Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Discworld MUD Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Archive completed discussions)
(Delete Categories/Tables for excellent weapons?)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Excellent weapons==
I know there's been discussion of excellent weapons before with previous incarnations of judge.
Is there a way for those to make sense with the new version of [[judge]]?
I'm talking about these pages: (and links to them, those categories in weapon pages)
*[[:Category:Excellent axes]]
*[[:Category:Excellent daggers]]
*[[:Category:Excellent weapons]]
*[[:Category:Excellent polearms]]
*[[:Category:Excellent misc weapons]]
*[[:Category:Excellent flails]]
*[[:Category:Excellent heavy-swords]]
*[[:Category:Excellent maces]]
On the one hand once all the weapons are converted and included in the new dynamic tables in real articles (not categories see [[#Articles that are categories|below]]) it would be easy to make a table including only selected weapons. On the other hand are any weapons "excellent" any more?
Chat deleted [[:Category:Excellent swords]] and I do not disagree with that train of thought.
At most I think ONE page with excellent weapons (no categories please, moving items in and out as they change is unwieldy) could work if there's a way to determine objectively which weapon would be best, if that can be done at all.
What do you guys think? --[[User:Frazyl|Frazyl]] 23:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:04, 30 May 2011

Filing cabinet.gif Old content for this page has been archived, and can be found at the following locations.
Main Page/Archive 1Main Page/Archive 2Main Page/Archive 3
Main Page/Archive 4Main Page/Archive 5Main Page/Archive 6

Excellent weapons

I know there's been discussion of excellent weapons before with previous incarnations of judge.

Is there a way for those to make sense with the new version of judge?

I'm talking about these pages: (and links to them, those categories in weapon pages)

On the one hand once all the weapons are converted and included in the new dynamic tables in real articles (not categories see below) it would be easy to make a table including only selected weapons. On the other hand are any weapons "excellent" any more?

Chat deleted Category:Excellent swords and I do not disagree with that train of thought.

At most I think ONE page with excellent weapons (no categories please, moving items in and out as they change is unwieldy) could work if there's a way to determine objectively which weapon would be best, if that can be done at all.

What do you guys think? --Frazyl 23:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


As of this announcement, judge now works in a completely different way. This means that:

  • All of the existing weapons rating data is invalid.
  • We can't use the judge-method to determine a weapon's rating either.

There will be a short period of silence, followed by a long period of swearing, followed by changes to several templates. Please bear with me. --Chat 19:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I now think we've got enough research on Judge to start putting weapon ratings back in. A word of caution, however: Please don't add any weapon ratings in unless you:
  1. Have read Research:Judge
  2. Have a JIR of at least 220 in the appropriate weapon class (If you don't know what a JIR is, go back to step 1).
Or your information won't be accurate.
--Chat 19:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Shortly I'll update the weapon infobox for entering judge data for overall, attack and parry with strength between 8 and 24. Provided it doesn't go horribly wrong and need to be reverted for fixes.

It should be easy to extend it beyond 24 if need be, just some copy paste but I'm not sure anyone is testing beyond that.

As a side-effect, the old judge overall, attack and parry data will not show anymore. This is necessary because without str we don't know what the old data was and it needs to be rechecked or entered. This is consistent with similar past updates.

The prototype for the new infobox filled with new data will be in Fine sabre.

Unfortunately, it's not possible to just copy the data from the tables because it reads the string, not the number... It's possible it can be made to work with numbers with more work.

--Frazyl 01:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok it works now as in Fine sabre. I'd just like to put table lines for the str table but it doesn't want to work.

For those weapons done by Baldarov and others with the "Strength/Judge Results table" the info in that table was the one to use anyway, not the data without str in the infobox that's not shown anymore.

Todo: see if I can muck up something so we can put the numbers 1 to 14 instead of the label like "rather good" to place the info in the infobox for all those pages. Another day though. --Frazyl 03:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea to summarize everything to one side of the weapon page. However, an opinion - aesthetically, the fine sabre example looks, well, overly busy on the weapon info column now. Would it be possible to do a multiinfobox? The front box could be as it has been, but have the Str-16 (being median 9 to 23) relevant judge info displayed. Then, if a person so desires, the second info box could just show the expanded judge info. If preferred, I can move this thought to the template's discussion area. --Groth 03:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea. But looking over all the str variations would take 14 clicks and wouldn't the buttons to show all available str be rather similarly spammy? Then again I'm not very knowledgeable on the multipane infobox things, maybe it can be made to work...
Would it help if the other judge info were put on top? --Frazyl 03:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh maybe if instead of rather good (11/14) it was just "11 rather good" that would save 1/3 lines. Or I could scrap the string name to save on vertical space... --Frazyl 04:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok changed it. It looks much more compact now. Still wish there were lines between rows. --Frazyl 04:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the click for your str part there could be links to click for each str there is data for and one to show all. I just have no idea how to make that work with css at the moment. --Frazyl 07:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I made the infobox accept numbers instead of string so you can put "11" instead of "very-good" as a first step to be able to enter the data from table in the infobox. I also tried to make a template {{Judge-str}} to make entering data take less typing but it doesn't work yet. --Frazyl 20:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok it works now, you just need to type for example
It then substitutes this when you save the page so that it looks like you didn't use it but it was used when converting Rose-hilted long sword. --Frazyl 05:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't easy, but the dynamically updated table for weapons is done for Daggers.

Basically for every weapon page we need to change

{{Infobox weapon

and replace it with


The data inside the template also needs to be updated to have the str versions like: Judge-overall-13 = pretty good

Numeric values also work like: Judge-overall-13 = 9

For now I put the values for 13 str in the table because there's no space for all possible str. Not sure if or how to make the str shown change.

On another topic, is there still what we can call "excellent xxx" weapons? Is someone going to update those pages with what, max overall value or do we scrap the pages?

--Frazyl 03:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I synchronized the weights from the old table for daggers, some of those were more up to date than the pages for the weapons. Those checked with a balance should be bold as before. I weighted the delicate black stiletto, it wasn't the same weight for both. The new table is up and running, there's still a bunch of daggers with tables to move to the weapon_data. --Frazyl 08:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

For weapons using multiinfobox it is not possible to just include multiple boxes at once with current code. The solution is to create one sub page and place just the weapon_infobox inside them and then include those in the multiinfobox like in Switchblade. You then load the sub pages in the weapons table but not the main page and they'll all show up! :) --Frazyl 21:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


The main talk page was getting pretty big, so I've archived the old bits off.

The process for doing this is:

  • Archive talk pages when you start seeing the "WARNING: This page is X kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections." message when editing them.
  • Move any sections which have not had edits within the last 30 days to the archive page.
  • The archive page is called 'Talk:pagename/Archive X', where X is 1, 2, 3, etc.
  • Put the {{talkarchive}} template at the top of each archive page.
  • Put (or update) the {{archives}} template at the top of the main talk page.

--Chat 17:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Viewing figures

Just thought you guys might like to know - unique daily visits to the site for the month of December 2009 broke 1,000 - we hit 1,001, as a matter of fact.

For interest, here are the figures for the past few months:

Mar 2010        1104
Feb 2010        1212
Jan 2010        1114
Dec 2009 	1001 	
Nov 2009 	919 	
Oct 2009 	796 	
Sep 2009 	676 	
Aug 2009 	540 	
Jul 2009 	398 	
Jun 2009 	279 	
May 2009 	165

Great work everyone - many thanks for your continued work in making this wiki a great resource for DW players everywhere! Drakkos 21:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010 hit 1114 unique daily visits, FWIW. Drakkos 00:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
February 2010 : 1212
Interesting. Increasing fairly consistently. Rehevkor 13:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Quest pages

What's the plan for the quest pages to remain in sync? That is, quests are duplicated on several pages, odds are modifications on one page won't be made on all of them unless everyone is aware that the quest is also present on another page.

I thought that maybe there was a wiki thing in place so that sections from one page came from another or that they mirrored each other but apparently not. Not sure if that's something that actually exists. Anyone know?

Barring that, should we remove duplicate quests and replace some of them with links? Or some other way to keep all the quest text in sync?

I came up with some ways to handle the issue:

  • Make a page for every quest, the other pages link to the quest page. Downside is there will be lots of pages.
  • Put all quests on one page, then the other pages link to the section of the quest. Probably a bad idea because the page would be too big.
  • Make sure each quest is only on one page and that other pages are only links. Would need to decide on a level (domain/area/city) which would hold the real quest text.
  • Add comments in the source of duplicated quests that the other version needs to be updated as well. People could miss that though.
  • Insert idea here.

Or does everyone feel quests duplicated on several pages is no big deal after all? Frazyl 22:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The third one would be easiest, but... eh. The first one is probably the best solution (possibly we could even stop using hidden text), but I don't like that they would then show up in Special:Random. They do currently, but it's not especially important because 1)there are comparatively few of them, and 2)spoilers are hidden and mostly below the fold anyway. There are only 1,234 content pages currently, so if we added a few hundred quest pages they'd be a significant portion of that. Maybe if we had a separate namespace ([1]) for them? Then they wouldn't show up randomly. --Ilde 02:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
A separate namespace sounds good especially if it allows us to show the text unhidden. As it turns out Special:Random also excludes redirects, so we could add redirects from the normal namespace for pages people might search or we want to link to... Probably only entry pages with warnings like Category:Quest pages and Unofficial_Quest_Solutions. --Frazyl 02:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I actually like the hidden text as it enables me to uncover the mystery line by line if required (for example if I get stuck just because I cannot figure out the right verb, "exacto" comes to mind...). --Gunde 23:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So, will someone create a quest namespace for quest articles? Or should we put them in the research namespace?

The primary advantage of a quest namespace is that this will stop quest pages appearing in Special:Random, which can send someone who doesn't want to be spoiled to a quest page and it will stop them appearing in default search (happens when the article doesn't exist) Special:Search, which will reveal the context of the search, that is unhidden quest info.

--Frazyl 18:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, creating a new namespace requires editing the server's LocalSettings.php; as such it's something that only Drakkos can do, so you should speak to him.
Please don't move quests into the Research: namespace - that will end up polluting Research: with things that aren't research, and we don't want that.
--Chat 22:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, what about the Help: namespace? It is somewhat appropriate and not really in use (the only thing in it is Help:Contents), and I don't think Special:Random catches pages in it.
--Ilde 18:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I came up with a few ideas to improve quest pages. For the namespace I was waiting for the captcha to be installed first so as not to ask too much at once...

So I made a template {{Prehidden}} that basically is like {{prebox}} with white on white text. The advantage of prebox is that it preserves line breaks and spaces and other characters without breaking out too easily as with <p> (making a list with * or : makes everything after visible) while removing then obsolete <br> tags and allowing some formatting like bold or italic. Also it puts a pretty box around the text.

See Alchemists'_Guild_quests for examples.

If it is agreeable we could turn {{Hidden}} like {{Prehidden}} unless there something that I didn't think of.

As for quest duplication, it is possible to include pages with {{Include}}. It's only a matter of merging quests into the subpage and the template includes them with formatting and a link to the included page.

As for what includes what Unofficial_quest_solutions looks good, there's some difference to the structure of the Discworld quest pages though.

If we get a namespace for quests, I was thinking that each quest could get its own page in non-hidden text, which would then be included in the lists in {{Prehidden}} boxes. So if you don't want to be spoiled too much you can check the lists and to edit the quest and to be spoiled it would be easier to see it all at once in the quest page. It would use a tweaked include template.

--Frazyl 07:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooooo! The include templates are a neat solution for the duplication issue; kudos for that. --Ilde 03:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Slight issue, when including a page with the template include it doesn't work. You'd think it would check if there really was a loop, but no it just refuses to do anything. The only workaround that comes to mind is to make duplicate {{Include}} templates, one per level. --Frazyl 07:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok all pages have the same format and duplicate quests have all been merged except for Sentimentalist and Distant Exhibitionist which have several versions.

Some quests fitted several areas, put them in the most important area. To place a quest in several areas would mean putting the quests in individual quest pages and including those in all list pages that is concerned, but we said that would be too many pages so we'd need the quest namespace. --Frazyl 02:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It occurred to me that while we can't include the text of the quests that could go in several places in more than one place (because we can't include sections, only pages as far as I know with mediawiki) we could place links to the quest.

Might be worth going through the quests vs the mud quest pages to put stubs for quests missing and links to quests that are somewhere else, at some point.

--Frazyl 23:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles that are categories

I've noticed a few of these. Categories that are masquerading as articles. One example being Category:Dibbler_clones - all the information there should be in an article. I've noticed several of these scattered about. Would be there be any opposition to cleaning this up? Rehevkor 23:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And also, bred and butter information such as this should not be in categories as they will not show on default searches. Rehevkor 23:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Category:Furniture is a pretty bad offender too. Rehevkor 23:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about this. If I search for "dibbler" or "dibbler clones" then the category obviously doesn't show up in search without someone creating a redirect for it. (Redirect to specific clone within the clones page might be ugly or bad usability?) But I think there should be a page for Dibbler himself, which includes a link to dibbler clones. Meanwhile the clones page shows under category NPCs, and the pages of each of those NPCs can be grouped together that way.
Furniture is an example but is it good or bad? It has a redirect from the search term "furniture" which could also be a Furniture page (instead of category page) that explains furniture in general. The Furniture would probably need a link to the furniture category because individual pieces of furniture can certainly deserve their own wiki pages. In this case a few of them already have one and Category:Furniture indexes them nicely. Whatever is the final setup Furniture should probably also happen to Container(s) (which is a sibling category but not really parent or child) and its potential sub-category Scabbard(s). (Both currently pages but individual containers or scabbards could well have their own pages, especially if there's something special about them that needs explaining like involved acquisition, unique commands, room chat etc.
Similar discussion might also happen under Category_talk:Items since the big Items and Weapons category pages are being cleaned up right around now.
Rhonwen 12:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Well the purpose of categories are to list articles currently within the wiki. The ability to add text to them is just so a brief description can be added, no information should be there that isn't already in the article space. I see no reason why this information should be listed within a category page. As for the furniture page, a good option would be to move it to Furniture and split the list itself into List of furniture, or similar. These articles can all be categorised/subcategorised as required but the infornation should be in the article space. Rehevkor 15:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. Well, I guess since it's messing up searching, it would be better to split them. It's just a bit annoying to me to have what's basically one thing split up into several pages (I mean, the category itself is a bit of an afterthought... for most furniture, I see no reason whatsoever they should have separate pages--since all the relevant information about them is in the list (in a superior format, imo, since you can easily compare it with others that way), it's just very redundant and basically extra work to make... clutter) so that you have to hunt around and wikiwalk to find something. But meh.
Maybe it would be best to just have Category:Furniture, Furniture and List of storage furniture (since that one list is really the thing making that page huge).
--Ilde 18:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess Category-articles started off with a need to have the category pages be more useful, to combine purposes to make them more complete, especially when the content is (initially anyway) rather small. Or maybe you want to include all the member pages which you can do for free in the category page, sort of like a See also section that updates itself when anticipated new pages come in (which may not actually show up).
I suppose the list of member pages can be seen as adding little to the page, especially when they are also integrated in the text or tables... But if you do want to include them I don't think you can otherwise without adding a module. It's possible to include a normal page inside a category, but then if it's not just parts of it it's just a duplicate page without the list of member pages.
For the technical search issue it should be possible to add the Category namespace (or any other namespace) to the default search of anonymous users and users who have not changed it in preferences. There's also many other namespaces in this wiki that are not searched by default: "Discworld MUD Wiki", talk pages, user pages, template pages, Research...
So beyond the search issue which looks fixable, is it better to have category-articles with list of member pages or is this wholly undesirable or what's the criteria that makes it bad/ok?
--Frazyl 08:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hrmmmm, maybe. I think I'm coming around to the "categories shouldn't also be articles" view a bit, though, even if the search thing isn't insurmountable. I mean, in some instances it does clearly seem to be better to have them separate, like with Weapons and Category:Weapons, because the pages are for fairly different things. I was going to hold up Category:Contractor npcs as one where it does seem to work better for the information to be in the category, but actually I think that can be moved to Real estate decoration, where it will fit better. It might be neater to do them all consistently, instead of only separating them out when one or both aspects are really large... also, I guess if you click on a category from a page in the category, it's probably in order to see what pages there are that are similar, so the bit you'd be looking for is the category bit, and it's nice to have it right there rather than at the very bottom after a bunch of other stuff you need to scroll past.
One that's caught my attention is Category:Finding_and_seeking. Well, I like the table, and it's not as big as Category:Furniture was, but it seems a bit... I don't know. Like it would be better to have the table on a separate page. And maybe rename it all, too--the current name is more than a little unintuitive (I remember the search for a title that actually encompassed all the things in the category...). Maybe Scrying and tracking methods? /tangent
And of course the aforementioned Category:Dibbler clones is pretty similar. They've both got the useful tables of everything/everyone that is (or should be) in that category and in both cases separating it out would pretty much just involve cutting a chunk out of the article, moving it to a similarly-named page, and cross-linking. There does seem to be something weird about having a list of pages in a category, and then, underneath it, having the "Pages in category" thing that every category has.
--Ilde 06:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok that makes sense. I'll leave Category:Finding_and_seeking for you to do. Maybe just Seeking methods? Since there's no seek command and seeking can mean seeing from afar it's a bit more generic that find.
--Frazyl 03:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, Seeking methods as a name has the same problem with being sort of awkward and unintuitive, I think. While track is a command, in context I think it'd be clear that the category's broader than just that command (and the article titles wouldn't be similar enough that linking to the wrong one would be likely to be a problem)... and "ways to track someone" seems like a natural way to describe track, Find, Find Corpse, or flying to someone (actual scrying stuff, too, but there's an extra level there in that you have to recognize the room... a less direct (even if potentially more informative) way to find someone. I do think they're alike enough that they should all be in one category as they are currently, though).
Also, eh, some of the things in there--A Cup of Tea and Sake, Far Sight, Worstler's Advanced Metallurgical Glance and Worstler's Elementary Mineralogical Glance aren't really about finding people/things as such, but they are definitely scrying.
--Ilde 06:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the name needs to be exactly what everyone will type. Say they type find, they'll see the links back to the more generic page. We can add links at the top and bottom, some redirects...
Actually, the far seeing things fit with seek because you're seeking those locations and seeking beings, corpses, etc. whereas track doesn't work so much for everything.
--Frazyl 06:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Well... it's not going to be what everyone would think to call it anyway, but I think titles that are at least intuitive once you've seen them are better (I know there are pages I've made with sort of wonky titles, but it's because I couldn't think of anything better :( ). I mean, we have Category:Light sources, not Category:Things with brightness. And it should be pretty clear what a page/category is about from the title, which I'm not sure is true for it currently.
Not everything fits under tracking, no, but the others fit under scrying.
--Ilde 18:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok I vote just Seeking them. Simple and to the point and the definition in the free dictionary fits all. If a better name is found it can be moved. --Frazyl 21:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)