User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher/Archive2

Bleah

And to think, I started this session thinking "time to start cooking up the Compleat Blacksmith". And then I start in on the research... --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Enchantment Reagents

I assume you changed the list of reagents at Enchant 2H Weapon - Agility because of the mis-alignment caused by the single/double digit quantities. I really like to have the quantities in front instead of the back though, so I tried my hand at a template. The arguments are chosen to be easily copied from the Enchant template above. Any input here is welcome :-) Pratt 13:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

To some extent, yes, I did for that reason. But also because the tooltip has quantities after the item. As well, there's the image out front separating the quantity from the link when using {{Item}}, a circumstance I find obnoxious. --Eirik Ratcatcher 21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll just go ahead and start putting the template in the enchant pages. When there's a satisfactory layout we can just edit the one template then :) Pratt 21:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Varedis

Because of tooltips and external links.--g0urra[T҂C] 20:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that that was not strictly necessary. External links can be handled at the bottom of the page easily enough. And what is it about the tooltips that required the pages be split? --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

They are different versions of the quest and should then be treated so. It doesn't matter if there's just a little typo - they should be different. Not to mention the varieties of other quests that are like that and has been categorized (see

[30-35] The Binding)--g0urra[T҂C] 07:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For the general case, I disagree most sincerely:

if the quest name is the same...
and the quest rewards are the same...
and the quest purpose is the same...
...even if the quest giver and receiver are different...

I believe that the page's usefulness is enhanced by supporting both (or the several) versions of the quest, if the quest text is substantially the same.

You point to

[30-35] The Binding as an example. Choosing two of the quests almost at random - succubus, stormwind, and succubus, orgrimmar... The text is substantially different. The chains they are in do not seem to be parallel (on trivial inspection; on deeper inspection, they may be so). These, I would say deserve separate pages.

As a counterexample,

[The Final Code].

I protest, sir, quite strenuously. You have taken information that was at one remove... a person could type in the name of the quest, and get one page that had the information they wanted... and made it into three for the sake of a quest ID that the user never sees.

See also my comment at the bottom of The Terokkar Mana Bomb quest chain.

Shall I call a vote on this issue? --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Stone of the Tides

I prefer "Description" over "Quest text" for many reasons, One being that Quest text = whole quest (including everything said during the quest), to me. While description is what the person describes what the situation is. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

At least it is less grating than G0urra's changes... :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean lol.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 20:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is...whats the difference in using co and coords for {{co||}} They both do the same thing, and yet they keep getting changed. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 21:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

First, to Coobra's: T:Co is a redirect to T:Coords. Changing the former to the latter while you're on the page is not a bad thing. Don't go hunting them down though. :)

Eirik: Re T:Item: It's a transclusion nightmare (like, literally). I would suggest that its usage be avoided unless you like the icon, and then, its limited to never being used in lists or other templates such as T:Settip. --Sky (t | c | w) 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Other templates... like T:quest? --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine in T:Questbox. It's the transcludable item one's it hates; Tooltip, Settip, and one or two others I can't remember, I think. I will again stress that it shouldn't be used unless there's an obvious use for the icon, as that's the only benefit it has over T:Loot, while the negative usages of Item are obvious. I revert their usage if I am happening to editing on a page anyway. --Sky (t | c | w) 04:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Haunting Isle

Yea, I did the quest and don't remember getting rep for it. But even if I had gotten rep, I doubt a quest earning 370XP would award 360rep ... maybe 10 or 15 at the most. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 20:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

/agree: quest probably doesn't have a 360 rep. However, do want to be sure, when posting "facts". Still want to verify it simply to have a first hand account. Perhaps I still have some toon that hasn't done it... --Eirik Ratcatcher 22:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Spectral Essence

That's why a wiki has denizens ;) We're out here to fix those issues.AMBER^(RΘCK) 20:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AlsoSee

I see. Though I remain bound to my belief that as of the present situation {{AlsoSee}} is on way too many pages. Perhaps some kind of maintenance tag could be invented to glue on the articles in which those templates ought to be replaced by proper sections? AMBER^(RΘCK) 20:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See my (just created) section on VP. You might suggest a maintenance tag in that section, so we can get further opinion and suggestions for implementing it. Me, I just went to "links here" and started looking. ... and editing. I'll try to keep at it... there are ~50 each "See also" and "SeeAlso", perhaps more "See", and more than 1000 "AlsoSee" (including those three).

Perhaps something like laurlybot or foxbot's "bot edited" tags? --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the VP discussion is surely a nice one, and I will keep monitoring it. If there is anyone I could add, I will contribute to it.AMBER^(RΘCK) 08:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Quest Enders

It's not a problem if a category has only subcategories and no actual pages as long as there is something in the category.. so I'd go for the creation of said category. AMBER^(RΘCK) 00:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Laurlybot recodeing

I am recoding laurlybot i haven't started on the quest module yet but i will be soon. As you where the one with the most and best input on the old bot i was wondering if you felt like being involved in both testing and designing what the new bot will do. I want this bot simpler then the old bot was.

My ideas:

quest id will have to be supplied guessing the quest and quest names caused to many issues.
bot will not try and generate the hole quest chain. I might change this in phase 2 but again this caused to many issues in the old bot so unless we can come up with a better way to do this its going to have to wait.

Pop by User:Laurlybot/quest_bot if you are interested. Laurly 08:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You scare me, Laurly... most of my feedback was Onions rather than Orchids. If I was one of your best sources of feedback, then I feel duty-bound to help out. --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK fine your my arch nemesis. But ... in a lot of cases your suggestions would have improved the bot the old bot was just to big to recode it. The code for this new bot is small stream lined. If i have you involved from the start we can avoid any onions. The reason for the bot is to help wiki we are on the same side with that. I think in this case being a woman helps i can ask for your support rather then just doing it the way i did it before. <3 Laurly 07:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

:) I hope that my comments are actually useful to you. --Eirik Ratcatcher 14:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sympathies for your recent interruption

~~To what are you referring to? Who did I insult? You make very generalized accusations and don't even show me what you mean.~~ Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 20:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Eirik is sorry for you (hence the sympathies) about this--SWM24 48 20:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OH...LOL, I ...um..actually forgot about that... here I thought Eirik was accusing me of insulting a contributing member...not some punk. Ok, then...yea...nevermind what I said then Eirik =)

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 20:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And now I apologize for being unclear in my earlier sympathies... :) No offense intended, truly! --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's ok... for some reason I tend to read things the wrong way... I usually read things more than once just so I don't react the wrong way. But I was tired and cut out the middle man lol.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 05:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Very glad that you did not do so literally... ctl-X is painful... The death of a thousand cuts...:) --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ally of the Netherwing

"No few" made little sense to me, but, apparently, it is an actual phrase. However, there were only 8 mobs, correct? That would indeed some to be just "a few." It does not matter to me, I just originally thought the phrase "no few" was a typo of some sort. --Cynric 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, literary license. However, it isn't so important either way, so no worries. Do as best makes sense to you. --Eirik Ratcatcher 22:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Mithril Order quest chain

I noticed you recently created Mithril Order quest chain, which pretty much duplicates the Mithril Order (although I find yours is structured better). Maybe we should merge this two pages into one, containing all information about the quest chain. The general page Mithril Order can then focus on what little is know about this "faction", and only contain a link to the quest details. What is your opinion on that? --Tharbur 15:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the mithril order page should become a description of them, with the quest chain page taking over the info of the quests. Move info yes, merge pages no.

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 22:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but who is the right person to do this? Should this be discussed with the authors first, or should we just change it ourself? --Tharbur 22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a wiki, we are the authors. Be our guest. Be Bold, all that such. =)

^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 22:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it, let's see if people complain... :-) --Tharbur 22:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Did it, maybe you want to look over it and see if you have any ideas of further things to add? --Tharbur 11:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your writeups are simply exquisite. :) --Sky (t · c · w) 00:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Tharbur. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed ZF comment

I checked droprates, and they are not higher in Zf, infact they are lower. User:M1330

What I was observing was a) number of reports, and b) number of different mobs reported. While the percent per thousand killed may be lower, the absolute number reported seemed higher. Which, given that ZF is an instance with a limited number of mob types, slain in large numbers each, led to my conclusion that it would be useful to farm there. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you!

Removing redirects is fun. Food for thought might be to use wikipedia:WP:AWB in the future; it saves one much hassle. =) --Sky (t · c · w) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to look into that. In the mean time, I was looking into why

[Siphon Life]'s infobox is so messed up at the top. Any thoughts? This isn't my usual stomping grounds, so help would be ... helpful!--Eirik Ratcatcher 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Change the name to just the spell (rather than including the images). Foxlit made some edits to the top box which changed how it looks, and obviously used that parameter as a basis. Which gives me the idea that the images might be a nice touch to add to all the infoboxes... hmm... --Sky (t · c · w) 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Works in my sandbox, sure. ... Ah, because Abilitytip was trying to make a link out of the name, and there weren't no page by that name. --Eirik Ratcatcher 22:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the subst? Essentially, it's summed up in wikipedia:wikipedia:signature. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

an error report just for you

I'm going to defer you to Special:ProblemReports/9898. While I could double check the validity quite quickly, I'm not sure if that will change the content of the article significantly. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fandy got it. I was just too slow on the update. :) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Redridge quest chain

Which exact articles need to be moved to which exact locations? List them in the following manner, please:

Quest:ABC -> Quest:ABC123
Quest:XYZ -> Quest:XYZ123
Quest:DoReMi -> Quest:DoRe

Other than that, am willing to help. --Sky (t · c · w) 19:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I knew the pages were around. I got the other one before you did, those there's a third floating around, I think. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was just pokin and prodding. I figured you might end up copy pasting over me. As for the page you made, I'll live. I find it enjoyable to watch people squirm when I delete things right out from under them. :D --Sky (t · c · w) 01:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete things out from under me? Saw you movin' pages around, but not actually disintegrating content. I'll live with the arrangement you made, but am a bit puzzled why you preferred not having the "documents page" be 'underneath' the chain page. Tell me why, so I don't do it again? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a whole slew of reasons, not many of which I care to document here for you in my own prose. To which case, I will link wikipedia:Wikipedia:Subpages#See also and specifically wikipedia:Wikipedia talk:Subpages/Archive. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Gauntlets

Better now?--g0urra[T҂C] 18:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.--g0urra[T҂C] 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the {{disambig}} goes at the top --g0urra[T҂C] 18:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Then, by all means, skip t:disambig and just add [[Category:Disambiguations]]. The template look kinda fuglish and could use some work...--g0urra[T҂C] 18:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of ugly disambig templates, do think this would be better? Doesn't take as much space as the currect one, and looks better for the eyes (at least mine lol).--g0urra[T҂C] 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Souvenir

I've a screenshot: The quest name has the comma in it in the quest acceptance box. You've moved the page (some time ago) to remove the comma. Was the comma missing from the quest list dialog or something? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See here. You're free to upload the screenshot, along with a date.--g0urra[T҂C] 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The quest name could have been changed. Out of 6 quests in three different databases there is only one quest that has a dot/comma.--g0urra[T҂C] 19:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

When I got the quest, I noted that those databases had the name incorrect. Thus, despite having found the name sans-comma on the very sites you name, I changed it. If you disbelieve that my screenshot reflects the current name of the quest, then the only resolution is to wait until October, when the event returns. I still admit the possibility that the name in the quest acceptance dialog might differ from that in the quest log dialog. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Request

Could you clean up the two links as suggested by pcj in the Speedydelete request at Engineering Guide? I'm sure I could do it, but giving it to the hands of an engineer might be a better idea. And then redirect Engineering Guide to Engineering guide, if you would. --Sky (t · c · w) 07:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Will work on it, but have work to do today. Probably tomorrow or wednesday. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your question: Looks like Coobra took care of it, though if that isn't satisfactory, I'd try Sharlin, or possibly post to VP looking for an image person to edit it. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re engineering guide, I'm still working on it. A LOT of it gets trimmed because of "better pages" for that information - Engineering quests, "how to make money", etc. Been busy at work lately. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Grey Iron Weapons

Because the source had line breaks that didn't exist. Was there something wrong with me fixing that?--g0urra[T҂C] 18:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

) Randomly edit-browsing, if you need to know.
) Note that in the first paragraph there was an "invisible" line break that was actually a complete line break. Not that harmful in removing the others too, is it?
) It "just bugs me" as it doesn't look very good in my eyes. Once again I must ask you, does it really matter all that much that I edit the guide pages?--g0urra[T҂C] 19:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on cost template

Thanks for your comments on the cost template. That explains a lot. To answer your questions; "What pages do you want to rewrite, that you would want to use DMF tickets (or some particular other item) as an element of the template?" - none; if available, I would use it, but do not see a compelling need. I'm looking at it from a player's PoV, and seeking overall consistency, both in the editing experience, and in the look of the resulting product. "As it is, yeah, we have a unified template used for everything... and changing it is costly. The down side of a single standard is a single point of failure. :( I do not argue that your request would not have utility, just that the cost of making the change to one of the most widely used templates on the wiki is not small." - I understand, thanks. "As for "combining templates into one", I feel no such pressure. I would be as pleased, for instance, if PvP marks were in one template (say, "mark"), 'actual money' in another ("cost"), PvE badges in yet another." - that makes sense too. It's a nice functional separation that naturally fits the itemspace. It's like the itemspace cleaves along those lines anyway. "I almost never use the template except for money, myself." - ditto, so far. --Madkaugh (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Naw, for there to be a conspiracy, we'd have to actually, you know, organize... :) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Yarzill and etc

Yup, I actually have half a dozen shots of my night elf flying that dragon. The one I used showed him off more than the others though. I knew I had some shots of it, but when it comes to organizing images, heh, I had to search through dozens of folders to find it. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 21:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: "not Implemented yet" not correct

I used {{NYI}} because their item pages didn't exist yet, and with the upcoming brewfest I presumed they were items new for the upcoming brewfest. You're free to remove the {{NYI}} from those items. g0urra[T҂C] 23:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Enslavable Demons vs Warlock Minions

While I'm not part of the Warlock project as mentioned on top of most warlock pages, I was merely fixing categories. The reason some of the demons are in both categories is cause they weren't split up like the others were. They contain information of the warlock's summonable demons and lore info of the demons that you can enslave around the world. With so many pages being moved currently some were to be forgotten about, like the succubus main page. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 21:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Coobra#Enslavable Demons vs Warlock Minions --DuTempete (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

huh?

All I've been doing is fixing incorrect categories, if I did anything else blame this guy! --Charitwo 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Children's Week quests

I was thinking of something like making their own category, and categorizing the category under Seasonal. g0urra[T҂C] 23:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Presents

No, I don't have any for you. ;)

The page is useful, but I'm not sure it will get many hits. Perhaps a merge and redirect to the main Winter Veil article? --Sky (t · c · w) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

~~merge with?~~Wasn't sure how I would add it to the main Winter Veil article, why I made a separate page for it in the first place. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just another section, I would say. --Sky (t · c · w) 21:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re quests: Done. --Sky (t · c · w) 19:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: In The Name of the Light

Because this is how the Horde version of this quest (different rewards, different rep, same targets) is set up template-wise. Consistency and what have you. --Joshmaul (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lures...

Right on, Eirik. Thank you for catching that. :) User:JIM the Inventor/Sig1 23:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: evewiki

Hey Eirik...Yep you found the right person, but I have had to give up Eve and wiki-editing, at least for the time being, as I change around my employment situation. Best of luck with the projects over there.--Scrotch (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed from game

Items and quests that can no longer be obtained are marked as {{Removedfromgame}}, though they are not per se removed from the game. Also, quests that are marked as removed from game should have |doc= in the questbox template (note the space after '=') to prevent it from being categorized. g0urra[T҂C] 20:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Bars template

<PING>Since you mentioned it at the top of your user page, can you look at Template talk:Bars and share your opinion? I'm looking for a better word than "Azeroth" to mean "places you could go before any expansion". Thanks! -- Har vey drone 20:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to "Quest:The Ring of Judgment"

There is no need to verify that via screen shot. I already know that's how WoW spells it, and that is why I changed the redirect to go to the correct page, as it was broken. Bobalobabingbong (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Did they change the quest name? It's been broken all this time and the three database sites are still spelling it with an 'e'. --k_d³ 21:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing beats first-hand research. I'll see if I can wrangle this quest sometime soon on one of my alts. But meanwhile, I do want to see the source of Bob's information. Screenshots can become obsolete, but they are seldom outright wrong. :) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it correct?? All I did, was make the redirect, that was broken, go to the correct page... Which is

[10-30] The Ring of Judgment Mispelled... The redirect I changed is the correct spelling, and I pointed it to the page I just linked. Bobalobabingbong (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yah, you're fine. Part of this is my fault because I botched the rename to 'juedgment' on the page move. No worries. --k_d³ 22:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought so, I wasn't sure what Eirik Ratcatcher was getting at on my talk page. Bobalobabingbong (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, apologies, Bob. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

All is well, and good. Bobalobabingbong (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Talk first, edit after.

I use {{Itembox}} because it looks more clean. Or would you rather have quest rewards listed like the reagents, or boss loot? --g0urra[T҂C] 19:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be acceptable if you used {{Itembox}}. Take it or leave it - I was even specifically asked to modify Itembox to make it look like the quest reward dialog in-game. --g0urra[T҂C] 19:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but it better be good, and esthetically pleasing. Your "Javascript rollover tooltips" is the same thing whether using {{Item}} or {{Itembox}} - the generated name, quality and icon are one and the same. --g0urra[T҂C] 19:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your point being...? You're trying to say that the icons are too big for you to read the text? --g0urra[T҂C]

You must be having some very small monitor if you think that the template leaves "vast amounts of space empty", because it looks perfectly fine here. --g0urra[T҂C] 19:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the itembox link because of the background helps distinguish the list - I prefer the list in multi rows ( because I hate scrolling and wasting the space to the right ) but I can see Erik Ratcatcher's point on the Icon being bigger compared to the {{item|icon=|Item}} -- my suggestion as a mid-point is to add the |16px to the icon section in {{Itembox/Row}} so that it is the same size as {{item|icon=|Item}}. -- (<span="help title=Morph>M o r p h | <span="help title=Morph_Contribution(s)_to_this_Wiki>^C | <span="help title=Morph_Discussion_Page>_T)

19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion still stands. I'd much prefer Itembox before your suggestion, because it's more flexible. --g0urra[T҂C] 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Flexible in that you can add quantity, item and any cost you want to add. --g0urra[T҂C] 19:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection in that regard. The prototype I created does all that. In what way is it unsatisfactory? (Note that I recently added code to add another column for the cost. The cost was not balanced well, when placed on a second line. In a two-column table, this would only be a satisfactory solution if the entire table has costs per item. But, my prototype only asks for one column.)--Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Lootbox on quest pages should be changed to Itembox. It could be done by using a bot, but for now it would be done manually. --g0urra[T҂C] 19:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, so you want to change Lootbox to Itembox on thousands of articles? --Raisky (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So you want to change the location of the reward section of approximately thousands of articles? That's a no-no. I have the last word here. --g0urra[T҂C] 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And when were those thousands of articles changed first? As long as I've been editing, I've been putting reward sections after completion. Where they were moved before, they can be moved again where need be. Perhaps you recall the preference at one point for "gains" sections, another innovation. I understand your point of view, it's a lot of work. I note your preference, but deny your "last word"-ness on this. If need be, I will do the work myself. However, your tone of print indicates I really should put it to a formal vote. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Template:Rare et al.

{{Reputation}} is better than n different templates because it's easier to maintain one than several. And it's consistent with other templates, such as {{quality}}. I'm sure there are more using this pattern, but I can't think of anything else of the top of my head. -Howbizr (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sky responded. -Howbizr (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Galen's Corpse

Because the Quest enders category is exclusively for NPCs that only ends quest (that doesn't give any). --g0urra[T҂C] 18:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not stated in the description for the category. Nor is Quest Givers category so restricted. Note also my comment on the quest enders talk page that the description decrees an entirely different incomprehensible limitation (which I thought was your rationale, btw...). Still, why the specific distinction? It isn't like adding categories to a page is a big drain on resources, nor like the category fails to make sense... --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Most quest givers does also end the quest(s) they give, which makes it pointless to add a "Human quest giver" and "Human quest ender" on one article. --g0urra[T҂C] 20:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on that point. Most != all; categories represent sets. Categories do not provide a hint that a page might be in a higher/lower category than the one you are looking at. To extend your logic, there should be a category "human quest givers and enders" as a more specific category that includes most quest givers (in the same way that "WoW rare quest rewards" is included in "WoW rare items"). I would grant you disinclusion in quest enders, given a quest-givers-and-enders category. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Navigation menu

Search