User talk:76561198061330722 - Revision history

76561198061330722 at 08:16, 4 July 2026

2026-07-04T08:16:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:16, 4 July 2026
Line 21:		Line 21:
	* later add a way to select a Source Item to filter the table by (giving the user the functionality lost currently)		* later add a way to select a Source Item to filter the table by (giving the user the functionality lost currently)

	The old version's info is ''very'' wrong + outdated, so we shouldn't revert back (it won't be useful). I've already updated a lot of the item pages so that the correct info on their pages, and therefore pulled ~~in here~~.		The old version's info is ''very'' wrong + outdated, so we shouldn't revert back (it won't be useful). I've already updated a lot of the item pages so that the correct info is on their pages, and therefore pulled into the Cauldron page.

	I'm not an expert, so it'll take me a bit to figure out how to do the filtering thing. In the meantime, I'll just add back the reverse of each row to bring back the lost searchability for now (regionalRowMirrored).<br>		I'm not an expert, so it'll take me a bit to figure out how to do the filtering thing. In the meantime, I'll just add back the reverse of each row to bring back the lost searchability for now (regionalRowMirrored).<br>

76561198061330722 at 11:33, 3 July 2026

2026-07-03T11:33:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:33, 3 July 2026
Line 18:		Line 18:
	My intention was to:		My intention was to:
	* reduce the table size and unecessary data duplication (reducing manual maintenance) (done)		* reduce the table size and unecessary data duplication (reducing manual maintenance) (done)
	* add functionality that pulls data from the item pages, rather than user manually having to update every row (x2 per item), every single update (done)		* add functionality that pulls data from the item pages(used regionalRow), rather than user manually having to update every row (x2 per item), every single update (done)
	* later add a way to select a Source Item to filter the table by (giving the user the functionality lost currently)		* later add a way to select a Source Item to filter the table by (giving the user the functionality lost currently)

	The old version's info is ''very'' wrong + outdated, so we shouldn't revert back (it won't be useful). I've already updated a lot of the item pages so that the correct info on their pages, and therefore pulled in here.		The old version's info is ''very'' wrong + outdated, so we shouldn't revert back (it won't be useful). I've already updated a lot of the item pages so that the correct info on their pages, and therefore pulled in here.

	I'm not an expert, so it'll take me a bit to figure out how to do the filtering thing. In the meantime, I'll just add back the reverse of each row to bring back the lost searchability for now.<br>		I'm not an expert, so it'll take me a bit to figure out how to do the filtering thing. In the meantime, I'll just add back the reverse of each row to bring back the lost searchability for now (regionalRowMirrored).<br>
	Also, myb this is meant to be on the [[Talk:Cauldron\|discussion page]] of the [[Cauldron]] page itself but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯<br>		Also, myb this is meant to be on the [[Talk:Cauldron\|discussion page]] of the [[Cauldron]] page itself but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯<br>

	'''TLDR''': I'll add back the reverse of each row to bring back the lost searchability for now.		'''TLDR''': I'll add back the reverse of each row to bring back the lost searchability for now (using regionalRowMirrored).

	<br>[[User:76561198061330722\|76561198061330722]] ([[User talk:76561198061330722\|talk]]) 11:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)		<br>[[User:76561198061330722\|76561198061330722]] ([[User talk:76561198061330722\|talk]]) 11:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
	----		----

76561198061330722 at 11:31, 3 July 2026

2026-07-03T11:31:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:31, 3 July 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:

	Thank you for your time and further thank you for all the work you have put into this wiki.		Thank you for your time and further thank you for all the work you have put into this wiki.

			--

			Hi! You're very welcome :]<br>
			To be honest, I noticed exactly what you're saying shortly after implementing. <br>
			I agree, this version is too clunky for searching through.<br>

			My intention was to:
			* reduce the table size and unecessary data duplication (reducing manual maintenance) (done)
			* add functionality that pulls data from the item pages, rather than user manually having to update every row (x2 per item), every single update (done)
			* later add a way to select a Source Item to filter the table by (giving the user the functionality lost currently)

			The old version's info is ''very'' wrong + outdated, so we shouldn't revert back (it won't be useful). I've already updated a lot of the item pages so that the correct info on their pages, and therefore pulled in here.

			I'm not an expert, so it'll take me a bit to figure out how to do the filtering thing. In the meantime, I'll just add back the reverse of each row to bring back the lost searchability for now.<br>
			Also, myb this is meant to be on the [[Talk:Cauldron\|discussion page]] of the [[Cauldron]] page itself but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯<br>

			'''TLDR''': I'll add back the reverse of each row to bring back the lost searchability for now.

			<br>[[User:76561198061330722\|76561198061330722]] ([[User talk:76561198061330722\|talk]]) 11:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
			----

76561198036602845: Cauldron page Reversion Request

2026-07-02T23:58:22Z

Cauldron page Reversion Request

New page

Apologies if this is in the incorrect spot. This refers to the new layout of the Cauldron page here:
https://wiki.hoodedhorse.com/He_is_Coming/Cauldron

To find what I can make with say Redwood Roast, I now have to sort by source item 1, find the Roast in the list and see what can be made, then sort a second time by source item 2 and look at the second collection of items. Before this change, I could sort and compare all the final results for any item.

On top of this, whether a source item is in column one or two is entirely arbitrary. The original layout was clunky but worked well, and the newer layout is cleaner but is difficult to use.

Could you consider reverting? Or at least have a link at the top to the old table?

Thank you for your time and further thank you for all the work you have put into this wiki.