Difference between revisions of "Talk:Main Page"

From Discworld MUD Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Judge: Parametric judge)
(Parametric judge: tagged some)
Line 155: Line 155:
--[[User:Chat|Chat]] 21:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
--[[User:Chat|Chat]] 21:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
:I've tagged a bunch, there's more in [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Rbkey]] that are missing 9 to 12 but have 13 - 23. --[[User:Frazyl|Frazyl]] 22:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:27, 3 June 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Filing cabinet.gif Old content for this page has been archived, and can be found at the following locations.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

Registered user spam

Some spambots register themselves and motify Idlechasing. This is probably because http://www.idlechasers.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page now redirects there.

I protected it so only administrators can edit it. If this remains the only target for this spam, that I recall was the kind present on the idlechasers wiki, then they should tire of failing at some point.

Any changes can be placed in the talk page and will be put soon.

Or I guess we could just include another "real" page that's editable. Yeah that sounds nice. --Frazyl 21:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok after a false start I moved Idlechasing to Idlechasing_real so the last one is editable by registered users and is included in the former. I hope that the spambots are dumb enough to just try on Idlechasing which will fail because it's protected. --Frazyl 22:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In regards to the whole spamming thing, I did a tracert on the IP address of the most current one ( and it resolved to rdns.ubiquityservers.com. Is it possible to just block all access from that domain somehow? I looked into it a wee bit and seems that specific company is used as a source by a large number of spammers, probably as a proxy of some sort. -- Baldarov 2 June 2011
They're a data center leasing servers. The ips are probably just compromised computers so blocking whole ranges is unlikely to fix anything because they'll be compromised computers outside that range, most of the ips will be collateral damage.
What we could do is not make new user be confirmed automatically. Not sure what restrictions there are on uploading files but if it's not protected by the captcha we could try to add that to it. --Frazyl 21:53, 2 June 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)

In regards to the weapon box info, should the "Appraises as" paragraph still be needed if all of the info is going to be in that? Seems a bit redundant to have the same exact data in two places. If it is due to some items not having exact measurements then I can see those being around. On a completely different subject, it is possible that the custom axes have a possibility of 10 different judge values for each type (5 weight categories, plus an additional one if weapon is stone which adds additional 20% to weigh, possibly changing judge as well) --Baldarov, 3 June 2011

Mmm. Well appraise serves as a nice way to verify the weapon type (there were some copy paste errors in the past it seems). I think the only thing that's sometimes in appraise and not in the infobox is the colour. There's the rough dimensions but I'd rather not have those in the infobox to prevent the weight issue of not being sure if it's exact. Plus the measuring tape can be carried around and the balance not. So yeah I guess after I do a check to verify the weapon types are in the right category I guess we won't strictly need it anymore.
For the custom axes we can do 10 different infoboxes I guess... Or maybe include 5 on top and 5 on the bottom. I need to check on what data I can include from Research:Flails for the custom stuff.
Baldarov could you please check and if possible fix the table in {{Wr-speed/doc}}? I tried to put something from the weapons in the wiki but I'm really not sure especially of those I made up that starts with "?". --Frazyl 23:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I checked it out and put some new entries based on what the other categories have. I've not seen any others than what's listed there (I've looked also). I've been GFR'ng some of the heavier weapons in hopes of getting some other categories but I've not had any luck seeing any. I can compare swords now though so I can at least verify the order. Need a witch mocking in order for it to work though atm. I've started on the ordering of custom axes. Hope to get that cleared up too. -- Baldarov 00:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I've integrated those speed for the infobox and tables. Looks much better than just "?".
I'm thinking maybe if you GFR the lightest weapons they might go even faster? If you fail GFR it makes it heavier so you could try that on heaviest weapon to see if it goes slower.
I can cast GFR and mock if you see me online but I'm mostly trying to finish the weapons. :S --Frazyl 00:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Work in progress

Need more info on ranged judge:

Changed to {{Weapon_data}}:

Summary tables:

They had to be separate for the code to work and trying to pass the judge data just failed.

Parametric judge

You may have noticed some weapons pages being converted to use the {{weapon data var}} template.

This is because I've cracked the formulae for strength's effect on judge (works on all swords so far, at any rate) - so weapon data can be derived from a single number for each of overall, attack and parry, rather than an array from 9-23 str, and still produce the same results.

Pages with parametric judge format have various benefits:

  • They take up a lot less template-expansion memory.
  • They provide a much finer-grain measure - parametric overall judge, for example, has a range of 0-201 instead of 0-14 - so allow better weapon comparison.
  • They can be used to extrapolate judge values at strengths outside the 9-23 range.

In order to determine what the parameters actually are for a given weapon, however, we still need the full judge/strength set (in most cases from 9-23 str, though there are some weapons that can be converted with less data).

Therefore, please:

  • Continue the good work gathering full judge/strength info.
  • Once full judge info is available for a weapon, either:
    • Convert it to parametric form yourself - you'll need to do a fair bit of trial-and-error with the parameters to make the results match up; or
    • Put the page in Category:Weapons ready to be converted and I'll get around to converting it at some point.

--Chat 21:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've tagged a bunch, there's more in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Rbkey that are missing 9 to 12 but have 13 - 23. --Frazyl 22:27, 3 June 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)

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)