sort by Role and scroll down to the Melee section. Next, I skim the Obtained column for where I get the officer (Vaults, Expeditions, and Limited Time items are not for free players, so exclude those) and find that 1000 is the best. Furthermore, I can then see in the Ability column that other officers like Acht will boost him even further.

That's really what I feel like the core usage of that page is. If users just want to see a list of Officers, they can use the category page Category:LotS/Officer. I fear, then, that breaking up the page will then pretty much kill the utility it provides unless you can do some kind of like fancy wiki pagination stuff where the sorting happens across multiple pages, in which case I'm cool with that.

To your point, those pages are taking longer and longer to generate, as is illustrated by the fact that I have to purge that page with some frequency.

I guess my opinion is, then, that if we can't keep the page as it is (or with some crazy paging stuff), that it's kind of pointless to keep, and it should just be killed off entirely. Hope that's not too harsh.

--doomcat

Doomcat (talk)14:10, 31 July 2013

I probably wont be able to get sorting across multiple pages working, that just is not feasible.

While incredibly useful that it does display all in one place and is sortable, maybe we can break it up into Type, that seems to be the most logical. Eliminates the need to sort by melee since it is being done already, so saves you a step.

Also maybe we need to have a shorter page that is just name, type, AV. We should probably have the user click on the page to get the obtained info. Lots of reasons for this, but rendering the descriptions are expensive.

Other pages that have lots of entries we should break up into pages by AV (or other stat) if there is no distinguishable type on the item.

Zoycite (talk)21:20, 9 August 2013

The officers work on three main axes: Race, Role, Attribute. I'm not sure which one would be best (or even maybe all of them?) to divide the pages on, but I guess whoever gets around to making the split can just decide and do it, and we'll clean up afterward if it's awful.

--doomcat

Doomcat (talk)14:00, 3 September 2013

Ah, so this is why the item category pages keep getting screwed and needing purging? I was wondering if that was it, just getting too big with too many calls. Just had a message on FB mentioning that a bunch were messed up so I purged them. It would be a pity to split up item category pages... Officers are the only one with as clear a division, but even dividing that makes it harder tracking down officers with bonuses vs various raid types etc. The equipment category pages are too big too.  :-/ I suppose another way to split everything is GS/free, really only causes an issue when people are comparing old GS items and new free items.

As a patch in the meantime, could there be a handy Purge button with the Edit button? DotD wiki on wikia has that, although its far more necessary there since every item page has to be purged after creation or editing due to the nature of the templates.

Feathin (talk)20:07, 2 October 2013

I will see if I can enable a purge.

The main concern is page load time for people. This is what breaking up the page would do.

Categories work a bit different and are a feature of mediawiki. I am talking mostly about the pages that are big lists of things with tons of items on them.

Zoycite (talk)21:22, 2 October 2013

Well, what LoTS has is mainly fancy versions of the category pages. Instead of just listing all the links to all the items (normal mediawiki category pages are just links, no other info), we're pretty much abusing the wiki software to turn Zoywiki into a LoTS item database. Basically, until the game dies, we're going to keep hitting this problem because we get new items/crew/officers every week. I'm not sure what the real solution is, other than to maybe try to host an item database elsewhere, but that adds a ton of burden to a few specific people rather than the nice burden distribution effect of the wiki.

Doomcat (talk)13:07, 4 October 2013

Well there is another solution, improve #varpull to structure data.

maybe make something like #multivarpull, but then we need like a regex/output mask or something that it will put variables into like here would be our use case

{{#multivarpull:
|output={{LotS/ItemRow|%name%|%desc%|%obtained%}}
|article=LotS/Item Name
|template=Lots/Item
|name
|desc
|obtained
}}

something along those lines might improve usability of varpull and make things a lot faster since it will be less expensive calls. this is a band-aid solution but gives us a lot more power down the road

Zoycite (talk)11:21, 6 October 2013

Yeah when I referred to "category" pages I did mean the big item pages. Hangover from DotD wiki for which both are the same thing. We started to run into the issue of size on those pages a year ago or so there, and then someone figured out a less expensive way of pulling the data and allowed the pages to continue growing, but part of that involved redoing every single item page and was a huge project.

Feathin (talk)13:49, 6 October 2013
 

Multivarpull sounds like it's probably a pretty substantial bandaid, though. Another one might be either allowing variables to be declared, or if that's already allowed, teaching it to us. I've seen a ton of places like if (varpull:x) then display varpull:x Where we pull it once to check it, then pull it again to use it. If you combined variable declaration and multivarpull, I think we'd reduce each Crew or Officer or Item row from what must be dozens of pulls to < 5.

--doomcat

Doomcat (talk)05:05, 17 October 2013