Talk:Admins/Archive 6

Point to some things
Point to some things so they don't get lost: -- Chillispike 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Template talk:NormalizeZoneInstance‎ - Admin/feedback needed
 * Template talk:NormalizeAdornSlot - changed the Template, Mostly pointing because it one from Uberfuzzy
 * Template talk:AdornInformation - Ok to update the Template?
 * Template talk:NamedInformation - Related Quests not working 100%

raidwiki.org
Somehow are the links to www.raidwiki.org not working correctly anymore. Links leading to there show now a Welcome to raidwiki.org - Related Searches Side. Should the Links to there get removed or should they stay?This edit made me look for it -- Chillispike 05:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The short answer: delete it.
 * The long answer: My guess is the site was abandoned. It was, afaik, maintained by only one person. Our policy (not yet transcribed to the wiki from Kodia's Big Book of Historical Policy, so thankyou for the reminder for me to get it down in print) has been to delete dead links. In the case of External Links, where the link was more of a courtesy to the readers to look at another perspective (such as with the Raidwiki link above) then the link would be removed without attribution. The history page would serve as enough record should anyone care to dig that deeply, and frankly most people don't really give a care about dead courtesy links. There are exceptions, however.


 * Lore Links: When links to lore information or verification have gone dead, we have typically either left the link intact or moved the attribution and any information we know onto the talk page. We should likely revisit this portion of the policy to find a more elegant way of saying that a reference *used* to be active but not longer is. My personal suggestion in this regard is to use the  function and follow the Wikipedia policy of keeping the link but removing users' ability to click on it.


 * Quest Credit: When quest information was obtained from another website such as TheBrasse, EQ2Flames, or Alla's, for example, we give them credit for the information (or at least we try to, but some people don't). When one of those big sources goes defunct, we leave the credit to them, but disable the link to any specific article. My personal opinion on this policy is that it needs revision. The credit doesn't do us much good if the information is no longer available (such as with Ogaming). I personally think the credit should then be moved to the talk page or removed entirely.


 * Make sense?--Kodia 14:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * RaidWiki was abandoned a few expansions back (I want to say sometime after EoF, but before RoK). There's no point having the links anymore, the site is now a domain sitter. Going with what Kodia said, we should probably remove any links to it. I agree with Kodia's policy above for the most part... although personally I think the purpose of say the Quest credit is similar to the Lore credit... it's not for more information necessarily, but rather to credit where the information originally came from. Now, if the article has changed significantly from when the credit was added, I see no problem in removing that credit (especially if it is to a defunct source). I also agree this should go into a Policy or perhaps even more fitting a Guideline. There's a lot of these sort of 'unwritten rules' that I would like to see put into Policy or Guideline articles =) --lordebon 15:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

http://eq2.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=www.raidwiki.org --Uberfuzzy 08:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the Link. I was able to remove all but 3 Links, see the Talk page for my suggestion.
 * -- Chillispike 12:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks. Some of those pages were protected back in 2006 by one of our admins from the pre-wikia time. I went through all of her old protects and unprotected them. The remaining 2 (not counting here) are now open to fixing. --Uberfuzzy 05:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is RaidWiki content that's valuable that we'd like to keep a link to, we could provide a Wayback Machine link -- just put the now-broken link in at and then use one of the archived links. --Sigrdrifa 12:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For lore information and such, I'd say yes, the Wayback Machine could really give us some stronger links. But with the constant tweaking of classes and spells and arts and equipment, I'd say that wayback linking to RaidWiki wouldn't be nearly as useful. The point of the RaidWiki was strategy against zones and mobs and named mobs. If the game is constantly evolving, then presumably the strategy would need to change too. I think the RaidWiki links can be removed given this argument. What do you think?--Kodia 14:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, part of the major usefulness of it was AEs and other abilities the mob had. If they can be found on the Machine easily enough, I'd say give a link but make it clear that the link is old (ie include the date). --lordebon 15:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Archetype, Class, Subclass category
I saw that the Archetype, Class, Subclass categories are not used by other sides, For example: Should those show something like that? -- Chillispike 13:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Archetype should show Category:Mage, Category:Priest, Category:Fighter and Category:Scout as Subcategory
 * Category:Mage should show at least Category:Sorcerer, Category:Summoner and Category:Enchanter as Subcategory
 * Category:Enchanter should show Category:Coercer and Category:Illusionist as Subcategory
 * Category:Coercer should maybe be in Category:Mage and Category:Enchanter


 * I believe you are correct.--Kodia 18:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The possible best way to handle the categories is to add them to Template:ClassTable and Template:ClassInformation.
 * I added a note on both talkpages for possible changes.
 * -- Chillispike 00:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Updated them all -- 16:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

eqiiforums.station.sony.com
Only want to let you know that i used this link to find all articles that use links to the old Soe forum to replaced the links with the tag or just removed the link is the credit was there allready. -- Chillispike 12:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking on this. It's distressing that some of these go stale. I suppose we'll have to settle for the history showing where we originally got the information. I miss The Tomes of Vhalen. *sigh*--Kodia 17:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Those were great, it's really a shame that they never bothered to copy them to the new boards. Heck, everything there should have been copied. --lordebon 17:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone has the time to look, those pages might have been preserved by one of the sites that maintain page histories for the web. Sassinak 20:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When I was looking for the reference for High Keep I tried the wayback machine with no luck for the page I was looking for. Some other pages were there I think, so some may indeed be retrievable. (There may also be other sources). --lordebon 20:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

mediawiki Icons not showing
Not sure if it's only me but every quest with a talk page like A More Dangerous Game! Test of Mastery! for example shows http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/eq2/images/d/df/User_comment.png#20081002085356 instead of the Chat bubble. Same with Special:Upload it shows for me instead of the actual icons-- Chillispike 00:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Filename.jpg http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/eq2/images/3/3f/Silk_tick.png#20080427225950
 * Filename.JPG http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/eq2/images/8/84/Silk_cancel.png#20080427230855
 * I'm getting the same. Following the link results in the icon, but in the page itself its just giving the huge link. --lordebon 02:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * /me mumbles about unannounced changes to top level code Yeah... they just changed the way images url paths are generated (adding that #number hash, so that image more caching can be done, but it kinda broke a LOT of stuff. is fairly useless now. I've swapped in the direct urls (same old effect, just less fluid). I've fixed the talk page icon and the uploadscreen. let me know if you find anything else. --Uberfuzzy 04:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User Pages & IPs
Now here's a question... how do you know when an anonymous IP deleting thins from a userpage is vandalism and when it is just someone not logged in? Example. Not a big issue in the example (user hasn't been active for well over a year), but was still something that popped to mind. So, just post those here and let one of you admin-y types check the users' IP, or just leave it and let the user revert it if it was vandalism? --lordebon 22:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly there's no real way we can know. As a general rule, if someone places the information on their page when logged in, we expect them to log in to remove that information as well. In theory, any user can edit any non-locked page at the wiki, including user pages. The consensus here since the wiki was first started, however, has been that user page editing is frowned upon unless it's to fix a broken link or mistake in user/toon templates. Additions and deletions are right out. I'll revert the one you noted and place a note on the talk page of the user's page stating that the deletion was removed and why.--Kodia 18:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Gotcha, thats what I thought the consensus was but I wanted to check. I'll keep it in mind for the future. --lordebon 19:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Broken Images, Again?
Just about all the site images are coming up broken to me. The tiny ones load for the most part, but larger images (including the logo) don't. Another problem on Wikia's side? --lordebon 00:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly, though the images are appearing just fine on my machine. I'll poke the wikia.com staff and see if there's something we should know.--Kodia 02:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's fixed now for me. --lordebon 04:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Testing
This is Kodia logged out of the wiki and testing the new mediawiki updates for automatic welcome messages.

Wikia Welcome Bot
Any chance we can get the wikia welcome thing to be listed as a bot, or a minor edit, or maybe just make it's comment be not in CAPS? It kind of fills up the recent changes sometimes. --lordebon 02:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Good question. I don't know the answer to that, but I'll check with Wikia staff.--Kodia 13:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The answer is yes it can be changed to a bot so it can be filtered out. I've made that request of wikia.com staff, as it's something I don't have control over. I'm not changing the welcome message to lower case letters however, as that's how I find them for my review. Amidst the major changes going on right now, it's very hard to see welcome messages in lower case. --Kodia 14:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Wikia is now officially a bot on the related changes list.--Kodia 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * And apparently I *do* have permissions to make this change. I was under the impression that I did not, so now I know.--Kodia 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I agree it's good to be able to see new welcomes, but the bot flag will allow it to be sorted out of the regular recent changesAnd I think that as a beaucrat/sysop you can set the bot flag, I wasn't sure if there was something special about the automagic Wikia account. But either way, thanks again =) --lordebon 21:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Mostly it was the "bot" designation that threw me. I was under the mistaken impression that in order to be able to set that designation, I had to be the person approving the bot. I had it filed away in the same portion of my brain that said I couldn't set someone's status is a Wikia Staff member. :)--Kodia 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

upcoming spell naming
Soe gonna change every spell name soon, so you have spells like Kick I, Kick II, Kick III and so on. Considering all spell effects stay like they are and only the name changes ... how should we sort spell and AA names fast and accurate? Audit for all spells? spelllines are kinda easy to sort, a lot of copy/paste and done there. A forum thread for each class, maybe helps for the spell names, with like table of old and new name each spell as verify. What do you think? -- 11:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Spelllines will be easy as pie to sort. There will be no need for the existing spellline templates -- just a simple template that takes name and # of versions since they'll all be named Blah I, Blah II, etc. AAs will also be simple -- there'll just be Enhance: Blah, we won't need the network of redirects and such once this goes through.
 * As for finding and fixing them -- I'm a fan of adding an audit parameter to the template to categorize them all until they're all done (at which point we can drop the param from the template and bot-remove it from the pages). --lordebon 11:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * more information/clarification --- (Aeralik) Re:Re:Attention, Scholars!
 * ''The level of skill when it's given to you (Currently App1) will remain Apprentice
 * ''the highest non-rare crafted will be Journeyman (change from App4)
 * ''the current Adept 1 will remain Adept
 * ''the current Adept 3 will become Expert
 * -- 08:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (Aeralik) Re:Spell Naming Conventions
 * Tooltips and spellscrolls will use the same basic format followed by Apprentice, Journeyman, Adept, Expert, Master or Grandmaster.
 * ''The old apprentice 2 spells have been removed because ...
 * ''Also fighter Taunt and Kick have been removed and replaced with the appropriate line instead of a generic all archetype spell.
 * ''Priests also had some common class heals which are now replaced by a new spell of the appropriate line name.
 * ''Summoners also had their heart and shard spells condensed into one spell for each class.
 * ''The new version replaces existing hearts and shards and scales to the level of the caster.
 * The quality of spells changes in the following way by the look of it:
 * Apprentice 1 -> Apprentice
 * Apprentice 2 -> get's removed
 * Apprentice 3 -> got removed a while ago
 * Apprentice 4 -> Journeyman
 * Adept 1 -> Adept
 * Adept 3 -> Expert
 * Master I -> Master
 * Master II -> Grandmaster
 * -- 14:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One additional note: App2's and 3's that exist currently will show as either Apprentice or Journeyman (I think Apprentice, but I need to double check), so folks that have those qualities now will sort of keep them.
 * Also, I'd love to use this change to update Template:SpellEffectsLine & co. to be more like my Template:SpellEffectsLine2 (which features missing-quality detection and to me just looks better). I'll probably use the base code of '2' to whip together a new template that we cna drop in. What I'm thinking is keep the old look available during the transition, but have a parameter (new=y or something) that when active uses the new look and when not active categorizes it as an Unconverted Spell (for easy cleanup later). Once >90% are converted the parameter can be kept and the old appearance removed from the template. Once 100% are converted (the Unconverted Spell category empty) we can remove the param from the template and either leave the param in the pages or get Das Uberfuzzy to bot-nuke them. Thoughts? --lordebon 14:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

All of this wants to make me curl up into a ball in the corner and cry. the tier renaming (ad3->expert, etc) i love (it'll be confusing as hell for a while, but needed to be done). The separating of shared spells (eg kick), again, super needed to be done, but not as confusing. Renaming all later versions of a spell only by number and keeping that "first" name? wtf? are they on crack? yeah, people only remember their "last" version of a spell, but who cares? all that does is save SoE from having to think up new names for a spell line (which everyone does agree they did do a super sucky job of in t8). i'm all for the changes we need to make (or create new).

i think as more and more of these changes happen to eq2, we need to be able to look at the systems/intertwined templates we have at this wiki and start examining how many of them are actually needed/need updated, and some that need scrapped and redone in a new way/light. we have better code options now then when some of these were written. and theres more extensions available that werent in the past (a little off topic, but someday, i would love to see semantice mediawiki here, enabling better searching/connections, and LESS categories).

Theres already great work going on in the new zone box, and i would love to see this spell rename/revamp be the trigger to do the same in the spell/spellline/spelleffect systems we have. we've got a great group of people here at this wiki, and a large audience (oh how i wish you could see the numbers) to keep happy. lets all work together to make eq2 a great resource, no matter what changes soe can throw at us! --Uberfuzzy 21:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The spell effects is something that I've hated for a long time. I hate seeing effects like "Heals target for X" and then a fugly table listing them all. I definitely think we can probably go with an entirely new approach to them... something that doesn't involve that 'break' between the effect and the outside table. We should probably start a forum topic and start getting into this. There's got to be a better way to present the various version information. Another thing is we should probably specific HOW spells are to be examined (for example, specify that its how it should look to an appropriate-level character with no +whatever and no AAs affecting it). I actually wish SOE would expose that data, and show the effects as something like "Heals for 2586 (1700) health." where the parenthetical number would be the absolute base value.

I don't actually mind the I, II, III naming system -- there are far too many similar names as it is now (its borderline rediculous how they try to find synonyms) so hopefully this will give them more names and more time to use for making NEW spells rather than have to whip out a thesaurus to come up with new names every other expansion. Either way, it sure simplifies things. --lordebon 22:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

New zone info box
I've moved the conversation on the New zone info box to it's own topic in the planning forum, which is probably where it should have been moved much earlier. None of the comments or notes have been changes; the discussion was moved in toto. Please feel free to continue the discussion on the topic of changes and plans to the new zone info box there.--Kodia 21:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Virus In an Ad
Kaspersky just blocked a virus from one of the Ad's that came up while I was viewing one of the articles. I'm sure the ad's are random, but I thought I should let someone know.

4/20/2009 5:06:15 PM http://mwexco.info/fowewxia/ Detected: HEUR:Trojan.Script.Iframer

I blocked it, so I don't know what the Ad would have been, but hopefully someone can prevent it from infecting others.
 * I don't know the website, but it may either be a false positive or the script was actually trying to open an i-frame. In either case, the place to report 'bad' ads (per EverQuest 2 Wiki:Advertisements and w:c:help:Bad_advertisements) is via email to community@wikia.com. --lordebon 22:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I was wondering how long till they would show up here. Theres been reports of these on FFXI and WOW for the last week or so. Looks like their targeting gaming wikis only too. I'll make sure this gets added to the right lists. This makes a not happy fuzzy. --Uberfuzzy 19:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Strategies
One of my few pet peeves is the strategy section that is included for nameds (And in particular, the fact that the strategies are put on the main article pages at all). While I agree some script information should be given on the encounters (in the forms of AEs (already supported by the template) and other specific scripted stuff, like Varsoon's three rooms), to me the individual user-created strategies (ie pull him to here, then do x, y, and z) don't belong on the main article pages -- they are better suited for a dedicated "Strategies" section on the talk page, with a link to such section from the main page.

The reason I say this is there are often many ways to go through a fight, and the current method sort of portrays one (the first one to be put down) as the 'definitive' strategy. So, how about a policy or guideline on strategies? Some suggestions for said policy/guideline while I'm thinking about it...:
 * Strategies should only appear on the named monster's page (for scripts/AEs) or said monsters talk page (for user submitted complete strategies).
 * Encounters with multiple named shuold have it appear on the page of the "primary" named, with links to the "primary" named's strategy section in the strategy section of secondary nameds.
 * Only verifyable, objective information should be included on the main article page. This type of information includes:
 * Mob abilitys / AEs (with or without screenshots)
 * Fixed timers or trigger conditions of said abilities (if they exist). If uncertain or highly variable, they may be mentioned but specific numbers will be restricted to full strategies on the talk page.

Good idea, bad idea, indifferent? Let me know what you think; if you agree, we can move it to a forum to solicit discussion, I wanted to put it here to get attention and early thoughts before making a forum topic. --lordebon 14:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's move it to a forum now. Please feel free to move your comment and post the link here so we know where you'd like to have the discussion.--Kodia 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now Showing: Forum:Strategies - Main Pain or Talk?. I typo'd the name (should have said Main Page) but its funny and true to my point, hehe. --lordebon 20:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin list
Uberfuzzy recently removed the Admin rights for some people, yet this article still has them listed. The article is locked or I would remove their names myself. Janze-Nek 14:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * By way of closure, this issue has been addressed and the list modified and updated.--Kodia 20:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Spell Information
I've started work on a new Spell Information template since GU52 is scheduled to hit tomorrow. I don't know if it will be done by then, but it's at least in progress. In doing this I want to clean it up a bit (that old template has been through so much, hehe). A revamped SpellEffectLine template will follow (that's easy to do, I just have to modify my Template:SpellEffectsLine2 for the new levels. Just wanted to give a heads up and say that I'm working on it =) ---lordebon 19:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up and all the hard work. Here's to hoping the servers stay down for exactly how long they need to. Or, more specifically, don't get all bouncy bouncy on us.--Kodia 20:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Tomorrow is a raid night for me, and GU days can make for interesting raiding, to say the least.... One particularly fun time was having the server get locked during a raid (with half the folks in the zone and half stuck in zoning limbo). Thankfully they've been semi-decent lately =) --lordebon 20:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It amazes me how that old template has grown and been adapted over the years. I've decieded to throw it out and literally just write a new one... there so much old junk and unnecessary complexity that we don't need in the new version. Progress is coming along well, you can take a sneak peak if you'd like. I'm off to a meeting for a bit, I'll work on it more later. I won't be able to fully finish it until I get home and can get into the game to take a look at how they have some things listed / arranged. --lordebon 13:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

QFE: "It amazes me how that old template has grown and been adapted over the years. I've decieded to throw it out and literally just write a new one... there so much old junk and unnecessary complexity that we don't need in the new version." yup, that pretty much explains most of this wiki :( the v2 is looking great! --Uberfuzzy 18:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The changes look great. Do you have a plan for the Spell Effects template? Right now, we have 3,800 spell articles that have obsolete tiers in their spell effects template for the new system. (And those 3,800 articles all need renaming too... ugh) I was thinking that we should just modify the existing template to retain the App2, App3, Adept2 obsolete fields but just not display them, so that the existing articles are usable as-is. Then we can slowly convert the articles to a new SpellEffects template that has the reduced number of tiers in it. Sassinak 07:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was planning on leaving the old SpellEffectsLine template alone for backwards compatibility and converting my SpellEffectsLine2 template for new service. To my knowledge that one is only used on warden spells so it shouldn't be a huge disruption. --lordebon 11:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * SpellEffectsLine2 has been updated. Backwards compatability is only pseudo-maintaned; the numbers are in the wrong spot but a warning is given and the data is relisted at the end as it originally was (mostly only for my own benefit). I've updated the first spell line to the new system if anyone wants to take a look: Photosynthesis. Since nothing in the game exists as the old name I have *not* been leaving redirects, I don't see to have so many (especially since say Photosynthesis is now a I spell but used to be what is now a III or so spell). Here is one bit of information I need, however... are you now granted Apprentice versions of ALL spells after 50? I ask because in the past you were not granted an App1 of those spells, the lowest that existed was App2. If they do exist now I need to get data for them somehow, if they don't I need to mark them as such on their pages. --lordebon 12:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * yes you will get app's after 50 now, even for lvl 52,55,58 ancient teachings for example --Vraeth 13:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. Hmm, I wish they'd give us a way to see them (the Apprentice versions) if you alrady have higher. I've been relying on the broker and my sage for journeyman, adept, and expert info for the most part, but the important thing is consistency of character (I basically have to strip off all my gear and swap to a non-heal AA spec in order to get the 'base' numbers). --lordebon 13:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh I just had an idea. I can make a fresh test copy and then betray while staying the same class on the Test Copy server to get all App1's. Or if not all at least most of them. --lordebon 13:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Another design change?
Did wikia change the appearance of the top bar (where Edit, History, etc. is) and the background area of the searchbar again? Becase on IE6 it looks like junk (its a litle blue/gray gradient thing, didnt it used to be just the blue before?). I can't tell what it looks like on a real browser until I get home later. --lordebon 12:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No idea. It looks the same to me in Safari and Firefox. I'd have to reboot with Windows running to see the IE and right now I'm just too lazy. :) I've poked Uberfuzzy to see if he'll respond but he might not be awake yet.--Kodia 12:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Uberfuzzy says "it always had a gradient, kinda. its technically a solid blue, with a super super transparent image overtop of it, that is a very slight gradient, giving it a shading and "round" look. but ie6 doesn't do transparent images well, and likely tossed it out".--Kodia 16:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Pics or it didnt happen. they always overlayed this over the "blue" ares, but ie6... i dont know. I dont know what changed. i would need to see what your seeing. --Uberfuzzy 16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured it always had a slight gradient over it, and I know IE6 does *terrible* with that, but that particular case used to be OK, it used to look fine. But whatever change they made also changed the little "Gaming" drop down box and the "More" drop down box so that the part with the arrow is no longer aligned. I've uploaded a picture of what I'm seeing -- don't mind the fact that the EQ2i logo is gone, on this computer that image always gets blocked. I usually muddle through having to use IE6 here at work, but this was kind of a trippy change. See File:Lordebon_Transparent_top.jpg. The transparent bit now has that nasty IE6 look that other transparent parts get... maybe they changed it so that this displays in IE6 now where it didn't use to before? (in other words, is it possible that before it was set up to now have the overlay in IE6)? Just to be clear, this isn't a huge issue for me, I just saw something change and wanted to let you know (since it was cosmetically bad in IE6). --lordebon 17:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Does Wikia still support IE6? I know many sites are starting to drop support for IE6.  They may have corrected some IE6 anachronisms in the template. - Sassinak 18:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

last edit
after editing an article, the last edit date still shows as the one prior the edit instead of the current date, while the name is displayed correctly. for example take a look at this page, and its history page --Vraeth 11:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a caching issue, I think. Try purging the page and it should correct itself, if not it will correct itself over time. --lordebon 11:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * looking at my contribs, my edits that are not older than a week have this display issue. opening those pages in another browser shows the same dates, so its not on my end. --Vraeth 11:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't mean a browser cache... I mean its cached by the wiki software and only gets updated over time. That is probably why edits older than a week are correct -- they have probably been updated. The wiki caches pages so that it doesn't have to generate them from base wikicode all the time and for whatever reason it seems to cache the last edited date but not the name. Definately a bug, but purging the page cache (by adding ?action=purge to a page URI) should clear it up. I wonder what the job queue for here is at, I'll have to try and remember how to check. --lordebon 13:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's actually why I suggested reporting it as a problem. It might kick it up in the chain of stuff to look at. Perhaps they just need to feed the server hamsters. :)--Kodia 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Vraeth, would you do me a favor and do something that would really help us out? Could you navigate to your contributions page and report this very same information that you posted here, including your second comment as well? I have no idea how to correct this or if it can be corrected and I'd like to send it along to the wikia staff. If you navigate to your contributions or the file image page, scroll down to the bottom and look for the itty bitty yellow triangle with an exclamation point in it that says "Report a problem with this page." Once you click on that link, fill out the information as best you can in the form. I'll see the problem report and I'll immediately forward it along to Wikia.com staff to get it started in the examination queue.--Kodia 12:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * the contribution page - for being a speacial page i think - doesnt have those options like normal articles do, including the report. should i do it from the article on the screenshot for example then? --Vraeth 12:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sorry. I'd forgotten about that. Report it from the image file please.--Kodia 12:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * cant even report an image :) so i did from the article, here --Vraeth 12:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Gah. Hell. Okay, that will work just fine too. It's idiotic that you can't report those pages. Thankyou for submitting the report.--Kodia 13:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

since then i've submitted another report, both state they are 'fixed'. well, i dont know about the first one, but when i saw the status change of the seconds one, i checked the page and still had the wrong date. i even added a comment asking for a comment, but to no avail. today i encountered the same thing so im gonna report it again. but im wondering if i should be bothered about this at all... --Vraeth 13:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

(Semi) Bot account
I'd like to set up a second account and get it Bot flagged, if possible. The recent (well, still on-going) spell revamp and the upcoming itemization changes with SF make me believe that it would be helpful if I could bot a lot of these changes. I currently do not plan on having any type of fully-automated bot, but I would like the account for use with semi-automated tools (right now I'm looking at AWB - AutoWikiBrowser) for making relatively simple but repetative edits to a large number of pages. So I'm opening up this discussion / request for permission to set up the account and then later request the bot flag on it. --lordebon 13:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Bumpity Bump. ;) --lordebon 11:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We're still discussing the ramifications, luv. Give us a little.--Kodia 11:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, was just making sure it was seen, since I think I posted it as you were coming back off vacation =) --lordebon 12:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions Chillispike's moniker
Let's see ... how about -- 02:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * the carebear
 * a allrounder
 * a little here, a little there and a little everywhere

Achievements
Do we want individual pages for each achievement? If not, do we want just one major list at Achievements or do we want any breaking-up on other pages as well? --lordebon 01:04, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * there are hundreds of achievements. putting them on one single page would be huge amount of data, even if you hide them with collapsing. i think they should be at least broken up by categories, maybe in actual wiki cats. hm, well now thinking about it, when categorizing them in wiki cats then they would be all on their own article page. some of them dont have too much data, like the dungeon/raid achievements, but for exploration achievements those should be on single pages at least. but you could just list those on the Achievements page, and link the individual pages there. first we should see how really big that list is --Vraeth 05:47, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Fireforkts has been helpful at making a pretty inclusive list at User:Fireforkts/Achievements Info to give you an idea of how many there are. What I've been thinking is this: Have a page for the final version of each achievement (for the ones like Slayer that go through many stages) and then just use redirects from the lower names -- a lot like what we did with the Enchance: AAs back before the spell name condensation. Then categorize them in two ways: Cat (Dungeon) and subcat (Desert of Flames). But I do think having pages for the achievements will be helpful. Then the upper-level categories will have the expand tables on them (if they have subcats) with links to all the individual categories. Thoughts on that? --lordebon 13:25, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * i like it, and want to see them in action how they look :) --Vraeth 14:02, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding redirects from lower ones would make it so you couldn't see the whole list or the point values for each level of the achievement. Possibly making them part of a series would allow you to see the whole list in order of point value/kill count (for slayers or other series) so that you can see the different levels of the achievement no matter what point you're at or searched for. Making 1 page for each wouldn't be difficult or that time consuming with a template. Some things I'd like to see on the templates are Achievement Name, Category, Point Value, zone/zones involved in the Achievement, maybe a suggested level as well. Then in the body we can just list off the requirements for the achievement, possible rewards... including the points. For Exploration Achievements we can list off locations. Most of them act like normal quests so adding them won't be that different. Fireforkts 19:28, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The high-level page would show all of the various stages (including their name, requirements, and point value), it would just be a matter of keeping them all one one page since they only show up as one in your achievements tab. --lordebon 20:26, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Heavens. I'm torn. I can see the value in all the ways. Ultimately, which would be the easiest to maintain and which would help our users search both from inside the game and from outside via a normal web browser? Those are the questions we need to really answer and explore. Let's move the convo to Forum:Achievements Revamp and hash some of this out?--Kodia 20:28, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

sidebar
what happened to the sidebar? it doesnt show whats in the Monaco sidebar but something different mess --Vraeth 07:41, October 3, 2009 (UTC)