Talk:Main Page

From DWPriests
Revision as of 02:50, 16 November 2009 by Ruedii (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive

Woohoo!

We're up and running! Fluffs to ourselves and mostly Mishal!

MUD IP Address

Because Wikipedia doesn't want the IP address posted, but it is useful to know (for strange situations in which DNS breaks), here it is: 82.68.167.69. Connecting to that will work in exactly the same way as connecting to discworld.atuin.net, even if DNS breaks!

Skill redirects

Currently, if you link to a skills, like faith.rituals.special, it redirects to Skills. However, I think it would be much more useful if each skill redirected to its own "what links here" page (Special:WhatLinksHere/Faith.rituals.special), since then if you clicked on a skill, you'd get a nice list of rituals and such that used that skill. As it is, it's not obvious how you find that (I assumed at first that "what links here" was for outside sites that linked to the wiki). (I think redirecting to the "what links here" page would be better than just editing each skill's page to list the rituals that use it, since then there'd be no need to edit those pages when we found another skill a ritual uses.)

If nobody objects, I'll go ahead and do this. It seems like a somewhat major change, though, so I'd like to get people's thoughts first.

--Ilde 11:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


That sounds like a good idea. I wonder if the What Links Here page can be included as a template or something... Not sure if that's possible. That way we could still link to the skills page at the same time and potentially add more information about each skill in future. Worth a try, anyway. I'd say go for it, when you can :) *hopes editing on his phone won't break things...* -- Mishal (talk) (MUD finger) 15:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Great! It's done; I went ahead and added links to the faith tree skills in Skills, too. --Ilde 02:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Navigation Menu

Editing the navigation menu (the list on the left) is done by editing the Sidebar page. Whether this can be done by anyone besides sysops (LaoTzu and myself), I'm unsure, but if I don't leave this note on the discussion page, I'll forget where to edit it and have to Google that same question for a third time :p -- Mishal (talk) (MUD finger) 01:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki Software Upgrades

  • 12 April 2009: Upgraded from 1.13.2 to 1.14.0
  • 10 June 2009: Upgraded from 1.14.0 to 1.15.0

I'm so glad that I set this up with Subversion. Upgrading is so easy :)
-- Mishal (talk) (MUD finger) 15:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Learnt-at levels

I converted Learnt_at_level_table/Pishe to the format suggested here--seems to work pretty well, though it might be useful to have a way to show which category a number is in lower down, i.e., as it is, if you're near the bottom of the table it's hard to see at a glance whether it's, say, 75 in cu.ta or mi.ar--you have to count columns or scroll back up. I was thinking possibly background colours for individual cells, something like:

faith
rituals
offensive defensive curing misc special
area target area self target self target area self target
Turn Undead 100
Warm 999 30
Wicker Ward 999

Added a couple of extra numbers to show what text looks like against the light green and blue (chose the colours to match what those types of rituals look like as wards, seemed appropriate--though sadly it means misc and ri.sp are both white. Could make ri.sp grey or something). Anyway--this would be pretty quick to add (just a replace operation on "--fa.ri.def" and so forth--those comments are terribly useful) and would look nice, but the downside--which you'll see if you edit the page--is that it clutters up the code enormously and would make it more difficult to edit. But then, what with the nature of these, they probably wouldn't need to be edited very often. Thoughts?

--Ilde 03:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooh yes, the colours are very nice :) My first thought was to have them match the colours that we already use for the meditate box, though maybe a lighter shade of each, making offensive red, defensive green, healing yellow and miscellaneous grey (though we still wouldn't have a colour for special...). Alternatively/additionally we could replicate the header either halfway down the table or at the bottom of the table:
faith
rituals
offensive defensive curing misc special
area target area self target self target area self target
Turn Undead 100
Warm 999 30
faith
rituals
offensive defensive curing misc special
area target area self target self target area self target
Wicker Ward 999
My main concern with doing it with this table format is that we remove the comments for each skill, so if, for example, the skill at which a ritual was learnt switched from faith to fa.ri.mi.ta, it wouldn't be too easy to do (though it'd be easy enough to just copy a full line, I guess). Also, there isn't any distinction between fa and fa.ri, but I don't think we really need one, do we?
I wonder if templates can be used for individual table rows. That would certainly make things easier. Instead of putting the code for a full row in each page, we could just use, say, {{LearntAtTableRow | fa.ri.mi.ta=175}} and have the template take care of it all. Would only work if templates get replaced in pages BEFORE tables get parsed, though. This would also solve the problem of the messy code with colours...
-- Mishal (talk) (MUD finger) 08:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... true, but I think it would be easy enough to just copy from another row, since most of them are learned at a level of a subskill. And we could always put a full, empty row somewhere as an example/thing to copy. The template thing sounds cool, though... think that's doable?
ETA: oh! Or, if it isn't, what if we made a template for each cell? So that, I guess, a row would look something like, {{of.ar}} {{of.ta}} {{de.ar}} {{de.se}}50 {{de.ta}} {{mi.ar}} {{mi.se}} {{mi.ta}} {{ri.sp]] or of course {{of.ar}} {{of.ta}} {{de.ar}} {{de.se}} {{de.ta}} {{mi}}60 {{ri.sp]]
--Ilde 21:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Another version! Now fully fiddled with.
faith
rituals
offensive defensive curing misc special
area target area self target self target area self target
learnt at 5 levels of faith 5
learnt at 15 levels of fa.ri 15
learnt at 25 levels of fa.ri.of 25
learnt at 35 levels of fa.ri.of.ar 35
learnt at 45 levels of fa.ri.of.ta 45
learnt at 65 levels of fa.ri.de 65
learnt at 75 levels of fa.ri.de.ar 75
learnt at 85 levels of fa.ri.de.se 85
learnt at 95 levels of fa.ri.de.ta 95
learnt at 10 levels of fa.ri.cu 10
learnt at 20 levels of fa.ri.cu.se 20
learnt at 30 levels of fa.ri.cu.ta 30
learnt at 40 levels of fa.ri.mi 40
learnt at 50 levels of fa.ri.mi.ar 50
learnt at 60 levels of fa.ri.mi.se 60
learnt at 70 levels of fa.ri.mi.ta 70
learnt at 80 levels of fa.ri.sp 80
Ta-dah!
Alright--I think this takes care of objections to other methods, since it's very easy, this way, to see which skill any ritual is learnt at, or to change it. (Also, the colours are easily changeable, since I just put them all in their own templates.) Learnt_at_level_table/Pishe to see it in action beyond the above proof-of-concept. :)
I'll go ahead and convert the rest if nobody objects.
--Ilde 21:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Site problems?

What's up with the watchlist and recent changes pages? I get a database error when I try to access them:

<code>A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: 
(SQL query hidden)
from within function "SpecialRecentChanges::doMainQuery". MySQL returned error "1146: Table 'moria_dwpriests.tag_summary' doesn't exist (localhost)".</code>

--Ilde 00:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Turns out there were some database changes in the latest MediaWiki update, and I had to run the update script. Nothing ever told me that, though :p Probably best to email/mudmail me about issues like that in future, though - I'm more likely to read it than a note on the main page (which I won't ever see if the recent changes page - and thus its RSS feed - is broken :( ). Fixed now, anyway! :D
--Mishal (talk) (MUD finger) 11:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

prebox template!

I ganked this thing from Chat over here--it's a lot less ugly than inserting your own line breaks everywhere. Brilliant solution IMO. *goes off to change pages with quoted text which she's sure she remembers seeing*

--Ilde 00:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: Non-paragraph line breaks need to be inserted for the most part. Also, I'm only bothering when the quotes include long lines. :p --Ilde 00:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The other wiki

I've seen noises about merging this wiki into [1]. Good idea? Bad idea? It would be a largish undertaking to move all the pages over, but I'd be willing to help with that. (I could do all the ritual pages semi-efficiently, and they're the bulk of the site.) --Ilde 22:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hum, wouldn't it be an better idea with a larger degree of cooperation instead? Some sort of partial merge.. In the english wikipedia you can use links to other wikies in other languages and things like that without working with the whole url adress like the one you use. If the two wikies would link to eachother where their own field of interest stoped.. well, could be usefull I think. If it is even possible.. It would mean that priests would still have controll over the priests parts and so one.. Then again.. if you're willing to do all the hard work required it would be nice with a proper wiki for everything in this game. And also we know that a merge do work. Hum, I donno what the rest of you think, but that's what I feel.. Oshnugimo 18:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... yeah, maybe. I did just find out how to make a template that's good for cross-linking, so I think I'll go ahead and make one, there and hopefully here if it'll work. --Ilde 01:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Main_Page Main_Page Bah, I can't get it to work. Guess we don't have the same code to allow it here. --Ilde 01:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Still! [2] Tadah. I went through and changed what internal priest-thing links I could find to use the template instead... the nice thing is that if we ever do merge these, it'll be a simple matter to change it to do internal links instead. --Ilde 08:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I would not object to my content being merged. I would like it to preferably be at both places. This site could be the more active one, loaded with scratchpages on our procedures for deriving information, and we could have a few head people replicate over our results along with a list of contributors and a link back to the active development page. I see no reason all our scratchpages on how to experiment to find out levels and point consumption and WiPs should go over to the main Wiki, when they are really for a far more advanced audience. --"Ruedii" 02:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)