User talk:Damnreds

From GuildWiki

Userpage	Talk	Contributions

Great job on cleaning up the unique weapons. I had started to but stalled out over the holidays. I noticed you even got the missing weapons added to the "all" lists for each profession. Really good work. --RabiesTurtle 10:22, 31 December 2006 (CST)

Thank you. I started by fixing up the monk item list, and that made me notice how messy some of the other lists were. Hopefully the formats that I chose will expand well into the future. —

11:45, 31 December 2006 (CST)

[edit] Related skills

When you start pasting the same list into a ton of articles, that's when it's time to make a new quick reference for them. Related article lists should be short, probably around 3. --Fyren 23:53, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Too true. I had thought they were a bit bulky... I'll get working on updating the Energy recovery quick reference and linking to it from those skill pages. —

12:22, 5 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Skill box energy gain

Just checking - do you have a different use in mind for Template:Skill box energy gain as compared to the already existing Template:Skill box energy regeneration? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:02, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Yes I do, its a WIP so I havent submitted the changes yet (so as not to disrupt people currently viewing, and keep the history relatively short). I plan on expanding the energy recover qr to not only include new skills, but to split it further to include straight energy gain and loss (as opposed to the current list of only regen/degen). Looking at probably 1-2 days before its self sustaining. —

13:07, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Duration for the direct energy gain skills should probably be dropped and put into the notes since the majority of them have "none." --Fyren 00:56, 6 January 2007 (CST)

Hmm, i was going to eventually make that one but i was going to keep it separate from the energy recovery article. The only thing that was stopping me was what to name the article, i had Gain/Lose energy quick reference as an idea but i was looking for an alternative instead to remove the / in it. -- Xeon 03:53, 6 January 2007 (CST)

finished updating the templates, removed duration from gain/loss... not certain about my inclusion of self energy loss skills, but we shall see how she goes. —

13:02, 6 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Sig icon

Hi. Your sig icon is too large. The wiki policy allows a maximum height of 19 pixels. Could you please upload a new smaller version on top of the old one. Thank you. -- (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2007 (CST)

thanks for bringing it to my attention, done and done. —

16:58, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Great. Thanks! --

(talk) 17:02, 17 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] Sorry

Didn't realize what I was doing. I'll stop. Sorry about that! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.61.33.138 (contribs) .

thank you for stopping, no harm done. i understand your drive to make the unique item pages better, i created and cleaned up most of them, and it is perfectly fine to edit the wiki and its lists. however, that arrow format scheme has replaced the dual listing method and has been pretty much universally implemented because it is compact without sacrificing readability.

If youre looking for something to do, you can change what i was thinking about getting around to fixing eventually- the ordering of the from/area. the boss being in the arrow is residual from when both the boss and the area used to be listed fully, and i think it would be more pertinent to list the boss fully rather than the area. this is probably what you were trying to do when you removed the arrows.

ie-

instead of what we have currently: ⇒ Sunward Marches

we would see: ⇒ Dabineh Deathbringer

this would also require a switch of the column title, of course.

Started on the other end from where you have. Having to take a break though because that is some boring stuff. If you haven't noticed, I have all the unique item pages watched and am trying to keep them updated and organized along with you. --RabiesTurtle 15:12, 18 January 2007 (CST)

cool beans, thanks for the hand. ill be doing them in spurts too- beats actually working, but it is pretty mind numbing all the same. —

15:25, 18 January 2007 (CST)

That should be all of them by my count. I will be on the lookout for any other changes and keep them uniform as well. --RabiesTurtle 11:25, 19 January 2007 (CST)

ok, good. im still working on the campaign specific refs for ele, getting a little sidetracked, but theyll be done in about 10 min as well. —

11:30, 19 January 2007 (CST)

If you mean the reordering, I already did them. Might be some other change that you mean though I guess. --RabiesTurtle 11:38, 19 January 2007 (CST)

ah, thanks, didnt notice. just need to go thru and do some final cleanups now- spacing, caps, formatting, etc. —

11:43, 19 January 2007 (CST)

[edit] The Darkness

Hi. Our of curiosity why are you changing all the unique item refs to read "the Darkness" rather than "The Darkness"? Regardless of whether the "the" is part of the name or not, each column is effectively the start of a sentence, so the first word should be capitalised. I would've thought anyway. --NieA7 10:10, 19 January 2007 (CST)

well, i see the quick references as more of a group of lists rather than sentences, and the actual names of the bosses have "the" non-capped (in reference to the Dead Alewives' Dungeons & Dragons skit, a la "I'm attacking the Darkness!" when pressing ctl and attacking). the only reason that the wiki articles have "the" capped is that it is impossible to not have the first word of a wiki page title not capped. —

10:22, 19 January 2007 (CST)

A cell's a pretty hard break so I always think of them as full stops. I know about the wiki capital naming thing, but it's been a while since I went to the Tombs so I'm not sure if they're called "The" or "the". Either way having lower case looks a bit odd compared to all the other bosses there. --NieA7 10:48, 19 January 2007 (CST)

oh well. regardless of which way is correct, im already being reverted in those changes so i guess ill go with the flow. —

11:15, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Good job on updating the references in general by the way, they needed it post-Nightfall. Next step's going to be coming up with a better way of dealing with the melee weapons, they're pretty messy at the moment due to the mods and inscriptions... --NieA7 11:18, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Not sure what you mean by the melee weapons being messy. You mean the uniques? They seem pretty orderly to me honestly. --RabiesTurtle 11:25, 19 January 2007 (CST)

ty, and yea, the melee weapons are pretty good right now, only thing that could be done would be to find some way to colorize them, but im not sure how you would go about doing that. —

11:28, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Huh, teach me for opening my mouth without looking. Last time I checked the unique melee weapons tables had descriptions of all the mods rather than just their names - I had it in the back of my mind to remove the descriptions and just link the mod names. As they seem to be now. So yeah, everything's perfect and I'm just a big fool for shooting my mouth off without checking my facts :x Good work! --NieA7 11:37, 19 January 2007 (CST)

thanks, next i think ill work on the spacing of the tables themselves. —

11:43, 19 January 2007 (CST)

You are correct regarding being reverted as there has never been an issue regarding the exact spelling of their name and at GuildWiki, we spell it exactly as ANet spells it in the game, even when there are errors. I am not doubting your case, but if you wish to prove it is "the", a screen shot of the red bar above the monster's head, or wherever you have placed it on your UI, where it say "the Darkness" must be provided. — Gares 11:56, 19 January 2007 (CST)

yea, i dont really care enough to go thru the work of doing that. :P i might be wrong anyways, because while i remember that while calling one of the darkness' the "the" is lowercase, i dont specifically recall whether the actual monster's name had the "the" in lowercase. —

12:02, 19 January 2007 (CST)

I can't say for when you call an attack but the actual name is "The Darkness".—├ Aratak ┤ 11:00, 7 February 2007 (CST)

[edit] Unique Items

Please refrain from formatting collector/weaponsmith counterpart sections as you are doing. It is against S&F and rather unneeded as the entire section as you have written it up will have to be changed in the first place. Please place a {{section-stub}} if you wish to add something under that heading. Thanks — Gares 10:50, 7 February 2007 (CST)

while my BLANK insertions may have been too much, i think that leaving the format and overall structure of the section intact would be better than just a section stub link. from what i see, the majority of editors dont look at the style guides when formatting or adding info to the articles, having a section structure in place makes it easier for them to follow the guidelines. —

11:02, 7 February 2007 (CST)

The red links were my main concern and the fact that I didn't know you had changed the S&F as I know most of the S&Fs by heart unless someone changes them without any notification. I've found that even with a structure in place, users are still going to do what they want to do, either they are new and do not know or they do not care to follow the guidelines. I'll revert my actions to keep the structure up, without the red links of course, and if I revert it, it's not breaking any policy. — Gares 11:23, 7 February 2007 (CST)

thanks, and i think from here on out ill just be adding the structure to articles that already have some replication info, and the section stub to the blank ones. —

11:34, 7 February 2007 (CST)

I see you also changed the S&F without any discussion without involving any other individuals in the community. When something affects the wiki as much as S&F, policy, etc. one person cannot just change things at a whim. It does look good however, but a section-stub is still what is needed. — Gares 10:58, 7 February 2007 (CST)

if you take a look at the history of the discussion section, you will actually notice that i proposed the changes i made 2-3 weeks ago. there was little interest, and practically no discussion. if you feel my changes were for the worse, please revert them and add your thoughts to the discussion area so that something can be worked out, as i dont believe the current s&f is up to date. —

11:04, 7 February 2007 (CST)

You don't need to look at the history, every sig has the date behind it ;). In those situations, it is courteousy to add comments on certain user's talk pages as you can see this type of example on most of admin's pages as well as certain users. Not everything can be watched all the time and things slip through the cracks at times. I do think it looks good and I would have supported it before it was implemented, but I wished you'd make others aware of any major changes in the future. Not trying to scold you, just giving some advice. Your doing a good job and we appreciate your contributions. :D — Gares 11:23, 7 February 2007 (CST)

sig dates can be altered, its slower but more reliable to look at the history ;). thanks for the heads up, ill be sure to take it to an admin next time a s&f needs updating but noone is responding to my discussion. —