User talk:WardPhoenix/Archive

From GodWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Your edit to the Monster articles guidelines

Hey, I'm just curious about this edit removing the |pet=yes note from the Monster article guidelines. (Especially since the edit summary, deleted a lu, isn't particularly comprehensible to me. 😉)

For background, that line replaced an older note pointing people to {{Pet}}, which should no longer be used.

There's no question all of those guidelines need expanding. (For this one in particular, to incorporate |boss=yes and |sea=yes in addition to |pet=yes, among other things.) But inclusion of |pet=yes in the {{Monster}} parameters when writing Pet articles is still accurate currently, and the guideline no longer makes any mention of it. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It was because it's redundant with the information within the guidelines of the template, since writers are supposed to use it. And since it didn't looked as up to date formatting of templates, I was bold and kicked that line.

As for the edit summary, my phone just wanted to throw the change before i was done typing it (and I was like, oh fuck it). -- WardPhoenix (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Heh, I have so many typos in edit summaries, and every one is going to haunt me forever I think. And, of course, it's never the edit summaries nobody reads... feels like they only happen when someone else will actually need to understand what I wrote.
Anyway, I restored the |pet= note, as I think it's still useful. Generally, my take on the Guidelines instructions for writing articles is that they're meant to be the main, one-stop resource for someone creating an article. (Which is why it's so shocking that we've let them get so out of date.)
Some editors may choose to read the documentation for Template:Monster and the like, but we can't expect them all to. And really (in my view), they shouldn't have to. The ideal situation would be one where, for example, Guideline: Monster Articles contains all of the information someone needs to have, in order to write monster articles. With the documentation in {{Monster}} and etc. being available as a resource for those who're interested in going beyond that, to learn about how the template works and what other (non-"required") things they're able to do with it.
So, really Guideline: Monster Articles should not only cover |pet=, but it should also cover |boss= and |sea=, it should cover the relevant Navboxes (starting with {{Navbox bosses}}), etc. The same way that, ideally, some Guidelines article (or a new one) should cover the {{Hero or heroine}} template family, and offer some guidance on using (or not using) gender when writing wiki articles. That stuff is absent, currently, only because we've been neglecting that entire area of the wiki for so long, and allowed it to fall criminally out of date. (Maybe Guidelines should be our next event?)
TL;DR: the way I see it, redundancy between the Guidelines and other documentation is a good thing. In fact, everything in the Guidelines articles should really be redundant, in the sense that it should present a condensed, bare-minimum, need-to-know overview of a topic that's fully documented elsewhere. With links to that full documentation, so that any interested editors can learn about those things in more detail. (Whereas the disinterested editors don't have to be bothered with those details.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
No problem, see your point there. WardPhoenix (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Creating "empty" articles

Hey, I was just looking through Special:RecentChanges (I admit, I troll the global edits list), and I noticed a bunch of new-article creations you did, for items that previously were article-less? And it looks like you set them up with just the corresponding template? Was there any particular reason those articles needed to be created? If not, can I ask that you hold off on doing that, until we can get some consensus on whether that's the right approach?

Personally I'd be against it, unless someone came up with an argument that changed my mind. If a page doesn't exist, it's shown as a redlink, which instantly tells readers that there's no content at the other end of that link, and therefore no reason to follow it. But if an article is created that has no, or minimal, content, then there's no such indication. So the reader has to actually follow that link, just to find out that there's effectively nothing there (or, nothing they didn't already know).

So when an article contains nothing you couldn't could learn from its entry in the List of Equipment or List of Monsters or whatever, then it doesn't really provide much value to the readers. But they're essentially "tricked" (by the link's non-red status) into visiting these articles that I described on the forums as "all structure, no content". So it's actually (IMHO) more helpful & informative for those articles to stay as redlinks.

Now, others may disagree, and feel that there is value in creating "shell" articles. But I think we should discuss it as a group. My take on the JanuWiki process is (now) that even using boilerplate content for articles was a mistake, at least the way we did it. It led to articles being created that (in a few cases) never got written, yet no longer appear as the redlinks that they still (effectively) are. For those articles, because we can't delete the article entirely once it's been created, we were forced to turn them into stubs. But avoiding the creation of "no-content" articles in the first place would (again, IMHO) be preferable. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I had also meant to point out that you accidentally created one of them as Talk:Scale of justice. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The articles I have created are mainly equipment articles that my heroine have, meaning I had the durability information and wanted to create the article to not lose the information. The others are articles that were featured in Newspapers. Felt it was sad to have direct link from newspaper to totally unformated page. But if you feel against it, i can avoid further addition. -- WardPhoenix (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, no, just to be clear: I am always in favor of expanding existing articles, adding structure, cleaning up content, etc. — in any way, shape, or form. That kind of stuff is basically always positive, and you've done absolutely amazing amounts of good across the entire wiki with that kind of stuff. I am immensely grateful, and everyone who uses the wiki should be as well — it's tedious and often thankless work. All of that also falls firmly under the Be Bold principle, since if anyone ever objects to anything, it's easily reversible with just a couple of clicks. (Like with the Guideline: Monster Articles edit above, in fact.) So, there's no reason to hesitate on any of that stuff. "Easier to ask forgiveness than permission" and all that.
The only edits I'm referring to are the ones which create entirely new articles, where before no article existed at all — the ones that turn a redlink into an article link. Unlike any type of edit to the content of an existing article, article creation edits (including page moves) are permanent and irreversible — neither the user who performed the action, nor anyone else on the wiki, has the ability to undo those actions. Short of, perhaps, making an appeal to the Godville admins to come in and take care of it, but that's not a role that they've traditionally played "on-demand".
In terms of those articles, I guess the question is whether item durability, alone, warrants the creation of an article for an item. I'd personally lean towards "no", I think — that one data point doesn't seem substantive enough on its own, without additional content to flesh the article out. But I'd be curious to hear what others think, as it's possible I'm just overreacting. Maybe it's a question worth putting before the group, in some way — perhaps at Help:Requests, since I guess it loosely falls under "Wiki coding help"? I'd ask in the forum, but I'm reluctant to move a discussion of wiki procedure/norms off-wiki. I'd rather have it locally so there's a record available (and searchable) for future reference. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I knew you were talking about brand new articles don't worry about that. I'll try to be more careful on creation of page (especially on moves one) --WardPhoenix (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding talkback

Regarding {{talkback}}, personally I always appreciate notifications pointing me to discussions I might be interested in, because even though I'll probably spot them eventually, it might not be right away and if those edits occurred during periods of high activity it's easy to overlook them entirely. Plus, the (old, simple) MediaWiki edit-notification system employed here for talk page edits is nice, because no matter how much activity there's been on your talk page you can only ever receive at most one notification.

So, I wouldn't worry about any kind of "spamming" with talkback, or being reluctant to place one. Doing so requires far more effort on the part of the person leaving the message than the person receiving it, so if you're willing to expend that effort then it would be pretty unappreciative for the recipient to complain about it.

As far as the template itself goes, one handy trick is the |ts= parameter. If you pass that in set to five tildes (as opposed to the standard four used for Talk page signatures), then MediaWiki will replace it with a timestamp, and the talkback box will display that. Which also means that if there's an existing {{talkback}} or {{talkback|ts=<old timestamp>}} on a user's page (either because they haven't seen it or just haven't cleared it out), an edit can be made changing it to {{talkback|ts=~~~~~}}, updating the timestamp and informing them that the message has been refreshed and there's new content at the target page. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for information, I'll try to keep it in mind. WardPhoenix (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Notes on possible homonyms Artifact/equipment

Just a note to my self for possible homonyms artifact/equipment that could either be mistakes or actually both existing, as they are mentionned in both artifact and equipment list at the moment. Feel free to help finding the truth!

Maybe should I create a talk about it on the main page or something? WardPhoenix (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably somewhere, yeah. I find it difficult to believe that there are really this many things that are both artifacts and equipment. My guess (since it' safe to assume they can't all have come from people being confused/mistaken, though one or two may be just that) is that there are items that were originally one type, A, but got converted to the other type, B, when the devs realized they needed additional B's and already had more than enough A's. Or even just that the item seemed "more clever" as a B than an A.
It's purely a theory based on nothing but guesswork and past experience, but I bet if we were to dig around in the history of these items, it would eventually come out (well, might eventually come out, assuming we could find any information at all) that the item(s) showed up as type A only a very loooong time ago, or only very briefly right in the beginning of its existence. And then at some point, it started showing up as type B, and has never been seen as type A since. (They've on at least one occasion swapped out the boss-monster for a mini-quest in similar fashion.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Theories are fine, but i haven't any conclusive evidence for now. In both articles history and forums. After JanuWiki wrapping, and once I have a full list of those posible homonyms (when I'm done with artifact and equipment templating so), I think I'll do a post on forums to ask for community help. That's the best way to gather information i think (maybe by opening a new topic instead of flooding the godwiki one). --WardPhoenix (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
List is now complete, I hope. --WardPhoenix (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)-
No, agreed. It's tricky because a lot of this ultimately will have to come down to best guesses or intuition, given that a lot of it falls under the "can't prove a negative" heading — there's almost no way to concretely say any (type of) any item doesn't exist, only to document the ones that do.
Personally I've always felt that there's room to make judgement calls on the rest, as well. Especially since the contents of the wiki are always subject to revision: Even if we were to document everything with perfect accuracy as it stands right now, the developers are still going to make changes in the future that will render our information inaccurate. But there are those who approach things differently, too. BlueStapler, for one (though by no means exclusively) is a big stickler for technical accuracy over likely intent.

For example, Cobweb gulp and Cobwebs gulp are listed separately, but that's how it is in the game so that's how I think the wiki should be.
— BlueStapler at Talk:List_of_Skills

This comment addresses why I undid the edits by Ultraferret. To summarize, Ultraferret removed two skills from the list; Cash wistle and Chesire smile. While I agree with Ultraferret that these are misspellings, these two skills exist in the game under those spellings. Accordingly they belong on this list. Specifically, RuB1x has the skill Cash wistle and StatikDu51 has Chesire smile.
— BlueStapler at Talk:List_of_Skills

But BlueStapler was also the one who redirected Chesire smile to Cheshire smile,so that we don't have two different articles just based spelling differences, so even the sticklers make some concessions.
And sometimes I side with the sticklers, and feel that separate articles are the right call. For instance, we have both Hellephant and Hellaphant because those are both currently-extant monsters in the game, apparently, and as such they can likely have different stats/properties. I don't know why the devs approved both, but it seems they have.
As far as the items in question go, I posted some evidence over at Talk:Fuzzy dice showing that it is definitely a current piece of equipment, since that's one of the few things that (through Google) can be relatively easy to determine conclusively. But whether it still also exists as an artifact, that's much trickier to determine conclusively since game API access was drastically constrained. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
So if I understand well, what you're saying is basically "Let's write on those we are sure they exist, leave others just in case.", this applying on both possible homonyms Articles/Artifact and on differents spelling articles (section below) and eventually doing redirect? I can hardly disagree with a "Better safe than sorry." course of action.
I guess I'll avoid doing potentialy useless disambuguation page like I made with the Death note and the Snooze button in the future and stick to the "we are sure". Obviously the best case would be that we have a perfect accuracy on the wiki, but considering how unupdated it is/was, it's obviously impossible at the moment (hey, that's why we are working for xD)
In that case, it may not necessary to go with a forum topic inquiry since it won't prove an unexistant item (god damn devil's proof). --WardPhoenix (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Mmm, sorta. I guess more what I'm saying is, let's document things as we know they are currently, and keep in mind that may even involve changing the past, since the information that was originally compiled may now be inaccurate (or never was accurate). So, for example, Fuzzy dice is written as an artifact. But the only edit ever made to that article was its creation four years ago; it's never been touched since. We know conclusively, thanks to Google, that "Fuzzy dice" in the game is currently a piece of Equipment (a Talisman), so my instinct would be to change the existing Fuzzy dice article to document that piece of equipment, instead.
If someone then comes up with evidence that there is also still a "Fuzzy dice" artifact, separate from the talisman, it's at that point that we'd be forced to disambiguate. But when reality doesn't match our documentation of past reality, in my mind one possibility is, "we were mistaken, or reality has changed." Reconciling both realities together (disambiguation) is certainly the safest approach, but it carries the risk of preserving outdated information (or even past mistakes) with the appearance that it's still valid.
Going back to the Ku Klux Clown example, all available evidence now points to that monster having been deleted from the game itself way back in 2012. But because it already had its own article on the wiki, and it's appeared in List of Monsters, in Boss-monsters, in {{Navbox bosses}}, and possibly other places, we've essentially "kept it alive" for over six years after its deletion — in fact most of our information about it was added after it had already been removed from the game! (It wasn't added to List of Monsters until 2013; {{Navbox bosses}} wasn't created until October 2012.)[A 1] There are probably some who'd even argue that we should still be documenting it for posterity — which is an equally valid position, though I would personally disagree. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Uh... how to say this... I remember the whole event, but can't substantiate it: "Ku Klux Clown" wasn't deleted from the game. It was changed over to "Mad Clown" after there was a big scuffle aboit it in the box of Ideabox that used to be devoted to voting about objectionable ideas (and then that box was deleted, because we kept misappropriating it for "arguments"). It kept all of the same stats, and retained its status as a mini-quest boss, it just got its name changed. If anything, that particular page needs some sort of redirect and an historical note put under "Mad Clown." Is this one of those "Be Bold" things? As a witness to that period of GV history, should I be doing that? --SourceRunner (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I guess so, since not a lot of people could testimony about it. So please, be bold xD --WardPhoenix (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I'd say please don't — IMHO things are fine the way they are, with the KKC excised from the Wiki. ("Renamed" to Mad Clown, "Deleted and replaced with" Mad Clown... I don't see the difference between those two things, functionally.)
At the very least, please do read this (wide-ranging) discussion first, where we hashed out what to do about the KKC article and list entries, and then did it. (We settled on making it all go away; that was a conscious decision by multiple editors. So I'd say let's reopen that discussion before acting, if anyone feels we should've gone a different path.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, sorry, we discussed how to actually deal with the KKC in a different section slightly farther down that talk page. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Not touching it. "Deleted" versus "Renamed" is a big deal in Ideabox (we've done pitched battle multiple times over proposals to delete GorgeousGeorge's Holy Mass Murderer, but never fought over proposals to rename it; the "Spring Cleaning" thread is nothing but snarls every time it comes active), but if it is not a big deal for GodWiki, no sweat off my brow. And given that the various incarnations of the Mad Clown seem to be a sore issue, I apologize for having prodded it inadvertently.
Your bailiwick, your rules. --SourceRunner (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Notes

  1. Not that I'm claiming that the people who made those edits knew it had been deleted, or even could have known. Hindsight often makes these things much clearer once the events are a little further in the past. I'm just illustrating the process by which outdated information can appear lifelike, even long after it's joined the legions of the undead. Limiting the spread of bad information is one of the major reasons behind Wikipedia's rule that it can never use itself as a reference, under any circumstances — in other words, "This other Wikipedia article says ____" is never sufficient justification for repeating that claim elsewhere on Wikipedia. An external source is always required.

Coming back here for a crucial piece of information. Writer's block is both an artifact and an equipment (found the shield on some heroes and just got the artifact in my inventory). So in that case, do you agree on a (Disambiguation) page or do we create a unique page with both infoboxes to avoid dupes articles and summary ?

I guess it would be weird after all and despite my previous disambiguation pages (like Snooze button or Death note), to have differents articles for same name, since same names articles are likely to be similarly written. --WardPhoenix (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

If it exists currently as both, then I'd say... yeah — in that case, Writer's block (Equipment) and Writer's block (Artifact), with a disambiguation page to choose between them. Personally I prefer that to the "this is an artifact that can also be used as a talisman" unified construction of... whatever that other article was, simply because it isn't treated that way in the game. (We know that; a Writer's block artifact in a heroine's inventory isn't just suddenly going to become their shield. They either buy a "Writer's block" shield, or they find/loot/receive a "Writer's block" artifact.)
Treating them the same, at least wiki-wise, perhaps made more sense back when we didn't have an {{Equipment}} infobox, and there was really no data tracked for Equipment. But now that we've formalized that information better, it becomes messy to try and describe something as both. Far better — again, purely IMHO — to treat them as two different things that happen to have the same name. (And endeavor to describe them differently based on their different purpose, too.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

List of article with issue - Done

  • Angry Bird (Monster and Equipment)
    • Weapon currently exist +30
  • Alpha mail (Artifact and Equipment)
    • Body currently exist +56
  • Bull's horn (Artifact and Equipment)
    • Weapon currently exist +18
  • Bad Gatekeeper / 502 Bad Gatekeeper (Monster)(A merge proposal already exist but are they the same or not?) Tick.png Done
    • I've seen a discussion about this somewhere in one of the Workman's threads. We came to the conclusion that Bad Gatekeeper was the actual monster, and the 502 Bad Gatekeeper must have happened when someone saw the entry that goes something like "Saw a Godville Administrator being pursued by a 502 Bad Gatekeeper. Huh. I guess everyone has a nemesis." The upshot was that both definitely don't exist at the same time as monsters. I'll BOLO it to see which one is currently in the monster rotation and which is in the static entry, but yes, they are the same and need to be merged. --SourceRunner (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Actually searched on forum (why did i not thought of that earlier...) and find this :
        !13/06/17
        18:21 The 502 Bad Gatekeeper turned into dust. I blew its ashes away and found some stainless wood.
        !27/07/18
        Godville’s Admin — 106th level adventurer, with the motto, “OMG!” stands a the 1st position in the pantheon of awesome game developers under the vigilant supervision of the ultragod Godville. Rumor has it that for some reason, the 502 Bad Gatekeeper refuses to make eye contact with him, and has been permanently locked in its gatehouse single-handedly by the efforts of this truly epic hero.
        .
        !09/05/16
        Cut the 502 Bad Gatekeeper in half. Now I can count its rings to find out how old it was.
        .
      • So, sounds like the 502 Bad Gatekeeper is the current name of monster. I'll let you confirm. ----WardPhoenix (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I kept meaning to post this screenshot of the 502 Bad Gatekeeper in the wild (from 2018/12/31). -- S624 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Indeed, agreed. The 502 Bad Gatekeeper is the current one. Just now saw this in Tar's diary: 10:16 They say time flies when you're having fun. The 502 Bad Gatekeeper enjoyed beating me so much that it aged dramatically and died of natural causes. I gained a family tree seed and 26 gold coins from the experience. --SourceRunner (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Bulletproof Monk (Monster and equipment) Tick.png Done
    • Shield currently exist +14
    • The monster is active in the game. I just found this in Tar's diary: 02:52 Filed down the Bulletproof Monk's claws so that it wouldn't be so intimidating. It gave me 9 gold coins for the manicure. --SourceRunner (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Carrot on a stick (Artifact and Equipment)
    • Talisman currently exist -9
  • Death note (Artifact and Equipment) Tick.png Done
    • talisman currently exist +33
    • Just got the artifact in my bag
  • Fountain of Youth (Geography and Monster listed) Tick.png Done
    • I’ve never seen this as a monster. Can’t even visualize how that would work. I’ve only ever seen it as geography, and as part of the quest to “chlorinate the fountain of youth.” —SourceRunner (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Gaolkeeper redirect to Ghoulkeeper but are they really one and only monster or not? Tick.png Done
    • No... they aren't the same, since the both came through the Ideabox at different times.... Will BOLO to confirm that they are both still in the monster rotation. --SourceRunner (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Gaolkeeper is active in the game. Just found this in Tar's diary: 02:52 A Gaolkeeper suddenly jumped out of the bushes shouting “Tora! Tora! Tora!” (Note: "Gaol" is an old word for "jail," and not at all related to "ghoul.") --SourceRunner (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Godville citizen badge (talisman) (potential dupe spelling issue) Tick.png Done
    • Godville citizen's badge currently exist + 39
      • Definitely looks like just a spelling issue. —SourceRunner (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Godwiki is surpringly mentionned in the monster list. Tick.png Done
    • So it is. Added by Whet Dreams in this large-scale edit back in 2014. No explanation to be found. (In fact, no edit summary at all, and marked Minor despite clearly not being a minor edit.) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- FeRDNYC (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Green thumb (Artifact and Equipment) Tick.png Done
    • Talisman curently exist +84
    • Artifact exist
  • Hall pass (Artifact and Equipment) Tick.png Done
    • Talisman currently exist +40
    • Artifact currently exist.
  • He-who-must-not-be-ashamed redirect to He-Who-Must-Be-Ashamed. Same monster I guess, BOLO to confirm the second one is the one existing? Tick.png Done
    • Our very own Dan Maku has diary entries / references to He-Who-Must-Be-Ashamed on his user page, though flipping through the history a bit they all date back to 2014. "He-who-must-not-be-ashamed", OTOH, google google only finds three hits for, globally across the internet: A single comment in this one reddit thread, a blog post that rattles off like 5 variations on the theme, and our own list articles. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    • The redirect is the result of a page move from "must-not-be" to "must-be", done by Jimbob64 way back in 2013. It certainly sounds like the "not" name was just a mistake from the start, but never got taken off the list(s) after it was corrected. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Icarus Rocket (Arms) (potential dupe spelling issue) Tick.png Done
    • Icarus rockets currently exist +55
      • Icarus Rockets were proposed by Epoch and accepted by the Devs during a point in time when the "Equipment" category either did not have enough entries or was having a glitch and sticking everyone with "Icarus Wings," "Happy Feet," and something else that I can't remember. Search in the forums for "Icarus Wings" and you will find the "Icarus Wings, Happy Feet, and (something else) Support Group" as an artifact from that time. Epoch's Icarus Rockets were both satire and a welcome relief at that time, because some of us got to have those instead of wings. However, they have always been plural, never singular, so "Icarus Rocket" is not correct. --SourceRunner (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Icarus Wings (Arms) (potential dupe spelling issue) Tick.png Done
    • Icarus wings currently exist +48
      • Icarus Wings were a piece of equipment with which a lot of people got "stuck" when there was either a glitch or not enough high-level equipment. It is not the same as Icarus Rockets, which were created as satire about Icarus Wings. --SourceRunner (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Still noticed it on some heroes... Still available or just memento?
          • Hmmm, I almost wonder: does that even matter? Meaning, the Icarus Rockets were created to be a completely separate piece of equipment, in fact they were created as a pun on Icarus wings. (As SourceRunner has now graciously explained.) So that settles the question of whether or not the articles are in any way duplicates or in conflict: they're clearly not. And if some heroines still have Icarus wings then they're still in the game, so they're still a valid list entry, and would be a valid article topic if anyone chooses to write it. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
            • Er, right. Nobody needs to write it, because we already have an Icarus wings article. I just placed the redirect from Icarus Wings to that article. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Icebreaker (Artifact and Equipment) Tick.png Done
    • artifact currently exist
    • Weapon currently exist +143
  • Insani tea / Isani tea (Artifact / does the 2nd one exist or is it a speeling mistake of the 1st?)Tick.png Done
    • There is not even the tiniest bit of doubt in my mind that Isani tea is a typo of Insani tea. That one's a no-brainer, IMHO. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I would have agree if there wasn't the case of the double eye patch...I'd prefer to be careful on that. --WardPhoenix (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
        • No. There is no "Isani tea" in game. If there ever was, we Ideaboxers were on it like rabid dogs, vying for a grammar correction. --SourceRunner (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Motley Crew : Does that monster still exist under than name? (I think i never was one, and found a forum discussion on how it should be renamed)
    • Possibly this was renamed/removed because it doesn't seem like it fits the singular-subject rule for monster names? "Motley crew member" or something like that would seem to be a more valid monster name. (Purely a guess, not meant to be taken as anything actionable. Just typing out loud.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
      • It was in game, at one point, but had a whole lot of umlauts, and I think the last word was “Crue,” instead. It was proposed and accepted during a (short) fad for band names in Ideabox, before the devs implemented ER, when everybody was still trying to figure out this whole “crowd-sourced expansion” thing. Any references you see to Def Leppard, Pearl Jam, Twisted Sister, Nirvana, and Lynyrd Skynyrd also mostly came from that spate.
      • Back to the matter at hand, I can’t remember the last time I saw Tar fighting a Mötley Crüë, or whatever it was. BOLO it? —SourceRunner (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Will keep it there for a few times, just in case it pop up in the game. --WardPhoenix (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Psychophant / Brutal Psychophant (Monster/Separate monster are same one?) Tick.png Done
    • Those are the same. Before the "smith" and "healing" monsters, the devs tried out descriptors in front of some monsters randomly as (so far as we could tell) flavor text. "Brutal" was one of the descriptors. However, the devs didn't announce that they had added descriptors at that time (I don't think), so for a while people were spotting "new" monsters. This likely came out of that. --SourceRunner (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      • The current pages are differents though, the merging will be done later so I leave this item in the section for now (just in case).
        • Your call on whether you continue to track it here or not, of course, but the articles are templated for merge and show up in Category:Proposed mergers. So it's also being tracked there, in effect. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
          • "01:18 The Psycophant wanted to have me for lunch, but became lunch for the hungry tribbles instead." No sign of a brutal one so merge may be coming soon. Thanks for your insights! -- WardPhoenix (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
            • I just popped "Brutal" onto List of Monsters' list of (retired) descriptive prefixes, and pulled the Brutal Psychophant off of the list. But I added it as a "See also:" note on the Psychophant entry just until they're merged, to make sure we (everybody) keeps track of it. On the Omnibus List I changed its line to "Brutal %monster%" because I guess that's still how those are listed on that list. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Vector Field Tick.png Done is referenced as a monster (alongside Geography). Another mistake I'd say?
    • Definite mistake. Never seen it as a monster. —SourceRunner (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Writer's block (Artifact and Equipment) Tick.png Done
    • Shield currently exist +62
    • Artifact also exist
  • Double eyepatch (Headgear and artifact) (three differents spellings in equipment list)
    • Head spelt double eye patch currently exist +105
    • Head spelt double eye-patch also exist +34
    • Artifact spelt Double eyepatch exist
  • Funny bone (Artifact and Equipment)
    • talisman currently exist +41
  • Fuzzy dice (Artifact and Equipment)
    • Equipment currently exist
  • Insanity plea (Artifact and Equipment)
    • Shield currently exist +89
  • Life vest (Artifact and Equipment)
    • Body currently exist
  • Moonglasses (Artifact and Equipment)
    • head currently exist + 54
  • Spare rib (Artifact and Equipment)
    • Talisman currently exist +84
  • Suicide watch (Artifact and Equipment)
    • Equipment currently exist
      • The artifact may have been erased. It camethrough the “Questionable Content” box several times, as the artifact, and I haven’t seen it for a long time. That it’s still a piece of equipment is probably due to only a few people seeing it, now. —SourceRunner (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Trump card (Artifact and Equipment)
    • Artifact currently exist

Navbox formatting

Hey, {{Navbox pets}} is a great idea! How did we not think of that sooner?

I made a couple of changes to the code, just wanted to fill you in on them.

  1. Group names (especially if they're wide or nested) tend to be a problem on mobile, since they end up eating all of the available width of the table. I realized with {{Navbox JanuWiki 2019}} that it made more sense to use the |above=title parameter with {{Navbox subgroup}}, and create a separate row for the heading, instead of burning up width. So, I made the same change at {{Navbox pets}}. See what you think. (I'm questioning whether the "Normal" is even really necessary, or just implied...)

  2. You DEFINITELY want to use {{Navbox items}}, instead of {{Navbox list}}, when building infoboxes. {{Navbox list}} was Djonni's first version of the template, and we addressed a lot of its shortcomings with the replacement {{Navbox items}}. (The documentation unfortunately didn't all get updated to reflect that change.) Our plan, way back when, was to go through and replace all of the {{Navbox list}} transclusions with {{Navbox items}}, and then deprecate that template. Unfortunately that never got done either.

    The biggest advantage to {{Navbox items}} is that it'll autolink the parameters for you (unless you turn that off with |mode=nolink), so for example this:

    {{Navbox list| [[Ballpoint Penguin]] || [[Biowolf]] || [[Bipolar Bear]] | [[Crypt Creeper]] | [[Dreaded Gazebo]] | [[Dust Bunny]] | [[Firefox]] | [[Hyper Lynx]] | [[Lightsaber-Toothed Tiger]] | [[Ninja Tortoise]] | [[Rocky Raccoon]] | [[Santa Claws]] | [[Satan Claus]] | [[Significant Otter]] | [[Sun Dog]] | [[Talking Donkey]] | [[Terror Bull]] | [[Vogon Poet]] | }}
    becomes this:
    {{Navbox items| Ballpoint Penguin || Biowolf || Bipolar Bear | Crypt Creeper | Dreaded Gazebo | Dust Bunny | Firefox | Hyper Lynx | Lightsaber-Toothed Tiger | Ninja Tortoise | Rocky Raccoon | Santa Claws | Satan Claus | Significant Otter | Sun Dog | Talking Donkey | Terror Bull | Vogon Poet | }}

    The other advantage is that {{Navbox items}} by default allows the items to be word-wrapped, which (again, for mobile) tends to be better since it means less space is wasted. That can also be turned off if needed with |wrap=no.

Anyway, I pulled the code into an editor and converted all of the lists to {{Navbox items}} with a quick regexp to drop the square brackets. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I also just stuck a note at the top of the {{Navbox}} and {{Navbox list}} documentation, explaining that {{Navbox items}} is the New Hotness. I realized we did a really bad job of documenting that, since the change happened during JanuWiki 2019. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I just pasted from the navbox beastie S624 made juste before, so that one probably need the same corrections (thanks by the way for them). And yes, I was like "Wait, there is no navbox for pets? What the hell?!" --WardPhoenix (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, which is exactly how any reasonable person would expect most navboxes to be created (hell, it's how most of anything on the wiki is created), which is why it's so bad that we left most of them in the "wrong" format for so long. I've hopefully cleaned up at least most of them, now, so there are at least more examples of the right way than the "wrong" (or at least outdated) way. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
And I just copy/pasted from the documentation... Agreed on navbox pets, good one WardPhoenix. Maybe not the place for this, but how deep down the rabbit hole do we want to go? I've found 28 candidates for a navbox birds (from A to I only so far) & could put together a fairly well populated rodents and insects as well up to that point. -- S624 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It's as you will I'd say. There is already some unofficial navbox for monsters like cat, dogs and dragons. So nothing stops you from doing more of those navbox. -- WardPhoenix (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

(For more about navbox progress go to User:S624/Sandbox) - selfnote.

Page moves

Hey mate :)

When moving a page, it's best to use the 'Move' option at the top of the page — it's in the 'More' menu, top right. It will preserve a page's edit history, automatically create redirects, and automatically delete a redirect in the destination if it exists. It's also a ton less effort than manually pasting and blanking the wikicode! -- Djonni (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Last time I tried to move a page to an already existing page it wasn't working, so I admit I didn't even tried here! (The correct capitalization was redirecting the incorrect one). I forgot about the talk page issue though, even if in the current case there is no problem since there is none. --WardPhoenix (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Mmm, if I recall correctly if there's anything more than a redirect at the destination it will refuse, so as not to unintentionally delete anything. I could be wrong, but I think simply blanking the destination (or, possibly, replacing it with a redirect to the origin?) should be all one needs to do to go ahead with the move. 😊 -- Djonni (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Well it wasn't working last time for the One-and-a-Halfling‎‎: tried blanked the redirect, move was still blocked. Will try again if there is a new change to make. --WardPhoenix (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)