This is the general discussion page for the wiki! New founders should leave a nice welcome message and encourage new visitors and editors to leave a note to get the conversation started.

More people? Edit

With just three people, work seems to be progressing quite slowly. I'm thinking that we ought to invite a few more (say about 3) of the major contributors (from the forum and the wiki) to help out. We don't need more admins, but we do need users. Any suggestions on whom to invite? --Hav0c 12:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I never even saw this until just now. Looks like we're getting more contributors now that Scarbrow's finished the migration 8-). Do you still think we need to invite others? — Young Ned (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
That's ok, Scarbrow did a fantastic job of the migration on his own. I'm thinking that we should apply for a w:Wikia Spotlight once we all get a bit more comfortable with the system, and once we feel we'll be able to deal with the influx of new editors. Not only will it promote the wiki, I think it would attract a new set of players to the game itself.
That's a great idea. I was wondering how we could start promoting the wiki, and was about to ask Richard1990 about it. I, for one, feel I still need more practice from helping our people of the forum landing on their feet, before inviting more, but that'll be ok in a week or so. Scarbrowtalk 16:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Standardization of wording necessary? Edit

Okay, so I will post any general questions I have on this talk page.. One thing I have trouble with is how we should consistently phrase/call certain game concepts. For each game section/screen, I was using "location". For a combat fight, I was using "battle". For experience, should it be "#xp", "# xp", "# XP", "# experience", etc..? Likewise, should it be "AT", "Adventurer's Tokens", etc? Should there be some effort made to be consistent, and if so, what is the consistency? K!ZeRo 22:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, am using the # xp, but sometimes I use # XP instead. About abbreviations, I feel they can be used without problem, because if some user is confused about their meaning, he or she will search for them in the search box, hit the redirect page for the abbreviation and land in the correct description page. Fight, battle... it's all the same. We're fans of a one-person game, and that person (the GM) is frequently inconsistent with himself. Why should we behave differently? Scarbrowtalk 00:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Need editing tips Edit

So there is an option to disable the rich-text editor and/or use the wikisource to edit articles. Is this the way most people would suggest? And also, we should try to use wikimarkup instead of HTML code then?

Yes, there is an option in your Preferences. I'd heartily recommend it: editing wikisource directly is simple, quick and easy. All or almost all of the wiki is done using wikimarkup, the exception being some tables I felt too lazy at the moment to migrate ;-) and <div> tags as part of advanced formatting and templates. Wikia accepts any kind of HTML code you want to throw at it, but it's recommended to use wikimarkup wherever possibleScarbrowtalk 01:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My confusion is that when I edit an article, the rich-text editor shows everything WYSIWYG, but editing an existing discussion topic opens up HTML code. How come?

Since I don't use that editor, I don't really know, but I still suggest you to see the source instead: you'll see the same wikiformat everywhere Scarbrowtalk 01:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, for strange reasons, when I add links to an article, it never seems to do this correctly. Sometimes, all other links in the section get changes to an external link (something like http://LinkName). Once, I added links with the hotbutton and it made it an external link (even though I used the "Internal Link" button) with the full URL of the linked article (http://sryth.wikia...). A few times, instead of [[LinkName]], it used the redundant [[LinkName|LinkName]]. Not sure that I am doing anything wrong here, am I? K!ZeRo 00:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's correct, although superfluous, to use the [[LinkName|LinkName]] notation. As with previous questions, if you change to simple wikicode editing, you'll stop having those problems, since you add all your links by simply typing them Scarbrowtalk 01:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Collating Item information Edit

This continues off discussions here, here, here and here. Hopefully we can now keep all discussion on this topic on this one spot.

Anyhow, the task at hand is to somehow set up a way to catalog and display information about every single one of the thousands of items available within the game. The [[Items List]] currently has the necessary information, but is very tough to actually read through. I feel that the best way of dealing with this problem would be to set up a new namespace for items. (We could also request a 'Quest' namespace while we're at it.)

Within this namespace, we would have a unique page for every single item. Pages would be named as: Item:1233 Tzal-Toalth

The page would contain an Template:Itembox on the top, wrapped in <onlyinclude> tags. Any auxiliary information about the item (such as Tzal-Toalth's MR bonus at various levels), would be below the itembox. We would then transclude this page wherever we want to refer to the item, which would give us what we currently get with the itembox template, though with a much easier link, and only one place to make updates.

Now of course, comes the question of how to set up such an immense number of pages. I propose that we create a bot for this. This bot would operate off the itemlist text file, and set up all pages. Below are some resources about creating bots:

The best person to create the bot would likely be Scarbrow, though I wouldn't mind having a go if he doesn't want to do it. --Havoc(talk) 06:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The bot would be great for this; I was considering this also but I never used python before, though coding in general I can do. The other advantage of getting around to setting up bots would be that certain maintenance tasks could be automated, if desired/necessary. The namespaces for Items and Quests I also was thinking about too, and agree with. The only note is that the transclusion link will need the Item namespace preceding the item article (e.g. {{ItemNamespace:ItemName}}). I will surf through the bot articles and see what I can do. I did notice that on wikipedia, they have a bot approval process; not sure about wikia. K!ZeRo 14:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
This would be the bot we should try modifying to create the pages: It could easily parse the [[Items List]]. We would need to customize for creating the page in the proper namespace, adding include/noinclude tags, and adding the information into a template instead of plain text. K!ZeRo 15:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
If you feel you can do it, have a go. I'm in the same situation as you. ('I never used python before, though coding in general I can do.') The item namespace would simple be 'Item', thereby giving us the pagename I suggested above: Item:1233 Tzal-Toalth). I'd linked to wikia's policy on bots under the word 'bot' above, but here's an explicit link:
In short, it's up to the individual communities.--Havoc(talk) 17:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Should we set up a bot account? Since this is a one-time thing, it probably isn't necessary, and we could run the bot from our individual accounts, with an appropriate Edit Summary when using the bot. The only thing is it wouldn't be filtered in Recent Changes, but that isn't important now. And it looks like Hav0c's Ultraedit macro can make the file into perfect template format for each item with some adjustments. I don't think we would have to make any adjustments to the bot file to generate these pages at all, just pass in the correct parameters. I can try this out at work where I might have python installed, and full ultraedit. K!ZeRo 21:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Given that the bot would add a few hundred pages, I think it would be essential to have a separate account that can be flagged as a bot. We can request the flag once we have a basic script working, and have tested it on a few pages. --Havoc(talk) 22:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a little late into the discussion. This week I'm chock full of things to do, but I'll try to give the bot idea a go. Several things:
  1. I partially agree on the namespaces requests. Items and Quests are the natural options, but I'm not convinced of the necessity. See below about WoWWiki.
  2. I'm also capable of coding but haven't worked on Python before, so it's up for the quickest of the three (or anyone else that wants to join) to learn enough of it for it to function. Once we have it working we can ask for the bot flag.
  3. About listing the items in other pages, I've been investigating WoWWiki, the biggest and busiest wiki here at wikia, and they, besides having a similar schema (although without the namespace, see for example WoWWiki:Wand of Cleansing Light) have a really interesting tooltip we could use instead (or besides) our Itembox. You can see some examples in WowWiki:Wand. It requires some JavaScript magic (I'm right now on a crash course about it, by the way), but the template they use (WoWWiki:Template:Loot) is quite simple. See WoWWiki:Help:Tooltips for more complete info. I'm investigating the matter and this is becoming very interesting... Scarbrowtalk 03:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I installed Python, fiddles with configuration files, and tried to log in to the wikia, but couldn't even get that to work. I did format the old Items List into one that could be imported to the wiki as separate articles, but have nowhere to upload it. As a side note, I don't think it would be hard to manually create articles for the notable items in the game, especially as people edit articles. This way, we can start to use transclusions and see how it all works. I think I will do that as I go through editing, creating articles with the Item Name as the title, and only including the Item ID in the case of duplicate names, e.g. ItemName (ItemID). I'll start with items from the Startup Scenarios as a test. K!ZeRotalk 07:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bullets/numbering quirk Edit

On my computer with Windows XP, viewing a page that has a bulleted (or numbered) list will display the bullet before the first line of the paragraph. However, I am using another computer right now that has Windows Vista, and it seems that the bullet is showing up either in the middle of the paragraph, or at the last line. Any comments on this? I am pretty sure this is affected by something on my computer/browser (Internet Explorer) end after viewing old versions of pages on this Vista computer, but don't know what. I most likely will do editing on both computers, so would like to get it fixed. K!ZeRotalk 08:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Your problems are most likely caused by the Internet Explorer browser. The default version for Windows XP is IE6, while for Vista is IE7, and they render web pages differently. I heartily recommend you to switch to Firefox, and that way you will have an altogether better browser and a standard platform for your two systems. Scarbrowtalk 22:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Rich Text Editor Edit

Surfing through the main wikia help articles and discussions, it seems that the Rich Text Editor is fairly new and still developing. Since there are problems when people edit with the new editor, is there an administrator option to toggle it OFF by default for this wiki? Personally, I don't think it is hard (or any different) to make simple edits with the wikisouce editor. And I think the time spent to fix up unintended edits would be substantially reduced.. K!ZeRotalk 08:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it can't be disabled by default, at least not by regular admins. Maybe Wikia staff can do it. However, the problems with the editor are not so great or difficult to fix, and most "heavy" contributors will switch at some moment to the wikisource, while some occasional contributor will still benefit from the WYSIWYG editor. The central point is having a choice. Maybe you're aware we moved from our previous wiki host due to the lack of choices when they tried to force all of us to use a non-wikicode editor. Scarbrowtalk 22:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and asked Wikia staff to disable it, and they seem to have removed the feature entirely from this wiki. I'll try to contact them again so editors have at least the option to turn it on manually. Scarbrowtalk 10:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The option to have each user to decide if they want the rich text editor or not is still not available, but we've been put on the list so, when this is available, will be rolled out for this wiki. Scarbrowtalk 00:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The Rich text Editor is active again, please comment your impressions here. Scarbrowtalk 21:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
After the testing period, I've seen that the Rich Text Editor still have the same flaws it used to have. See this diff and this one. The reasons are fairly obvious. As they have not corrected the flaws that made us remove the feature the first time, I've asked Wikia staff to remove the Rich Text Editor again from this wiki. Scarbrowtalk 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Standardizing Maps Edit

Is there some way we can standardize the maps we have for dungeons? I can think of two ways, but neither is particularly attractive or easy.

1) Set up a template to do this. I actually have no idea how to proceed with this. 2) Embed a Google spreadsheet for each map, and then use cell borders to mark the walls

Can anyone come up with any better suggestions? --Havoc(talk) 16:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still fairly new to editing the Wiki. How are images uploaded on the Wiki (especially dungeon maps)? Is there a particular location where they're uploaded/stored?
I also saw Havoc's topic about standardizing them. I don't mind doing it the second method (even if it sounds tedious); as for the first method--I can't help out with that. I saw some of the templates made, but it will take me some time to make sense of them. The item box template is really nice though; not sure how it works yet, but I'd like to try editing in some item boxes eventually. Wetheril 18:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I took the liberty to reformat your message, Wetheril, so it can be more clearly seen as a conversation. To answer your question, you can upload images in the Special:Upload page. Maps are currently uploaded as images, with a naming convention explained in Category:Maps. You should also add the Category:Maps to any map you upload, so we stay organized. Don't worry, though, because we admins can undo/correct any mistake you might make at first (and we patrol changes). This wiki is made so users can't break anything we can't fix. Scarbrowtalk 01:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Scarbrow, for your response on the forum and here on the Wiki talk page. I'll try my hand at uploading a map tonight then. I read over the naming conventions in the Category:Maps, and I'll do my best to adhere to them. I didn't see the option to set the category of the images on the Special:Upload page when you upload them. Is this edited in after uploading? Thanks for being patient!
Wetheril 03:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
To answer you, Hav0c, I'm also not completely satisfied with the way we currently do maps, but I consider it a convenient system, for lack of anything better. I don't feel there is any hurry to standardize maps, not any more than there is for standardizing quests, but here are my two or four cents:
  • The Google spreadsheet option seems possible, but overly complicated, and I'd prefer to keep this wiki self-contained while possible.
  • The template option looks good. It would also be complicated, but at least workable. I'm thinking, more than a "Map" template, a "Map Cell" template, with a background parameter (black or textured), and 4 positional parameters answering to "left", "right", "top", "bottom". Then to make a map you must create a table of map cells manually.
  • The background for the maps vary from one quest to another, even for more or less close ones, like the ones in PG V. Should we follow closely the GM's choice of style for each map, or rather establish an accord and use just one background for maps? And now we're at it, should we follow the GM's map style at all or create an all-unique style for the wiki?
  • Although this options would certainly improve standardizing of maps, they would also make it more difficult for casual contributors to send us maps. I propose that these maps are only created once an image map already exists, or at least that we keep accepting maps that are simple images, no matter the style.
Scarbrowtalk 01:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The standard will be difficult because of diagonal directions (e.g. Lyrelocke Monastery) and possible one-way directions (again, Lyrelocke). My ideal choice would be something like the automapper of zMud where locations are cells and lines connect the cells. Arrows would indicate one-ways, and non-cardinal directions can displayed. I don't plan on working maps, but I don't really have a problem with the ones I've seen, except for Lyrelocke.. haha; that one is pretty unwieldy. The coolest solution would be a template where even special locations can be input by the editor and the template would auto-number them (like references), but probably not practical and plus I don't know how the actual map display would be generated. K!ZeRotalk 04:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

New namespaces Edit

Should I go ahead and ask for two new namespaces to be set up? 'Item' and 'Quest'. --Havoc(talk) 03:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, some thoughts out loud:
  1. Clear delineation of Quests and Items
  2. Ability to confine searches to specific namespaces
  1. Less easy way to perform links since we will likely be linking between namespaces often (more of a problem for newer editors)
  1. Can we configure the wiki to have the search box on the left sidebar default to include certain namespaces, other than just Main?
I think first, the sidebar search must be able to be configured to search all namespaces; may have to ask Richard the helper if this is possible. If yes, then I guess the question is if it would prove ultimately useful. If we end up deciding to add almost all the items available in the game to the wiki, the sheer number of pages seem like a namespace is appropriate. And quests will only continue to be added. I have no clear opinion on the matter given my above thoughts.. I like the organization it provides, and is it logical, but is it necessary? So... I don't know... (But once this is decided on, I think everything is in place for full-on updating, which I have been hesitant to do so far.) K!ZeRotalk 11:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Just read through Help:Custom_namespaces, and looks like we can define default namespaces for searches. However, checking out the Marvel wiki, it doesn't seem to work like that, unless they made it NOT search in their custom namespace by default. For example, they actually made redirects in the Main namespace to all their Comics: articles, which is weird. Either it doesn't as I think it should, or they didn't want it to work as I think it should, but then that sort of defeats the purpose of a namespace. Some discussion on their use is here: [1]. As a thought, we can have 3 total custom namespaces. What about Location? Or is that too "micro"? K!ZeRotalk 12:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Since we can only ever have 3 custom namespaces, I believe that we should preserve the 3rd for future use. I'm pretty sure that the namespaces will be easy enough to search and use. My only other wiki experience is on the Heroes Wiki, and they seem to have no problem with namespaces. --Havoc(talk) 17:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't thought about searches in a specific namespace. That seems like a good idea. The problem we have in Sryth is that, unlike other games (and wikis) like WoWWiki, Items and Quest names are not guaranteed to be unique. We have the guarantee that the Item IDs are unique, and seldom changed, so I'd suggest we could do with just one namespace: Items. I don't think that the number of quests or their nature makes them worthy of a special namespace. Also, since the game is above all about quests, I feel the main namespace is the appropriate one for them.
In my suggestion, in the Items namespace, we should set up all pages needed to cover both the known and unknown items:
  • Main sequence: From 1 to 1500
  • A certain range in the second thousand for Unindentified Icons (each unidentified icon so far has the same ID + 1000 that its Identified counterpart)
  • Some isolated items in the 3000-10000 range, that were used mostly in oldest unique items like the ones for pregenerated characters
  • 10000-10183 range for "standard" weapons from Poor to Unmatched,
  • 11000-11052 range for old Tallys Items
  • 20000-20538 for "standard" armor pieces from Common to Unmatched.
Each page should only be named for item ID, so the page 34 is the Lenght of Rope, and will be accessed as Item:34, making it easy to use the namespace and keeping all items outside of the main namespace, so they will not artificially inflate the page count. Items will then be transcluded into other pages, as you were setting up. And significative items like Demonscourge and Tzal-Toalth could have their own pages, so these pages could be from just a redirect to the Item namespace to a full account of the item's powers (Tzal-toalth being the most representative and needed of this kind of pages).
I suggest we also open a discussion on the forum so the most people are able to participate, and we should also advertise it on Sitenotice, and give a fair time to discuss, before acting Scarbrowtalk 18:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw the discussion here earlier and also the notice on the forum, but being new to Wiki editing (and it's been years since I last took programming classes), I'm not very knowledgeable about this subject. A quick-reading of the links that K!Zero posted kind of gave me a vague idea of what you guys are talking about. Correct me if any of my assumptions are incorrect. It seems that Havoc wants to have two namespaces: 'Items' and 'Quests' and the maximum custom namespaces is three. Scarbrow suggests having only 'Items' for now, since 'Quests' are harder to ID. If you make a custom namespace when the need arises (for example, 'Items' right now), then make other namespaces in the future (when they are necessary, and there's an actual scheme), would it be more of a hassle than if you made two right now? I like the method of organizing Items the way Scarbrow has suggested, using their ID number. Perhaps, if Quests need their own namespace later on, that can be added later? Also, what's the main problem? Is it that the Wiki has too many separate articles? Wetheril 22:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)talk
You've understood it well. If we ask only for one, we can still ask for more later. It's only a question of administrative work for Wikia's staff. As each namespace has to be defined for each wiki that asks for it, it's a lot of work, and for them it's easier to define two, or three, at the same time than to define one today, and another one tomorrow. That's why we were discussing how many to ask for. Scarbrowtalk 23:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
About the number of articles in the wiki, it doesn't have many, really. WoWWiki has over 75,000, being the largest Wikia wiki. It's just that if we add items as articles in the main namespace, we would go from ~250 to ~2000 articles, and maybe we'd end up with confusion in searches (or maybe not). Scarbrowtalk 23:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
As further argument in favor of only asking for one namespace, we are certainly sure about what an item is. We have a mature system to identify, document and reference those items through Template:Itembox and the transclusion of reference Itembox pages. We're not nearly as done with Quests, even if we have Template:Questbox, the main reason being that an Itembox forces us to fully document an item, and is on itself the full documentation an item needs, while a Questbox is just a quick, convenient and mostly spoiler-free summary of a quest. And what, exactly, is a quest, I wonder? Should we consider replayable scenarios as such? Multiplayers? How about "seasonal" scenarios, that are both a part of and an entirely different thing from the quests they are related to? (see Tarn for the latest example).
An Item namespace would also be an elegant solution to the problem that arises with pages like [[Short Bow]], which break the standard practice of "items pages referenced by name" forcing us to declare the [[Short Bow (114)]] and [[Short Bow (452)]] pages. With the Items namespace, if two items have the same name, a disambiguation page would just need to link to the appropriate standard Item definitions Item:114 Short Bow and Item:452 Short Bow.
Scarbrowtalk 23:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I was actually thinking of having pages in the item namespace named as 'Item: 114 Short Bow'. This would make it clearer which particular item was being referred to. Also, a typo in the number would show up as a red link, instead of pointing to a wrong item. In addition, I see the item pages as having an itembox on top, with further details below it, as needed. For example, the page for the Ice Shield would have details on how to level it up, etc. There's no harm in using the item namespace for content too. Of course, all this content would be in a noinclude tag, so that it doesn't show up when the item page is transcluded.
We can leave the Quest namespace discussion for after we get comfortable with the item namespace. However, I just wanted to point out that there is no harm in using a custom namespace for the main content of the game. For example, the Heroes Wiki has an 'Episode' namespace. On the other hand, you are right in that identifying what is and what isn't a quest can be tough.
--Havoc(talk) 03:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


I am sort of okay with 1 Item namespace with 'Item: ItemID ItemName' format (I'd prefer 'Item:ItemName ItemID' for sorting purposes, or even just 'Item:ItemName' and disambiguate where necessary). And I'm okay with having re-directs from the Main namespace for popular items to its actual page. And with the format of the item pages (although we can finalize that later). If quests are kept in the Main namespace, the majority of readers would avoid the problem why I think namespaces could be cumbersome: If you type a search term in the left sidebar, it will either go to the appropriate article in the Main namespace, or bring up the search results. Unless we have redirects for custom namespace pages, I think that the ease-of-use of the site goes down, or else we need to create lots of redirects. Just based on that thought alone, I am thinking it is better to just use the Main namespace, and set some guidelines for item article titles. I don't see how the custom namespaces will greatly help the end-user of the wiki except to confine searches to a certain namespace, and it seems like it could make quick searches more difficult unless editors put in some manual work for creating redirects where necessary. (I will post a question on the forum to see how users actually use the wiki to get some feedback.) Regardless, I could really swing either way with this; just trying to make sure it provides a benefit. K!ZeRotalk 09:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Got a question then (please bear with my lack of knowledge on this subject), about searches in a namespace. When you do a search, does it only confine search results to the namespace you are currently viewing? (I'm assuming that may be the case if Sryth Wiki itself counts as a namespace (main?), or else I can imagine hits showing up from pages all over Wikia). If that's the case, I can see why you'd be concerned about setting up redirects all over the place. Wetheril 09:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)talk
The Item namespace will be searched by default in all searches, so we won't need a single redirect. --Havoc(talk) 10:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure about not needing redirects? For example, using the Heroes wiki that you linked, if you look for some Episode: page, and try putting just the episode name in the left searchbox, you will get redirected to the Episode:EpisodeName page from an EpisodeName page in the Main namespace. Showing the "List Redirects" special page, it looks like they have one for each episode. Not that big a deal to make the redirects, esp with a bot if that gets worked out, but could be just a "layer" that we don't need. K!ZeRotalk 11:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps that wasn't the best example. If you check the [ WoW Wiki], searching for 'Silver Hand US' brings you 'Server: Silver Hand US' as the first search result, by defualt. --Havoc(talk) 13:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


Right, it will include the other namespaces in a search by default, but I think we lose the ability to go directly to the page without a redirect, hence the redirects seen on the Heroes or Marvel wiki. K!ZeRotalk 20:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

About pages naming convention, the only problem I see with either 'Item: ItemID ItemName' or 'Item:ItemName ItemID' is the possible duplicates needing disambiguation, but they're not many, so it's not a big issue. Owing to the redirect magic, we can work around this by creating even the three lists ('Item: ItemID ItemName', 'Item:ItemName ItemID' and 'Item: ItemID'), but I think two should be enough ('Item:ItemID' and 'Item:ItemName', with some guidelines for disambiguation when needed). Transcluding behaves very well around redirects, so that also won't be a problem. The main reason for me to include the ItemID at all in the pages titles was to have a unique id. We still can add the 'Item: ItemId' pages, and let them be redirects either to the 'Item: ItemName' page or to 'Item:Unknown'. Scarbrowtalk 08:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
This discussion has been open for a week. I suggest that we keep it open for another one, and then summarize the consensus achieved. Scarbrowtalk 23:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, I want to publicly switch sides: I now agree with asking for a Quest namespace. See reasons in Template_talk:Questbox#Auto-categorization. Scarbrowtalk 23:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I am fine with the Item and Quest namespaces. The big disadvantage I didn't like was that typing in an article name in the search bar will not go directly to an Item or Quest page without a redirect in the Main namespace, but I'm okay with creating those redirects as a workaround. No pain no gain. K!ZeRotalk
I'm setting up a consensus check below. As for the details, I'm in favour of just a single page for each item and quest, within their respective namespaces. We ought to easily be able to set up a bot to maintain redirects. This will keep them easy to maintain. --Havoc(talk) 06:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus check Edit

Item Namespace
  1. Havoc(talk)
  2. Scarbrowtalk
  3. K!ZeRotalk
Don't create
Quest Namespace
  1. Havoc(talk)
  2. Scarbrowtalk
  3. K!ZeRotalk
Don't create

Final results Edit

The consensus is clear, even if we still have to work out some of the finer details. I'm requesting the two new namespaces Scarbrowtalk 00:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

When I was about to request the namespaces I found the guidelines at Help:Custom namespaces and now I'm hesitant about the new namespace(s) to be considered "content" or not. Quest should be probably considered content and included by default on searches, but what about Items? I feel we shouldn't consider Items as Content, for the following reasons:
  1. The article count would be artificially inflated. There are several times more items than all of the other articles together. This was in fact the main reason of dedicating a namespace to them in the first place.
  2. If items were included on searches by default, they would often disclose too many details about the quest they are gained from (many times, the clues are into the description of the item, so they can't be edited out nor spoilertagged).
So, in short, I would request the Quest namespace to be "content" and searched by default, and the Items namespace not to. Opinions on the matter? Scarbrowtalk 00:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, as long as you can search for items with the advanced search.--Joddelle 20:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer the Items namespace to be content, since it is after all part of the 'content' of the wiki, as opposed to say templates. As for your reasons above,
  1. I don't see any harm in an inflated article count. The only down side is that if people use the Random Page link, they'll end up on an item more often than not.
  2. I can't really think of any items that have major spoilers in their descriptions, other than 'You got X after defeating Y' or 'You got X after saving Z'. In fact, I'd find it very odd if the item pages don't show up in searches, say on search for Tzal Toalth, and being unable to find it, a new user might not think of checking which namespaces he is searching in.
--Havoc(talk) 03:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I can see how it is not the same as templates, but yet not exactly like quests. But I think the main reason we want them "considered content" would be to have them searched by default, which I think most users would expect. Of course, if we only put redirects in the Main namespace for those items that people would search for, then this point becomes invalid since the Items namespace wouldn't need to be searched. Still, in the long run, I think they should be content and searched by default. K!ZeRotalk 01:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that redirects don't show up in searches. --Havoc(talk) 03:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


That's precisely the point of it. As you can see with Tzal-Toalth (just a redirect right now), if you type "Tzal-Toalth" in the search box, it will take you to the correct page (right now, Cave of Four Spirits), owing to the exact correlation between a page's name (even if it's a redirect) and the typed terms. But with this system we don't have the extra number of pages in the main namespace, since redirects doesn't affect page count. So we can have redirects to popular (or even to all) items in the Item namespace (BTW, shouldn't it be Item, in singular, as in Item:Tzal-Toalth?), and they will appear in simple and advanced searches, thus negating your argument. I think that K!ZeRo's approach is the right one here. Scarbrowtalk 16:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've submitted a question to Wikia to see if we could change our mind later if we ask for a non-content namespace and later want to change it to be content. Scarbrowtalk 16:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

About items with spoilers on their descriptions (refer to the old wiki's items list), how about Item 1278: Triple-Bladed Knife or Item 1280: Bladed Ebony Staff? Or Item 1305: Snake's Head Medallion? Or Item 923: Runeskin's Ring, Item 1224: Irilden's Iron Ring, Item 1219: Rynduil's Crimson Tabard? They reveal key plot details, and that's the definition of a "spoiler" Scarbrowtalk 16:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me saying this, but I'm of the opinion that if specific item names are being searched (rather than browsed), the user would have already known of the item and is most-likely looking for information on obtaining it. When you go to Trithik, a multiplayer battle, or any of those locations where you can see other players at that location, you're going to see items (and their descriptions) in other people's inventories. I recall first typing in "Cloak of the Wanderer" in the Wiki and not getting any information on it here, but figured it out pretty quickly from reading the item description in other people's inventories that it needed to be obtained from a residence quest. This is just an example. What I'm trying to get at is that we shouldn't withhold information if somebody is specifically looking for it. But if someone is just browsing, such as in a directory, then spoilers should be kept to a minimum. --Wetheril 19:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)talk
Why should I mind? By all means express yourself. In fact your arguments almost ruin my second one. About the rest, I've just been answered by Wikia staff. They can change a namespace from content to non-content and vice-versa quite easily, they say. They also say: "Also remember that a namespace being marked controls if it comes up in Special:Random by default. BUT, you can still make a Special:Random/Item link, to have a random page in the Item namespace come up. ". That would also be cool. So, if nobody objects, we could try first the non-content approach, and then change it into content if don't like it. Scarbrowtalk 00:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I do think the namespaces should be singular too. Sort of makes the page title better.
And I think I was using two meanings of the word "search": As Scarbrow said, I think that with the Item pages, we should put a redirect in the Main namespace for common item names which redirect to the full page in the Item namespace. This way, when people try typing an item name in the search bar, it will automatically go to the page instead of the additional step of clicking on the correct search result that will show up.
And I agree with Wetheril, that if people are searching for an item, it is either because they are specifically looking for its properties, or saw it listed most likely on a full spoilered quest page, or maybe clicking in an item category. I don't think they would stumble upon the page randomly, which brings up a reason to mark the Item namespace as non-content: so that Random Page doesn't go to an item that someone doesn't have! (The opposite applies to Quest, however..)
And I vote with Scarbrow since the switch from non-content to content seems trivial to do later on. K!ZeRotalk 06:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Given the ease of switching, I dont mind Scarbrow's idea. Let's give it a try. Once the namespaces are ready, I'll work on some preload content for each of the namespaces. --Havoc(talk) 08:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
What should we try first for Quest?
  1. Scarbrow
  2. k!ZeRo
  3. Havoc(talk)
What should we try first for Item?
  1. Scarbrow
  2. k!ZeRo
  3. Havoc(talk)

I'm requesting the namespaces --Havoc(talk) 15:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocking/vandalism policy Edit

As probably the most active users have noticed, this wiki is growing up, and the hitherto inexistent work of vandals have already begun. My public gratitude to Shadowblack for dealing with our first vandal in such a swift and efficient manner. Although I don't really expect that user back, I've added a 3-day block to the offending IP as a warning. I've defined the block as:

  • Unable to create a new account from that IP
  • Previously created accounts can access from that IP (to prevent harming legitimate users who share IP with a sanctioned user due to ISP constraints or other causes)
  • The user can edit own talk page to explain his/her actions (unlikely)

I'd like to conduct a process to propose a policy on blocking users/IPs for unacceptable behavior. For the moment I propose the following guidelines:

  • You can follow the current block list in Special:BlockList and check out the historical one.
  • For a first offense, any user can report the vandal to an administrator. The administrator will then block the user for 3 days and with the same conditions stated above. This will count as "first warning".
  • In case of recidivist users a second, more stern 1-month block will be issued. This block will be made public in a special page, so other users can revise the work of the administrator and defend the edits deemed offensive and/or request the block to be revised/removed.
  • Third time offense will mean an indefinite block. Talk page must be unlocked so this can be revised later on.

I know this proposal is harsh, but this wiki has still few administrators and they have limited time to spend reverting vandalism, so I feel that unless the conditions change, we should err on the side of caution with vandals Scarbrowtalk 01:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine, just remember to be careful of what is considered "vandalism", although it is unlikely border-line cases would actually happen. K!ZeRotalk 01:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Homepage lists Edit

I think Neck Armour should be added to Lists >> Items I would do it, but either can't figure out how or can't because of privledges —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joddelle (talkcontribs)

Done. Scarbrowtalk 01:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Forum link (new forum) Edit

Is it time to change the Community > Forum link to the new forum? Or do we want to leave it the way it is for now?--Hastifertalk 15:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted. Done. Scarbrowtalk 02:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Weapons with bonuses vs "typed" foes Edit

I'm trying to think of a category name for weapons that grant an extra MR bonus vs different types of enemies. The Creyn Blade and Rotbane Sword are well-known examples of weapons that would fit.

However, all the names I've so far conjured are either too long or won't immediately indicate the intent of the category.

So far, I have

  • Weapons with MR Bonuses vs Enemy Types
  • Bane Weapons (sounds nice, but "Bane" isn't guaranteed to tell everyone what the function is)
  • Typed Weapons
  • Weapons Extra MR Bonuses
  • Scaled Weapons
  • Weapons vs Enemy Types
  • Vs Weapons

I've also thought about making one category for each enemy type (either instead of the "general extra bonus" category or as a subcategory) --

  • Weapons vs Undead
  • Weapons vs Elementals
  • etc.

I'm just looking for a term that fits better than what I've come up with so far (and to flesh out the idea). --Hastifertalk 17:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thinking along the line of Bane Weapons and with some inspiration from the great game of 'Angband' (am i allowed to say this here?) they could be called Slayer Weapons. After all they help you slay a certain type of enemy. --Fireblade2 18:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, Hastifer. The concept is quite complex to summarize in one short sentence, as it must convey the concepts of MR, the special behaviour of bonus MR against scaled enemies, enemy types... I think the way to go is having a category for each special enemy type (so far: undead, giants, dragons, insects, elementals, trolls, goblins). As for the name, I'd suggest "Bonus Vs <Enemy Type>". So, Tzal-Toalth (enhanced) would be in both "Bonus Vs Undead" and "Bonus Vs Demons", and when looking for a good weapon to fight demons one would look into the "Bonus Vs Demons" category, to find for example Tzal-Toalth and Demonscourge.
I don't think we need anything else in the name, because the only stat that ever changes against different enemy types is MR, and only weapons display this capacity (even if other item classes have MR bonuses, they are never typed).
I'd advice you to put this discussion in the forum as well (link the thread from here and this page in the thread) as much feedback as possible Scarbrowtalk 21:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot account Edit

I think we need at least one bot account, as demonstrated by the mess in Special:RecentChanges provoked by my bulk upload of Item Pages of yesterday. I hereby request any willing community members to approve of my new bot account, User:ScarbrowBot.

By the way, use this link to check Recent Changes (mostly) without my edits (without any edit to Item namespace, in fact) or this one to see far more changes, so mine don't clutter the list. Scarbrowtalk 17:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and approved. Keep up the excellent work. --Havoc(talk) 18:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
All in favor, say "I". I --Thingirl 18:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm all for it! --Octarinemage 18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Approved!--Shadowblack 18:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Same here, agreed. Nice job as always. --Old School 19:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. --Psychoadept 21:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure, do it. Joddelle 22:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I also agree. --Hastifertalk 19:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
One more in favor. — Young Ned (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The account ScarbrowBot has become our first bot. Thank you to all of you for your support. Scarbrowtalk 08:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Projects Edit

Please see the start of this discussion here and here.

In essence, the idea is to put up a central place to coordinate efforts and signal what each one thinks it needs to be improved. What each of us is currently making on his/her personal page, but for the whole community. Opinions are welcome. Scarbrowtalk 20:50, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

You have heard my side of the opinion. I have made a post on the forum to initiate discussion here. --Wetheril(talk) 21:39, December 5, 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not see your message earlier. I have deleted the post for now, but I will revive it after the wrist armour discussion is finished. I agree--one at a time. :) --Wetheril(talk) 21:42, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous Edits Edit

Several anonymous edits have been made recently, by at least two different users (judging by the IP addresses), and several of them were rather questionable. I've made changes to the pages involved, or at least put something on their Talk pages, so I won't get into specific details here. What I want to ask here is, didn't we originally have things set up so that people had to log in to edit pages? Or was that the old wiki? Either way, should we consider setting things up that way (or going back to that setup, as the case may be)? — Young Ned (talk) 05:08, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this, Young Ned and also for taking action. I really didn't know how to broach this subject, so I'm happy that you mentioned it. Since a couple days ago, I did some fixing (not exactly complete reverts) of a few of the earlier edits, but I haven't seen the ones you fixed today until now. I do believe that anonymous edits are allowed for a reason--perhaps to make it easier for a user with limited contributions to make them. This is fine as long as the anonymous contribution is limited to a few edits. However, once there is wide-spread editing from a single anonymous source over several days, I do believe the user should sign in, and that some kind of action should be taken to facilitate that (the nature of that action, I'm not sure what it should be yet). --Wetheril(talk) 06:37, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

@Young Ned: The old wiki required (and still requires, should anybody stumble around there) registration to edit pages, but Wikimedia software, Wikipedia (and by extension, Wikia) allows unregistered users to edit by default. This is considered desirable as it promotes collaboration and boldness, even if it creates some need for maintenance from senior editors. Please check Wikipedia:Not every IP is a vandal for an explanation better than I'm able to provide.
@Wetheril: At newly created pages (like the most notable, User talk: the automatic system adds links and provides help to register. On the early times of the wiki, I left several messages on such anonymous user's pages with comments and help, never to be answered. Eventually I stopped doing it, shortly after the automatic system went live.
My opinion on the matter: this user is clearly not a vandal, but is also not used to our customs. She's bold, knows about wiki editing (including transclusion) and seems to have investigated the game, yet it adds personal comments to articles. Doesn't seem like any of our usual contributors (in the past, sometimes Joddelle and Octarinemage edited without logging in) nor a seasoned Wikipedia editor. I'll leave a message on her talk page and we'll see how does she answers - if we don't receive an adequate answer and she keeps editing, I'll enact a warning block (please watch out both of you to do the same, should I get distracted), but for the moment I'll check this user's recent edits with care. Maybe they have some merit (or at least some of them might have). Scarbrowtalk 17:50, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Scarbrow. I think you've analyzed the user(s) in question very well: not vandalistic, just inexperienced. I agree with your proposed course of action, with the proviso that if they have dynamic IP addresses, it may be necessary to leave messages more than once before they connect.

Wetheril raised the question on another talk page of whether it would be possible to modify the wiki setup to have it pop up an automated message urging an anonymous contributor to register after EVERY anonymous edit? (Rather than just after their first edit, when their talk page gets created.) She thinks that would probably be the best way to get people to stop being anonymous, and I certainly think it would get some people to register just to get rid of the nag screen. 8-) — Young Ned (talk) 09:08, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I think nobody noticed my question over at Talk:Weaponry#Table_changes; could I get some feedback there? Thx. — Young Ned (talk) 10:07, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

I think you've analyzed the user(s) in question very well: not vandalistic, just inexperienced. - I fully agree with this summation by Young Ned. A lot of the problem edits aren't vandalistic--most of the new anonymous users are leaving behind personal notes, comments, and story-related edits. A very small number provide wrong information, but not seeming with the intent to do harm. Thank you Scarbrow, for taking steps to encourage anonymous contributors to sign up, and for helping out with "damage control" today. I've heard some people use Firefox's ad-blocker to get rid of the ads on the Wiki pages; I wonder if the automated messages also get blocked by that too--I hope not! As for your post-script Young Ned, I have left a message on the relevant talk page. --Wetheril (talk) 10:50, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
Oh, sorry for not noticing your message, Wetheril. I'm trying to avoid the PG VI page at all costs until I get there (I'm still on Saarngaard story-wise, and haven't advanced Krylinym almost anything at all since the end of 2008 (yes, it's been almost a year)). I don't think the pop-up idea is possible, unless it's done with JavaScript embedded on MediaWiki:Common.js. I don't know how to make a JS that would detect an anonymous user, but if you can provide it, we could test that solution. I'm pretty sure the Mediawiki software doesn't have that kind of functionality. On this site I found a way to disable anonymous editing by editing on LocalSettings.php the line $wgGroupPermissions['*']['edit'] = false;. We would have to ask Wikia staff to do this, and I'm personally very strongly against such a harsh measure, unless we encounter a problem that is really bigger than we can manage. Not only for the occasional contributor that doesn't want to register, but also for the ones that can't register (for a variety of reasons) or can't temporarily log in due to browser concerns (I've seen a few since the wiki started). Scarbrowtalk 13:56, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, you can investigate further on Manual:Preventing access and Extension:ToggleAnonRights. In fact, I'm submitting a question to Wikia about the last one, it might be useful. Scarbrowtalk 14:03, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
Uberfuzzy answered. The ToggleAnonRights extension is not available on Wikia. If we wanted to restrict anonymous editing, we'd have to resort to more static configuration files to restrict anonymous editing rights. He also mentioned that there are other extensions that allow to disable editing for all users for a limited time, but that wouldn't be of much use to us. Scarbrowtalk 13:22, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
On another note, Shadowblack revised the Quest:The Bog Giant and found that the additions by the unregistered users were correct. I've created the new Template:Dubious to mark precisely that kind of edits so they're added to a maintenance category, and tagged the other two pages until I get enough time to check on them. Scarbrowtalk 20:15, January 1, 2010 (UTC)
Wetheril, you'll be glad to know Adblock doesn't block text ads, only graphics or Flash thingies. I use Adblock, and when I look at pages here without logging in I now see this notice at the top: "Welcome to the Sryth Wiki. Although you don't need to sign in to use the wiki, this community strongly encourages editors to register and sign up before editing. Also, by signing in you can make most of the ads go away. Contributions by anonymous editors may be doubted and reverted, specially if they refer to game mechanics."
Scarbrow, I agree; at this point I think disallowing anon users would be too harsh, too much work for the benefit. (For one thing, I didn't realize it would be so hard to implement; I figured it was just a checkbox somewhere in the Admin setup for each wiki.) Thanks for looking into it so thoroughly! — Young Ned (talk) 15:00, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
First off, I apologize for not checking back here and responding sooner. I blame my post-holidays lack of attention to Sryth and the Wiki lately on Diablo II. ^^;
RE:Young Ned - good to know that Adblock doesn't block text ads. Also, I agree that this Wiki hasn't encountered a problem yet that needs anonymous edits disabled.
RE:Scarbrow - I did not realize that popped up windows were that difficult to implement. Unfortunately, my Javascript knowledge is very limited, so I won't be much help there. The new Template:Dubious sounds like a good method for keeping track of unverified edits. I believe the notice change on MediaWiki:Anonnotice and the new Template:Dubious are sufficient for now--thanks for these measures!
--Wetheril (talk) 03:28, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous suggestion Edit

Add a page that has non-Tallys magical items only. With the limited number of magical items compared to a massive 300 Tallys items, it's hard to find an article of a free magical item just from the item list itself. This change would help in planning a more effective combat setup by filling your setup with free items first and making sure there is not a better free item before replacing obsolete items with Tallys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Moved here from main page talk. This is the correct place to suggest such changes. Good suggestion, BTW. I've just implemented it. Scarbrowtalk 16:20, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar menu - Community and Help Edit

I recently edited the Item Selling Guide, and was thinking that it could be added to the Community and Help sidebar menu. It would definitely be nice for new players to see it in the sidebar somewhere to learn the basics of selling optimization, and also provides a quick reference for people looking to compare shops during a dedicated selling spree. And while we are changing that sidebar menu, I would reorganize Community and Help with submenus as it also is relatively long. Maybe a "Guides" submenu with Character and Item Selling, and a "Wiki Reference" submenu with the current last 4 articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K!ZeRo (talkcontribs)

Done. Good suggestion. Scarbrowtalk 01:32, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.