Talk:Wilderness Golem

EXP Clarifications Repeatedly Blocked?

I've noticed there seems to be something of an edit-war going on with this page and wanted to see if it could be cleared up via a discussion.

The purpose of a game wiki is to document information about a game, which might then be used to improve the experience for players and fans in general. But challenges can sometimes arise over disputes of formatting, clarity, and factually. In this case, the dispute is over how best to present the EXP granted by defeating a Wilderness Golem.

From a player's perspective, a Wilderness Golem gives 1 EXP. This is because, at least as of time of writing this, they only spawn on farms, and all EXP gained on farms is reduced by 1/3. So even though they 'technically' give 5 EXP from a datamining perspective, they will, in practice, never give this amount. This makes the current presentation of the information highly misleading, as players browsing the page will see "XP: 5" and go "Ah, golems are five times better for grinding than bats!" And thus make decisions based on inaccurate information, which can lead to much frustration. In the case of a challenge run, this frustration can be elevated even further.

Now, there are reasons to keep the information that these golems give 5 XP despite them only giving 1 in practice. Suppose we have a future update, in which the golems can appear elsewhere. Or suppose a glitch is discovered, that causes mobs to spawn in the wrong locations, and thus the actual XP assigned becomes relevant. But, as of time of writing, there don't seem to be any circumstances where this '5 XP' amount actually applies in practice, so the way this wiki presents this information, currently, only misleads players, and never actually helps them.

I can see from the history that on October 2nd, a user attempted to remedy this, by updating the listed value from "5" to "5 (1 while on farm)." This strikes me as a good compromise, it preserves the information obtained by datamining, while providing the actual, applicable, information players would need. But then it was rolled back by an admin, who seems to take issue with the contributor's source being a youtube video. (I'm not really sure why. This is a wiki, not a scholarly research paper.)

None the less, the user persisted, this time citing the actual source code of the game, to prove it, but the same mod rolled it back again with an even vaguer justification.

I'm not sure why we're having an edit war about this, but, it seems to me that the current solution, having the actual information in the references, is actively misleading to readers? They shouldn't have to double check every reference to make sure we aren't misleading them. So why are we persisting with this format? Do we value aesthetics over accuracy and readability? Such priorities strike me as a bit odd, for a wiki, who's purpose is to communicate information about this game to it's players.

HalfBreadChaos (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)