User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher

From WoWWiki

Gave up on a generic Jewel template. "JewelFit" template should be deleted. Will mark it so once I find out how... Made simpler replacements: "Red Jewel", "Meta Jewel", etc. 'Sphere' for the generic name for "fits 3 colors". Considered "Omni", but "Sphere" is the section heading on the Jewel page. --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:24, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Contents 1 Quest disambig pages 2 engineer 3 quest 4 Spell pages 5 Tooltip vs Tooltipcss 6 do -not- readd the icons 7 Thanks 8 Tooltip Bots 9 Quest Chain 10 Quest chain redux 11 Darkmoon Faire 12 SD 13 stave 14 Jewels 15 Engineering 16 Re: Ballou 17 Following you 18 Sections 19 Bleah 20 Enchantment Reagents 21 RE: Varedis 22 Stone of the Tides 23 Haunting Isle 24 Spectral Essence 25 AlsoSee 26 Quest Enders 27 Laurlybot recodeing 28 Sympathies for your recent interruption 29 Ally of the Netherwing 30 Mithril Order quest chain 31 Removed ZF comment 32 I see you! 33 an error report just for you 34 Redridge quest chain 35 Gauntlets 36 Souvenir 37 Request 38 Grey Iron Weapons 39 Comments on cost template 40 RE: Yarzill and etc 41 RE: "not Implemented yet" not correct 42 RE: Enslavable Demons vs Warlock Minions 43 huh? 44 RE: Children's Week quests 45 Presents 46 Re: In The Name of the Light 47 Re: Lures... 48 Re: evewiki

Quest disambig pages

WoWWiki_talk:Village_pump#Quest_Disambig_pages

i just posted to village pump about the disambig pages and seeing as it was your idea i would love your feedback. Laurly 13:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the poke. Think I'm satisfied with my comments. But as I said there, "is my opinion, take for what it's worth." Would like to hear YOUR opinions... You asked the questions, and said "could be implemented", but didn't say YOUR preference. (Or I flat out missed it.) --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

engineer

moved them to their specialisation pages  - CJ talk / cont  03:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, CJ! Loved the content, hated the context. This should be much better. Now, of course, I have to look through the lists to see if they have all the new BC recipes. :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 13:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

quest

Didn't even think about the links in the box; I have no issue with you removing them if you so feel. However, no links should be broken by the move; the old page is now just a redirect. :]. --Sky (t · c · w) 21:18, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Spell pages

Heya, nice idea you had but if I were you I wouldn't bother changing all of the pages, they will eventually get deleted very soon when we get the mediawiki upgrade. --Ady_s 20:29, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Started updating fish pages, then discovered that the spell pages were sorted poorly. Is it worth bothering, to update tooltip template entries to use spell page templates? --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:35, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Nah honestly it's not, to be honest. --Ady_s 21:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I started using the spell pages "because everyone else was". For a very few effects, it might be useful - where the spell effect is used by several, or a lot of items. On the other hand, there are plenty more things worth spending time on. ... Like shared cooldown items... :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 14:48, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Tooltip vs Tooltipcss

Hello. I believe we are supposed to be using {{Tooltip}} now instead of Tooltipcss. Just so you know. Kitan T / C / B 16:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Others may use the Tooltip template, but I have taken a disliking to it. ... aside from it being a single template that folks break every now and then... --Eirik Ratcatcher 16:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok. There is a bot that is updating tooltipcss to tooltip. WW:BR I am unsure of the exact implementation so it may not hit your pages. Just an FYI. :) Kitan T / C / B 16:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Impressive task for a bot. And IMHO, a mistake to move working text into a template that duplicates it. But that's a discussion for the tooltip page. Thanks for the warning. Wonder who's ankles I will be chewing on about this one... --Eirik Ratcatcher 16:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

do -not- readd the icons

please. the icon and stack number is already in {{tooltip}}. --Sky (t · c · w) 19:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

... and is too small to see details of the icon. I don't care either way about the stack number, but I do like to see the full sized icon image. --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. And not with the boilerplate. And the hundreds of other pages. This is part of the reason tooltip was designed. Really. --Sky (t · c · w) 00:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you have confused me, pretty much with every single line of that comment. I will, though limit myself to two particular points.

1. Please address my central point: the tooltip icon does not provide the detail that the full sized icon image provides.
2. I'm afraid your tone smacks of "The decision has been made. Sit down; Shut Up". I fear to read it that way. Has a vote occured on this particular issue? Please, educate me. Barring a vote, I currently believe this devolves to a preference issue. If you know otherwise, again, please educate me.

For the moment, I have refrained from adding back icons on pages from which they have been removed. I would like to resolve this difference of opinion, though.

--Eirik Ratcatcher 04:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for the helpful advice you gave me about the quest chains and my siggy. I am still very new to the wiki community but I am really enjoying contributing so far, so I appreciate any suggestions. You can delete this comment after you read it, just wanted to say thanks :) --<Jiyambi> talk || contrib 00:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, Jiyambi. Happy to suggest. And feel free to innovate, if you think something can use improvement. I do. (Perhaps much to the distress of certain other contributors, I admit... :) ) --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to say I really like the changes you have made to the quest boilerplate. I mostly work on quest stuff here so I appreciate the added efficiency/aesthetics. Thanks! --Jiyambi t || c 22:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC) EDIT: One other thing, it might be nice if you made some sort of boilerplate for the quest chain page, since I think you have more of them than others. I would find it useful, anyways. --Jiyambi t || c 23:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Will see what I can do. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I tried my hand at a couple quest chain pages, tell me what you think: Errands for Kravel Chain, Freedom for All Creatures Chain. I put in a lot more "guide" type info in the Freedom one, not sure which I prefer. Anyways when you have time, let me know how they look. --Jiyambi t || c 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Tooltip Bots

Making sure you see my response to Foxbot and their 'rampage'. --GRYPHON^tc 02:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I appreciate the explanation, particularly since I don't have IRC access. The whys and wherefores are hard to interpret from just the visible record; as it is, I suffer from message-board-itis... --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Quest Chain

Eirik, could you point me to an example of a chain you feel is particularly good/comprehensive? I would find it useful for writing my own. Thanks :) --Jiyambi t || c 20:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Um disregard this comment, just found the example on the help page. Sorry! --Jiyambi t || c 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

See my response on Help talk:Quest chain articles --Jiyambi t || c 21:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested, I made quest chain pages for all the Thousand Needles/Quest List chains. Let me know if I should change anything, and if you like the questchainbox template. --Jiyambi t || c 19:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I like. Dunno if you should change anything on the thousand needles quests; I've only ever done the neutral/alliance quests there. With all this work you've been doing, I have to ask: do you have time to play the game, anymore? :) I'm impressed. --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah I play too, I just have no other life right now because I am on summer internship and all of my friends are back at school. So what do I do after work? WoW and WoWWiki :P --Jiyambi t || c 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick note: It seems we should not be making pseudo namespaces such as "Quest Chain:", I am going to start naming things "<name of chain> quest chain" from now on. Since I got set strait on IRC :P --Jiyambi t || c 17:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have IRC access. What does your source say about the "Quest:" pseudo namespace? Same difference, isn't it? And what of the (effective) namespaces created by recipe items: "Schematic: xxx", "Pattern: xxx", "Plans: xxx" --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Also: "Guild:", "Server:" ... what makes these different than "Quest:", "Quest chain:"? Not a rhetorical question. Are "Guild:" etc "real" name spaces, with some different mechanism, that requires operator intervention that hasn't happened with "Quest Chain:"? --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty, I don't know much about this, but I will point you to the page where all this is being discussed: WoWWiki:Namespaces and WoWWiki talk:Namespaces, it looks like there are similar discussions taking place on other pages. From what I understand, the "Quest:" one is a pseudo namespace with no functionality of a namespace (what that functionality is I really couldn't tell you), just the appearance in the name. It is under debate right now, though I don't think anything will be changing for that one since there is a *huge* amount of quests already created with that naming convention. However the Guild and Server ones are either already proper namespaces or they are planning on making them so. I will ask about this next time I'm on IRC and let you know what's up. --Jiyambi t || c 18:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and as for those recipes I think they are leaving those since it is the actual item name and it would just confuse navigation if they tried to change it. Since some people do navigate by typing in the name directly (myself being one). --Jiyambi t || c 18:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing like a new topic to spur a spurious diatribe out of me. Still, if the Quest: pseudo-namespace is changed, it'll be changed by a bot. Too many pages, and too many uses of the {{quest}} template out there to do otherwise. I await further input by People Who Know via your good offices, sir. --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

By sir you mean madame? ;) I probably won't be able to get on IRC until next week as I am going camping, we will have to remain in the dark until then I suppose. --Jiyambi t || c 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I see!:) --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

coughirsourcecough. :) Yes, if we do change anything, it will almost definitely be by bot, as I'm sure you saw on the ways to fix our namespace issue. As for "Recipe: x recipe" and such, those aren't actually namespaces at all, faux or not, just as "World of Warcraft: game" is not. :) --Sky (t · c · w) 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

/chuckle. your own quote: "What does your source say about the "Quest:" pseudo namespace?" :) --Sky (t · c · w) 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
btw, do you use Firefox or some other browser currently? jw. --Sky (t · c · w) 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Firefox. Flash and quicktime have been stripped, and images are on a very short leash. Javascript usually disabled. Makes for idiosyncratic browsing.

-- btw, do we already use a WowWiki namespace (eg WoWwiki:Policy/Voting), or is that another pseudo namespace? --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that's an out-of-the box namespace. If you need to check which are real and which aren't, go to the Special:Recentchanges page and click the tab over on the right. Those are real namespaces. As for the browser comment, I was just wondering why you don't use wikipedia:ChatZilla as an IRC client. I know you've said before you don't use IRC, but is that voluntary, or a work thing, or? --Sky (t · c · w) 20:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Work really. I do use wikipedia:Trillian (software). --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, cool. --Sky (t · c · w) 20:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

RE the use of 2nd person, I like the way that reads too. It reminds me of the old "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. For me, the quest chain articles are usually for me to remember what the story was, after I've completed the quests in-game without reading too closely. So the narrative feel and description of what "I"/"you" (the player) has done feels right. I could see an argument for a more 3rd-person approach, but it would be difficult to write as effectively or clearly -- always using "the player" or "an unnamed adventurer" or passive voice. So nice work! Keep it up! And so on. :-) -- Harveydrone ( talk | work ) 21:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Quest chain redux

Hey, I noticed you fixing the links to {{questchain}}. I threw something together a couple weeks ago to change the links to Quest Chain. Maybe you'd like a look at it to double check I got the if right? --Sky (t · c · w) 23:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing it by hand, so thought I was changing just the individual quests to remove the redirects. Tried out questchain/dev...

• first name
• display name
• first name
• other name
• other name

Altered the usage text, used 'questchain/dev' for illustration. Simple enough to change when it goes live. Otherwise, looks like it will work.

Simply wasn't terribly interested in defending "quest chain:" as a prefix, though I suspect we may revisit the decision down the road. I started this from finding you'd changed the names and left redirects. Do you have an automated way of fixing all the links, or should I continue pounding them out by hand?

... you might note my Village Pump note. One of my quest chain pages utterly disappeared from human ken... Wouldn't know how that came about or where it has gone? --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(copied from my talk)So... how do you plan the transition from the current quest chain template to the new one? --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The easiest (but also the most odorous) would be to just pound it out, and replace by hand. Now, how to switch: move the pages that are at Special:Prefixindex/Quest Chain: to their quest chain equivalents, change the functionality of {{questchain}}, and then go through the what links here from those same pages to double check that all their usages are gone. If they are, kill them off with a {{sd}} or some such. For those pages which have parentheses, we need to move them so that the parantheses is the last set, else it makes it hard to link. in which case, we use {{questchain|alt=something quest chain (night elf)|something quest chain}} --Sky (t · c · w) 02:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Darkmoon Faire

Yeah I can confirm the first part, Unfortunately I did not write down the other parts when I did them --Renowna 17:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC) (moved from user page)

SD

When marking a redirect for SD, please remove or break the redirect function from the article. I can get a bit carried away deleting and may delete the resulting redirect instead of the article marked. Thanks. --GRYPHON^tc 22:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --Eirik Ratcatcher 22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And please fix all the things that include that page before you SD it, it messed up a bunch of the goblin sponsorship quests.

Edit: Make that, links to. You got the inclusions, just not the links lurking elsewhere in the article. Regardless, please double check. --Jiyambi t || c 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad. Too used to editing chains I'd done up myself... --23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

stave

i left the bot tag as i didnt have time to fully look at everything (busy busy), but restored at least the template thing  - CJ talk / cont  07:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So little time, so much to do. I hear ya. --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Jewels

This is a major pet peeve of mine, and I recently unloaded on a random editing person with this little goodie... "I've seen this issue a few times from a few different people, but Jewels are gems. An uncut raw Gem does change when it is cut, it's a refining process. The things you put in pieces of gear are CUT gems, not jewels. With this line of reasoning, if you want a separate category for raw gems and cut gems, I'd say a sub-category for RAW gems is required for a distinction. The term Gem is much more widely used than Jewel, and there is no Blizzard documentation that I have come across that suggests that they should be considered Jewels. The profession is Jewelcrafting because it sounds better than gemccrafting, and the jewel factor comes into play with the JEWELRY that is made as part of the profession (rings and necklaces). So, again, cut gems are NOT jewels, and this category is broken in my opinion, so please don't change and Gem category items to Jewel category as these two categories are redundant. Jewel categories needs to be replaced by Gem categories, not the other way around. There doesn't seem to be an official authority on the category issue, but if you contact an admin that shares similar views as you, please put me in contact with this person so we can get this straight." It just seemed to me that you'd be a better person to discuss this with. Thoughts? --ShardeeDetheroc 08:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you've seen some of my own diatribes... :)

There are a number of categories, or possible categories, going on here.

1. things you dig out of mineral veins that sparkle and aren't metals or rock
   • called gems, or sometimes 'minerals'
   • many (all?) are used in Jewelcrafting, thus also belong in 'Jewelcrafting Ingredients'
   • I would be willing to stretch the definition to include products of transmutation that also "seem to be gems".
2. things you put in socketted items
   • often called 'jewels', though 'cut gems' is also descriptive.
   • never (to my knowledge) used in jewelcrafting recipes.
3. things that start as gems, but can be crafted in to jewels
   • a sub-category of gems, clearly.
   • also a sub-category of 'jewels', as not all jewels are crafted.
   • also a sub-category of 'Jewelcrafting Products'

Engineering is more my particular hot button, but I know how you feel. For my own part, I have no particular druthers on what the categories are called, outside of my "you break it, you fix it" philosophy.

Looking at the Gems category, there are clearly entries ("dodge gems") that have no business there.

As to names, well, I fear you've no real help in me. As long as the category is well defined (which it isn't currently, but I may take that up), I'm happy. (see: "Engineering is my hot button"... :) ) --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The "minerals" that come out of veins can belong to multiple categories since they have multiple purposes. They are used in blacksmithing, jewelcrafting, and I believe engineering, so they can belong to all of those categories. I don't think that they can be named (or renamed) for one purpose (naming "jewels" for jewelcrafting), thus my point here. I've always thought they were "gems" until I came to wiki and saw these "jewel" things. This made me quite confused.

The reason for the mixed up categories is, perhaps, that the categories are ambiguous and hard to define in this case. What is a jewel? What's the difference between that and a Gem? It seems to me that they are synonymous to Gems in all contexts, and there's not any tangible difference other than who named them when, or who changed their name after BC came out. The obvious thing to me, would be to accept some sort of standard (gems versus jewels), and I would vote for Gems hands down due to the way they are presented in-game.

Drawing back to the tangent of real life, gems are something to be coveted, something valuable. In the raw form, huge pure chunks of minerals are referred to as gems. When you cut and polish gems, they are still considered gems. The exact same can be said for Jewels, though since they are synonymous.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShardeeDetheroc (talk · contr).

I think you're considering "category 3" items there, yes? I'm not against having a category for such (as shown by the fact that I defined such a category, above). You may note that I've added comments to Category:Gems (category 1) and Category:Jewels (category 2), as well as a perhaps overly long rant on Village pump. I did not create a separate category for type 3 items, but it could be a subcategory for both gems and jewels. And, of course, both categories are still up for being renamed if desired. I would be happy to for your comments. --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice dude, thanks for helping get the ball rolling. I also stumbled across the AH classifications when I went to research some examples of "Jewel" being used. I found no jewels, just gems as I expected, and I found and listed the way the AH classifies gems. I really think this would be an excellent way to represent these items. --ShardeeDetheroc 03:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

edit - Pearls are also listed under "Simple" gems, so that category may need to be put under gems.

Engineering

Yeah, I've been looking through a lot of the pages and there are quite a few of things I'd like to keep. The lists of Schematics through trainers and through the world/NPC/vendor per skill level is one table I'd like to construct. In my sandbox (/User:Ithar/sandbox) I have a few quick things set up, like how I'm going to do the main page and junk like that.

You can email me with some ideas and junk at kamahl_summoner@msn.com. I'm really hoping that I can make the engineering page into something at least a little more respectable than what it is now.

--Ithar 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ballou

I've been a long fan of Civil War history - though I haven't seen the Ken Burns documentary myself, we had a copy of the soundtrack in my house. The last track on the CD was a reading of the Sullivan Ballou letter, with "The Ashokan Farewell" in the background. I also study Civil War-related topics (just for myself, not for any schoolwork or anything) on Wikipedia. When I saw Sara Balloo in-game and heard a mention of "Sully", I wondered if this was a reference; I went to Wikipedia, and sure enough... --Joshmaul 14:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Following you

Being my usual perfectionist self. I live by F5 on special:recentchanges, so I usually check the diffs of a variety of edits. If it doesn't look quite right to me, I go after it. =) --Sky (t | c | w) 06:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Poking. You tagged "User:Eirik Ratcatcher/ExampleTooltip" for sd; did you mean to tag the pages that it is transcluded to? --Sky (t | c | w) 19:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Both, actually. I've given up on the idea of a set of tooltips boiled down to "this is a weapon tooltip", "this is a socketable armor tooltip", etc, given that so many pages seem to be generated by bots these days. Just doesn't seem worthwhile. --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Mk. Just double checking. --Sky (t | c | w) 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

in that I had to look up what pages linked to that exampletooltip thing... :) Which brings up a question: How do I find "all pages that have /this page/ as a root?" for any given page? --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Special:Whatlinkshere. example: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Template. Should the target page transcluded, the linked-page will say (transcluded) after it: eg Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Tooltip --Sky (t | c | w) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops... You got my intent backwards. What I wanted was, for instance, to see what pages are named (eg) 'user:Eirik Ratcatcher/xxx'. What you described won't (I think) catch these unless they specifically link back to the base user page... Or am I missing something? --Eirik Ratcatcher20:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Try Special:Prefixindex/User:Eirik Ratcatcher or Special:Allpages/User:Eirik Ratcatcher. The only difference between the two is that the first has only those which begin with the requisite namespace:name, the other lists those articles named the parameter first, and then continues on in the User namespace. --Sky (t | c | w) 04:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

TYVM! :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sections

As for the Rewards and Gains sections, we're trying to keep them separate as well. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I disapprove, strongly. You don't get any of the results of the quest until the quest is complete, at which point, you get them all. Where do I vote? If a vote has not been called for, I will start one. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A reward is something physical, while gains are intangible things you get for a job well done. You receive both when the quest is completed and the sections are right on top of each other...Also with lootbox being used (in rewards) it makes it look cleaner to have them separated. There is no vote currently cause there have been no complaints. At least until now. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

... You are hitting all of my hot buttons, today, aren't you? I've been replacing Reagentbox and lootbox with Item wherever I find them in quest pages. Tooltips make lootbox unnecessary, and reagentbox is just plain too large for any conceivable benefit (IE the icon).

As for having two sections, one for material things, one for immaterial, ... why? I see no need to make things more complicated. Worse is having them separated with the conclusion text between them. You may have noticed my changing that state of affairs. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Worse is having them separated with the conclusion text between them. You may notice (since you didn't read the part where I said it above) that they are on top of each other. The rewards is moved down to join the gains. And I don't know if you've noticed but laurlybot also has the two sections when the quest page is created by it. Furthermore most quests have been done this way, go click on 10 random quests and see. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 23:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to much older pages, which have 'gains' but no 'rewards', or have both; and have the 'gains' above the completion text section, and rewards (if any) below it.

And curiously enough for the "immaterial/material" argument is that cash awards seem to appear in the 'gains' section.

10 random quests - well, sir, when I've done that in the past, 80% of the time I've gotten one of three results: a laurlybot page, an ancient page, or a stub. It is circular to argue that because laurlybot does something, that is the right way to do it. Ancient pages and stubs are slated for renovation anyway. I disagree with laurlybot, but laurlybot has the advantage of speed, focus, and 'interest'. So there you have it. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand in part corrected. Some of the 'money' lines I'm seeing (but not all) are "money if you're capped on level".

edit: ... which comment blurs the distinction you are making, Coobra --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea...I don't like those lines...Every time the cap is increased every single quest would have to be changed to at level 80 (90, 100, etc)

Personally I'd removed all of them if I could, but so far I only remove the incorrect ones...ones that the cash amount is wrong. If they're correct I don't touch them...for the most part. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 00:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

/agree ... too much to do to take on all the little stuff (__NOTOC__, 'gains' vs 'rewards', 'external links') most of the time. There are too many other pages that need more work; and several pages that still need to be written. But that's also why I get up in arms when I find someone coming around behind me on those issues. --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup.....btw hear anything from laurly?...I haven't seen anything tagged done for nearly 2months now. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Laurly has made changes in the last 2 months, though. OTOH, I was under the impression that at least some bots were triggerable via IRC or something. I'm not in on that, so I don't know. And on the gripping hand, I consider it a mixed blessing. Better a laurlybot bot-generated page than a blank one, but better still one that's had human eyes on it. So little time, so many pages. Thus, so much acquiescence... :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bleah

And to think, I started this session thinking "time to start cooking up the Compleat Blacksmith". And then I start in on the research... --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Enchantment Reagents

I assume you changed the list of reagents at Enchant 2H Weapon - Agility because of the mis-alignment caused by the single/double digit quantities. I really like to have the quantities in front instead of the back though, so I tried my hand at a template. The arguments are chosen to be easily copied from the Enchant template above. Any input here is welcome :-) Pratt 13:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

To some extent, yes, I did for that reason. But also because the tooltip has quantities after the item. As well, there's the image out front separating the quantity from the link when using {{Item}}, a circumstance I find obnoxious. --Eirik Ratcatcher 21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll just go ahead and start putting the template in the enchant pages. When there's a satisfactory layout we can just edit the one template then :) Pratt 21:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Varedis

Because of tooltips and external links.--gOurra[T҂C] 20:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that that was not strictly necessary. External links can be handled at the bottom of the page easily enough. And what is it about the tooltips that required the pages be split? --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

They are different versions of the quest and should then be treated so. It doesn't matter if there's just a little typo - they should be different. Not to mention the varieties of other quests that are like that and has been categorized (see The Binding)--gOurra[T҂C] 07:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

For the general case, I disagree most sincerely:

1. if the quest name is the same...
2. and the quest rewards are the same...
3. and the quest purpose is the same...
4. ...even if the quest giver and receiver are different...

I believe that the page's usefulness is enhanced by supporting both (or the several) versions of the quest, if the quest text is substantially the same.

You point to The Binding as an example. Choosing two of the quests almost at random - succubus, stormwind, and succubus, orgrimmar... The text is substantially different. The chains they are in do not seem to be parallel (on trivial inspection; on deeper inspection, they may be so). These, I would say deserve separate pages.

As a counterexample, The Final Code.

I protest, sir, quite strenuously. You have taken information that was at one remove... a person could type in the name of the quest, and get one page that had the information they wanted... and made it into three for the sake of a quest ID that the user never sees.

See also my comment at the bottom of The Terokkar Mana Bomb quest chain.

Shall I call a vote on this issue? --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Stone of the Tides

I prefer "Description" over "Quest text" for many reasons, One being that Quest text = whole quest (including everything said during the quest), to me. While description is what the person describes what the situation is. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

At least it is less grating than G0urra's changes... :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean lol. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 20:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What I'd like to know is...whats the difference in using co and coords for {{co||}} They both do the same thing, and yet they keep getting changed. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 21:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

First, to Coobra's: T:Co is a redirect to T:Coords. Changing the former to the latter while you're on the page is not a bad thing. Don't go hunting them down though. :)

Eirik: Re T:Item: It's a transclusion nightmare (like, literally). I would suggest that its usage be avoided unless you like the icon, and then, its limited to never being used in lists or other templates such as T:Settip. --Sky (t | c | w) 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Other templates... like T:quest? --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's fine in T:Questbox. It's the transcludable item one's it hates; Tooltip, Settip, and one or two others I can't remember, I think. I will again stress that it shouldn't be used unless there's an obvious use for the icon, as that's the only benefit it has over T:Loot, while the negative usages of Item are obvious. I revert their usage if I am happening to editing on a page anyway. --Sky (t | c | w) 04:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Haunting Isle

Yea, I did the quest and don't remember getting rep for it. But even if I had gotten rep, I doubt a quest earning 370XP would award 360rep ... maybe 10 or 15 at the most. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 20:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

/agree: quest probably doesn't have a 360 rep. However, do want to be sure, when posting "facts". Still want to verify it simply to have a first hand account. Perhaps I still have some toon that hasn't done it... --Eirik Ratcatcher 22:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Spectral Essence

That's why a wiki has denizens ;) We're out here to fix those issues.AMBER^(RΘCK) 20:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AlsoSee

I see. Though I remain bound to my belief that as of the present situation {{AlsoSee}} is on way too many pages. Perhaps some kind of maintenance tag could be invented to glue on the articles in which those templates ought to be replaced by proper sections? AMBER^(RΘCK) 20:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See my (just created) section on VP. You might suggest a maintenance tag in that section, so we can get further opinion and suggestions for implementing it. Me, I just went to "links here" and started looking. ... and editing. I'll try to keep at it... there are ~50 each "See also" and "SeeAlso", perhaps more "See", and more than 1000 "AlsoSee" (including those three).

Perhaps something like laurlybot or foxbot's "bot edited" tags? --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the VP discussion is surely a nice one, and I will keep monitoring it. If there is anyone I could add, I will contribute to it.AMBER^(RΘCK) 08:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Quest Enders

It's not a problem if a category has only subcategories and no actual pages as long as there is something in the category.. so I'd go for the creation of said category. AMBER^(RΘCK) 00:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Laurlybot recodeing

I am recoding laurlybot i haven't started on the quest module yet but i will be soon. As you where the one with the most and best input on the old bot i was wondering if you felt like being involved in both testing and designing what the new bot will do. I want this bot simpler then the old bot was.

My ideas:

• quest id will have to be supplied guessing the quest and quest names caused to many issues.
• bot will not try and generate the hole quest chain. I might change this in phase 2 but again this caused to many issues in the old bot so unless we can come up with a better way to do this its going to have to wait.

Pop by User:Laurlybot/quest_bot if you are interested. Laurly 08:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You scare me, Laurly... most of my feedback was Onions rather than Orchids. If I was one of your best sources of feedback, then I feel duty-bound to help out. --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK fine your my arch nemesis. But ... in a lot of cases your suggestions would have improved the bot the old bot was just to big to recode it. The code for this new bot is small stream lined. If i have you involved from the start we can avoid any onions. The reason for the bot is to help wiki we are on the same side with that. I think in this case being a woman helps i can ask for your support rather then just doing it the way i did it before. <3 Laurly 07:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

 :) I hope that my comments are actually useful to you. --Eirik Ratcatcher 14:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sympathies for your recent interruption

To what are you referring to? Who did I insult? You make very generalized accusations and don't even show me what you mean. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 20:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Eirik is sorry for you (hence the sympathies) about this--SWM2448 20:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

OH...LOL, I ...um..actually forgot about that... here I thought Eirik was accusing me of insulting a contributing member...not some punk. Ok, then...yea...nevermind what I said then Eirik =) Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 20:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And now I apologize for being unclear in my earlier sympathies... :) No offense intended, truly! --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's ok... for some reason I tend to read things the wrong way... I usually read things more than once just so I don't react the wrong way. But I was tired and cut out the middle man lol. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 05:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Very glad that you did not do so literally... ctl-X is painful... The death of a thousand cuts...:) --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ally of the Netherwing

"No few" made little sense to me, but, apparently, it is an actual phrase. However, there were only 8 mobs, correct? That would indeed some to be just "a few." It does not matter to me, I just originally thought the phrase "no few" was a typo of some sort. --Cynric 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, literary license. However, it isn't so important either way, so no worries. Do as best makes sense to you. --Eirik Ratcatcher 22:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Mithril Order quest chain

I noticed you recently created Mithril Order quest chain, which pretty much duplicates The Mithril Order (although I find yours is structured better). Maybe we should merge this two pages into one, containing all information about the quest chain. The general page The Mithril Order can then focus on what little is know about this "faction", and only contain a link to the quest details. What is your opinion on that? --Tharbur 15:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the mithril order page should become a description of them, with the quest chain page taking over the info of the quests. Move info yes, merge pages no. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 22:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but who is the right person to do this? Should this be discussed with the authors first, or should we just change it ourself? --Tharbur 22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a wiki, we are the authors. Be our guest. Be Bold, all that such. =) Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 22:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it, let's see if people complain... :-) --Tharbur 22:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Did it, maybe you want to look over it and see if you have any ideas of further things to add? --Tharbur 11:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your writeups are simply exquisite. :) --Sky (t · c · w) 00:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Tharbur. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed ZF comment

I checked droprates, and they are not higher in Zf, infact they are lower. User:M1330

What I was observing was a) number of reports, and b) number of different mobs reported. While the percent per thousand killed may be lower, the absolute number reported seemed higher. Which, given that ZF is an instance with a limited number of mob types, slain in large numbers each, led to my conclusion that it would be useful to farm there. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you!

Removing redirects is fun. Food for thought might be to use wikipedia:WP:AWB in the future; it saves one much hassle. =) --Sky (t · c · w) 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to look into that. In the mean time, I was looking into why Siphon Life's infobox is so messed up at the top. Any thoughts? This isn't my usual stomping grounds, so help would be ... helpful!--Eirik Ratcatcher 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Change the name to just the spell (rather than including the images). Foxlit made some edits to the top box which changed how it looks, and obviously used that parameter as a basis. Which gives me the idea that the images might be a nice touch to add to all the infoboxes... hmm... --Sky (t · c · w) 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Works in my sandbox, sure. ... Ah, because Abilitytip was trying to make a link out of the name, and there weren't no page by that name. --Eirik Ratcatcher 22:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the subst? Essentially, it's summed up in wikipedia:wikipedia:signature. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

an error report just for you

I'm going to defer you to Special:ProblemReports/9898. While I could double check the validity quite quickly, I'm not sure if that will change the content of the article significantly. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fandy got it. I was just too slow on the update. :) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Redridge quest chain

Which exact articles need to be moved to which exact locations? List them in the following manner, please:

• Quest:ABC -> Quest:ABC123
• Quest:XYZ -> Quest:XYZ123
• Quest:DoReMi -> Quest:DoRe

Other than that, am willing to help. --Sky (t · c · w) 19:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I knew the pages were around. I got the other one before you did, those there's a third floating around, I think. --Sky (t · c · w) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was just pokin and prodding. I figured you might end up copy pasting over me. As for the page you made, I'll live. I find it enjoyable to watch people squirm when I delete things right out from under them. :D --Sky (t · c · w) 01:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete things out from under me? Saw you movin' pages around, but not actually disintegrating content. I'll live with the arrangement you made, but am a bit puzzled why you preferred not having the "documents page" be 'underneath' the chain page. Tell me why, so I don't do it again? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a whole slew of reasons, not many of which I care to document here for you in my own prose. To which case, I will link wikipedia:Wikipedia:Subpages#See also and specifically wikipedia:Wikipedia talk:Subpages/Archive. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Gauntlets

Better now?--gOurra[T҂C] 18:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.--gOurra[T҂C] 18:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the {{disambig}} goes at the top --gOurra[T҂C] 18:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Then, by all means, skip t:disambig and just add [[Category:Disambiguations]]. The template look kinda fuglish and could use some work...--gOurra[T҂C] 18:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of ugly disambig templates, do think this would be better? Doesn't take as much space as the currect one, and looks better for the eyes (at least mine lol).--gOurra[T҂C] 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Souvenir

I've a screenshot: The quest name has the comma in it in the quest acceptance box. You've moved the page (some time ago) to remove the comma. Was the comma missing from the quest list dialog or something? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See here. You're free to upload the screenshot, along with a date.--gOurra[T҂C] 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The quest name could have been changed. Out of 6 quests in three different databases there is only one quest that has a dot/comma.--gOurra[T҂C] 19:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

When I got the quest, I noted that those databases had the name incorrect. Thus, despite having found the name sans-comma on the very sites you name, I changed it. If you disbelieve that my screenshot reflects the current name of the quest, then the only resolution is to wait until October, when the event returns. I still admit the possibility that the name in the quest acceptance dialog might differ from that in the quest log dialog. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Request

Could you clean up the two links as suggested by pcj in the Speedydelete request at Engineering Guide? I'm sure I could do it, but giving it to the hands of an engineer might be a better idea. And then redirect Engineering Guide to Engineering guide, if you would. --Sky (t · c · w) 07:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Will work on it, but have work to do today. Probably tomorrow or wednesday. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your question: Looks like Coobra took care of it, though if that isn't satisfactory, I'd try Sharlin, or possibly post to VP looking for an image person to edit it. --Sky (t · c · w) 04:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re engineering guide, I'm still working on it. A LOT of it gets trimmed because of "better pages" for that information - Engineering quests, "how to make money", etc. Been busy at work lately. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Grey Iron Weapons

Because the source had line breaks that didn't exist. Was there something wrong with me fixing that?--gOurra[T҂C] 18:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

1. ) Randomly edit-browsing, if you need to know.
2. ) Note that in the first paragraph there was an "invisible" line break that was actually a complete line break. Not that harmful in removing the others too, is it?
3. ) It "just bugs me" as it doesn't look very good in my eyes. Once again I must ask you, does it really matter all that much that I edit the guide pages?--gOurra[T҂C] 19:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on cost template

Thanks for your comments on the cost template. That explains a lot. To answer your questions; "What pages do you want to rewrite, that you would want to use DMF tickets (or some particular other item) as an element of the template?" - none; if available, I would use it, but do not see a compelling need. I'm looking at it from a player's PoV, and seeking overall consistency, both in the editing experience, and in the look of the resulting product. "As it is, yeah, we have a unified template used for everything... and changing it is costly. The down side of a single standard is a single point of failure. :( I do not argue that your request would not have utility, just that the cost of making the change to one of the most widely used templates on the wiki is not small." - I understand, thanks. "As for "combining templates into one", I feel no such pressure. I would be as pleased, for instance, if PvP marks were in one template (say, "mark"), 'actual money' in another ("cost"), PvE badges in yet another." - that makes sense too. It's a nice functional separation that naturally fits the itemspace. It's like the itemspace cleaves along those lines anyway. "I almost never use the template except for money, myself." - ditto, so far. --Madkaugh (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Naw, for there to be a conspiracy, we'd have to actually, you know, organize... :) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: Yarzill and etc

Yup, I actually have half a dozen shots of my night elf flying that dragon. The one I used showed him off more than the others though. I knew I had some shots of it, but when it comes to organizing images, heh, I had to search through dozens of folders to find it. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 21:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)