User talk:CARAAMON

Click here for the Archive.

Crafting material pages

So I thought I was making up the BONE item pages the same as how you'd made up the METAL item pages, but now I see you're starting to do re-directs on them to other page names. First off, sorry! Guess I should have just done one and gotten you to look it over first. So, with that in mind, do you want to go ahead and do the first leather item up (right now, looks like Antelope skin), so I have a template to do the other leather items that way too so that you won't have to go back and fiddle them later? Not trying to make more work for you...:) --Kythryn 14:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm still testing it, trying to find the way that makes the most sense. Metals and stones are fairly simple, as they always are obvious what they are. Skin and bones isn't always quite so straightforward. I list them in stack form for a couple reasons:

1. So people can easily match what's in their pack to crafting stats.
2. Because some skin/bones we can't actually attribute to a specific creature yet or come from multiple creatures.
3. Because some skin/bones is very oddly named.
4. Because some similarly named items might end up being very different (Snow Goblin bones might end up different than Elven Pixie Forest and Plains Goblin bones) and so having a Goblin Bone page could cause issues.

That being said, this is a wiki and not my personal little fiefdom, so if you think you have a better way to do it, PLEASE give it a shot. I watch all the changes on the site (or at least try), so even if I disagree and change it, some part of your idea may end up being far better. -Moderator Caraamon Makdasi^(talk) 19:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You may not claim the title, but we all know: You're king of the Elanthipedia Kingdom...:).

So, on the stack vs. no-stack thing, I see where you're coming from. But, on the flip side of that, if you're looking to match what is in a pack, why not lumium shard or silk cloth or onyx rock? I mean, the only thing you can (currently) pick up from it's name is a prepared healing herb (ie. crushed belradi moss becomes crushed belradi), everything else you see as a "cloth" or an "ingot" or whatever. (not trying to be difficult here, but seems like the other materials already have their "qualifier" stripped off, so why not with Bone & Leather too).

And, we do already have Goblin Bone and Pale Goblin Bone (thanks to Antendren checking a snow goblin question I had) so I do suspect that if the GM's release something from 2 similar creatures, they will give it a separate name. Hopefully. Probably. Maybe.

At the end of the day, I don't really care how we proceed with this, I'm happy to help populate everything. --Kythryn 00:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

And because I'm just itching to do something with this tonight it seems, I have been playing around with Caracal-pelt Leather, including the base pelt and made a test table under the COMMON LEATHER section on the Crafting Materials page. Let me know what you think, make changes, etc. Thanks! --Kythryn 03:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Perfect! -Moderator Caraamon Makdasi^(talk) 06:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

ugh, sorry I didn't get all those leather crafting supplies finished up yet but I did guilt Anuind into getting me samples of all the remaining common leather skins and have them tanned. So, I am (hoping!) to finish that up this coming weekend. That being said, I'd posted on the forums, and will add this to the "crafting feedback" page too, but since there are currently 2 common skins that turn into "some azure-scale leather", each with different stats, should I go ahead and make "some azure-scale leather (1)" and "some azure-scale leather (2)", and a master "disambig" page like this link for both?

http://www.elanthipedia.org/w/index.php/Weapon:Black-bladed_bastard_sword_with_a_silver_gryphon_atop_the_cross-guard

--Kythryn 06:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. -Moderator Caraamon Makdasi^(talk) 12:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I broke it

I did something weird to the ranger spell page. I think I must have had one of the lines out of order. I tried reversing my changes but it still looks weird. Halp. --GAMERGIRL151 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2014 (CDT)

Order Gifts

So, I was thinking about all those gifts from different events over the years. Many of them are already in the database, just floating around here and there, and I was wondering if there was any way to list them on the pages for the groups they came from. Could this be done at the bottom of the pages, or would this be something that would be better on its own page with a link placed on the group's page? --hexedbythenet 16:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You can either set them up on the page for the organization they came from, the event they came from, or a generic page for gifts from that organization, depending on what data you have and how you'd like to set it up. Use the {{sloot}} template to ensure they autosource. -Moderator Caraamon Makdasi^(talk) 07:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not familiar with exactly how to do that. :D So, any chance you can show me what you mean using this page as an example Thick_leather_liquor_sack_stitched_with_a_pink_war_mammoth --hexedbythenet 14:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

See Change -Moderator Caraamon Makdasi^(talk) 11:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Error when uploading image

I'm trying to upload a .png file of the new 3.1 Moon Mage spell tree and it is returning these errors:

• Could not open lock file for "mwstore://local-backend/local-public/4/41".
  
• Could not open lock file for "mwstore://local-backend/local-public/4/41/3.1_Moon_Mage_Spells.png".
  

I've tried various sizes of files thinking it might be a file size issue, but no luck. I've tried both creating a new upload as well as a new version of an existing upload. Not sure what else to try. --ABSOLON (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2014 (CDT)

Yeah, there's a technical issue with uploading images right now. So hold off till we nail it down. -CARAAMON (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2014 (CDT)

GMs and Approval

More a housekeeping thing, but I'm guessing that GM accounts shouldn't need to have their edits reviewed? I noticed that all of User:DR-MELETE's edits are on the patrol list, for example. --TEVESHSZAT (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2014 (CDT)

I prefer it for 2 reasons. 1) I like to see what the GMs add, and 2) not all of them are extensively wiki fluent (not that I'd expect them to be), so I prefer to do a quick check over. -CARAAMON (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2014 (CDT)

Makes sense! --TEVESHSZAT (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2014 (CDT)

Possible category or category restructuring for spell scrolls

Over in this thread on the forums, there is a discussion about what to do with a list of spells that are possible to be found on scrolls that is in an odd spot. Short version: One suggestion is to either create a category for it or repurpose the current Category:Scroll_Spells with a sub-category for Scroll Only Spells. I was hoping to get your feedback on whether this is a good idea or not. I will make any necessary changes whichever direction is decided upon.--ABSOLON (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2014 (CDT)

Started poking around and realized that spell templates would have to be adjusted to factor this stuff in, so while the page is set up I'm leaving the rest to Caraamon himself. --TEVESHSZAT (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2014 (CDT)

I have made adjustments to the spell template before, specifically the adjustment to make it track spells via intro, basic, advanced, and esoteric rather than first, second, third, and fourth tier, so if you're willing I could go ahead and do that myself. The grunt work will be updating each individual spell's page once the template is in place.--ABSOLON (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2014 (CDT)

I've gone ahead and done a quick edit of the template to add the new Scroll Only Spells category as an option for source= and making sure the scroll graphic displays for the new category instead of the old repurposed one. I also edited Tangled Fate to test it. I'm holding off on doing more until I get the go ahead to continue just in case I didn't do it quite right or it should be done in a slightly different way. One thing I'm noticing is that Tangled Fate is showing correctly on the new Category:Scroll Only Spells page, but it isn't populating on the Category:Scroll Spells page despite it being a parent category. What is the best way to handle this?--ABSOLON (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (CDT)

After doing some testing I've come to the conclusion that Tangled Fate is just not populating correctly, since I just updated Tezirah's Veil and it is displaying as expected. It probably has to do with the order I made the edits to the template and category pages and it will likely correct itself eventually. Since Tezirah's Veil is working properly I will go ahead and start updating every spell's page to properly reflect the new source categorization.--ABSOLON (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2014 (CDT)

Project completed, aside from filling out missing information and confirming existing information is correct.--ABSOLON (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2014 (CDT)

I am seriously sick (not the dying kind, just the kind where you kinda wish you were), so I won't be responding too quickly. Let me know if you run into any issues. -CARAAMON (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2014 (CDT)

Database error

I think this is something the office will have to resolve, but there is a sql database error on the Item Hider page:
A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:


(SQL query hidden)

from within function "SMW::getQueryResult". Database returned error "126: Incorrect key file for table '/tmp/#sql_586f_0.MYI'; try to repair it (wikisql2.simutronics.com)".
--ABSOLON (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2014 (CDT)

Yeah, I've made them aware of it, but it's out of my hands. -CARAAMON (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2014 (CDT)

Looking into it... Caraamon, are you on Skype? --SIMU-NOVA (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2014 (CDT)

I'd be totally willing to be, but I have no webcam, so I don't know how much use that'd be. Usually I handle stuff like this on AIM, but I don't know if that's suitable for you. -CARAAMON (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2014 (CDT)

Actually, I just remembered I have one buried somewhere, so that could work too. -CARAAMON (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2014 (CDT)

Categories

I have noticed a strange problem I can't seem to figure out. The spell categories pages seem to be collecting spells in a strange way. For example, Gar Zeng is listed in Multistrike Spells rather than Multistrike Abilities. Fire Shard is listed in Multistrike Abilities rather than Multistrike Spells. As near as I can tell there is no difference in the wikicode. I have noticed some other spells that inexplicably don't show up in the proper categories like Dazzle not showing up in Category:Debilitation_Abilities -or- Debilitation Spells but likewise can't see any difference compared to Compel that is. I would be happy to chase these down and fix them if you have any idea how to do it.Ithrios (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2014 (CDT)

There's two things happening here. First, the entries on a category page only update when each individual entry is updated thereby resetting it's cache. This does happen automatically over time, but can be quite unpredictable as to when it will happen. You can force it to update on the category list by editing the individual page and saving it without changing anything.

The second is related, but works in the reverse. The spell tables on the spell category pages don't automatically repopulate when you update a spell, but rather only repopulate when the table itself is updated. Editing the category page and saving it without an edit should force this.

On occasion you might need to do both in order to get a spell/ability to show up in a table, so do a no-change edit/save of the page followed by the same for the category. Don't worry about spamming the recent changes either, since no-change edits don't register a history at all.

P.S. You don't want to know how many times I've had to do this to every single spell page when converting everything over to 3.0 standards. ^^;;--ABSOLON (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2014 (CDT)

Pretty much what Absolon said. Sometimes there's a lag time between when something is changed in a template, and when that change registers on pages that use that template. If something is every acting odd, the first thing to do is edit, make no changes, then save. -CARAAMON (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2014 (CDT)

So, yeah, I fixed it. I have even *more* respect for Absolon and the work he has done with spells if he has done that more than once. As a follow up question (now that I seem to be ripping my way through the magic pages and updating them), is it feasible (and desirable, I suppose) to add additional categories to some of the spell types like singe-shot targeted spells, integrity/potency/ablative/non-ablative wards and so forth? The latter, especially, is useful information if you want to stack wards (you are better off stacking two integrity wards that one of each, for example).Ithrios (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2014 (CDT)

Is it possible? Sure. But more categories means going back over every spell or ability, and either manually adding links/categories or rewriting the template to automatically do it, then rewrite the individual entries to update the infobox. And the question is whether a sufficient number of people would find it useful to be worth the effort. It is entirely possible to excessively categorize and label things. -CARAAMON (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2014 (CDT)

Titles 3.0

Is there a specific way we should update titles for 3.0? I'm just not really seeing how we are differentiating what reqs on a page are from 2.0 or are verified as being 3.0. Take Far Seer for example. I found in 3.0 that it still requires 500 Astro exactly like the 2.0 title, though it no longer requires 350 Perception skill, and if it does require perception it is 300 or less ranks. The spell req is still unknown if it is the same or not. Would it be best to make a note in the title's discussion page, or perhaps in the title's page add 3.0 req fields and still keep the old 2.0 reqs for reference, or create a new 3.0 title page for said title or somehow put a checkmark or the word 3.0 VERIFIED or something next to verified 3.0 reqs, or a question mark after old 2.0 unverified reqs? I rambled on there a bit, but I figure that there should be some way to make it known if a req is 3.0 verified or not, just not sure how to do it. -SYDNEE (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2014 (CDT)

Hmmmm, let me dig up the old code and see if I can't do something simple. -CARAAMON (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2014 (CDT)

Okay, added something. -CARAAMON (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2014 (CDT)