User talk:Poromenos: Difference between revisions

From RoDpedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
Skace (talk | contribs)
trusted
826 edits
No edit summary
Skace (talk | contribs)
trusted
826 edits
No edit summary
Line 19: Line 19:
*Strange, it looks like the template I made back in November is working properly now o_O --[[User:Trinexx|Trinexx]] 16:35, 13 December 2006 (EST)
*Strange, it looks like the template I made back in November is working properly now o_O --[[User:Trinexx|Trinexx]] 16:35, 13 December 2006 (EST)
** I upgraded to 1.8.2 from 1.6.something recently, maybe that did it.
** I upgraded to 1.8.2 from 1.6.something recently, maybe that did it.
*Poro, I have a question about mob article names. Let's say there is a mob called "The draconian" in dragon tower. Should that be added as just Draconian or should it be added as "The draconian" with "Draconian" as the category header. The reason I ask is 2-fold. First, if we add the title "The" and then modify the category name, I need to change the template slightly to account for that. And second, if we are putting forth all this work to Add the title and then remove it again, isn't that a waste? Let's see there is a mob named "A draconian" and one named "The draconian" (only scenario where articles would matter), if we remove the article from both of them, then in category list I'm still going to have 2 Draconians. This brings me full circle, why bother keeping the article if only to remove it? Hmmm. This is one of the reasons I haven't added more of the generic mobs yet (instead opting to paste their raw data into the talk pages). [[User:Skace|Skace]] 14:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
* Ok, rewind. Forget everything I just said because I'm retarded. I propose the following: "The draconian|Draconian, The" for 2 reasons. [[User:Skace|Skace]] 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
** Well, this should be like it is now, the article page would be "The draconian" and the category item would be "The draconian|draconian", which would make it appear as "The draconian" but would appear under "D". Is that what you're asking? --[[User:Poromenos|Poromenos]] 14:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
** 1, It will show up under "D", keeping the system cleaner.
*** That would make it appear under "d" not "D" which creates an odd breakup of articles based on capitalization. I'm having trouble drawing the whole issue out. [[User:Skace|Skace]] 18:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
** 2, It will show up under "A draconian" should the name also exist in the same list (possible with a list of all items / etc).
**** "The draconian|draconian" shows up as "draconian" under "d"
**** "A draconian|draconian" also shows up as "draconian" under "d"
**** "Draconian" shows up as "Draconian" under "D"
**** "The draconian|Draconian" shows up as "Draconian" under "D"
**** "The draconian|draconian, The" shows up as "draconian, The" under "d"
**** "A draconian|draconian, A" shows up as "draconian, a" under "d"
**** "The draconian|Draconian, The" shows up as "Draconian, The" under "D"
**** If I name my mob "A draconian" and someone searches for "draconian" it will not automatically go to it, same for visa versa
**** So it comes down to what is the popular name versus what might be the technical name as well as whether you want AaBbCcDd or ABCD. The wikipedia default is ABCD because it autocaps the first letter, however manual category listings break this. Which brings us full circle, why even include article names if we work so hard to then go and remove them. It makes some sense on Sentinel and Gauntlet (only partially) but even less when you get into mobs which all begin with either a or The unless they have specific names. Does this all make sense?
***** Yes, you are correct on this, but I don't like removing words names. RoD itself isn't very consistent on this ([[Help:Editing]] says that when you write a mob page you should capitalise the first letter and lowercase all the rest because RoD does this as well), so I would say that we should enter "The Draconian" as "The draconian|draconian" and have it appear as "draconian, The" in category pages (the article doesn't matter there anyway). If any mobs are capitalised where they shouldn't be, we should change them. --[[User:Poromenos|Poromenos]] 18:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
****** Ok, so you want the AaBbCcDdEe categorization then? (example at [[:Category:The_Sentinel]]) [[User:Skace|Skace]] 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
****** I made a mistake in my examples, since the re-categorization doesn't actually change how it shows up in the category listing, I think "The draconian|Draconian" actually produces the best results. [[User:Skace|Skace]] 18:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
* Check out the Templates also, did some serious clean up. I need some feedback on the item templates, namely categorization and how it is even possible. [[User:Skace|Skace]] 18:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
* Check out the Templates also, did some serious clean up. I need some feedback on the item templates, namely categorization and how it is even possible. [[User:Skace|Skace]] 18:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:48, 7 July 2008

  • How about unprotecting the main page? I can think of a few ways to improve it.
    • Done, experimentally. It will be reverted if it is vandalised, though. --Poromenos 13:20, 3 November 2006 (EST)
      • Done, what do you think? Also, forgot to sign my last message. Oops. --Trinexx 14:23, 3 November 2006 (EST)
        • Err, that's actually very very nice. I'd also like to see the brief explanation for RoDpedia added somewhere around the top, and links to information and mobs (and perhaps the stub and cleanup categories near "how you can help), but otherwise it's very complete, and a far cry better than the original page. Congratulations, sir. --Poromenos 21:53, 3 November 2006 (EST)
          • Thanks. The purpose of adding the current events page to the top is to add information about the wiki, but you can change it to display any page you want.
            • I edited it around a bit, I would still like the Mobs and Information section made as the others are, but I don't know where they should go so as to not disturb the general layout. I think adding one more row to the table would be overkill for smaller screens. --Poromenos 22:08, 3 November 2006 (EST)
              • You can display two sections within the same row without any major problems. --Trinexx 22:09, 3 November 2006 (EST)
                • Well, yes, but we'd have to add two more, one for mobs and one for info, and I don't want to add them to the single rows, since it looks better now. Perhaps modifying the "Other sites" section to a "Various" one, but Mobs and Information is more important than links, so I don't feel right about putting them in the same section. I'll think about this and see, meanwhile I would gladly listen to any suggestions you might have. --Poromenos 22:19, 3 November 2006 (EST)
                  • I'll play around in the sandbox on my wiki for a bit. I'll let you know how it turns out. --Trinexx 22:39, 3 November 2006 (EST)
  • I found out why the infoboxes weren't working right. Proper infoboxes (check the original version of Iteminfo I had up, you'll see what I mean.), weren't implemented until the 1.6x versions of MediaWiki. --Trinexx 09:18, 5 November 2006 (EST)
    • Do you mean I should upgrade to 1.6 if I want them to work? --Poromenos 11:32, 5 November 2006 (EST)
      • Well, I upgraded to 1.8.x, still no dice. --Poromenos 14:27, 5 November 2006 (EST)
        • The cascading include works now, but it still doesn't wrap the page. Still a victory, I suppose... --Trinexx 16:46, 5 November 2006 (EST)
  • Looks like you got a few spambots crawling around. Fortunately, they're stupid and don't know how to make links properly. Hhyvbdl tried to fill the administrators article with dozens of spam links, I removed them and put up a (half-assed) article. --Trinexx 22:19, 25 November 2006 (EST)
    • Yeah, it sucks. I check the new changes RSS feed all the time, so they get banned pretty quickly. Thanks for the change! --Poromenos 06:50, 26 November 2006 (EST)
  • Is there a guideline against the use of blending instead of piped links? For example, is Mobiles to be preferred instead of Mobiles, and if so why? Thanks. --Sartier 18:18, 4 December 2006 (EST)
    • I'd say blending is probably a touch better, just for efficiency. But from the finished article there's no visible difference, so I don't think it really matters much. --Tokai 19:01, 4 December 2006 (EST)
      • Indeed. Just use any one you prefer, it doesn't matter much. --Poromenos 19:08, 4 December 2006 (EST)
  • Strange, it looks like the template I made back in November is working properly now o_O --Trinexx 16:35, 13 December 2006 (EST)
    • I upgraded to 1.8.2 from 1.6.something recently, maybe that did it.
  • Ok, rewind. Forget everything I just said because I'm retarded. I propose the following: "The draconian|Draconian, The" for 2 reasons. Skace 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • 1, It will show up under "D", keeping the system cleaner.
    • 2, It will show up under "A draconian" should the name also exist in the same list (possible with a list of all items / etc).
  • Check out the Templates also, did some serious clean up. I need some feedback on the item templates, namely categorization and how it is even possible. Skace 18:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://rodpedia.realmsofdespair.info/index.php?title=User_talk:Poromenos&oldid=9259"