User talk:TxonAtana/Archive 1

Signature

Hello, here is a proper welcome with some boring text! ;)

Currently, your signature is using a) a template and b) some widely used icon images that redirect to somewhere that isn't your userspace.

[[User:TxonAtana|Txon Atana]] - {{Tango icon sizes|Sylvari|{{{1}}}}}{{Tango icon sizes|Mesmer|{{{1}}}}} ([[User_talk:TxonAtana|talk]])

I think it would be a good idea if you were to change it to at least:

[[User:TxonAtana|Txon Atana]] - [[File:Sylvari tango icon 20px.png|link=User talk:TxonAtana]][[File:Mesmer tango icon 20px.png|link=User talk:TxonAtana]] ([[User talk:TxonAtana|talk]])

Or even better: (where File:User TxonAtana sig.png is an image of your choice, probably a duplicate of File:Sylvari tango icon 20px.png/File:Mesmer tango icon 20px.png)

[[User:TxonAtana|Txon Atana]] - [[File:User TxonAtana sig.png|x19px|link=User talk:TxonAtana]] ([[User talk:TxonAtana|talk]])

Which, while having the same appearance, means that if anyone updates the logo file or vandalises the template, then your signature won't change across the entire wiki (needless background work for the wiki + accidentally editing your signature) -Chieftain Alex 18:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. In fact I just wanted to change my signature to something different than default and I was with no much ideas about it, hehe. I'll think on something better. I know about wikis and have colaborating with some othes, but I'm new to this one :) - Txon Atana (talk)

Your recent changes to Queensdale and Gendarren Fields

I have to say that your recent format changes do nothing to improve the pages' layout. IMO ofc. I'm wondering what others think. --Claret (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that Txon Atana may have a small monitor or be browsing on a smaller than usual screen. the mail+table should imo be done in a similar way to the tables on Seraph Outfitter Eva#Items offered. -Chieftain Alex 19:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my current monitor resolution is 1024x768 and for me that block with Mail appeared misplaced below the infobox. I did some tests by changing zoom in and out to see if my change would make things worse, but since I didn't seem make it worse for me I went ahead and changed it. Actually, the suggestion to make it similar to the tables on Seraph Outfitter Eva#Items offered sounds good, it flows nicely with the content no matter what screen width is. - Txon Atana - (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, when Dr Ishmael firstly proposed differently-aligned TOCs I thought it would look as horrible as could be, it turned out much better in my smartphone, i.e. it's important to follow the formatting standards already stablished. – Valento ^msg 20:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

like this perhaps. thoughts? -Chieftain Alex 20:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks good for me, in a wide screen Mail block appears between the table and the infobox. For my screen though it appears below that table, but I don't see it as an issue and it flows better. I think it better being flown to bottom than misplaced below infobox (as it was at my first view). - Txon Atana - (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The point of floating it on the right, below the infobox, is that the mail is of very low importance compared to the other info, so it shouldn't impede the normal flow of the article. In this position, it serves as "flavor" to the article, in the same way that a thumbnailed image would. —Dr Ishmael 23:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I get that, but the way it was before caused a blank space between the title and the table while the Mail was floating oddly below infobox, hence the reason for me changing it (btw, seeing the reverted version looked even worse, the Mail was underneath the table >.< yeah, the eternal fight with resolutions.. lol). I see it was looking good in high resolutions but it looked weird in low resolution, that could look odd on mobile too maybe. The way Chieftain Alex has put it looks good, even though Mail went down to below the table. Since it wasn't a so important part to the article as you said, I don't see that as and issue and I think it fits well. - Txon Atana - (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Update:

Here is how it looked like for me at my first glance.

Pages for generic loot

Hi, I seen you creating pages for generic loot items. Yes, we have a problem with documenting that type of stuff, but ultimately creating pages for each individual item is not really feasible. I've been working on cleaning up heart vendor items, and after that, I was going to get working on cleaning up and properly documenting armor sets and weapons, including ones obtained from loot. That's not to say that the pages need be deleted right now, but making a lot of pages would be a waste of your time because eventually they'd all need to be turned into redirects. If you're really keen to start on documenting armor and stuff right now, I can help out with getting started, however. Psycho Robot (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey there! Actually, I thought about creating that pages because that items are rare ones and I got them from world bosses. I didn't thought they would be so generic, I have even ignored green and blues that I got too, hehe. Anyway, since they are yellow items and dropped from bosses I thought it would be good documenting them (I'm editing 4 items only actually). The pages are still incomplete as I was sorting the info to put on them. Of course, any help would be appreciated :) If you think it's useless to have those pages, feel free to go ahead and remove them. --Txon Atana - (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: the reason that has lead me to create them was because I was going to show that items to a friend that wasn't ingame at that moment, then when I used /wiki ingame I saw there wasn't an article for them.

Certain yellow items such as those are indeed counted as generic loot. There are even some orange generic loot items actually. That being said, they don't need to be removed immediately or anything, they're totally fine, its just that I didn't want you to go through the effort to create like... a whole bunch of them, only to have it converted to redirects later on. You'd feel pretty cheated if that were the case, i reckon. Psycho Robot (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, I understand your concern and thanks. It's ok, I was just going to create only 4 pages, not a bunch really. But thanks for the info, it helps me to see what really worth having an article and what not. Anyhow, since I have started them I'm going to "finish" them for now with the info I have, so they won't look broken for now. --Txon Atana - (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

about edit summaries

In the summary box, the text between /* ... */ is a section header, automatically filled in when you click a section edit link. What this does is, on Special:RecentChanges and on a page's history tab (example), an arrow linking to that section is generated in the summary. Your edit summary needs to be outside of those symbols. —Dr Ishmael 01:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops, hehe. I must have misunderstood the purpose of the /* .. */, I'll watch over it next time. Thanks for pointing it out and sorry for the mistake (if there is something I must fix, let me know). --Txon Atana - (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, there's no way to change an edit summary once it's been saved anyway. —Dr Ishmael 02:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I thought so. Again, thanks for the reminder :) --Txon Atana - (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)