Talk:Full Moon Table Feb-May 2007

From TheKolWiki

• why was august 24th +100% muscle? i still only count seven sections. did the moonlet count double that day? --Evilkolbot 06:58, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Ronald @ 4 + moonlet @ 2 + Grimace @ 2 = 8. See moons for moonlet explanation. --Gymnosophist 07:25, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

• quote: In the front and center position, it is lit if either the right side of Ronald or the left side of Grimace is lit - and if both are, it has double effect, adding 2. endquote. so now i know. --Evilkolbot 07:52, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Someone that knows what they are doing what to move the dates forward? --Veistran 14:35, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

• We have time...I am pretty sure that phlip used a script to generate all the dates...if he does not come back I will whip one up for my own use.--SomeStranger ^(t|c) 16:00, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
  • I put this together, and the data can be pulled from here at any time. If need be, contact me in-game and I can tweak it to generate wiki-code for this page. http://fryguy9.googlepages.com/kolcalendar.html --Fryguy9 13:51, 30 October 2006 (CST)
    • Script Use that.--SomeStranger ^(t|c) 16:00, 3 November 2006 (CST)
      • I've gone and inserted the next moon cycle - once we're a decent ways into it, we can remove the old one. --Quietust (t|c) 16:38, 3 November 2006 (CST)

The moon table was getting unmanageable, so I broke off older dates into a separate page. I would suggest we keep doing this on a month-by-month basis (day-by-day might be too much work). I think 95 percent of the use is looking at either today, or what's coming up soon, so this way, it's near the top of the page. You can still look back if you need to for some odd reason with an extra click. If people want it, we could also have the rest of 2007/2008+ in a Future moon table page. --Cypherpunks 08:09, 13 January 2007 (CST)

• It would be nice if you actually created the old moon table page... --Quietust (t|c) 21:22, 26 January 2007 (CST)

• I had. Someone (JRSiebz) deleted it, and didn't bother posting a comment here, or updating any links. Seems like either stupidity or random vandalism. I just recreated it. --Cypherpunks 11:49, 1 February 2007 (CST)
  • Considering JRSiebz is an admin here (and only admins can delete pages), I'd be a bit more careful before making such accusations in the future if I were you. According to the deletion log, he deleted the page because old moon information doesn't need to be stored on the wiki - since it's all based on a formula, it can be calculated for an arbitrary interval. --Quietust (t|c) 12:34, 1 February 2007 (CST)
  • I apologize. Vandalism, stupidity, or laziness. Given that he's an admin, probably the third, maybe the second, but probably not the first. I'm not opposed to the page getting deleted, but I am opposed to it getting deleted sloppily the way that it was. If he deletes a page, he should remove the link from the referring pages to keep the Wiki consistent. Ideally, he should also post a comment here (not just in the deletion log), so that other users don't take flack for not creating the page. See comment above complaining that I didn't make the page. Although in retrospect, I probably should have just cleaned up after him (fix links, post comment here) rather than recreating the page. --Cypherpunks 09:50, 2 February 2007 (CST)

Keeping this up to date

• Ey yo, somebody please update the table? What with it expiring the day after tomorrow? Pretty please? :-) --Mr Crac 05:05, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
  • phlip's tool is ossum. i'd be prepared to update the page with the new code, but how should we deal with the old one? is there a policy on archiving? should i move the curent page to Old_Moon_Table2 and link to that? i have a feeling that it should be deleted since it's obsolete and infinitely generatable, though. ideas? --Evilkolbot 06:50, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
    • My suggestion is to change "Old Moon Table" to "Moon Table Jun-Dec 2006". Then create a new page called "Moon Table Jan-May 2007", and move the current tables there. It would probably be better to have it split Jan-Jun and Jul-Dec, but the tables are not structured that way right now, so I don't know if you want to go throught the hassle of splitting them right now. --Fryguy9 09:10, 17 May 2007 (CDT)