Talk:Incarnate Component

I think it would be easier to organize the salvage by rarity first, then alphabetical after that. Would make it much easier to read.

I would be willing to do this myself, but I want to see if anyone objects to this idea. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Catwhowalksbyhimself (talk • contribs) 18:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• I would think it would be better to have them set up like the Invention Salvage Tiers page, but that may have to be a separate page. If we're going for consistency with other salvage pages, I would leave them as they are. SpaceNut 23:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate page for Incarnate Component Tiers? (Which could be linked from here, of course.) --Eabrace 23:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

>_> I'm all for breaking it up by tier lvl, been meaning to make a nav bar for the salvage pages for a bit now. We should probably break it up either by shard and thread, or by tier, and tier seems more sensible. I would have done it last night, but its all DPL stuff and I haven't touched it since the invention salvage was added.--Sleepykitty 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think you can do "two organization types" (e.g. "alphabetical within rarity" instead of "just rarity" or "just alphabetical") with one DPL call (you'd have to break it up into multiple DPL, which from what I understand more than one DPL call per page puts exponentially more stress on the server.And without DPL, this page has to be updated every single time new stuff comes around, which may or may not take days, weeks, months... or just a couple hours. DPL makes it easier to maintain the page automagically.

I don't disagree with an [[Incarnate Component Tiers]], but this page being alphabetical is probably the best. ~ AGGE talk/cons 02:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

<.< was actually thinking breaking each tier into a seperate page might work best... barring one for the 2 sub-components, they could just stay on common rather than making a very common page. --Sleepykitty 05:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)