[ Disclaimer, --- , ]
Custom images on item pages
Seems you've ruffled some feathers by deleting a bunch of custom player/fashion type images from item pages. They all seem to be from Awakened guild.
I don't necessarily disagree, but let's here discuss if we want such content on item pages, elsewhere, etc, anyone who cares can chime in, then we can reach a decision.
- It was my idea to post them. I like knowing what items look like, and a couple of the items I had posted were server firsts for the blue server. I had hoped to be contributing to the wiki. Is the issue that we have the guild tag in the pictures? I can cut that out if needed.
- Same case as with Franswa. Added multiple pictures for items on which none of them had a previous picture. Seemed as a good idea, pictures are allways a nice to see thing.
It seems (preliminary at least) like this was an "attack" on Awakened, not on fashion images in the wiki. I strongly support keeping fashion images in the wiki.
In fact, I'm still working on my fashion crawling code (it's maybe 75% of the way there, but it took me awhile to get the hang of this MediaWiki's crazy/ancient API). Once I finish it the wiki will have categories for every type of item appearance (and hopefully categories for every tint also). When that happens those category pages will be the perfect place to hold fashion image, but until then deleting them from other pages seems counterproductive.
As for keeping names/guild tags in the images, at first glance it seems like name-less/guild-less pictures would be more appropriate for the (neutral) wiki. However, letting people keep their name/guild in the picture provides an incentive for people to upload images, as they get to leave their mark in the wiki. Even with that allowance we still have only a tiny fraction of all possible fashion images, so I'd hate to wind up with an even tinier fraction because we jeopardized submissions by adding this ban.
My vote is to make the official wiki policy that names/guild tags are allowed in images, but name-less/guild-less images are preferred. If there are ever two pictures of the same race/gender/type of item, one with names/guilds and one without, the one with names/guilds should be deleted ... but otherwise they should be left as is.
- I was trying to keep in context of the rest of the wiki, the only server first we were posting were Epic weapons. Most of the edits where done by people who had contributed nothing else to the wiki. Also I would like to mention I did leave a few and but had to clean up those pages, Warlord's Boots for example had a the picture currently on Warrior Kael Armor Quests a picture which has the characters feet cut off. It should also mention the items being described in the description not the person/guild. My vote is to make it wiki policy to make name-less/guild-less images are preferred. Most of those images could have been cropped to fit with in this.
- In addition if we choose to allow item images on item pages, we should choose a location for them to display. Some pages, particually those with an auction box, were quite unreadable with the item images on them. I did think this might ruffle some feathers but my intent was to keep these pages with in keeping of the rest of the wiki.
- User:Jaxon was removing Red server player images from items, which seems in contrast to what him and other Awakened members were doing to other item pages.
Zosymandias (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Seems there wouldn't be strong opposite to cropping out player names/guild names whenever possible (on item pages). So I would suggest we in general try to do this (as Loramin proposes). For items which are really important/unique, where we want to acknowledge server firsts, let's keep this on some sort of separate page?
Anyways, there are "second_image" and "second_imagetext" arguments for item/NPC pages, e.g.
I agree it doesn't look so great with the auction box. But this can be changed. Can we try to use this method for adding second/fashion images (i.e. within the template), so that the style can be uniformly changed across all pages in the future.
STOP DELETING server first names/pictures on images, it will be undone and it's childish. Thanks.
Sure thing, removing them has been a strong motivation for me once I got done editing the JC page. I would really like to create the Project 1999 Wiki:Copyrights page but I have no clue what the text on the page should be, any thoughts? Also thank you for all your quality edits I know when I see you edit something it is more then just a spelling change! Although I have to say that adding a red link to my talk page is quite a good troll... just gonna fix that right now.
--Zosymandias (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Question about zone page updates
I'm curious how often the Special:DynamicZoneList function triggers. The What's in the Zone sections, specifically the quests, aren't reflecting the changes I've made to the actual quest pages themselves. Daelyth 19:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- The DynamicZoneList takes time to update. To be honest I'm unsure on the amount of time it takes for the changes to propagate. --Zosymandias (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Spells and their era
So I was looking through some spells and noticed that some spells that came out in Kunark/Velious weren't marked as Kunark Era or Velious Era. On the same note, none of the spells that came out in Classic were marked as such either (though this isn't as important?).
The reason this is important, is because some classes were debatedly pretty bad in Classic/Kunark, but became really good classes in Kunark/Velious after receiving some critical spells.
The biggest example of this I can think of is Mages who didn't have a heal spell for their Elemental until Kunark. Many people will tell you that the definition of a mage is sitting back and healing your pet, and occasionally doing something else.
Anyways, I figured that if the spells weren't marked then maybe there was a reason.
I saw that you were quite active on the Wiki, so I figured I'd ask what your opinion on the subject is.
On another note, trying to find an Admin for this wiki is impossible?
I don't think there is any reason the spells aren't listed with their era, most should be currently listed on the class page as to which era, but most individual spell pages are missing that info. You can feel free to add it to any page but I don't think it is a huge priority.
As for an Admin, you found one! Congrats! --Zosymandias (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)