User talk:Islandking

Back to answer
Greetings, Islandking!

Sorry for not answering earlier – was off a couple days.

Looks like I still have to learn a many things about NI – never used the "View area" feature before, and it is much more than I expected! Thanks for hinting me to this …

Okay, I'll wait with my "maps".

As for one of your requests for an NI update – a workaround for your spell look-up might be to use xxx Keepers spell browser in addition, where you can sort by type (innate, priest, wizard (default)), level and name' (and code).

And yes, I noticed your comment on my codes' forum post … well, as far as I know that wasn't the case in the old editions of the games, same codes being used for the scroll and the spell. I'll take a look into this.

For the icons: I think, there's no need to display a pre-EE icon in the gallery if it's not totally different from the EE one – as indeed is the case with the Sword of Grief. If it's only a minor visual overhaul of the original icon, the classic one could simply be replaced. Though, if they are very different, it'd possibly be a better solution to place both icons in the IB, rather than to use a gallery for it that's located on a completely other place on the page …

We could introduce tabbed infoboxes for differences between classic and EE variants of all things, as FR is doing for the various ruleset editions. What about this?

Why do I keep myself away from EEs? ;) Of course you might ask …

I started playing BG in 1999 – and over the time it became and remained my favorite game of all times. (I'm speaking of part 1.) Also the one with the most playthroughs.

Though playing BGT nowadays, I never added large expansion mods, only small things like Unfinished Business. I think, the game's/games are big enough as it is/they are. For the same reason I didn't like the additions that came with the EE – the new companions and areas and – lately – the story expansion for between the both games.

Since I have started to use this wiki and giving thoughts to my own "improvements" to the games, I, however, see some good reasons to consider EE content. This extends to the wiki as well: I think we should overhaul the BG1 area articles and move away from some old dudleyville naming scheme or simply using directions – to the new naming from the EEs. Thoughts?

One thing remains, however: I see a lot of screenshots from the EEs that show characters with a fat, dark outline. Is this the visual style of the EEs? That ugly feature alone would be reason enough to not play those editions …

Thanks for the feedback, regarding CE/VE and IE11. I think I noticed a change since then, but am not sure about it. I'll get back to this if it gets important some day …

-- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 12:24, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

Your edit on Larze
Hi.

What's the reason behind replacing my template with plain code – with the exact same formatting (except the link) but requiring more space? |alignment = Neutral Chaotic Evil vs. |alignment = NeutralBG Chaotic EvilBG:EE -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 20:03, October 15, 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't apply to all templates, and not to this one. Look:

(Tested on User:CompleCCity/Sandbox01)

VisualEditor can handle this. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 10:13, October 16, 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I don't get it …

What do I have to do to get that specific editor you're talking about, the one where this doesn't work? -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 10:41, October 16, 2017 (UTC)

No, what I wanted to know is, how do I get this break you mentioned. For me all looks well when this template is used inside the infobox. What I want is a proof of what you're saying. ;) -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 10:51, October 16, 2017 (UTC)

Okay, then I'm sorry for bothering you.

There are way too many ways to use the way too many modes of editing … ;) Got me some time and edits to find the specific combination that produces this error.

So, that's the solution? Leave templates out of templates? Forever and all times? I hope, they're working on this … -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 11:33, October 16, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Staff of the Ram damage
I do really think, I understand those mechanics, but only to be sure I uploaded an NI screen:

STAF22.itm has only 1 ability which defines the 1d6+12 crushing damage, Dice size = 6 Damage bonus = 12 Damage type = Crushing (2) but no bonus damage.
 * 1) dice thrown = 1

There are 3 effects: Wing buffet (=knock back; Effect 0), Sleep (=stun) and Display portrait icon (Sleep). None of them has additional damage (dices).

So in EE there are 4 effects at least? -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 16:58, October 16, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Staff of the Ram damage 2 and more
Yes, latest GOG, unmodded (at least the files I use for research).

First: I'm no fan of cited in-game descriptions in general – their content could be implemented in the intro section of an article and/or in a background section. But as the description, as well as a possible background, are somehow a core component of an article, the lead section, they always should come first. (Also it looks better, when the Quote of the description serves as an introduction right after the TOC and isn't placed amidst other sections.)
 * As for "inconsistencies" in page layout/section order

Acquisition is important for items – and scrolls are items! – and quests. And I agree that it's the first step in a quest's walkthrough. A quest, however, has no "description", only journal entries which can be/are placed in their own section.

Follows, what I think is plausible, logical and comprehensible:


 * QUEST
 * Intro
 * Acquisition
 * Walkthrough
 * Reward(s) I'm not sure whether to use singular or plural for this.
 * Notes, Bugs, etc.
 * Journal I'd call this "Journal", not "Journal entries".


 * ITEM
 * Intro
 * Background/In-game description
 * Acquisition
 * Upgrade information – where applicable, including upgrader, cost, differences Exact layout of this has to be further elaborated.
 * Gameplay
 * Notes, Bugs, etc.


 * SPELL
 * Intro
 * In-game description/Background For spells I would use the description, rather than a background … I think …
 * Acquisition (of scroll = item)
 * Gameplay
 * Notes, Bugs, etc.

You see? That's not inconsistent. The quest article layout is the only one without a section before "Acquisition", and only because it per se lacks a description. And although for most readers the acquisition of an item is the most important thing to those pages, intro and background/description in most cases are not that long, so that one would have to scroll to get to the acquisition.

Spells often cite AD&D ruleset descriptions and in many cases have much more text than item descriptions. Would this justify their use instead of a self-created background section? And what about extensive and lore related descriptions of some magical items? There exist some pretty long ones, too …
 * In-game description vs. background section

As there are already differences between BG1 and BG2 descriptions of the same object, and further alterations between non- and EE-versions, I think it would be best to use the in-game descriptions only as long as there hasn't been written a background. That background can cite uniquely or well worded content from the description, but also could implement further information from related FR articles. And, as for spells, isn't the mechanics and effects information from the infobox more useful than those descriptions?

Ah … not sure about this.

What's really inconsistent, is that some item articles use "Acquisition", while others use "Location". That should be consistent – and I prefer the former term.
 * The real inconsistency

-- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 10:27, October 17, 2017 (UTC)

-- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 10:32, October 17, 2017 (UTC)
 * Two more things
 * 1) The official abbreviation for pounds is "lb" – without "s" and period. (But sorry for forgetting them at all …)
 * 2) Why do you replace the appearances' whole game name links with those unlinked abbreviations?

I'm happy for you!
I'm so happy for you that you found somebody for creating a really nice Siege of Dragonspear Walkthrough here! Of course I looked at it already and will continue to do so!

I'm still abroad and don't have SoD yet. This woman/man seems to present a wonderful Walkthrough! Excellent!

Congrats!

Gejadus (talk) 00:49, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Hello Faalagorn how are you?
Hi :). Yeah, I kinda dropped out, been busy with RL and the remaining time I spent on some other things beside BG:EE, but I hope I'll finally get out to finishing it lol. I see you made a talk archive, that's good and was actually wanting to suggest that seeing how lengthy our conversations were – still have to do that for my someday :P. Also I see you liked the idea of custom signature, similar to what I've been using on various wikis for a while :).

Replying to your question, sadly it's only available for those SoD areas exclusively – as Beamdog filled them as "cheatAreas" in BGEE.LUA file, so the names appear in the debug console available upon pressing Ctrl+Space. They can be found either in-game or explored in NI under LUA -> BGEE.LUA file.

For BG2:EE (and if I remember correctly BG:EE without SoD) unfortunately only this stub is available: cheatAreas = { {"BD0010", "Test"}, }

I think PST:EE have the cheatAreas named filled in, as I saw a report about correction in this in Redmine, see Feature #32145 – I don't own PST:EE to check though, and I didn't check that for IWD:EE either, but that's not relevant.

There's a chance this will be added later on, as the "cheatAreas" is remain to be populated in non-SoD EE games (let's see what 2.5 update brings) – I was actually thinking of adding the cheat menu for remaining areas as a feature request on their Redmine.

Until these, the only "official" names are those that are explicitly visible on WMP maps in NI. And the best unofficial ones are those on Dudleyville.

—Faalagorn☎/✓ 19:52, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

Energyblades (Wizard) / (Priest)
Hi Islandking,

are you on the Island Iceland or are you on another one?

Thank you for fixing it BUT I want to explain to you how I got to Energyblades (wizard). I went to the Druid page and clicked on High-Level Class Abilities and Energyblades and came to those from the Wizard instead of those from the Priest! Try it yourself please. Would be nice if you could fix it! Thanks a bunch!

I'm excited about the SoD Walkthrough! Great to have it here!

Gejadus (talk) 22:35, October 18, 2017 (UTC)

Hi Islandking,

all fine concerning the Energy Blades.

Gejadus (talk) 03:51, October 19, 2017 (UTC)

 Ranking list of the BEST SOLO Walkthrough PROTAGONISTS 

Hello Islandking,

I just created a ranking list of th best Solo Walkthrough players on the Gejadus Walkthrough list. What's your opinion about the best Solo Player? Do you want to leave a comment?

Gejadus (talk) 03:54, October 19, 2017 (UTC)

Solo Walkthroughs
Hello Islandking,

thanks for your reply! I'm often surprised how much you know about all the stuff. I didn't know anything about this exploit page and to be honest it's not really my thing.

I went to the Beamdog Forum and had a look again at the page that you recommended about two months ago.

https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/62202/the-free-for-all-lob-scs-solo-challenge/p1

Is it ok to mention Harpagornis name on the Gejadus' Walkthrough page like I do or should I delete his name?

5.Ideas for future Black Pits II Solo Walkthroughs

Contents
[hide]#Gejadus' General Walkthrough (Strategy)
 * 1) Gejadus' How to defeat The Winged?
 * 2) Gejadus' Solo Walkthrough (Strategy)
 * 3) Fighter Mage Solo Walkthrough
 * 4) Dwarven Defender Solo Walkthrough
 * 5) Fighter Cleric Solo Walkthrough
 * 6) Sorcerer Solo Walkthrough
 * 7) Blackguard Solo Walkthrough
 * 8) Assassin Solo Walkthrough
 * 9) Assassin Fighter Solo Walkthrough
 * 10) Totemic Druid Solo Walkthrough
 * 11) Ranking list of the BEST SOLO Walkthrough PROTAGONISTS
 * 12) Ideas for future Black Pits II Solo Walkthroughs

Looking forward to hearing from you!

Gejadus (talk) 07:04, October 19, 2017 (UTC)

Hi Islandking,

thank you for your message again. I'll try to consider what you said.

>>> My question only was if it's ok to mention the name HARPAGORNIS on my Walkthrough page (at the bottom) or should I delete the name Harpagornis again? I don't want to break a rule or offend anybody.

Thanks!

Gejadus (talk) 07:38, October 19, 2017 (UTC)

Hello Islandking,

you are a really patient person! Excellent!

Thanks for you advice! Yes, I will make a link to Harpagornis’s profile on BD forum.

Great to have you here, Islandking!

Gejadus (talk) 09:18, October 19, 2017 (UTC)

Great picture for The Winged!
Hi Islandking,

great job! Great Picture for The Winged!

You improved this page a lot!

Thank you so much!

Gejadus (talk) 04:27, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Another case about file.suffix
I commented on the forum topic. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 11:23, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

Spell Progression Tables
Hi!

Following my edit on the Spell Progression Tables, I thought it would be a good idea to have separate articles for each spell-casting class, which can go further into detail and at the end can be implemented into the overview article.

I've started with Spell Progression (wizard) (until now only two tables and some sort of a really short intro section, together with a WIP notice), when I discovered that there seem to have been changes from the classic to the enhanced editions.

It would be great of you to copy/paste the file (in the classic game named MXSPLWIZ.2da), either on my talk page or hidden (inside ) on my article. I hope, there are no differences between the enhanced BG1, SoD and BG2EE (ToB) …

Many thanks! -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 15:13, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! For the table and the template!

Okay, weren't any changes, unless you have a mod that changes spell progression back to non-enhanced. That means, in the original article in its current state there are some mistakes, starting at level 21 …

For the naming: I thought of a series of Spell progression (class) articles, summarized as and implemented into the existing Spell Progression Tables. I wouldn't call them all "table", and e.g. the section on Mage (Baldur's Gate) doesn't use the term, neither. Suffices to have it in the overview. Also I deviate from the present capitalizing, using upper-case only for the first part of the name. Original source material (AD&D rulebooks) and the manuals are naming it Class Spell Progression, using upper-case for all words and putting the class at the first place, but without the use of the term "table" (well, they are in the section or headed "Tables").

I'm open to this. Personally I think, it shouldn't be over-capitalized, and as they are all the same, the articles should be disambiguated with the class as suffix. (I nevertheless would create a redirect from e.g. Class Spell Progression (and Class spell progression).) If you think, Spell progression table (class) would be the better name, then I really liked to use singular and lower-case. Searching possibly works better without "table", however.

Any opinion about the layout?
 * The implementation of the INT reqs.? Better in their own line? Parenthesis, rather than brackets? Italics yes or no?
 * The total in bold? (I'll change the coloring of that column back to standard.)
 * Anything else?

I plan to expand the intro section for the table (taking the original one, but altering it), give some more useful information, possibly add bugs, hint to differences between editions (if there are any), integrate level-game dependencies into the table and add a section with differences between the games and PnP rules. You probably noticed the expanded table for level 40. When finished, the page will go as template into the overview, though only including the main table and the most important information, with a link to the main article. Thoughts?

-- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 16:44, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, and …

… yes, noticed!

But I didn't like your re-ordering of  and   – that seemed arbitrary. You don't have to show me that you're admin, here – I know of that.

Okay, I've renamed the page to your favored capitalization. Or at least as far as I have understood your comment on my talk page.

Why did you mention the "–" for blank cells – this is exactly what I was doing!?!

And I'm not sure if I understood that "How to group your pages …" paragraph. You plan to rename Spell Progression Tables to Spell Progression, without any suffix? Why? As for Experience Tables I would leave it as this – a compilation of mostly "tables" as an overview.

I will try to group the article(s)'s content in a way that it can be transcluded into other pages that refer to the table. Both, the overview of all these tables, and the classes. (That will not work for two different mage articles, Mage and Mage (Baldur's Gate) – are there that many differences between both, that justify an extra article? Okay, next thing: merging those …) Perhaps it will come down to the simple table, that's referred to, and no additional content, which then would be duplicated on certain pages, but that's okay, I think. We'll see …

For the Sorcerer edit: couldn't you have formatted this in a more clean way? ;) With a proper heading and leaving the unused bullet point out? Perhaps even put it at a better place? Currently this piece of information gets totally lost in the page's content …

And now I have an article to write! ;)

-- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 13:02, October 21, 2017 (UTC)

This is why I don't like that visual editor, grrr…

Sorry! But what should I think after an admin did such an arbitrary edit? I didn't know that this came from the editing mode. And that wasn't really an offense; I even thought of placing a ";)" there, but then eventually did this later in my comment.

;)

-- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 13:21, October 21, 2017 (UTC)

Now I'm confused … Do you prefer "–" or blank cells?

With all due respect to your "encouraging" thought – but it looks awful. ;) -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 13:52, October 21, 2017 (UTC)

Re: New templates
Uh… I followed TotSC and ToB, but notice only now that there indeed is no "SoA".

Do as you want. It's the first time that we have "The" as starting word in the title. You want to omit that?

And something for the above topic: Would you please take a look at Spell Progression (wizard) and tell me your opinion? The first paragraph uses the current continous text, but perhaps the bullet list below is better? Or what about a table (further below)? -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 16:19, October 21, 2017 (UTC)

Re's
Hello, Ike. < that's okay? ;)

A collection of replies and thoughts, as I move through the six(!) edits of yours on my talk page …

-- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 14:55, October 22, 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right! There was something like a big picture … ;) Yes, I allowed myself to do the moves, without waiting for your answer on that topic. Needed it for the templates' use in the Experience Tables, which leads to the next topic …
 * 1) Theoretically – as I wrote – 8,950,000 points of experience are possible in The Black Pits II: Gladiators of Thay. This is not only based on the sum of the starting level (2,950,000 XP) plus the "accumulated XP gain" from the article's table, but also from various internet sources. (That's also where I found a 2da file content, listing the XP caps for the different single- and multi-classes for BP1, somewhere on beamdog's.) 8,950,000 XP means: mages can reach level 33. If this really is possible, I don't know – there might be an additional level cap 2da, or simply missing 2da entries for these levels. And if you take a look on the fighter's evolvement, they would reach even higher levels than 41: specifically 43, following the pattern. What about a test? Start a game, create a mage and a fighter, cheat them to an experience of 8,950,000 and see what happens! Or assign this task to Gejadus. I can't do it, I don't own this game …
 * 2) "Double-" indeed is better than "dual-class", and also better matches "triple". I'll change that.
 * 3) "Convert them into tables"? There is already a table! But it doesn't look good – that's why I wanted your opinion. And actually that article is about spell progression tables – would an additional table with a different context not distract from this? I even thought of omitting that piece of information, shorten it to a brief sentence, hinting to the related entries in the table (for single-class characters) and otherwise linking to the class's page or experience tables. Hm … have to rethink this. Yes – perhaps extra progression tables for multi-classes are the best idea!
 * 4) And following this, I'll get back to the related part of your elaboration later. For the general structure of the overview page (and I – as said – would retain the name and not move "Tables" to a disambig suffix!):
 * 5) two new headers, "Arcane …" and "Divine spellcasters", with the two cleric-mage classes appearing twice (perhaps; or a different solution for them)
 * 6) every table with its own header – to quickly be accessed from the TOC
 * 7) I have to take a look into the gnome's multi-classes, if it's indeed handled as a specialist mage.
 * 8) I splitted the table into "basic" and "expanded" for levels above the maximum reachable because level 40 spell progression isn't important for an unmodded game. That's only of interest for the rare case, somebody would like to know how many spells a certain opponent of a really high level might have access to. I like to leave it as this. And I don't understand what you're wanting to say with "since BG, BGII, ToB etc are already there" …
 * 9) You notice a delay? Really?? Wow, that would be the exact opposite of what I intended to achieve with all this. I'm no programmer – I can't say if the transcluded page is "opened" in the background, I don't know how this technically works. What I know is that it's horrible to edit that large page with such a number of large tables, in terms of performance. Okay, we'll see the result when all tables are done – which will take some more time. ;) As the tables are used on a number of pages (class, class-combos; in the case of the wizard additionally for the specialists) it really makes sense to have only one instance of it – else you would have to apply changes on several articles, and might oversee something.
 * 10) I plan to give each table a subpage, to be more flexible and able to link to a specific table if needed. I'll then already see on the current page, if there's a loss of performance.
 * 11) And now you're coming back to the naming … Why are you saying "Mage Spell Progression is indeed a better name than the Spell Progression (wizard) suffix"? Okay, first we should settle on the use of the general terms "mage" or "wizard". The class is named mage, but they rely on the wizard spellbook. The tables in the source material use "wizard". So I tend to use "wizard" myself. However, the source material – again – calls them "Class spell progression", but I think it's better for a series of similar pages to disambiguate them by suffix, not prefix. So I'll create a redirect from "Wizard Spell Progression", but name the page as is – "Spell Progression (wizard)". And you disagree?

Drizzt's weapons
Hi.

If I might bother you again with another research in EE? ;)

While editing Icingdeath and Twinkle, I noticed some differences between my original game files and the contents from the infobox.

Could you please check
 * the weight of SW1H16.itm (Twinkle),
 * its enchantment,
 * confirm its in-game description,
 * and check if Beast Master and Thief are indeed not able to equip it (have to be of good alignment!)?

Enchantment in BG is 0, in BGII it's 5. Weight should be 3, unless Beamdog has altered it to 4 in EE. The description only to be sure. Is a thief really not able to wield a scimitar in EE? A beast master shouldn't, theoretically, but that wasn't enabled in the item file. Fixed in EE?

By the way: I changed the "not usable by" class Cleric to Clerics, where the plural "s" shall indicate that this applies to all cleric class-combos, too. Okay?

Would be great to have your assistance, here, but do it whenever you want – it's nothing urgent. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 21:08, October 22, 2017 (UTC)

Hello, King.

Let me shortly explain the background of that nick I chose earlier – if there's uncertainty of why … Of course it was based on your user name's initial(s), I and K – when you read it as two words. It's shorter, though. And to make it pronouncable, I then went for Ike. ;) Any allusion to the tour master is totally coincidental.

Upon your answer and edits to my changes …

Certainly you meant "don't hesitate, instead of "hastate", right? At least the translations my dictionary offers me for that latter term don't make any sense. ;)

Many thanks for clarifying the item stats from the EE versions of Icingdeath and Twinkle! But now, um… it gets a bit, um… precarious …

Besides the basic facts, I disagree with most of the changes you did after my edits. Let me explain, what I mean in detail: So much for the infobox, now to the rest of the page: versus You're serious? I hope we can settle this … -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 14:06, October 23, 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing the item group from "weapons" to "scimitars" is okay – I oriented myself by the description on the template page. If you want this "category" more specific, you might think about adjusting that description.
 * I put the values that only appear in the classic BG as second row to spare the listing of all other games' indexes, making the "default" value simply default. I even thought about putting that into parenthesis. Now you re-ordered that. Perhaps one row, without line break, and parenthesis are the better solution? Same for the proficiency type.
 * My formatting of all those game indexes, together with a link, should emulate the according templates, which shouldn't be used in the infoboxes. (In general I disagree with this bug workaround – I would use them, regardless of this making the CE-VE-combo impossible, but I respect your wishes here.) You removed all links and even broke consistency by replacing parts of them with "Classic Versions" and "Enhanced Editions". If you insist on this, okay … But I liked my variant better. (By the way, "Classic Versions" is no title or proper name and should have a lower-case "versions".)
 * What's the reason behind changing "-2 AC bonus" to "Armor Class: -2 bonus", even without a link anymore?
 * Not usable by: Is it really necessary to implement the other requirement here, when this field already is that overstuffed? I mean, what's the purpose of other requirement, if not for this case? And my choice of a small header instead of using the sup'd indexes was purely for aesthetic reasons. Again, in general it looks awful to place the sup'd indexes in front of something – they're intended as a note or index behind something, like references are.
 * Why did you add "(SoA)" to the BGII appearances? ToB has it's own index/link/template. And the items can be carried over to ToB … And why in parenthesis?
 * Why not using the source feature of the quote template to differentiate between CE and EE in-game descriptions, instead placing this as some sort of subheader?
 * Of removing my note for the reason "enhancement level, AC, THAC0 bonus are different things": the only plausible explanation that the classic games and AD&D 2e source books (see the notes on the related FR article) call this weapon "+5" is this being the sum of the two bonuses to THAC0/damage and AC. Period. The bonus to THAC0/damage or AC of almost all items equals their enchantment. So it's only logical to sum the two bonuses of this unique item up.
 * And now for the ugliest thing – please take a look at this:

Delay
Hi. Only wanted to say that I'll get back to our discussion a little later – have to read your answers again, make me some thoughts and reconsider, perhaps try some things and look into others …

Thanks for the deletion(s)! :) -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 07:32, October 24, 2017 (UTC)

Exclamation mark > !
Hi Islandking and CompleCCity,

I'm an excited chess player although I don't find to play this wonderful game right now. It's also a huge effort to play chess!

In chess you can set after certain moves one exclamation mark, even two or for great awesome moves even three!

That's why!

Doesn't matter! I can only use exclamation marks on my Walkthrough page! ;-)

I'll cooperate!

Gejadus (talk) 22:35, October 24, 2017 (UTC)

Articles for mod only creatures?
Hi.

Does the appearance of a creature (unique, with quest) in a mod only justify an own article? See Mal-Kalen and Ulcaster Dungeon. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 07:08, October 25, 2017 (UTC)

So I guess, my change on the Ulcaster dungeon matches your ideas …

But, doesn't this blow up all things potentially too much? Every creature from every mod with their own article – okay. But implement them in their locations of the un-modded game? The idea's okay: as player I stumble about someone, go to this area in the wiki … and learn, they're from a mod.

But then: mod A adds char 1, mod B adds chars 2 to 5, mod C adds char 6. Mod D adds char 7 and, in case you have installed mod A, chars 8 and 9. And so on … Where to make a cut? What about changes to items? Shall we list different enchantment levels not only for the different base games, but also for mods? Where shall we end up?

I guess, additional information on default articles about changes/additions from fixing and restoration mods would be okay. Never in the infobox and default sections, and with as less information as possible and mostly pointing to the mod article – or in this case to the creature –, but in their own section on the article, e.g. "Mod-related", as I did name it in this case. Another possibility, instead of a whole section at the end, would be to make

==Characters== ===Mod-related=== But that's probably the same as you already said with "we can create something like “Mod elements” or “Mod sections” (etc names)"? (By the way – what are those quotation marks and inverted commas you always use?) -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 12:12, October 25, 2017 (UTC)
 * A
 * B
 * D

Just wanted to point you to this, when you asked already …

The way infoboxes work on this wiki, makes this impossible. They use what I call auto-categorizing (don't know if that's the official name for the mechanic), and auto-categorizing can't be en-/disabled for certain pages without a really large effort and further coding, as far as I know – either all articles or none are auto-categorized.

Perhaps there's a possibility to cross-check categories, telling the IB template e.g. "look if CAT "mod…" is existent, then don't use integrated CAT". Perhaps not. I have to do some research, was busy with this topic some months ago …

Another option would be to disable auto-categorizing in general. Thought of that? AC brings many problems, such as redundant parent CATs. For example a clean CAT tree would have "Items" as parent and "Scimitars" as child. If you catgeorize all scimitars into CAT:Scimitars, they are also per infobox auto-categorizing part of the parent CAT – that's not how categorizing should work. So this would be my preference of sorting this problem out – because it also gets rid of other ones. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 13:15, October 25, 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Or you duplicate all infoboxes as a mod version, e.g. Template:Infobox mod creature – and remove auto-cat from those. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 13:17, October 25, 2017 (UTC)

Okay …

There are two (Gamepedia) wikis, I'm admin on, though inactive since around february this year. In the – with exceptions for certain reasons – we have such a clean category tree. In the I started cleaning them up, before I … um, lost interest/felt burnt out/vanished/choose your own accusation …

In this second one another admin largely implemented something similar to SMW. Though I began to get used to use those mechanics, I'm far away from being an expert in this matter. I am unable to set up something like this, at least currently. Talk was, that the original SMW wouldn't be enabled on Gamepedia at any time, but they were going for an alternative solution – ETA unknown (possibly same as here on Wikia). I even don't know how that works what we have there. (And possibly it even is true SMW.)

In the second wiki, auto-categorization is still active, but in a far more detailed way than here. There are parameters defined in the item infobox which already sort each type of weapon in their own child-CAT. I'm unsure, though, if this can be integrated into the portable IBs here – remember, Faalagorn told you something about the general technical differences between the two wiki hosters (as far as I remember to having read somewhere in your talks).

I've somewhen created a specific helping template (general stuff, copied from Wikipedia) that can be used to assist the auto-categorization, but that one fiddles with namespaces. Might be necessary to create a "Mod" namespace to have this work properly on this wiki here …

-- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 15:09, October 25, 2017 (UTC)

Re: About the transclusion
A quick reply – currently I'm heavily occupied with other things …

I just replied to that topic myself. But I think, a possible solution would be the splitting of the pure tables to own subpages. Or true templates – if that's the only way. (I know of large pages on other wikis, that only have large lists of transclusions on them – I don't see where the problem lies …)

Hm … Saftzie said, it wouldn't increase the load on your client. What about this? -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 12:19, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

Gamepedia has a nice feature on the editing page's bottom after using the preview: parser profiling data with performance values. Do you know of something similar for Wikia, restricted to admins? I mean, you also seem to have some insights on page traffic and such … -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 12:24, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

No, didn't spot anything on the Special pages (why don't you give me the link, instead do post an image? ;)

Well, don't worry, those "templates" would simply include the table code, nothing more. ;) So editing wouldn't be different than on the article itself. Do you need a lesson in tables? I could explain much, though not all. :) -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 12:53, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still not comfortable with the differences between the various editing modes.

Well, when they're done, there will not be much to edit on those tables, besides the layout or links perhaps.

Another thing, I noticed (not that it's really important to me): do you have an explanation why I am missing on the "Top Contributors this Week", on the right side of Special:Community? -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 13:17, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

I think that while transclusions have some effect on performance, it's more server side rather than PC side, which may result in slightly longer page loads. However I woudn't worry too much, as it's all hosted on quite performant FANDOM servers anyway, and keep in mind that all the templates are in fact transcluded – an ease of maintaining is more important and MediaWiki should be quite optimized piece of software anyway :). —Faalagorn☎/✓ 15:00, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

"Dedicated transclusion pages" are simply templates :). The only difference between template and regular page is the namespace they belong to, and templates can be translucded via shorthand name – compare and  vs  or , the mechanic is the same except templates can be referenced without explicit namespace —Faalagorn☎/✓ 15:36, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

Game superscripts
Hello!


 * Note: This simultaneously goes to Faalagorn's talk.

Another thing I'd like to know before continuing with the spell progression tables (because it is part of them and important for the layout): Is (was?) planned to make those superscripted game abbreviations, BG etc., icons one day?

So, for example,
 * […] 1d8 +2 slashing damage – with an additional 1d4 piercing damage –, this arbitrary chosen example […]

would become
 * […] 1d8 +2 slashing damageBgee logo.png – with an additional 1d4 piercing damageBg2ee logo.png –, this arbitrary chosen example […]

I know this from a lot of other wikis. I think, it's my preferred solution.

Opinions?

Should this rather go to the board? -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 08:03, October 27, 2017 (UTC)

Follow this on Re: Game superscripts … -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 11:01, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

CE again?
Oh my, I just didn't test if that quote part would also work with, and didn't know that the template breaks the CE's VE … There are wikis that can't handle a pipe in their quote template, so I placed that sort of automatically, sorry.

Oh, and just noticed yesterday, what your use of those special apostrophes might cause, hehe … -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 11:59, October 31, 2017 (UTC)

From the Special:RecentChanges:"contribs) moved page M’Khiin Grubdoubler to M'Khiin Grubdoubler over a redirect without leaving a redirect"

Took me a while to notice what was new. ;) By the way, the text behind doesn't make much sense, "over a redirect without leaving a redirect." -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 13:00, October 31, 2017 (UTC)

Comments are talk pages
Hello.

First let me say that I don't have forgotten the icons, but there are more than 5,000 BAM files for BG only, and not all icons are placed in something so obviously named GUI… And there are other things to do for me, as well …

But now to what I actually wanted to say:

In a certain way I understand your removal of a small passage from an article comment, I replied to recently.

(Link to the change: Talk:Yoshimo.)

I didn't really got the meaning of those words ("pubes"?), but I'm no native speaker and know only little about street language.

But article comments are technically talk pages (see link address above). And it's common sense on wikis that other people's comments on talk pages aren't to be edited (despite perhaps some major formatting issues or to eliminate red links). But the content itself has to be left untouched by other editors, including administrators or moderators.

What you have done, is actually censorship.

So, if you found those words inappropriate, either contact the contributor and ask them to edit it by their own, or delete the whole comment. Cutting content from it isn't the right thing. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 10:53, November 3, 2017 (UTC)

Re: Charisma page edit
Well, in my game (classic ed.) the store prices are adjusted to the party member's charisma who's doing the talking. To clarify this: not the currently chosen member whose inventory is shown during the shopping, but of that who initiated dialog with the merchant, no matter who's the leader. -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 13:15, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

Classes and … schools?
Hi!

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when speaking of "NONE school". (And setting a word as all-upper-case looks ugly, by the way ;) -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 11:45, November 5, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I supposed, it'd be related to the schools of magic. But I still don't understand that paragraph … -- -- You talkin' to me? -- cCContributions -- 12:18, November 5, 2017 (UTC)