Talk:Assignment: Barter Gold-Pressed Latinum (common)

User:Unscjon117 if you don't mind, I'd like to bring back the infbox reward and the map and the canonical order of rewards. Justification:

• Infobox reward clearly shows what to expect for different outcomes, don't see a reason not to have this info?
• Map - while it is one location at the moment, and in fact it is 2 - DS9 space and DS9 ground, I have seen this assignment in sector space in Beta Quadrant too. So this is just the beginning, but as more information is discovered - we will see the map being populated as others add more locations.
• Canonical order of rewards: any reason why you changed the ordering of rewards? It is now different to in-game screen.

Trajos (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

That's... a lot to consider.

1. Looking back at the history, "Infobox reward clearly shows what to expect for different outcomes" did not cover all assignment variations by rarity; it showed variations of dil/xp for common/uncommon only, and a "pile" of ranges for the commodities - which is incomplete with regard to the rare and very rare variants. What's effectively needed here is a separate page for each assignment rarity (in order to present the information cleanly and ensure the assignment can be found in each corresponding subcategory for same), at which point perhaps "Variations" could be reduced to a simple bullet point list of each assignment rarity. I don't think separate "summary" pages such as "Special Deal on Entertainment Provisions" (which doesn't even seem to be categorized) add much value (and in that case is also redundant with the wiki's own disambiguation page: "Assignment: Special Deal on Entertainment Provisions).
2. Understood, and if there were a limited list of locations where it (ever) showed up, I would be inclined to agree. However, it's unnecessary to add an entire sector space map when there's currently only data supporting a single location (despite being both space/ground for DS9; the template doesn't effectively distinguish the two when displaying the map, and can't, really). It would also remain to be seen whether the assignment is only available in specific sectors/locations, or if it's just a generic "Current Map" or "Personal" assignment (i.e. when it shows up, it can be found *everywhere* at the same time). Have seen other similar assignments, but as you can imagine, it takes *significant* time and effort to fly through *every* sector block in the game (without exception; all blocks in Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta quadrants), checking assignments to see if one is still listed (have done it on “Deliver Prototype”, but not about to arbitrarily go through every single available assignment solely for that purpose). The next time I see this show up while in sector space, I'll try to remember to do that check.
3. Re: rewards (order), this may be yet another variation by platform (thanks, devs). If these assignments were listed as separate pages by assignment rarity (which they should, both to place them in appropriate subcategories and cleanly present the rewards associated with each), then the order would be determined by the assignmentinfo template, at which point the "Variations" section could be reduced to a bullet point list of assignment rarity and commodities.

Unscjon117 (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @User:Unscjon117,

1. Sorry, it seems we are talking about 2 different things here, I am only talking about commodity rewards at the very bottom of infobox and nothing else, which is in fact the same across all the different rarities of this assignment (it differs by commodity price). Your last edit was to remove all the info from it and make it look like this:

You will receive the following reward:

Commodity (varies)

My point was to actually show this info as it was before, as it is quite concise and clearly shows the profits for trader-minded Ferengi-loving players considering how to best use their 20 doff assignment slots for maximum profits :)

2. Yes, the assignment is definitely available in specific locations - easy to verify yourself. Go to DS9 ground, write down which "Barter" assignments are available. Move to DS9 space, write down the list again. Move to any arbitrary location outside of DS9. Now come back to DS9 ground, then DS9 space - the assignments will revert back to what you have seen before. Repeat on another toon - the lists will be different, but will be rememebred for these locations. If you are actively editing assignment locations on the wiki - any reasonable reader or co-author would expect you to be familiar with this procedure.

Regarding *significant* time and effort you mention - please be mindful that in this case you are referring to you not having yet spent time and effort. It absolutely does not mean that noone else have spent no time and effort. In fact, I have spent this time and effort, and you have just told me that you removed my edit not because you have evidence that it is incorrect, but because you do not trust me, but yet you have no time to verify what I wrote. Please then explain what reason you have not to trust me. Imagine if every editor would go start removing all your edits just because they have no time to verify what you wrote in your edits, and they automatically don't trust anyone else but themselves.

Another question then is if you cannot afford to spent the *significant* time and effort - do you think you then have a moral right to just arbitrarily remove edits made by people who have actually *spent* this significant time and efforts without even asking a question on the talk page, like I am doing now (and trust me, there are people who have no family, school, or work and so have the luxury of being able to put in 14 hours a day into STO wiki editing).

3. Which platform are you using? I am on PC. Trajos (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Trajos, I see no cause here to assume this has anything to do with a lack of faith or was intended in any way as personal, and Unscjon117 does appear to be volunteering to check it in the case that it comes up for him. He merely stated he doesn't intended to do this for every assignment. You seem to be describing a procedure not unlike what he's describing, and "I have seen this assignment in sector space in Beta Quadrant too" would seem to imply a more casual sighting. I don't find it very fair to call out such a natural assumption in this way when you could simply have clarified that you had checked, should that be the case.

There's a principle on wikis that we assume good faith without clear evidence to the contrary, and I seen no such evidence of such in Unscjon117's response. I suggest you might want to reread it with at least a shred more benefit of the doubt. I would prefer that a consensus be reached rather than having to settle the matter myself, so let's not make it unnecessarily personal, please? — oOeyes 07:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@User:OOeyes thanks for your input. I take your point about being too emotional, so crossed out that part of my response above, and left only the part of my response material to the discussion. To get back to what actually matters - I disagree with User:Unscjon117 deleting some of the information on this page that I have added/considered useful without consulting me, as I believe the removed information was useful to the wider audience. In particular, I think a map is needed, but Unscjon117 disagrees as there would be only one confirmed location on the map currently. What is the procedure in case of a dispute, should the page be brought to the earliest or latest historical version out of two versions being disputed? What would be the process afterwards - would that be an open vote? Unless I presume there are no existing guidelines about whether a map should not in fact be added to single-location assignments? Trajos (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The first thing is always to attempt to reach a consensus. It might help to reach out on Project talk:Community portal to point people here and gather more input from the actively editing community so that there are more voices. (In fact, that's probably what I would have ultimately done instead of stepping in as I don't play much these days and am not very familiar with the minutiae of the duty officer system.) It also might be worth waiting some time to see if Unscjon177 responds and if there's going to be any movement on a consensus between the two of you, but I'll leave that to you to decide. — oOeyes 14:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Returning to the original discussion,...

1. Re: infobox rewards, "What's effectively needed here is a separate page for each assignment rarity (in order to present the information cleanly and ensure the assignment can be found in each corresponding subcategory for same)",... which is now done. The infobox for each now (again) lists all rewards, with the commodity rewards listing the value range of commodities obtained from that assignment. "Variations" has been simplified to a bullet point list of assignment links by rarity and coresponding commodities. The "common" page was built/renamed from the original page (and last), in order to create the others first and have as little disruption to information availability as possible in the process.
2. Re: the assignmentlocations map, I haven't re-added it for reasons previously stated; primarily that only a single location (group, e.g. DS9 ground/system/sector space) has been confirmed thus far. While checking for assignments in various other locations, I have not yet seen any of these show up anywhere else; still checking...
3. Re: canonical order of rewards, still think that should be handled by the assignmentinfo template, in order to be consistent everywhere that template is used (which, in theory, should be every duty officer assignment page - seems to be its purpose).

For the curious... I've been playing STO since Legacy of Romulus dropped for Mac, until they dropped the Mac client; picked it up again after it was released for console (Xbox One).Unscjon117 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)