User talk:Technical 13/2015/3

Okay. I was going to do basically what you did, but I was going to wait a couple days to make sure that all pages using the parameter had made it through the job queue to be added to the category. So, we'll wait a couple days and then the redundant chunk of code can be removed from the template that was populating the category and the category can be deleted. I was going to basically do the same thing using the Kobold sneak account with AWB to make the change and I was going to do a slew of other small cosmetic changes as well while I was at it. I'm okay with you doing it, although in the future you may like to realize that some people might get a little upset with you stepping on their toes taking over a project they're actively working on. I'm not one of those people, and you are fine, but thought you should know. :) Happy wikiing. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 17:23, July 11, 2015 (EDT)

Named item template[edit]

Hey ShoeMaker. You worked on {{Named Item}} back in 2011–13. Is there a future for that template or a similar one? It would make all the named items and categorization standard. It would also help with using DPL across the wiki. — Zav (T·E·C) 00:29, July 24, 2015 (EDT)

It's a fairly large scoped project that fell apart on me. I'd love to pick it back up and complete it, but I'm waiting on Xevo (Contribs • Message • Email) to implement some conf changes to give everyone writeapi so the full potential can be realized. I hope that happens soon. I'm guessing he is busy because he has not replied to my emails lately, you are welcome to poke him one too. :) ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 15:28, July 24, 2015 (EDT)

Divine Artillery pic[edit]

Heya, Divine Artillery.jpg is obsolete, I've uploaded Divine Artillery.png instead. Why would it be a wrong page name?--Cru121 (Contributions • Message) 13:49, July 28, 2015 (EDT)

The naming policy says that larger images should be .jpg and smaller images should be .png - this means item descriptions should be .jpg. I started a discussion on it this morning because I know it is confusing, the sub-section on item names conflicts with the main section on page names. Please see the discussion there. Once we can get a consensus, I can start moving all the images to the proper page names. This conflict is part of the reason for the Special:UnusedFiles having 1,300+ pages. :\ ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 14:11, July 28, 2015 (EDT)

Quests by lvl categories[edit]

Perhaps it would be a better idea to group all quests of a single level into a single category. This would mean that U27 quests would be in two categories, etc. If someone searches for lvl 24 quests, they must look in cats Level 18 (24 epic) quests and Level 14 (24 epic) quests. That's pretty awkward. Of course, there might be usecases where your categorization is better. --Cru121 (Contributions • Message) 15:19, July 31, 2015 (EDT)

I was thinking that sorting them the way the LFM panel and compendium sorts them would be best. I can flip it the other way I suppose and have them be in C:Level 10 heroic quests for ones that are only heroic, C:Level 14 quests & C:Level 24 quests for ones that have multiple bases, and C:Level 25 epic quests for epic only, but I thought that would look more ugly than the Compendium/LFM way I got it. Going to C:Quests by level shows all of the quests and which ones are which anyways, which makes it easy to see where your quest is... I'd be happy to have a discussion on it though if you still don't like it and get community feedback. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 15:25, July 31, 2015 (EDT)
I think quests should be in C:Level <heroic> quests and C:Level <epic> quests. Using categories like C:Level 8 (21 epic) quests is not helpful. If one is looking for all level 21 quests, you have to look under all the C:Level <heroic> (21 epic) and C:Level 21 quests. I know the Compendium has the levels indicated that way, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea. I wish Turbine didn't use that format and would have two columns or something so that the quests with heroic and epic difficulties could be sorted by epic level. — Zav (T·E·C) 10:12, August 2, 2015 (EDT)
Regarding Talk:Quests_by_level#Quests_with_epic_versions - I wonder why would it be annoying to have a quest in multiple categories? Regarding compendium - Just because compendium uses a non-intuitive ordering, we don't have to replicate it. As for what categories I'd prefer to have, I don't see why we need the words heroic/epic in category name. I'd simply suggest using C:Level # quests. We can mention at the top of quests by level article that lvl 1-20 are heroic and lvl 21+ are epic. --Cru121 (Contributions • Message) 13:02, August 2, 2015 (EDT)
- We could do the categories both ways; a heroic and epic quest would be in C:Level 8 quests, C:Level 21 quests, and C:Level 8 (21 epic) quests for example. The first two are the important ones. — Zav (T·E·C) 13:30, August 2, 2015 (EDT)
DDO Compendium needs an alternative. And the wiki accomplishes that. Or did. Using the compendium as a guide for repeat eTR-ing is a terrible idea because it sorts things by heroic level. Epic quest sorting is a necessary tool for any DDO player who wishes to have a nice guide for the eTR. Removing that fxn is leaving some of us both hanging and frustrated after our latest eTR. It wasn't broke and didn't need to be fixed. Please return the old functionality so we don't have to rely on the terrible in game tools as the only available option. Whitepawn (Contributions • Message) 21:56, August 2, 2015 (EDT)
When I still actively leveled my characters I never used the Quests by level page because I thought just the names after another didn't help me much. Instead I always referred to Quests by Adventure Pack. Similarly I find this Quests by Level and XP very usable and suggest the page should be added to the questTOC. However, Quests by Level and XP is updated manually whereas Quests by level updates automatically as new quests are added... In my opinion quests should be in heroic and epic base level categories. (ps. the reason I said multiple categories might be annoying 'cause I didn't understand the reasoning behind this change at all and didn't just want to be 'omg dis sux!' I just thought it might be a mechanical thing.) Silvyrfir (Contributions • Message) - Sandbox 02:11, August 3, 2015 (EDT)
Okay, so to try and make this work for everyone and both styles (I'm a run through the compendium for max favor kind of guy, so I don't want to re-run quests on EE that I've already run on HE if I can help it on my favor run), I've adjusted T:Quest to add quests to all base levels like it use to, I've also made appropriate changes so that quests that are both heroic and epic also get added to a new pseudo category "Compendium:" -- It's just the page name, is not specifically searchable and is not a real namespace, so no worries with that. Let me know if this works for you, or if you have a specific request for a change. I personally think it makes the "Quests by level" category look like crud, but I may make some other changes to try and clean it up like moving all the simple cats to a different branch, creating separate {{Category listing}}s on each category and then just transclude those listing (I like it a lot more typing it out, and it is likely I will go ahead with that). ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 16:01, August 3, 2015 (EDT)

MW:Vector.css[edit]

Hey ShoeMaker. Is there a reason that there is code in MW:Vector.css as opposed to MW:Common.css? I know typically that would mean that the code only works for Vector; however, when I copy it to Special:Mypage/monobook.css, it seems to work. — Zav (T·E·C) 10:30, August 2, 2015 (EDT)

You can copy most everything in there to Monobook (which is no longer supported or maintained but is left available; kind of like the TruGlass skins). The reason I didn't put it in Common.css is because of Wptouch which doesn't play well with most everything we have. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 17:40, August 2, 2015 (EDT)

Optional XP bonus template[edit]

deletion of the downtime article[edit]

Not sure why the downtime article was deleted. It's purpose was to define the term and to list specific instances of when it occurs and not mix it up with patch notes/other news. I would also like to see server status indicators added (UP/DOWN) on the main page. --Overvaan (Contributions • Message) 17:57, August 20, 2015 (EDT)

It was redundant to the Update/Patch/Hotfix rn pages we already have. Feel free to add information about extensions to planned outages to the appropriate corresponding pages. If you want to do a list of outages not related to planned downtime, feel free to start List of unplanned outages and then link or transclude that from a page about downtime itself. I would have no problem with that. I would like to see server status indicators too, but I haven't written the script to do that just yet and it's hard to find others interested in or willing to write scripts. It is on my todo list. :) ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 18:05, August 20, 2015 (EDT)
- Um it's too much work for now, I'll just create a new service news article and link to the forum https://www.ddo.com/forums/forumdisplay.php/3-Service-News No need to reinvent the wheel when it's already there. --Overvaan (Contributions • Message) 18:15, August 20, 2015 (EDT)
  - That's fine by me. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 18:32, August 20, 2015 (EDT)

You protected a page while I was editing!!!![edit]

{{SUBST:Killstub}}

Please update the source with this as is reasonable. Thank you. DDOstream (Contribs • Message • Email) 10:34, September 24, 2015 (EDT)

User talk:Technical 13/2015/3

Contents

Pages using deprecated loc parameter[edit]