User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher/Archive4

Camps
He's dead, Eirik. Gourra banned him a while back. If you want a guide to his leftover nonsense (Or just mass wikistress causing actions), you should check out his mentor page. Camps are mentioned at User:Rolandius/Mentor and User:Rolandius/Mentor. I hope that helps.-- 00:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * He's blocked for a month, I note. Looked through his edits; I can only guess that it was a result of being unrepentant on some talk page.  While he's had a fair number of reverts, so have I at times.  And I couldn't honestly see which particular edit Gourra called out as "false information", unless he was referring to an out of game definition on the Adept page. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Arena items
First thing we really need to do is go into game and verify what's available and what's not. I put my "educated guess" on the wiki, but there is limited information on wowhead and others. But I'll take a stab at the arena template - probably won't get to it until Friday or Saturday.

I'm also thinking, you know how we have Mountfooter? I'm wondering if we need something like Arena Season or whatnot to help organize the rewards. Just a thought. There are categories that cover this already, but I was always a bigger fan of the templates. 9:34 AM, 11 Jun 2009 (EDT)


 * See Template:Arena rewards. -- 14:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Taking a look at Mountfooter, yeah, Arena rewards is an appropriate response. The idea here, Gourra, was a template to put on the pages of individual arena items that described in text a) that the item was an arena award from season X, and b) to conceivably add "removedfromgame", or other such notice automatically as a result of having the arena reward item notice.  The arena rewards footer is comprehensive, but IMO huge.    As well, the fact the page is in "category:Arena X rewards" serves entirely different purpose, even if it does allow the reader to intuit the information the conceived message template would add.  If you have objections or suggestions (to the arena description template idea), now's a good time to discuss them.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * PS - I feel that both templates (mounts, arena rewards) would/do overwhelm the content on a typical item page. It's less horrible on a set page, or pages like Mount or Arena Rewards  Is there any way we can reasonably reduce the size of both of those humongous footer templates, or abstract portions that won't overwhelm item pages?  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I still feel Mountfooter is too big, although it's come a long way. This might not be feasible for mounts, but I think for arenas, it might be appropriate to have Arena season 1 rewards, arena season 2 rewards, etc. For the most part, I think that's where the interest lies - not so much cross seasons. 5:37 PM, 11 Jun 2009 (EDT)

Patroller
You're now a patroller. Congrats! -- k_d3 03:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1:17 AM, 16 Jun 2009 (EDT)


 * That was much faster than I had anticipated. Please, you folks, whack me when I err. I'm not the least contentious, nor conformal, person editing this wiki... --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Phasing
Looking at the appearance section, I see how it might fit. Not sure if I would keep the name "appearance", as the entire phase concept is to change the appearance of the mobs or players in that area. I tend to like "Types" other titles might be "Phasing Effects" or "Modes" maybe?

I also think that a consensus needs to be reached about what actually constitutes phasing. Personally, I believe any effects that were possible in the game before the patch added what Blizzard refers to as Phasing are not actually phasing. If that is in keeping with the consensus, maybe we could break it into "Phasing Types" with "Similar Effects" as a subsection listing things like stealth and the death effect. -- 02:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For phasing testing in the Court of Bones, can you let me know exactly which situation (quests completed/active) would be of interest? I may be able to run that experiment. I have not done any of the Argent Tournament quest lines yet. Might as well conduct research while I do. -- Harveydrone 20:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For that, you would need one of the two Argent Tourney quests that require you to joust there (thus invoking the argent tourney phasing), AND some quest that has you kill NPCs in that area. I do not have at hand a list of those quests (or even if it is plural or singular...).  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually unwittingly ran into an interesting situation in the Court of Bones over the weekend, where my Paladin had the Battle Before the Gates quest, and was in the appropriate phase, but the NPC for a quest in the area (I forget the name, but it involved using a nearby Blood Soaked Stone to take the form of Arthas and battle Illidian) bled through and allowed me to attempt the quest even though I was phased - a real pain since the elites kept attacking and the quest couldn't be attempted on the mount. This suggests even more to me that NPC invisibility is different from phasing, since it appears to be possible regardless of phase. -- 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll admit, I have been going a little bit crazy trying to figure out what exactly qualifies as phasing. I guess the first thing is, are we talking about the game concept, or the phasing engine that was added for Wrath? For the overall concept, death, the phasing device, etc would all count. For what was added in Wrath, there is a much smaller list. In fact, I think it might be possible that the only truly phased area in the game is the Death Knight starter area - that is the only part of the game that actually changes. As you progress through the instance, everything changes, down to the buildings being burned. That is the only example I know of where the changes are more drastic than simply displaying different mobs and NPCs in different places. However, the unlocking or changing of areas (Wrathgate, Dun Nuffelim, etc.) is new as well, and might also be considered part of that new engine, especially since, unlike previous versions, they can be permanent and they do not use a buff or any other method that is obvious to the player.


 * I don't know. Just a thought. -- 19:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Underwater breathing
Yup but I really am not familiar with the tree - I'm sure I'd put it in the wrong place. I think it's Gourra who's the category czar, but I forget now. 9:00 PM, 23 Jun 2009 (EDT)

Re: Burning Blossoms/bonfires
I just checked and you are right, I can't do the Bonfires every day. Didn't know there was a reset. Sorry for my mistake! I will be more careful next time.
 * No worries. You can't know everything.  Your head would explode! --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Rolandius
Be my guest. -- 18:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

a new...dead...category
I would prefer your idea, but what would you call/name such a category?TherasTaneel (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * An early contender for the name would be "Ghost characters". Description of the category would be "Deceased characters who have returned as ghosts."  If there is desire to expand the category, it could be renamed later as, perhaps as "Undead characters", again with the specific explanation that only those whose former life (and death) are relevant should be included.  That would be a very large category, but hey, that door's been set ajar already.   --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Always open?

 * Regarding User_talk:Rolandius...

Talk with Rolandius about a page creation? That sounds like mentoring to me. Eirik, perhaps you could take over for Fandyllic, since he is taking a sabbatical? Based on some of your comments about him, you seem to have no existing biases for or against him. Not that I wish ill upon you, or wish to take advantage of you, or anything. It is a daunting task (One which I do not want to do). Speaking of which, the mentorship review never went anywhere sane, so I do not know its status. My bad if you are offended.-- 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am perhaps insufficiently critical, to intervene on new issues, such as Gourra and Baggins do. Lore is not my strong point.  But I would be happy to aid such as I can.


 * What I saw was Gourra and Rolandius getting increasingly frustrated with each other. This has since generated some lively debates.  I suspect that taking things to new forum pages is a strategy that will help all around.  I note "discussion splitting to many user pages" among the complaints; this will head that off.  Also, he brings up issues that there can be genuine debate about.  (Witness aforesaid forums.)  The votes need more work, but we can work on that.  This does bring issues beyond two people saying "I'm right, you're wrong", which is a good thing.


 * Was it simply that only one person (at a time) volunteered to offer mentoring to Rolandius, that has the "single admin contact" also be the mentor? I can see where that would be tiring; I presume admins have other duties.


 * I can see the insanity of the review. It shows the down side of a print-only discussion.  Many of the complaints were about singular events, instead of repeated behavior.  Easy to throw off an accusation about, or a defense to, but hard to remedy.  And some of the complaints, I'm guilty of myself!  (specifically, "vague edit summaries")  Hard for me to be critical of those.


 * One other example: Something Rolandius said went by the target with an audible "woosh". ("getting paid")  This sort of thing is common in print; inflection just doesn't come through.  And yet, it made it to the complaints page, and was never resolved.


 * Offended? What particular failure of yours should I take offense at?  It really is a non sequitur, friend.


 * Don't get your hopes up. But I'll see if I can do anything to help.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not recall being a part of the original ban/unbanning/mentoring, so I do not know how it came to be. I'm guilty of vague (or no) edit summaries, but it was meant to mean things like this vague and misleading one, (So his edits could be better watched). The potential offense would have been from seeing it as trying to get you to do a stressful and controversial task that I did not want to do myself. About the admin only thing, I honestly forgot you were not an admin.-- 00:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping that one need not be an admin to dispense advice...  Edits: I'm trusting that it's a pattern, rather than an isolated issue.  Stress and willingness: I picked up the blood-filled pen of my own accord, didn't I? :)  "Write fast, before it coagulates!"  I'm pretty laid back, most times, so we shall see.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One does not need to be an admin to dispense advice, but what was happening was when an admin told Rolandius something, he would go around to other admins until he got someone to agree with him. While second and third opinions are nice, it led to something described along the lines of "turning admins against each other", so all admin discussions with him were redirected to one person. The mentor would also control all banning/unbanning of Rolandius, as there were significantly differing opinions about his status. It was a while ago, perhaps he is past this. As it seems Fandyllic is still mentoring, the relevance of this discussion sort of dropped off a bit. It was a large pattern, hence that review point (If it was unclear, that explains a bit). Feel free to help him if you wish. There is nothing wrong with that. It is mostly common sense issues.-- 21:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, though, that with Fandyllic's sabbatical, things are a bit less controlled. Hmmm...  In this context, the Forums substitute for "going to another admin".  Admins should not be feeling put on the spot to "make a ruling" in that environment.  Indeed, participation would be entirely optional, and it would be open to any interested parties.  It should also serve as a gauge of "how important is this issue", which would not appear in a closed environment (talk pages).  I have hopes that this discussion model will ease the direct disputes somewhat. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

About the Elixir
Yeah, I used it on Krasus's Landing, but when I tried to fly over the city, it forced me back into my normal form... Then I fell and died. XP I didn't try flying over Crystalsong Forest, though. --AleximMose (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wowwiki and discussion page.
Hello,

I just saw your message on my discussion page, as well as KD3's about gold reward. Sorry for the late answer, I kind of just noticed it, and started to try and understand how the whole Wowwiki and editing stuff really work tonight.

I also tried to make myself a real page with a list of the videos from my Youtube page, but I'd like to know how to add certain achievements in the Userbox, such as "This user as obtained the achievement Glory of the Hero", etc.

Will try and edit more stuff correctly, though I'm more interested in the whole Argent Tournament at this moment, and even then, having a hard time understanding how the site and editing thing work.

Also, how do you do to delete files (images) or pages? Had to put a comment on some page last night asking for someone to delete it, because the name of it was incorrect.

Thanks!

Re: "a" vs. "an"
The only time that wikipedia page talks about it with homgage is that it's "homage" or "the homage"...so...ya...

I'm not a grammatical master, despite my common claims of being a grammar-Nazi, so I could be wrong. I would personally not be surprised if I was, so...ya. You can do what you think is best I guess; I'm not going to tamper with it any more then I already have. 23:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Template
I made a new one. You might like this. Zangarmarsh, i.e. . 12:20 AM, 9 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * But... When would I use it? In text, images like that disrupt the flow.  And in infoboxes, there is no practical need for an icon.  If you're listing a series of zones, it's pretty much like putting it in text - interrupting the flow.  If you like it, more power to you, but I can't say I'm yet a fan. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: What else...

 * ''in re User_talk:Gourra

He was blocked because he brought up issues about articles that should really be posted on their respective talk pages, which is not the first time he's done it. User talk pages should be used for other users to leave a comment on, not for a user to decide whatever he wants with it.

When you've been blocked, that usually means you are disallowed from partaking in the normal affairs of the wiki. You retain access to your talk page so you can respond to questions and offer your side of the controversy; if he's using that to influence how the wiki is edited, in my view he is stretching the bounds of his block. -- 19:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I must object most strenuously. You refer, I believe, to Appealing_a_block.  We have guidelines (not policies) about the use of user talk pages.  They do state, "to leave messages for particular users".  That guideline page also says, "As long as you stay on topic, (you can say) pretty much anything, within reason."  You will note that I am responding to you while still on my own talk page.  The only difference here is that Rolandius *started* a conversation on his own talk page, aware that it was monitored by various users.  Censoring him for the use he puts his talk page to is absurd.  Most especially when it is shown he has valid points.


 * Blocking is an action, with specific effects. It has no inherent purpose: it *is*, it *does*.  I would be happy to have you quote to me where you find that statement of the purpose of a block.  My understanding of it is that the effect and the purpose are synonymous: to prevent editing of normal pages.  I feel quite strongly that you are improperly extrapolating.  Should a blocked editor be prohibited, for instance, from talking to a fellow editor outside of the wiki talk page channels as well?  IM, personal emails, twitter, chatting in person, etc?  The use he is putting his talk page to is equivalent to just that. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll also point out one more reference. Edit: *sigh*  as well.  We don't have an equivalent page.  If this discussion is any indication, perhaps we should. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't feel this belongs directly in the discussion on banning and blocking policy because ... I feel it is inflammatory, and inappropriate to a debate on policies. Why do you CARE what he puts on his talk page, if it isn't disruptive?


 * No, really. Why. Do. You. Care?  What difference does it make to the operation of the wiki?  Is the "spamming the talk page" argument being used to cover your response to his disruptive responses to you?  He drops the issue, goes on to comment on inconsistencies he finds on the wiki and you are irritated because... why?  Because he didn't simply stop talking?  Because of what he said?  Or because he didn't "respect your authority"?  The latter is a pretty feeble reason.  But a human one. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that G0urra do that because the ban is supposed to be a punishment for his actions and he is supposed to not edit. Then he use his talk page to make others edit what he can't, this causing that his punishment isn't so real and that other people have to work for what Rolandius could have done or discussed when he get back from the ban. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Precisely my point. What he puts on his talk page is not the problem.  I could do that, and nobody would say "boo".  It's covering up the sentiment "I used the block as a punishment, and it isn't taking".  Or the flip side, "I used the block as a punishment, and he isn't learning from it".  From the outside, I can't tell which. ... or if they are distinct in people's minds.


 * In either case, the block is being used as a punishment, but the terms of that punishment aren't spelled out. "When you are blocked from all but your talk page, the only thing you may put on your talk page is an appeal of the block" is, as far as I can tell, pulled from thin air.  It is a significant added limitation, and it surprises me. I don't like surprises of that nature.  I feel myself unexceptional in this attitude.  So, I ask for it to be stated, or denied.


 * I'll add one more thing: *I* discovered this, by poking G0urra.  G0urra has not stated the reason for the added block conditions to Rolandius even yet, as far as I know.  Had I not brought this issue into the open, he would be blamed and resented for "not learning" from correction for a "rule" never actually stated.  By the same token of social understanding, I blame G0urra for, knowing Rolandius as he does, assuming he would correctly understand and learn from the additional block without it being stated explicitly.


 * Mind, all this is solely my opinion on the matter. I reserve the right to be flat-out wrong.  And again, that's why it here, not on the "ban policy" forum page. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to play devil's advocate, so don't take these ideas as necessarily my own, but rather a train of thought I would like to explore. I appreciate your efforts Eirik, which seem mostly to protect the policy from abuse, or rather from over reacting emotionally because someone doesn't like someone else, and they have the power to react. As a side note to that, whoever doesn't like Rolandius probably doesn't for some pretty good reasons, so I won't argue that point (or say that that opinion is out of line).

So the point I wanted to make is, this wiki is free. It's sort of like a blog, or a web page, but it's free. The reason it's free (pretty much no ads to boot) for editors is because they contribute, they make it better, they let it live on. And they are doing so without compensation as well. Normally a dictionary author, or encyclopedia author, or even a reporter only does such work and research because they get payment in return. And while it's a small amount of space, random jabber on a talk page isn't generating any value to the wiki, so there does seem to be some merit for objecting to that behavior.

Again going with the innocent until proven guilty idea, it was a good idea at first to still allow him at least one space to respond, if an actual contributor of positive value to the website wanted to contact him. Now after he has managed to abuse this privilege, and yes it is a privilege albeit a small mostly cheap one, that is something to consider as well. 12:53 AM, 11 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Hi Eirik Ratcatcher. I just wanted to say that I was unblocked recently due to what you mentioned above. G0urra did not state the reason for the added block conditions. I don't even know what the reason would have been to block me extra in the first place except because I am "not liked". Gourra has said "Simply put, we don't want Rolandius here on WoWWiki." I could say the same thing about someone else. Who is this "we"? Around 4 people? Being an admin is also a privilege. I would think that the best way for an admin who keeps banning someone to show users how to follow the rules would be by following them once in awhile themselves. On the whole spam thing, correct me if I am wrong but isn't "spam" something like repeating a term over and over? For example, if I wrote on some talk page "LOL LOL LOL LOL" 50 times or sent an IM saying something over and over that would be spam. Spam isn't asking a question or writing something on my own talk page — as long as it isn't something really crazy, of course. G0urra himself has said that I have been blocked in the past for no good reason. The reason why I am mostly blocked is because I defend myself by pointing to the "rules" on WoWWiki. Certain people then get mad because I know the rules or "act" like I do because I point out the rules to them. Just look at some of the things that have happened on my talk page. For instance, on my Mentor talk page there was this whole thing where it was written up that I had "confused" my Mentor. This "confused his Mentor" was actually put up on a list of things "wrong with Rolandius". I tried pointing out that I didn't confuse my Mentor at anytime and that they were just making things up to expand on this list. My Mentor was able to see the arguments and wrote "Rolandius didn't confuse me". All this energy was used by them to say that I had confused my Mentor on some subject and that it had to be written up. I removed that entry from the list, which I probably should not have done, because it was 100% made up. If someone went to a user's talk page and said "so and so likes to vandalize guild pages", I think the user would get a bit mad and not say "Oh well, it isn't true but that is okay". That is just one example out of dozens and dozens. On the whole banning thing, I guess they want you to take the ban and not defend yourself even if the rules back your statement. For instance, in the latest "talk page extra ban" thing, when I asked why my ban was extended G0urra then pointed to a "help page" on why I shouldn't have said anything on my talk page about WoWWiki. (By the way, like Eirik Ratcatcher mentioned above, my editing my own talk page did help because some of the articles were fixed after I had mentioned them.) G0urra said a help article is the same thing as a policy article. Not only is a help article not a policy article, the help article said nothing about "do not use your talk page to help others on WoWWiki" or "you may be banned if you use your talk page to help others". The help page is there to "help" a user on some given subject. Pointing to a "help page" when someone ask you why they were banned is not a very good reason. I was even told in the past by admins that something in a Guideline article is not as "important" as something found in a Policy article. How would a Help article then be the exact same thing as a Policy article? It just seems to me that some people on WoWWiki actually discourage people from participating in editing. It shouldn't be this hard for a user to put correct info in, or take false info out, out of articles. To me, and others I have talked to, all this makes me go from a view of "I want to contribute on WoWWiki today and help out!" to "Should I go on WoWWiki and try to help out; probably not because I may be banned for some crazy reason that isn't even in the rules." I think with more newer users joining WoWWiki it will be helpful. The ideas of moving things to the Forumns and looking at the citations of sources to see if they are valid are good. I think it is ironic that I am one of the "top users" on WoWWiki but also have been banned I don't know how many times. I tend to write a lot so I will end this entry now. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk  -  contr ) 05:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I really have interacted with you maybe twice Rolandius (sorry I'm burrowing your talk page Eirik), but I have read some of your prose, and with your edit count, almost certainly unknowingly I've read your contributions. I imagine from reading threads like these, you're just the type who takes the be bold thing too far. You should edit and ask for forgiveness later, but if your gut feeling is that it will piss someone off, even if you are pretty sure the someone is wrong, should you really go ahead with the edit anyways? What does that prove?
 * Or maybe just put a "hey I'm doing this" on the talk page before making that kind of an edit. If no one yells or screams, make the change. Or maybe you've just lost track of the "ask for forgiveness" part of the be bold agreement, because trust me everyone makes edits someone strongly disagrees with. I dunno man. Really with as much conflict you have with a few people here, I don't understand why you still bother.
 * I'm happy that you're still contributing all the same, but it's a community. It's not your website anymore than it is mine or Eirik's. You have to respect the admins even when you think they're wrong. 8:15 PM, 12 Jul 2009 (EDT)
 * What is the "ask for forgiveness" part of be bold you keep mentioning? I have done a "hey I'm doing this" on talk pages many times but that doesn't seem to work either. I even have the whole Mentor thing, and like I pointed out above, the same users still find problems or make some up out of thin air. "Really with as much conflict you have with a few people here, I don't understand why you still bother." I stay on here hoping with new users things will change. Also, like you said, it is only with a few people not all of WoWWiki. I won't be contributing as much since there is an anti-participation stance on here. Like you said earlier, it is a community and not just one person's website. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 03:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, many times I have asked if I could make an article title. I then get denied because it is not important or something they say. Many of those articles then show up on WoWWiki. So either some people are losing their memory and not remembering that they just denied when I asked to make it or they do not like me. Sometimes I hear that my articles are not great. These same people then let something like "Dire Rhea" on WoWWiki without a question. I think those examples speak for themselves. Rolandius [[Image:Paladin.gif|25px]] ( talk -  contr ) 03:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why but I guess that actual phrase isn't in our be bold page (so perhaps I should add it...). But it goes "it is better to ask forgiveness than to beg permission," found on similar pages on other wikis such as this. 3:37 AM, 13 Jul 2009 (EDT)
 * Again, "Dire Rhea" was never a page. "Rhea" was, but it is long deleted. I (again) fail to see your defense.-- 18:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I find myself intimidated a bit, by the wall of text there, Rolandius. Paragraphs aren't fatal. ... Usually. :) Don't know about "block removed", as it was a 3 day block, and that was 3 days ago. I did not find the help page Gourra referred you to; could you link it for me?  You should take the help page as a list of expectations, as well.  Expect resistance where you do the unexpected, and compromise where possible.

Re the "hey I'm doing this" Howbizr mentions, I'd recommend the forum pages (now that we have them). Not everybody watches talk pages, even yours, Rolandius. And the number and vehemence of the responses will indicate how much interest there is in the topic. Note my forum posting on gem categories, for instance.

"Denied but later shows up." It happens. But if your goal was "I want this page to be on wowwiki", it's all good, right? From a machiavellian stance it is even better: you've proven that the page is of interest to more than just you, without triggering a response from someone with an axe to grind.

And "Dire Rhea" - please don't bother with a defense, or response. There's no point to arguing a specific page being bad. It's not important. Bad pages happen, and editors/watchdogs/admins can't be everywhere. Badly constructed pages is something that improves with practice and accepting (constructive) criticism. The evolution of the quest chain pages, for an example near to my own heart. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Lootbox vs. Itembox
Thanks. I wasn't aware of the trend. -- Aaron of Minneapolis (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Category problems
I'm using the special wowwiki Monaco skin, and it has some widget to add categories. I'm not sure if I'm screwing it up, or the widget is, but that's why you're seeing some concatenated categories. I was typing "Pil" then used to down arrow to navigate to "Pilgrim's Bounty" and somehow it didn't get selected I guess, and just added "Pil" instead. 12:15 PM, 19 Jul 2009 (EDT)

Darktable zebra
I think it does need java-script - so those without java will not see stripes -- also we found out it does not parser thru Ajaxsub either - so even if had java on pages that link to them with Ajaxsub - it does not work - just like sortable does not as well --  21:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * May I be among those who say "bah", and disapprove? Perhaps further development is needed.  But the thought of "automatic zebra striping" is very alluring.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We have made Pcj aware of the zebra and sortable settings not working thru ajaxsub - he said since the  zebra code is in the skin settings he might not be able to make it work thru  ajax -- that is why I have stopped Alphabetising the achievements and stopped putting  the zebra and sortable settings on the achievement pages for now until we find out more - If he can get the zebra and sortable to work thru Ajaxsub then trying to keep things in Alphabetical order and using class=alt will be a thing of the past - If he decides he can't get them to work - then I will have to undo the few pages I have the sortable on and manualy Alphabetise the remaining pages and add back in the Meta Achievement section at the bottom of the pages that I removed so that sortable does not look funcky when used --  22:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As a side note, Java and Javascript have nothing in common other than the name similarities. They're completely different kinds of languages with different syntaxes and uses. 6:21 PM, 23 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * While I understand that they are different, and I *believe* that one acts server-side, one client-side, that's about where my understanding ends. Which is which is largely beyond me.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Achievement organization
You've seen my comment about alphabetizing achievements, didn't you? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I have seen your comment on alphabetizing achievements -- I know I have seen comments about not wanting to have to re-number / re-do all of the class=alt tags on achievements, hence  why I went and removed all of the #'s and aslphabetized the pages ( well did that to a majority of the pages ) - but I do  not recall any comments on alphabetizing. --  22:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah. My comment was that I preferred to see the achievements grouped by 'type' rather than simply alphabetized.  All the "complete X quests in zone Y" together, rather than scattered, for instance. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ohhh - you want all new achievements pages? -- 22:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ?? Not as such, just stating that there were elements of the old pages that I liked, that seem to be gone with your organizing. There isn't really justification for two pages holding the same achievement data. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But the other pages only started out in groups so to speak - but as new achievements were added, or removed (moved over to Feats of Strength) the achievements lost their original groupings -- I began (especialy on Long pages) added all new achevements from each new patch - to the end of the page e.g General achievements and Feats of strength achievements just to name 2 pages ( because it was to hard to go and group them with the achievements above them and to redo the the numbers ((at that time)) and to redo every other   on the pages ), that is why I finaly split the Feats of Strength achievements into smaller pages ( groups ) without numbers, just have to redo the   only  as it is now --  22:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed on your examples - there is not a lot of grouping on those. I was thinking more on quest and dungeon/raid achievements.  (For instance, "Where are all the Gundrak achievements?")  Speaking of which, ARE dungeon achievements in the category for the instance you get them in? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I could go and add a line (like I did with the meta achievements ) for each group of achievements pertaining to particular Dungeons ( or bosses for the Raids ) but if I do that -- I can not put in the  because it would try to sort the  Grouping tags as well:

or something along those lines. -- 23:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that that would be ... suboptimal. However, an artificial "group" column might work, if you could hide the mechanism that sorts items within a group.  Do you know if sorting also reads javascript comments?  That might be a method... --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We can make hidden text -- go to Dungeons_&_Raids_achievements/General and if you can see the sort boxes in the titles ( sort the 1st column ) and it will group all of the,  and  together. Thanks to Howbizr, she added hidden #'s to each tag to make them sortable. --  23:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With javascript enabled, yes, it sorted as described. Could I beg for sub-expansion sorting as well?  '50 quests' should sort out to before '100 quests' ... :) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't fix the 50 before 100 - even on wowhead it sorts the same way - they use the 1st character's (ascii value) (1 comes before 5) so 100 will come before 50 - that is a computer ( being so literal flaw) without someone doing some major computer programing -- 23:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am missing something... I thought you said that hidden characters were being used in the sorting. Why should hidden characters bear any relation to visible ones?  If they don't, forcing the sorting becomes trivial. :)  I reserve the right to have misunderstood the mechanism involved. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We have hidden characters to sort the individual column that has the icons that repesent the versions --  has the number "1" assigned to it, is 2 and  has 3 assigned to it -  Should the game go thru 7 more expansions - we will begin to have the same problem -  It will put in sort order 1, 10, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 -- we can use hidden characters (in a sort group ) as the main sort - but cant make 50 come before 100 ( 1 will always be before 5 ) (looking at the 1st character) - they are hidden to us (visablly) but not to the computer --  23:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ack, I just realized how to do as you want - we have to put "hidden" 0's infront of the 5 aka  '000'5, '00'50, '0'100, '0'250, '0'500, 1000, 1500, etc to make it work correctly --  23:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Try this table ( Titles are out of order on purpose ) so can sort it


 * -- 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I like it! This sorting works for me. However, there is one worm in the apple... My talk page seems to have grown a category posting because of the tables. Some template, somewhere, needs to be neutered corrected. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad - I coppied that section straight from the main page ( templates and all (category was added by the Stub/PTR-section template - should be fixed now. -- 18:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW I'm thrilled that the display:none thing worked, but use it sparingly. It's pretty "hackish" but I can't think of an easier way to do it. Also on a side note, I can't take credit for the idea. I got it from a JC page. 9:54 PM, 23 Jul 2009 (EDT)
 * Check out my new template sort. 10:15 PM, 23 Jul 2009 (EDT)

Re:Minor changes
I had minor edits set before - and was told that some of my edits were NOT minor - so I quit setting it -- I would rather type ( actualy it is a auto-complete ) Minor changes --  but it wont show  the M - for people that block minors - because  you all will  Overide them either way - so it is useless to Set the Minor changes setting --  04:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Achievement Groupings now that class=darktable sortable zebra    works properly thru Ajaxsub
Now that the darktable paramters work properly thru Ajaxsub, I am going back over the achievement pages and regroup them inside of the page - so that when you 1st look at the pages all of the (Items, Mobs, Mounts, Skills, etc ...) are together - untill the "Sort" buttons are used to regroup the lists by those categories. I will problably NOT be touching the Exploration and Quest pages, only because they do not have any real groups to deal with. I did the General achievements page already and will start with the Player vs. Player achievements pages on up thru Feats of Strength achievements. P.S. you will have to have java or java-scripts turned on in order to see the zebra striping and to see the sort buttons as well. In the long run this will make adding, editing, moving and removing achievements easier because we no longer have to put the  tags in anymore on simple table lists (the tables with   and   will still need the alt tags). -- 16:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Heads up
We might have to roll back the auto-sorting for wow-inline, bc-inline, and wotlk-inline. Kd3 and/or Pcj found some problems. See the discussion here. 10:03 PM, 26 Jul 2009 (EDT)

Dilluting the vote
I'd recommend changing your vote to "yes" or "no" with heavy comments, or perhaps you should have phrased the vote differently (although I think it's fine). Remember no decision is made until the vote is winning by a margin of 5, which is a mountain on this wiki. 6:10 PM, 30 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * You are right, of course, I do dilute the vote in that way. And if we can't gain a clear majority one way or the other, I'm sure I will modify my vote.  I'm an idealist, and I'm hoping we can come to a consensus, by providing more than binary solution options. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be shocked if we get more than 8 votes total, and I'm sure it will be split half and half. Look at previous votes - hardly any admins voted on them. 8:48 AM, 31 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * True. The good side is "admins being aloof" puts an image of being uninvolved, and thus a possible arbitrator.  The down side is the admins are some of our most prolific contributors... --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm basically starting to see why people don't bother with votes. Just make the changes. Talk them out with the individual if you're worried about an edit war. 4:29 PM, 31 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * I'm willing to make changes Boldly, but I like to have as much consensus as I can. And the vote can warn folks I'm making a change, and occasionally show me I'm entirely off-base.  ... or that "nobody really cares".  Why do I like consensus?  Fewer folks yell at me when I'm right, and I have less work correcting things when I'm wrong. :) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't saying consensus is bad. I was saying, you're unlikely to get a consensus from offering a vote. 4:57 PM, 31 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Yup. But it does tell me who I have to appease... :) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think on the contrary. Make a change and suddenly the "anonymous" who don't like it come out of the woodwork! People are reactionary. They're much more likely to revert/modify your edit than read discussion and vote. 6:06 PM, 31 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * Ah, but then I can fire back, "you had your chance here ". :)  Won't actually HELP, mind, but it'll make me feel better. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think CYA is really necessary in wiki world. It's not like you're getting paid.  6:37 PM, 31 Jul 2009 (EDT)


 * It's not CYA, it's . If it was CYA, there would be some operational benefit from doing it. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Dark Jade
Since that page has a color bar that is seperate from the column headings |- class=sortable will not work correctly the way you would like for it to:

The only type of solution is something similar to this:

-- 16:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If it can't be sorted, how about putting the properties in two lines? ala
 * {| class="darktable sortable zebra" style="float:left"

! style="text-align:center;" | Gem !! Effects
 * colspan=2 style="text-align:center; background: #206620;" class="nozebra" | Dark Jade, match yellow and  blue sockets.
 * colspan=2 style="text-align:center; background: #206620;" class="nozebra" | Dark Jade, match yellow and  blue sockets.
 * Dazzling Dark Jade || +6 Intellect +2 Mana every 5 seconds
 * } --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * } --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you do not care about sortability - then yeah that can be done obviously or my 2nd (middle) table is sotrable (I just put Effects 1 and 2 into 2 sortable columns) but they can be combined like you mentioned and sortable but will look like a cross between yours and my 2nd table:


 * But which Effect should be the 1st effect listed since that is what it will be primarily sorting by? -- 19:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * At that point, I'd simply given sortability up as a loss. As you point out, two separate things to track.  --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I vote for the second example, but really it isn't any skin off my back. Do whatever. 7:51 PM, 4 Aug 2009 (EDT)

Trade skill boilerplate
Help:Profession_ability_articles/Preload ← I thought you might like to comment on that use of itembox if you haven't already seen it. -- foxlit (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Q&A
It takes forever to do each article. Just haven't had time. 7:57 PM, 4 Aug 2009 (EDT)


 * Forever, in my case, was about a half hour with a worthwhile text editor, and copy/paste into the windows "text pane" browser window. 10 class x half hour = too much.   --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Achievement:Charger
I was asking User:Gourra if he was creating a Real/Psudo namespace for Achievements - because he added the Achievement:Charger he used the name Achievement:Charger. As a rule of the past since Charger has a info type box on it we cant use that page for the achievement page so we would have called it [[Charger (achievement) not Achievement:Charger, hmm now I see we have Achievement:Explore Darkshore and Achievement:Explore Elwynn Forest as well - so are we using Achievement: as a prefix for achievements?? like we do for  Quest:, and Guild: ?? --  19:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Corrected. If Gourra truly wants to rename all the achievements into a new pseudo namespace, he'll not leave them fallow for months after changing just a couple.  It's a job best handled by a bot, IMO. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Before I started working on achievementbox (which had a different name in the beginning) I asked about a namespace and I was told definitely no they would not have one. 1:25 PM, 7 Aug 2009 (EDT)


 * So we're alright. No namespace, no pseudo namespace, it's all cool. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Herald Volazj
Umm...oops! Heh heh...my brain got a little out of whack, and I realized that and changed the rest of them (they had also read Conquest)...looks like I missed one. Changed accordingly. --Joshmaul (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A-bomb-ination and A-bomb-inable achievements
You are correct in you can use {Seaforium Bombs from the Workshop but you did not realized the achievement you added the text to. uses the Seaforium Bombs from the workshop and  uses Huge Seaforium Bombs 2 sets of bombs and 2 sets of achievements (1 for each type of bomb) --  20:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And thus the 'see also's that I've been adding everywhere. Thanks.  Did not realize there were two achivements. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)