User talk:Lon-ami

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Template:Currency[edit]

Hold up, we haven't agreed on anything. --JonTheMon 19:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry :S. They're just 3 moves, and they didn't break anything, so it's not problematic. It's easy to reverse if you don't agree with it (I'll reverse them myself if necessary).--Lon-ami 19:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I was talking about the other templates as well. --JonTheMon 19:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

hi[edit]

Welcome to the wiki btw. More eager, constructive users is always a good thing :). pling User Pling sig.png 19:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't refrain of reprimanding me if I break your rules without discussing them first, I still need to see how you work here :P. GW2 deserves a great wiki, and I'll help in everything I can so it's the best out there ;).--Lon-ami 20:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
If you're acting in good faith, and you don't accidentally blow a hole in the wiki, no reprimands needed. Discussion usually sorts things out, so that's the best way of going forward if you're unsure about something. pling User Pling sig.png 20:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Howdy. Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh above. Mostly, I get that way when someone seems to jump the gun on something. But, welcome and enjoy your stay. --JonTheMon 20:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
My fault for getting too anxious at doing things. For some reason I misread and thought it was okay when no one had still answered, lol :P.--Lon-ami 20:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm just curious[edit]

Is there a particular reason why you do not discuss massive changes to already created templates? I see you mention it occasionally on talk pages, but never seem to wait for follow up or a discussion to even develop. Also, I was wondering where the discussion was to move profession templates from short characters to full names? (ie En to Engineer, W to Warrior, etc). And lastly, I would like to draw your attention to RfC. Please use it. I'm not saying that any changes you make are bad or not necessary, but many of these templates have been in use for a lengthy time, and are widely implemented. At least give discussions a chance to flourish before trying to adopt new formats/utilizations. Thank you. Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 15:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, most tango icon templates are named with the complete name, and it's more intuitive like that. Still, I left the redirect for shortcuts. I don't think it needed a discussion, it's not a "huge" change, as per se. If there's 13 templates following a naming pattern, and 8 following another, making those 8 look like those 13 is logic, isn't it? And don't worry, I only optimized and made them follow a pattern, they work exactly like they did before the changes ;).
Thanks for the link, by the way. I didn't find that, glad to see the wiki has one.--Lon-ami 16:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm missing something. Are you comparing profession templates to race templates in regards to naming convention? Or are you grouping all icon templates into this same convention topic? What I am sying is that you are moving an rearranging templates that have been in effect for nearly 2 years prior to even having a discussion on matters. I understand that you feel that it is more intuitive and thatyou don't think things need discussions, but unfortunately the wiki is a we project. In other words, this wiki is the Guild Wars 2 Wiki and not the Lon-ami Wiki. I understand that you have ideas that you feel can benefit setups, but all I am asking is that you discuss them. Currently you are undertaking a solo project to alter the value templates and have reverted changes because you plan to improve them in the future. Generally things that effect templates on such a massive scale should be mocked up in your userspace to demonstrate their improvements and effectivenesses so that it can be discussed prior to becoming wiki-altering. I know it has been said, and I apologize if this sounds curt, but there is no fire. Take the time to involve the community in things. Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 16:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
If I see an article full of bad grammar that hasn't been fixed since ages ago, I'll fix it, no matter it's been like that since ever. You can move them back, I repeat the redirects are still working as intended, and if you revert the move, both versions will keep working (and I won't revert it in some kind of dumb edit war, don't worry). I think you're making a big deal out of it, everything is working exactly as before. Nothing has changed. Whatever you type in the template, the result will be the same as 2 years ago. Anyway, I'll open a new discussion for this here: Template talk:Tango icon sizes since it covers all of those templates.
As for the other case, it didn't change anything, so I don't see your point. It just added extra options that hurt no one and don't interfere with the basic usage of the template. Is that bad? Do I need to use {{Value}} if I just want to output "10 gold"?--Lon-ami 17:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
"If I see an article full of bad grammar that hasn't been fixed since ages ago, I'll fix it, no matter it's been like that since ever." That has no relation to the issue that Venom brought up - correcting obvious errors in mainspace articles is something we expect people to do, and it generally doesn't cause any controversy. Making sweeping changes to a bunch of templates that were working perfectly is entirely different. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 17:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Don't they work perfectly now? I would say they work even better than before (simplified shared code). I don't think that's the point, naming conventions is, and we already have a place for that anyway: Template talk:Tango icon sizes (continue there, no point to be discussing the same thing in two different places).--Lon-ami 18:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
That discussion is about what we should change, not how we change it. The point we're bringing up is that "if it's not broke, you should get consensus to 'fix' it". --JonTheMon 18:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

order vs personal story category[edit]

It made more sense to me as Order weapon sets, because that describes what they are, not how you get them. Why did you change it? —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 16:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Pact weapons aren't order weapons. Also, using "Personal Story weapons" leaves things open for when we get new weapon sets through the personal story in a future.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

PvP Adorned weapon[edit]

Why'd you change PvP Adorned weapons to PvP Adorned weapon? The page refers to all of the weapons, so it makes more sense for it to be plural, imo. -Somohexual (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You did the redirect wrong. I fixed it and left it in singular because all pages are like that: PvP reward, but I agree it's better as plural. Move the others if you want, too :).--Lon-ami (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The pages were created before it was decided to use plural.--Relyk ~ talk < 00:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Zone#Zones by level table[edit]

Hello, I saw that you changed the table - looked good.

I hope you don't mind, but I changed the format a bit further:

  • to look like other tables on the wiki I've changed it to using {{STDT}}. (purple background for location tables)
  • put the template in the Template namespace. (derp?)
  • changed it from a nested table to using inline divs.

I was trying to get it to look up the explorable and region names + levels automatically, but my wiki-fu wasn't strong enough/it didn't work. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 15:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, it had no format and fits better now. And yeah, my mistake making it subpages instead of a template when I started copying it from my personal space (Original here), but I kept with it anyway, planning to move it later. I'm sure there must be a way to make it work with just the name, no levels and no regions. I'll look at it later, too. Would be good if eventually the table was generated entirely by itself, with no inputs.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
if I can get relyk on the case it'll eventually work with no inputs :P -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 16:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You can save some time[edit]

Before you add the category to all pages of loot that isn't part of a set (which would take a very long time, I think) I believe a better idea is to set up the template so that if a "set" isn't defined, it defaults to the "none" set, and then you could set up a SMW query for all weapons that have set "none". If that's something you would be keen on doing, I can see about getting the ball rolling on that. Psycho Robot (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, that could work, too, and way better. The only problem I see there is that the "set" field is pretty unused across weapons that are part of a set. Also, whenever someone adds a new weapon it would get included in the list by default even if it shouldn't go there. I'll keep with the manual labor for now, but I still think it would be a better idea to do it automatically, though it needs some thinking and preparations to avoid those problems.--Lon-ami (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Adding stuff to the set field is maintenance type stuff that has to get done anyways, I can start working on that later. You have a good point about default stuff though. Instead it could default to having no weapon set property at all, then you could add it to this standalone category later by specifying the set "none" or "standalone", whatever floats your boat. And now that I think about it you could get around the whole "skin vs weapon" argument because we could add "skin set" as a parameter to the weapon infobox and have it behave exactly the same way, then set up a SMW query for weapon sets AND weapon skin sets. Psycho Robot (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
There's the problem of standalone and "named" weapons getting mixed, too. Standalone have unique skins, "named" are just weapons with repeated skins. The separate list for those isn't ready yet, but I would like to differentiate them clearly in the future. It would be nice if, eventually, all the categorizations I'm doing happened automatically through attributes, yeah.
I don't understand your idea to fix the weapon/weapon-skin debate entirely, mind elaborating? Do you mean adding both a "set" and "is_skin" fields to the template? My main problem with the debate is weapons and weapon skins not sharing their categories when divided by subgroups (If I want to see loot weapons, I want to see both loot weapons and loot weapon skins in the same place).--Lon-ami (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
@Psycho: No, don't try to do weapon skins in the weapon infobox. It's separate from the item infobox specifically so that it can set and display the item's stats - if you put skins in there, you'll have to conditionally disable all the stat code, in which case it'll look just like the item infobox. So it's pointless. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 19:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Right, I didn't mean to say that, I meant to say adding skin set parameter to the item infobox. As far as fixing the debate, if you had a parameter for weapon sets, which included "standalone" and "named" (though I'm not sure I understand the distinction), and you had a weapon skin set parameter, which included "standalone", you could set up a page that listed standalone weapon sets and skins without having to identify one as the other, since as far as I know, SMW can add two different queries to the same list. Or it could be split by a level 2 header. Psycho Robot (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
What is the point of a "standalone" category anyway? Isn't that just "everything that isn't named or part of a set"? If that's the case, then you're not using categories right. You're trying to do this:
User Dr ishmael bad weapon categories.png
But you should be doing this:
User Dr ishmael good weapon categories.png
Does that make sense? —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 19:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The only reason I would have a property for standalone weapons is because you can't SMW query for when a property isn't defined. It wouldn't have to be a category at all, just an invisible maintenance type thing. Psycho Robot (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
@Psycho: Set: Collections. Standalone: No-collections. "Named": Repeated skins from sets or standalone. "Named" needs a better name, though. The main goal of this way og organizing it is making it easier to browse models/skins.
@Ishmael: That works fine for the main category, but once you want to classify everything I think they're better as the above example, separated for clarity.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Spark (weapon) and Usoku's Needle: which is named, which is standalone, and why? Psycho Robot (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
My point is that you don't need to classify everything. Some things are just basic things with no special classifications, so you shouldn't make up a classification for them. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 20:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
In those cases we either take both (like Ilya and Lyss, or the ascended weapon sets) or the one that seems more relevant. Many of the precursor weapons are copies of set weapons, so we can extrapolate that all precursor weapons are "named" (even though they have 2 uniques between them). More examples: Karma vendor and Personal Story reward equipment are very inconsistent, therefore it goes behind other sources like loot and tokens. Also, I consider weapon sets need to match 2/3 of these conditions: Appearance (They look similar), Naming (Common name pattern) and Source (Same vendor and currency, or same consistent recipe). They need to have at least 6~ elements on the set, too.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The purposes of setting the set parameter to standalone is not to "classify" these weapons, but rather to just be able to query for them with SMW. If its better, the parameter could be set to "undefined" to make it clear that its not actually classifying anything, and that is just a workaround for a technical issue. BUT should what Lonami said be true, then I think its a moot point, because if the only difference between a named weapon and a standalone weapon is that we call the one that seems more important a "named" weapon, then I would say that there's NO difference, and that we could just put all named weapons in the "named" set and then we'd be done with it. Psycho Robot (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Please give a use case for when you would need a query to return only "standalone" weapons before you go doing this. If there's no use for the feature, it shouldn't be implemented. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 21:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You don't understand "the problem". The weapons here: Category:Named weapons aren't inside any set, but they use skins from the sets. Including them together with those who have unique skins (the standalones) would make it a mess. When you search for weapons and across galleries, you don't want duplicates. Named is where we put the duplicates so weapon sets and standalones fulfill the 1 weapon = 1 model/skin rule.
Whatever happens and is decided with the entire system, I still think we need to separate those which have unique skins for gallery and navigation purposes.--Lon-ami (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Anet's practice of reusing skins like a bandit makes this pointless, I think. I don't think having duplicate skins in a list of named weapons is a bad thing because it allows people browsing named skins to quickly see which alternatives are avaliable for a certain skin. If I fell in love with the skin for Spark, I'd be relieved to find that a duplicate is Usoku's Needle. If it would be better for you, we could try to group identical skins together by assigning a duplicate skin a parent "lookalike" in some invisible way, that would group them together in the gallery output. Psycho Robot (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it easier to just choose one as the "original", and then link the "copies" inside it?--Lon-ami (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that seems 100% arbitrary and subjective. If we really NEED to do something like this, just make a project to find every duplicate skin in the game. Then on every item with a shared skin, make a note of what items share that appearance. Otherwise, I'm still not understanding what the "problem" is here. It feels like creating an elaborate solution with no associated problem. Remember, from the perspective of a user browsing for a skin, it doesn't matter what the "original" item is - they'll go after whichever variant is easiest for them to obtain.
As Psycho Robot says, it's sort of a pointless pursuit to categorize things according to duplication, because Anet keeps reusing almost every skin over and over. I propose it's more useful to identify which items have unique appearances not found on anything else, and just assume every other item has a duplicate somewhere. (Caveat: it might be worth distinguishing between PvP and PvE gear, since some things available easily in the PvP Locker are hard to get in PvE and vice versa. The Hunter comes to mind - the PvP equivalent is Plated Rifle, and is fairly easy to get.) Vili 点 User talk:Vili 23:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Gave one possible solution here--Relyk ~ talk < 23:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, Relyk, that's exactly what I want, in one way or another. However you'd still have the naming problem: We need to decide which name is the original for each one.
Anyone of you remembers the now-defunct argos-soft gallery? I believe the wiki should be able to offer something similar, between other things because it can be updated by anyone, unlike the web galleries that get eventually outdated.
It would be great if we managed to update the weapon galleries, for example, to be sortable by source/adquisition, as well as display all weapons with the image's model, pretty much like argos-soft did. And for that, we need to have everything organized properly, if not by categories, by template properties (or both, ideally).--Lon-ami (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
The name of the file doesn't matter, we'd query for an id or some other unique identifier. If the weapons with the same model use the same icon, we can use the item icon id, although this doesn't guarantee uniqueness if it's not true. We would either categorize it or have a property to identify the game context and/or item type. The weapon model gallery would query image pages for these properties instead of item pages.--Relyk ~ talk < 21:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Halloween Skins[edit]

I don't think its a good idea to combine all the years of halloween skins into one template, or even one page. Sure, it looks fine now, but there will be more skins next year, and the year after that, and the year after that. Its only going to get bigger and more cluttered. I mean, I know halloween 2013 was just a recycled halloween 2012 with half the good stuff disabled, but you know I still think the two should have separate pages. Psycho Robot (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fine for the page, we have longer galleries anyway. The template... Okay, you might have a point, so feel free to separate it into two different templates, like [[Template:Shadow of the Mad King skins]] and [[Template:Blood and Madness skins]]. The weapon categories are fine, and they're already used elsewhere, so please keep them as they are. The armor pieces, however, don't have any, and I think mixing armor+weapons in the same category wouldn't be very good. Also, do you plan on including other skins like Mask of the Night Skin which aren't tradeable?
By the way, another option could be moving content inside Halloween skins to each release's page, but I prefer having them in one single page like it is now. If someone complains they aren't a set and thus not deserve their own page, well, we'll have to move them somewhere else.--Lon-ami (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I grouped those skins together because they were all obtained via the standard RNG chest method which has disappointingly become the norm. The mask of the night skin and the other miscellaneous things wouldn't count. I still don't think it is a good idea to combine them on one page. The current status quo is to have separate pages for separate weapon (skin) sets. It seem as though the only reason you have for combining them is because there are longer galleries, but there doesn't really need to be a minimum length for galleries. Also I'm not sure what weapon categories you're referring to. Psycho Robot (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but these aren't a "set". That's the problem. Halloween skins from both releases are in the same group as these weapon "series": Hall of Monuments#Weapon skins and Phantasm#Related weapons that weren't allowed to have pages of their own because they weren't sets.
I tried to change the article to a generic "skins related to Halloween" theme. If you focus on just the 2012 skins you'll face the same problems. Putting all Halloween skins together could make the reason for the page to exist stronger, instead of it being forced to go on an already existing page. If it was only the 2012 skins, it would probably get moved to the Shadow of the Mad King page.
As for the categories I'm referring to: Category:Shadow of the Mad King weapon skins and Category:Blood and Madness weapon skins.--Lon-ami (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah calling it "halloween 2012" instead of Shadow of the Mad King was a mistake. I'm not sure why I felt like it had to be Halloween 2012 instead of that. In any case, I think that halloween skins are fundamentally different from those other thematically linked weapons you mentioned, namely that they are analogous to every other type of living story weapon skin set, which are incontrovertibly skin sets, such as Winter, Dragons Jade, Fused, etc. The only reason you could argue that they weren't a skin set is because they didn't have a prefix name, but that's a minor point that nobody has really taken issue with. If a halloween skin article in the form of the standard skin set article is fine, then logically articles split by year should be fine too, and since that's the standard, I think that's what should be done here. Psycho Robot (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that Halloween 2012 and Wintersday 2012 theme around the wiki was pretty confusing, but I merged/fixed most of it recently after noticing it, also because latest releases with events had everything in a single plage. I guess it's a GW1 tradition, but here events are always linked with their own themed releases so we don't need duplicate pages.
Personally I don't consider them a set, there's not enough of them and they don't look similar. The prefix is important but not vital: Aetherized Nightmare weapons. That's why they are here: List of standalone weapons instead of here: List of weapon sets. Do they deserve their own page? Well, they could go inside their release page, Shadow of the Mad King, or as they are now, merged so anyone can see all Halloween-themed skins in a single place. Don't get me wrong, I'd probably be happier if all standalone series had their own page, but there's many voices around here that don't like non-sets having their own pages. Try giving them each their own page if you want, just respect existing categories, and be ready for complaints.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal story[edit]

pretty sure the discussion at Talk:Personal_story#Move_to_.22Personal_Story.22 lead to the decision that "Personal story" would be used in any titles or category names. This is just a heads up so you don't go changing too many category names to something that is also wrong ("storyline" was wrong, "Story" is wrong, "story" is what we're going to use.) -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 18:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah yeah, it's "story" not "Story". I'm not going to change anything else, so no worries.--Lon-ami (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Armor sets[edit]

Well, my summary could have been clearer, but in addition to me not wanting to constantly fix things twice, there's an ongoing discussion about armor formatting where I specifically suggest removing the "quick" list and what little discussion there is does not contest the removal of that second list, on the guise of it being completely redundant. Psycho Robot (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not redundant when some armors have multiple obtainment sources, or when you want a complete and clean list. Also, instead of navigating across the entire page looking for redundancies, you have all of them in a list.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, but I don't think the issue the list solves is important enough to justify putting at the top of the article a big huge list that just repeats the following content in an less formatted manner. Would you be amicable to putting it on a subpage or a different page? I was proposing that the current article be moved to Armor set, and the list which I removed could be put back in on List of armor sets, since that title seems appropriate for a big list like that. The only issue is that in its current iteration it assumes that there is one weight for every line, but that's not true. The current list omits the heavy plate karma armor set because it doesn't have a light and medium counterpart. Psycho Robot (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the best idea would be to just add a "show/hide" button, keeping it hidden by default and not wasting the space (It's fine now, but later on it would be huge). But it should remain in the same page, it's there to see a complete list and multiple sources easily.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yo[edit]

Never got around to a reply on Template talk:SAB NPC infobox--Relyk ~ talk < 17:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Honor of the Waves[edit]

Hi, I have a question about this edit of yours, where you added "Chamber of Harmony" to the locations list in Honor of the Waves. Do you have evidence this area exists? Neither I nor a friend who has completed all paths in this dungeon can find it. --Idris (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It's at the lowest lever, southwestern corner. You can get there from story mode, from the last room, using the tunnel to the south :).--Lon-ami (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll check that out next time I can be bothered to do story mode. :) --Idris (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

small edits[edit]

You can put the template in a sandbox so you don't have 20 sequential minor edits to template :< Makes it way easier to read what you're doing--Relyk ~ talk < 20:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think I would make so many edits, sorry >_>. Noticed more and more uncovered options while I fixed previous ones. The template's code itself is kind of messy, it could use some cleaning anyway, maybe some day!--Lon-ami (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
"code itself is kind of messy", I clean up that code constantly though :(--Relyk ~ talk < 21:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikis aren't really visual for straight code. Need some tabulation love :D.--Lon-ami (talk) 09:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
2 space indent all day every day. every time there is a tab in the syntax, a baby dragon dies.--Relyk ~ talk < 10:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Tabs are the spawn of Satan. I eradicate them anytime I see them. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 12:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I know tabs and wikicode don't like each other, I'm just sad it's like that :I.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"Predefinite"[edit]

To my knowledge, "predefinite" is neither an English word nor an official in-game term. (You might be thinking of "predefined" or "predetermined".) Regardless of the word you use, you might consider including an explanation on the page of how you're using it. --Felbryn (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I done fixed it. - Felix Omni 22:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Definite is a thing, so I thought pre-definite would be as well, meaning "concise between limits", or "clearly defined". Defined/Determined were too generic for me, but if predefinite sounds so bad then predefined should do it.--Lon-ami (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The prefix pre- usually means "before". Upon seeing the word "predefinite", my (native speaker) intuition is to parse it as "not yet definite" (similar to "premature", "premarital", or "pre-game"). Which I think is the opposite of what you meant, and for some reason is completely different from the meaning of predefined/predetermined, where pre- means "already" instead of "not yet" (possibly because "defined" and "determined" are verbs?)
The word "definite" already means "clearly stated or decided", so that might be closer to what you meant. But it's usually contrasted with vagueness or uncertainty (where you don't know something), not freedom or flux (where the thing can change), so I don't think it's a good term for "not selectable". "Predetermined" (set in advance) seems like the correct word to me (except that it would naturally apply to the stats themselves, not to the item that has the stats).
On a side note, I can't figure out what the phrase "concise between limits" would mean (in context or otherwise)... --Felbryn (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

attribute icon[edit]

Never got around to fixing it when I first implemented. {{attribute}} needs to be pushed to {{item stat}}, {{attribute}} remove the modifier prefix, and attribute icon to use {{effect icon}}. All the notext template calls need to be switched to {{attribute icon|<attribute>|15px}}.--Relyk ~ talk < 00:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's still wrong. Split it up because only certain attributes are part of items. Would probably do item stat icon.--Relyk ~ talk < 00:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I only want this template for shortcuts in prefix tables, and so far it's working as intended (with the correct icon size too). Maybe it wasn't the best name, but it's unused so far. The likes of {{Power}} and {{Vitality}} already link to {{Effect}}. I'd say fix {{Currency}} and {{Token}} first.--Lon-ami (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Uh, you could already use {{effect}} and {{effect icon}} to get the same results. I don't like duplicating code in our templates.--Relyk ~ talk < 02:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
The purpose is not the same in any way, and the code is different as well. Also, the template can grow to adapt to the table rows better later on, in which case effect (why are we even using something called effects for attributes to begin with?) wouldn't be able to be updated to reflect that in any way that doesn't involve a huge mess, since that one is also used in between text and outside tables. It's working as intended and it's not breaking anything, I don't see where the problem is. At least let me finish the overhauls in peace, and we'll talk about the template once everything is finished. Right now what you see is far from final, and comparisons aren't pretty much pointless.--Lon-ami (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
You're making icons and links. The wiki has a constant issue of writing the same code for icons and links constantly. Which means someone gets to clean it up later. I've done a ton of work to clean up icons so we can start using them in tables like this. I am bringing this up because you're overhauling the page and I want to discuss the changes you're making. That's how wikis work. You are using a large mainspace article as a sandbox for this rather than your userspace, so you can understand why I'm not leaving you in peace.--Relyk ~ talk < 22:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ember Bay region[edit]

Ember Bay isn't part of Heart of Maguuma gameplay wise, Ring of Fire is a proper mechanical region. Southsun Cove's API response does indeed put it in Kryta, but Ember Bay's response puts it into Ring of Fire. User Noxx Sig.png 11:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I already noticed myself. Seems the Heart of Maguuma region achievements affect the Ring of Fire region as well. Bug or outdated descriptions.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
So... I just happened to look on the API for Sparkfly Fen and Metrica Province, and they say the regions are Steamspur Mountains and Tarnished Coast... Remind me, why exactly do we have a "mechanical region" category when it isn't actually properly reflected by the game in the first place? Sure, some regions are clumped together for dailies (Tarnished Coast with Steamspur Mountains, Ring of Fire with Heart of Maguuma), but saying they belong to a region from the other side of the continent is rather silly, when even the API shows that the game code doesn't consider them like that...
Anyway, just a thought, what would you say about turning "mechanical regions" to "daily regions" and using both the daily and regular ones in infoboxes? See Talk:Ember Bay#Mechanical region, if you want. User Noxx Sig.png 01:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Didn't know Steamspur Mountains were included in the API as well, now that doesn't make any sense at all. It puts Southsun Cove in an even weirder position now too.
The 4 established starting regions have some specific attributes. For example, tier 1 and 2 cultural weapons drop by region. Each of these 4 regions have an unique loot-only exotic weapon set as well.
I checked Timberline Falls, and it's included inside Shiverpeak Mountains instead of Steamspur Mountains, so it seems only the Maguuma Jungle zones are affected by this. Seems Bloodtide Coast and Claw Island could be included under Steamspur Mountains as well, but aren't. Crucible of Eternity is included under Steamspur Mountains too.
I say leaving it like it is, after all, only the ingame map refers to these zones by this way. But it is indeed weird.--Lon-ami (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind leaving it like this if it weren't for the Heart of Maguuma gathering dailies working in Ember Bay. The current way of documenting that would indeed be to place it into Heart of Maguuma, but that hardly seems like the sensible choice. And I don't particularly like the idea of treating each pair of daily-sharing regions differently. It's not that big a deal right now, but with each new map in LW3 it could become worse and get out of hand quite quickly. It's more of "let's think about it" for now, rather than "let's change it today", but still... User Noxx Sig.png 15:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Depends on how many new regions we see in a close future. We could be getting one zone in one new region with every release, which would make noting down each zone a mess of different colors. I would stick with what we have now, and let Ring of Fire be a thing because of the different character background.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Expansion pack[edit]

Hey. It seems like you're starting to get really annoyed by the discussion over on Expansion pack. It might do you some good if you just let it sit for a few days, to give yourself a chance to cool down. I see you making comments like "this discussion is ridiculous", "nobody's listening to me" and "don't you all have better things to do?"; these are red flags that you're getting upset. The argument is going nowhere because you're determined to get your way rather than engaging with other people's attempts to compromise, and if you continue like this you're just going to make yourself even more pissed off. We need to reach consensus, not crown a winner. Please take some time away from this article. It'll help. I know you're worried about the ugly deletion tag showing up on Google, but there's no emergency. It won't hurt to just let it sit for a few days, I promise. --Idris (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey there. It's great that you're passionate about an article, truly, it is, but take in consideration that its users are as well. You both want the wiki to look good, to have relevant information that might bring out new users, like you pointed out, and that's great. It's also important to take in consideration that what's good may be different for you, and for other users. That is why we discuss things - to find out how we can edit an article so that both parties feel satisfied, that they can both look at the article and think "Damn, that is what I want to see on this wiki". Trust me, we can get to that.
The wiki requires consensus, for all things. Important edits on articles (changing redirects for a broad or important term, for example) require discussion first - to avoid the problems that have risen up in the past few days. People care about articles, which is why they give counter-points to your points. They want to keep the article they way it is because <reason>, you want to change the article into something because <reason>. They're all valid, and they're all listened. Trust me.
You aren't vandalizing the article, nor are you making the wiki 'worse' by having a suggestion. No one intentionally changes or discusses things on the wiki to attack you, or anyone else. To make things on the wiki better - to grow - we require discussions and tolerance, and most important of all, patience in the discussion. I know it seems frustrating to have your points countered by (what seems to be) subjective opinions, but it's not something that should dissuade you from contributing or discussing, even if it may not seem like that in the moment. Your opinions are being heard, they just aren't being accepted as best by certain users because of reasons listed in the discussion. That does not mean it's a "bad" opinion or a "bad" revision, it's just a different one; sometimes folks like articles to stay the same, sometimes they want them to change, but we can't do either one of those things without participating in a discussion that will lead to an 'ok'.
I urge you to maybe take some time to relax, like Idris said. It might help you clear your mind, and gain a new fresh set of ideas for the article, and when you do, we'll be ready to discuss them.
Regards. —Ventriloquist 08:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I've been here a long time, and this isn't my first argument.
I'm just tired of the environment of this wiki, where more time is spent on pointless bureaucratic bullshit instead of actually working on making the place better. You take a garbage article, that no one cares about, work on it, and the only thing you get is whining, deletion requests, and nitpick after nitpick. And it's not the first time. Once I even had to post my edits on reddit to get support from the actual players because the editors here were being irrational assholes about the changes (the old version is better, no one likes it, but it's better), and only then, even after some devs liked the changes, did they leave the topic alone.
But you know what's worse, what really makes me mad? After all the complaints, and forcing change upon what was working fine, no one cares anymore, and the articles are never updated again, their information becoming obsolete. Not only are improvements butchered, but those who forced the changes never ever bother maintaining their new version, resetting the cycle of "bad article > fixes > bureaucracy > bad article" forever.
You should wonder why a game with the population of GW2, has such a low base of wiki editors. It might have a lot to do with how things are handled around here, and how the general attitude of veterans and mods drives people away.
I'm really tired of spending more time defending my edits than actually editing. Maybe voting systems should be enforced, like those other wikis have, because now it's and endless cycle of wasted time where whoever gives up first loses. Also, deletion shouldn't be a thing unless the page is really bad for the wiki or something, lists and secondary resources are always useful and hurt no one.
You know what would have happened if I hadn't get angry, or those changes were made by a random user instead? The article would have been reverted back to that crappy useless disambiguation page. The wiki is supposed to be a useful resource for those playing the game, not a thesis on nomenclature and information organization.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry you're feeling so burnt out. The wiki can definitely be a frustrating place at times, and I know it has plenty of stubborn editors who can be difficult to work alongside -- probably including me. May I describe that discussion from my perspective? Just a warning, I'm going to get quite harsh towards the end of this description, but I want you to understand the effect your behaviour has had. You can skip to the bold lettering if you're not in the mood to read criticism right now.
When I first came in, the changes you made seemed needlessly complicated (three articles with essentially the same name and hardly any content?? What a ridiculous change!), so I was in favour of reverting. When you explained your reasoning, I took some time to think about it, decided your reasons were good and that I largely agreed with you, and suggested a compromise between what you wanted and what I wanted. You addressed your concerns with my suggestion, which I didn't fully understand, so I asked for clarification. But your response was hostile (why would you assume I know what SEO is, or that I'd be familiar with its basics? The implication that I was stupid for not magically knowing pissed me off), and I decided that I didn't want to be a part of the discussion anymore. I threw my hands in the air and gave a bitter response which was intended to, but probably didn't effectively, communicate that I was willing to concede but was pissed off by your attitude. (I let my emotions get the better of me and I should have handled that moment better.) I defended you against Doodle one last time before I stopped responding, then saw your latest whinge about bureaucracy, realised you were upset too, and came over here to try and help. I honestly have no idea if you picked up that I agreed with you, because you were so focused on nitpicking the parts you disagreed with that it presumably didn't occur to you to confirm the parts you were okay with. You may have noticed that I've used some of the same words to describe your behaviour that you've been using to describe the rest of us: nitpicky, whingy. This is genuinely how I feel about your behaviour. You have been stubborn and difficult, and I think you're being hypocritical for acting like you're the victim.
I'm not saying all this to complain. I do honestly understand how you're feeling; I've felt that way too. But your behaviour is making the environment unpleasant for the other editors, which is only going to make them feel the same way you do. You're contributing to the very problem you're upset about. Please, give yourself a break from the wiki until you feel better. --Idris (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
You're blowing this out of proportion. I know emotions don't translate well through words, but hell you're oversensitive. I'm not burning my house over a talk page.
You know what I want? Results. Moving forward. Talking about wiki content and wiki policies, not excuses after excuses, feelings over logic, etc. Assuming good faith for the changes other people make, instead of pretentious contrarianism just for the sake of it, forcing contributors to need to explain what they do all the time. When people spend more time policing each other and discussing bureaucracy rather than contributing to the wiki, something is not working, as this whole ordeal is proving.
I've been editing for more than a decade now, and even if this place is one of the worst regarding policy, I'm not going to quit over pointless talks; but I sure am going to lift my finger and point them out, and the harm they're doing.
Stop worrying about me, you've nothing to worry about. Worry about the wiki instead, that's why we are here, and that's what we're here for.--Lon-ami (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I tried. I'm done. --Idris (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hold Up[edit]

I’ve some concerns about the category thing, so if you’d mine addressing them first that would be appreciated. Not to mention, a bot can add that category much faster and without nuking the recent changes page. - Doodleplex 01:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Weapon categories[edit]

Hey, there, since there's already been some dispute over the worthwhileness of these weapon categories you're making/moving about, perhaps you could stop for a moment and get some dialogue going on? Personally, I don't think there's a point in a category with fewer than five entries, so things like the Category:Ebb and Flow weapons is rather pointless. Those two aren't really a set, so much as a matching pair among standalones - you're even keeping them in standalone, which is contradictory to the notion of them being a set as the category indicates (you also moved the (Caustic) Nightmare weapon skins into fractal standalones, but again, that's a contradiction in categorizing).
Please give a pause and let some discussion go on before making changes that may (or may not) be needing to be reverted later. Konig (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been able to look properly so all I'll say is I do agree for what was linked above, making categories for weapons that have similar names but are only two-three weapons doesn't make sense. Standalone works fine since they're not full sets of weapons, or even close to half of set (which I would consider to be around 6-8). - Doodleplex 21:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
For the record, I consider a minimum of 4 weapons (5 is better though) and 3 armor pieces to be a set, respectively for both. And if it is a set - even an "incomplete set" like Caladbolg weapons - they do not belong on the standalone weapon pages at all. Konig (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Basically anything with the "set" parameter isn't a standalone weapon.
(btw tables break on Heart of Thorns standalone weapons because the redirect from the psuedo-set, e.g. Caladbolg weapons, redirects to Heart of Thorns standalone weapons hence each table is asking for the same thing. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 21:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
First of all, it would be nice to stop removing stuff until the matter is decided. If I make an edit, and someone reverts me a few minutes later without any single word, he's the one who should be starting the conversation before reverting anything, not me after he deletes my contributions. Then when I revert the revert so we can actually talk about it, I'm the bad guy. Really tired of the trigger-happy reverting, and the usual manipulative "I remove everything from a category, the category is now empty, delete request for category because it's empty".
I don't consider a weapon group a set unless it has the 16 ground weapons, and they are connected in some way (acquisition, naming, achievements). If we don't have a set but have a connection, they can be given a new standalone subcategory (Caladbolg, Mordrem, Dwarven, Forged, and each raid wing's set). The standard was far less strict years ago when we had less weapons, but nowadays non-complete sets are a clear minority and should be treated as such.
Categories are there to serve the template, among other things. I don't think it's a big deal if they have just two weapons. Ebb/Flow, Ley Guard, Lightward, and Revenant weapons are clearly distinct and related to each other.
Seems like Template:Weapon set table needs adjustments, it should read the category, and then take the pages there. Accessing the article seems pointless, specially when there's multiple cases where those articles don't even exist. I will look into it when I have time, and probably add new features (like links to achievements or recipes).--Lon-ami (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
So, first off, it is the responsibility of both parties, not one or the other, to begin dialogue. You cannot have dialogue with only one person - that's a monologue. Second off, we got three people here commenting on it, and another who made edits. So conversation was started. Typical behavior at a time is to not go reverting when people are trying to improve the situation by fixing errors.
Thirdly, even if you consider a weapon set to require 16 weapons, that doesn't make it so, and since there are others (myself obviously included) who say that they don't need all 16 ground weapons to make a set, you - again - shouldn't just go reverting all the changes after dialogue has been initiated. Truth be told, there is no established "minimum" for what makes a set - a set has, thus far, just been defined as a shared theme of multiple weapons or armors. As I brought up in edit summaries when moving the Mordrem, Forged, and Dwarven weapons - Zephyrite weapons, Divine Sovereign weapons both have 5 weapons; meanwhile, iirc, Obsidian weapons, Mistforged Obsidian weapons, and Wrapped weapons all began with 5 weapons, though they've expanded over time. It seems that ArenaNet considers 5 to be a set.
I would disagree on it being a "big deal" or not if a category has two pages. Typically, we remove any category that has three or fewer pages in it, as they're needless categories. Unless the category holds a specific purpose. In this case, the only purpose those "paired weapons" categories hold is to make the standalone weapons page harder to navigate (in my - and Doodle's - opinions) by dividing a standalone into 'microsets' which, as I've said before, feels contradictory because if it's in a set - complete or not - then it isn't standalone. Konig (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I think both Azimuth and Oni Blade shouldn't be considered HoT standalone weapons as they are do not drop in HoT maps (both are crafted in Mystic Forge). Not sure about Great Destroyer's Talon as it requires one item exclusive to LS3 but the achievement can be started on any account. Additonally, Mist weapons shouldn't be considered HoT standalone as well as they can be crafted with PoF (but without HoT). ❄The F. Prince❄ (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I say let me finish what I started, and then we can talk about new categories when the whole tree is complete and every "set" has a shinny new page. Pages are now a mess because the template is going crazy.
Also, those sets were released with expansion in mind, while others obviously weren't. When 90% of the game's weapons belong in 16-weapon groups, I think it's safe to separate any that don't, instead of discussing if 5 make a set but 4 don't, or stuff like that.
Azimuth and Oni Blade were released with HoT, and require HoT materials to be crafted. Mists weapons are HoT originals that got lost, and require a level 80 revenant to buy the recipes.--Lon-ami (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@F. Prince: Great Destroyer Talon, which I originally thought the same as you, does require access to a LWS3 map, which by proxy requires HoT. And Lon-ami, perhaps an idea that would prevent this from happening again: since you seem to do changes that effect a rather larger number of pages that can also be done by a bot, instead bring it up on Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Bots. That way you can either get feedback and not feel frustrated or be able to do other things while a bot does the mundane things for you. That and I'm awaiting comments on the talk page for Heart of Maguuma standalone weapons. - Doodleplex 22:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Oni Blade was released on Jan 26th, 2016 which is after HoT was released. Flax is not a HoT-exclusive materials (also, there are items that are considered core although they require flax, e.g. Vial of Green Goo or Preserved Bat Wing). According to page definition, "Heart of Thorns standalone weapons are a series of standalone weapons found across Guild Wars 2: Heart of Thorns and Living World Season 3" which isn't true for Mist weapons either — you can get them with core game only... ❄The F. Prince❄ (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So on the whole "let me finish what I started then we can talk about it", the thing is that finishing what you started, and even starting it, should have been done in a sandbox from the get go since you couldn't finish it in one set of edits, and even more so since it requires altering templates that affect multiple pages. Not to mention the wording of your comments are a tad more hostile than it should be. Regarding Azimuth, etc. they actually don't "require HoT materials" - Flax can be obtained in PoF as well as during Wintersday and Fractals. I'm rather on the fence of what to classify them as, but they're not HoT exclusive.
@F.Prince, you can't get the Mist weapons with core game only, as you require a revenant, but you can get it without HoT by owning PoF. Konig (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly what I said: " Mist weapons shouldn't be considered HoT standalone as well as they can be crafted with PoF (but without HoT)". ❄The F. Prince❄ (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You said in your second comment: "you can get them with core game only..." which is false. :P Konig (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Flax wasn't obtainable outside HoT for a long time, so I'd say anything using flax before PoF's release is clearly part of HoT. Mist weapons were introduced with HoT's beta and promotional material, but didn't make it into the game until years later *because of a bug*, not because they're PoF content.
I'd say anything released after an expansion belongs to it, unless it's clearly designed for specific game modes or old content only.--Lon-ami (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I just noticed Oni Blade was released for a Lunar New Year festival, so I'm moving it to festival rewards instead.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd consider Oni Blade core, not festival, as it isn't tied to the Lunar New year at all. Flax was made part of core before PoF, in the very Wintersday after HoT's release; they were added to Fractals in May '16, before Season 3 began. As discussed in Discord, Mist weapons are HoT because they require Fulgurite, but the same argument cannot hold for Azimuth and Oni Blade. That said, I don't care whether those two are considered HoT or Core, but they're not festival. Konig (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Also, I'd like to note that it seems everyone who's chimed in on this matter disagrees with the new format and the separation of pairs, except you Lon-ami. We can see what you're trying to do, and what's coming of it, and it seems no one likes this "adding incomplete sets to setless weapons page and divide the page by incomplete sets" idea of yours. Konig (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Lon-ami, there are a couple of things going on which you should consider.
First, you're getting some honest advice from people who have tried to work on similar tasks, and who are aware of the complications your plan will run into. It would be wise to heed their advice, step back for a moment, and plot out your course before trying to enact it.
Second, you can see by the discussions above that trying to put too fine of a labelling onto items naturally runs into issues. Ask any taxonomist, this always happens. This problem is why we allow for looser methods, namely using the "See also" sections rather than template navs where categorizing becomes hazy.
Please roll back your plans, note which items can be easily categorized and which can't, and focus on the former. G R E E N E R 17:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Let's continue the discussion in List of standalone weapons#Purpose and definition of standalone weapons.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Scarlet's Rainbow[edit]

Hey I have a question for you. You marked "Scarlet's Rainbow" as being a Black Lion standalone weapon...did it originally drop from the Black Lion chest? Because if so that means the historical thing needs help, since currently the page says it originally dropped from something during LWS1 which I wasn't around for. Thanks! - Doodleplex 17:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The historical part should be right. Nowadays, the only active drop source is this: Season 1 Memory Box - Scarlet vs. Lion's Arch, thus the categorization. So, it originally wasn't a Black Lion standalone weapon, but now is, in a sense.
By the way, check this: List of standalone weapons#Purpose and definition of standalone weapons.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The memory box was only in the BLC for a short time. I wouldn't consider it as a BLC weapon, otherwise via the wardrobe unlocks more or less everything is. Konig (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Show some love to NPCs[edit]

Since you're improving some disambiguation pages, adding some short descriptions for NPCs (like their location) would really help the reader to find what they're looking for. - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.png 01:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Bcrat communiqué[edit]

The wiki by its very nature is a collaborative project. If you are working on something and receive a litany of flags raised by other people, the proper response is not "just let me finish", especially when it concerns the main-space. That attitude creates a combative environment where the only two outcomes are either stop or proceed, rather than the collaborative environment where the outcome can be better than those two extremes.

It is not a matter of trust. It is not a matter of patience. It is a matter of how we work together to document the game. G R E E N E R 03:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

When your definition of "teamwork" is spamming delete requests every time someone tries to do something, yeah, that doesn't sound very collaborative to me. I don't see anyone trying to help, I only see nitpicks and constant accusations of malice.
One of the core values of any collaborative environment is assuming good faith, now, tell me where I can find any of that around here. You spend more time policing each other than actually contributing.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Going forward with a project, despite opposition, just because one thinks it's necessary isn't collaborative either.
Multiple users have told you their concerns how this doesn't belong in the mainspace. If this is nitpicking and malice to you, that is unfortunate.
When these NPC weapon skin articles were first created, they consisted of speculation and placeholder, hence deletion tags were warranted. And you said it yourself that the names were placeholders.
I know what I said earlier in that talk page about not minding about documenting NPC weapon skins (as such). After giving it more thought, I have to agree with the others. It is too fringe for mainspace.
And like Greener said, we document the game, not the .dat, poking of which goes against the ToS anyway. - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.png 14:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I've now moved these unobtainable skins to your userspace. I've left the screenshots where they are for the time being. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 15:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll be moving the other unobtainable skins like [[Belinda's Greatsword (Imbued)]] and [[Fargate Opener (skin)]] to my userspace then too, since they're the exact same thing, and I'd rather save them before they get deleted. Also, do me a favor and restore the deleted Flamekissed pages and icons and move them to my userspace as well:
I'd rather not have the images moved a few days later, so just do it as soon as possible. Please use the File:User Lon-ami <weapon name>.jpg format.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and if you can move the weapons removing the " (skin)" suffix that would be nice too. Since they're no longer in the public space, they don't need it at all. I'm of course assuming you can do all of this cleanly with the bot, else I'd do it myself.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I thought similar-to-namespace titles would be best in case we change our minds later. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 16:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
The "skin" suffix was something I voluntarily added, just to make sure they stood out, but I guess I'll keep it then.
Should I upload future unobtainable weapon screenshots in the main space as well? Or do you plan to move them to mine?
Also, remember to restore those deleted pages, they had valuable information I'd like to recover. I also want to use the icons in my personal space.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I find your casual disregard for my words to be highly inappropriate. I stated that the unimplemented content in the main-space was up for debate. Did you choose to correspond with the community before acting? No. Did you act immediately and raise the combative nature of this situation? Yes. Now it may be the case that moving that page and others off of the main-space is what the community decides to do, but you didn't even bother to ask. Stop acting on the extremes. Take the weekend off, and come back prepared to work with others. G R E E N E R 18:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, let me start by saying that if you want "to discuss issues rather than act in the extremes", banning me doesn't sound very consequential, specially when you can tell me to leave those pages alone, protect them, disable my moving privileges, disable my editing privileges and leave me with my user page only... You get the drill.
Anyway, I wanted to save those pages before they get deleted, because that seems to be the consensus... but I guess it's not now?
I'll go straight to the point: What's the requirement for an unobtainable skin to be in the wiki's main space? Because right now, the only thing that seems to matter is who created the page.
Feel free to join the conversation over here. I'll stick to my user space until there's a clear rule, and I hope skins and images to be deleted are moved to my user space instead.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Just an here to drop off some information: only Stephane or whoever maintains the wiki's software/files would be able to do the user restrictions you mentioned, Sysops and Bureaucrats can't do anything of the sort. Also "disable my editing privileges" is in fact what Greener did by banning you for a few days. Also when you tag a page for deletion, don't wipe the contents of the entire page. Removing content for deletion should only be done if the content is somebody's personal information, and that's it. Even if it's spam, it stays up until one of us on the admin page can look into and deal with it. - Doodleplex 01:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I am honestly getting tired of being repetitive, but you need to stop making situations so combative. The conversation on the community portal is not about you nor the content you've uploaded, yet you keep trying to make it so. If you are incapable of conversing with people on topic in a reasonable manner, then you're leaving me with little recourse. I told you to take the weekend off and come back prepared to work with others, yet all you've done over the week since is try to turn a general topic into a "me vs. everyone else" fight. That conversation is about how the wiki community wishes to handle unimplemented content, as per the initial entry. That's it. G R E E N E R 20:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Undiscovered Icons[edit]

Exactly where did you get those from? - Doodleplex 17:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

They're in the dat along with all the other icons we use every update. I've passed by them many times when looking for other stuff. Iirc they're just the undiscovered item icons for discovery crafting?
Might be a nice addition to Crafting#Discovery. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 18:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I was asking, really familiar but I couldn't put my finger on it. That would be a great addition to crafting! - Doodleplex 18:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
That's exactly it. There's a few more, but I couldn't confirm which type of item they belong to yet.--Lon-ami (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)