TheKolWiki:Proposed Standards

From TheKolWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Note! This page is for the drafting of standards. Official, established standards can be found on the Established Standards page.

For other concerns, please see Discussion, or a pertaining talk page.

Archived topics can be found at TheKolWiki:Proposed Standards/archive, TheKolWiki:Proposed Standards/archive2 and TheKolWiki:Proposed Standards/archive3.

Big-Ass User Pages

Am I the only one to notice the irony of this? lol This sure looks like a Big-Ass page. hahaha --Lemon-claw 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

  • A big page it may be, but it is not a User page, which is the entire point of the discussion. --Lordebon 00:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • with some admins seeing the light, and now that bumcheekcity has set up his page-writer of awesomeness, we need to warn users that they are no longer welcome to micro-manage their e-peen in the user space of the wiki. i propose we create a UserCruft template that warns a user to move their info off-site, and suggests bcc's site as the alternative. --Evilkolbot 22:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks like I missed a party. I see you've been tagging certain users... Have we reached any kind of consensus (nuke all non-wiki related user pages/tolerate small user pages/?) or has discussion petered out? --TechSmurf 05:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, several of the admins all basically came down against such pages, which is a pretty strong consensus around these parts. I didn't pay enough attention to know if BCC welcomed people over to his site and was okay with us essentially advertising it to those who would be interested/affected. BCC did just sort of wave a white flag eventually and said, more or less, "fuck it, I'll do it elsewhere"; he's the one that created the script that lead to the whole snapshot template...snaffu. --Flargen 05:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
        • What I've seen so far is a consensus that big pages are not okay, but not any strong guidelines for what "big" means. I stripped my pages down to just one under 10k page, and I'll probably strip more out soon. But I'd like to see a non-subjective standard established. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 06:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I think 10k is probably an OK value, although 5k doesn't seem completely unreasonable. Also, shouldn't the heading be "Big-Ass User Pages"? --CG1:t,c,e 00:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Yeah, probably. --Quietust (t|c) 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
          • After trimming down I was at 6K and there really isn't much there. I could get under 5K, but it would be hard and it seems unnecessary. 10K is plenty small enough. Anyway, I think the heading is fine since the problem is Ass-Users, not Big-Asses. --Bale 18:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I trimmed down (stripping, trimming, what are we really discussing here?) to under 10k as well, which seems to me a reasonable value. --Muhandes 06:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Basically anything the user wants so long as their user page is under 10k seems fine to me. My question is... I've seen some users use subpages or the like for (relatively long) articles on their strategies or suggestions and the like. Would the standard be only on user game data or would it be a general cap on size regardless of content type? I ask not out of a desire to make any pages like that but rather for the sake of completeness and unambiguity. --Lordebon 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • As a non-admin who has used created subpages both in the User: space and outside it, I think it's a question of intent. A page that exists just for the one person to outline his or her strategy should fall under the new 10k limit (add size of main user page and subpages). Hence my dropping my subpage of special purpose custom outfits. On the other hand, If say, Rottingflesh wanted to completely rewrite a page and started that rewrite as a subpage of his User: page, I'd say that should be acceptable. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 19:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Sounds reasonable to me. --Lordebon 20:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    • That's definitely a good point about distinguishing between generally useful and only personally useful content. Is putting a size limit even meaningful, though? How does the software save revisions? If each revision is saved in its entirety then one 10k page being edited constantly eats up more space than a 20k page which is never edited. Then there's the issue of complexity of the page. I remember one old user page which had a few hundred template calls that literally froze the Wiki during a template update. I'd much rather have elaborate "Facebook-style content" removed completely (yay, no more spamming Recent Changes every time a new skill/familiar/trophy shows up), but I've a feeling no one would go for that. --BagatelleT/C 22:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If I can remember my MediaWiki properly, all revisions are logged into the same database. Deleting an article does not actually remove the items from the db, the webmaster (or something similar) has to actually go into the db to permanently remove revisions. What deletion/oversight actually does, is that it flags them so the just can't be seen without the appropriate privileges (albeit with oversight, that is only the webmaster/db admin). Really, the editing/viewing of this page and discussion has probably created more overhead on the server than user pages put together so far. Sadly, the configuration that the Wiki has right now doesn't allow for hit-tracking of user pages, so I can't really verify this.--Toffile 23:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep, revisions are all stored. However, I don't think the point (at least from my perspective) was necessarily to save database size. After all, once a page is rendered in the wiki the HTML is cached and just viewing it isn't a huge load. Each time its saved or the cache is purged is when the wiki has to re-create the HTML cache which results in a processing load. Huge pages with lots of expensive template calls can create a lot of lag, especially when edited frequently with only minor changes (that still result in the full page being recreated).
  • As far as a size limit goes, pages can easily be checked for it in the history. I think it also allows some degree of freedom and simplicity in enforcement while keeping pages in check. Over-use of templates can be avoided by simply not allowing the creation of templates whose only purpose is to circumvent the user page length restriction. In an unrelated note, this page is probably also about ready for another archive, I think. --Lordebon 04:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Excluding for the counter at the bottom. Forgot about that. For those wondering, Quietust's user page is probably the most visited and is somewhere around the 6000th visited page on this wiki. Many other user pages are somewhere around or below 8000the place.--Toffile 03:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Um, the popular pages page seems to work. You have to page through a bit if you want to find page 6000, but it would be doable. I only glanced at a few hundred. Oh, but is it only limited to the main namespace? --Club (#66669) (Talk) 18:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with Bookshelf Skills

This was posted over on Discussion months ago, before I realized that this page exists. Here's the relevant part:

Notes regarding spellbooks from Mr. Store are incredibly inconsistent. For example:

The pre-Bookshelf books' notes leave the reader wondering, "What about after January 3, 2008?" Other notes don't actually specify that the item grants the skill, but that the skill itself is Hardcore Permanent. And we need to settle on parlance: do these books still grant skills, even though they go on the Bookshelf?

I'd like to reach a consensus, at least regarding skill books, as to what information is worthy of inclusion and what isn't, as well as how we will phrase certain things. This sort of congruity could be used in future templates, but also just creates a more coherent resource.

Let's start with skill books. What's important? What's not? How can we standardize their information? --Southwest 07:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  • It's just messy. Originally those were hardcore skills. Then came the "bookshelf" concept and they were dropped from the skills page, but later returned there. I'd say it's now fair to call them a special class of skills. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 20:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Plural Monsters

I would like to propose changes to deal with tracking plural monsters.

  • Add a "qty" field to Combat Data Pages. By default, this should =1 (and if so, be ignored in displaying the page). Perhaps Quietbot could be enlisted to go through and add this field in, if such a standard were accepted.
  • Somewhere -- probably the {{skill}} template -- an "areaofeffect" field should be added. Again, it would default to 1. It would also be ignored when displaying skill info unless it was > 1.
  • A page could be created, "Area of Effect" or similar, with details on how such spells / monsters interact, perhaps with links to each page that was relevant.

Please let me know your thoughts, and I apologize if this isn't the best place to discuss this. --StDoodle 18:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Pen Pal Items Category

We have quite a few new Items coming from the Pen Pal Kit from Mr. Store. It appears it would behoove us to set up a category to deal with these items. Thoughts? --Soldan

  • There's no purpose for knowing such a thing is in so-and-so category, I think. Unlike, say, candy, which has an effective distinction from other things (gameswise). I, for one, wouldn't mind several more categories, but failing that, this can be a list, rather than a category. --Raijinili 18:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No leading 0's in skill numbers

At Transcendental Olfaction, I just changed skill number 0019 to 19. (Not realizing that it changed the in-game link, I went for a few minutes searching for the source of the click template.) Here are my reasons:

  • It's in game as such.
  • The "skill" keyword in in-game combat macros does not ignore leading 0's.
  • The skill desc link, which is the only thing I think the wiki does with the number, DOES ignore leading 0's, so that's safe.

--Raijinili 10:04, 12 January 2012 (CET)

Points one and two sound compelling to me. Need more people to weigh in. I don't remember why we used the zero padding in the first place. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 19:42, 12 January 2012 (CET)

This was what happened with my bug report about the issue last year.

From Gemelli (#384532) [reply] [quoted]
Date: Thursday, January 12, 2012, 10:47AM
Intended, yes. You could argue that zeroes should be ignored, but that's probably a lower priority than adding "Else" to the If statement, e.g. :)


> "skill" in BALLS doesn't ignore leading zeros.
> For example, 0019 doesn't match Olfaction, where 19 does.

> Intended?

--Raijinili 11:39, 11 January 2013 (CET)

Template Parameter Formatting

Of all the multi-line templates used on this wiki, some do "parameter=value|" and others do "|parameter=value". Some others have seemingly random indentation as well, possibly coming from examples on the Established Standards pages. In order to make it easier to do scripted edits, we should really standardize to using one format. I personally prefer "parameter=value|" because it ensures that values will never have trailing newlines, and it also makes it easier to distinguish them from wiki-markup tables. Similarly, multi-line templates should ideally put each parameter on its own line, and it might also be useful to put the final "}}" on its own line to avoid needing special cases for detecting it. Scripting the updates may be difficult, but ought to be doable. --Quietust (t|c) 17:41, 28 September 2012 (CEST)

Uses Tables

What if we build tables in the Uses section of item pages, showing the recipes for said uses? Pros: is a quick reference for how to actually make the stuff that can be made with a given item; provides wikilinks between related things. Cons: might be a bit bulky; may constitute redundant information. I put some examples in the sandbox. —Dentarthurdent 09:29, 19 November 2012 (CET)

  • I think this is an AWESOME idea! It'd be sooo helpful to have everything on one page, instead of having to follow each link to see how it's made. --AlphaBitch (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Off-hand items which are actually weapons

I use the Dressing for Success articles a lot, and the Off-hand category always annoys me because it lists a ton of items which I can't equip because they're actually weapons and I don't have Double-Fisted Skull Smashing.

Therefore, I propose using a symbol to signify which Off-hand items listed in Dressing for Success pages are weapons and require DFSS.

I think we can just add this definition to the existing *, or else use a new symbol for this new definition, perhaps a +. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaBitch (talkcontribs)

  • I think I'm on board with a + or ^ or whatever. Being a little clearer can't hurt. ~Erich t/c 23:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Bind-on-use items

Some IoTMs, once used, can never be traded, and are thus bind on use: the plastic vampire fangs, penpal/gameinformblahblah, etc. It would be really great if there was a way to easily differentiate these items, such as by tagging them Bind-on-use [or some other, easier/better term].

I'm pretty new to the game and this wiki, so if we already have a section for bind-on-use items, I don't know what it is. --AlphaBitch (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Monster Manuel entries for enemies

I think it'd be cool/amusing to enter the Monster Manuel factoids for each enemy.

Unless TPTB wouldn't like it, since it may discourage people from buying the Manuel? --AlphaBitch (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  • There's an entire series of pages for Monster Manuel (Entries). --Flargen (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Beaten to the edit. But I'll add that the the wiki aims to have all the text and images from the game and I've never heard of TPTB complaining about that. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 00:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear -- I mean, enter the Manuel data on each enemy's page. Like, as a separate section, maybe below Notes but above References? --AlphaBitch (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The way the wiki has them is fine, IMHO. I thought about the entries on the mob page when we were first adding them in, but then realized that a> it's too much clutter, and b> other content like Manuel is treated with it's own section (ie hatrack and scarecrow message pages). ~Erich t/c 02:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding Siphon Spirits results to monster phylums (phyla?)

So, um, I've decided to add the Siphon Spirits results to monster phylums, just like how each one lists the paste result from Release the Boots. I guess maybe I should've asked beforehand? :/

I'm wording it "Spirits siphoned from members of this phylum give 5/10/15 turns of the effect XX (YY)", which I think looks nice.

I'm also putting the siphon spirits info in front of the stomp-paste info, that way there aren't two unrelated links side by side.

--AlphaBitch (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

  • that seems a decent idea. if someone objects they'll take it out. can't see why, though. --Evilkolbot (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Whew, all done! They look great to me: nice wording, all links are good, consistent style for every single entry. If anyone has a problem, I hope they'll post here before undoing my hard work! --AlphaBitch (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Custom items in lists

I don't think custom items should be listed along with regular game items on category pages.

If someone looks at, say, Familiar Equipment, why do they need to see Cynn's Toddler-sized Dragon Costume in the list? What good does it serve, having it listed in there? --AlphaBitch (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • the short answer is because they're items. they exist in-game and aren't different from non-custom items. why does it offend you so? is there a reason beyond "don't like" that you say this? --Evilkolbot (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    • There are two reasons people look at the lists. To find things for themselves and to just find things. Barring a bug, you or I will never have the dragon costume, but I like seeing it in the list. There are also one-time items, like Mr Store, or untradable event items. I'm probably never going to have a Tam'o'Shatner, and there might be some one-time-untradable familiar item that I lack and cannot get. But I still want to see it listed. --Club (#66669) (Talk) 16:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
      • My opinion as an inconsequential wiki-user and editor is that they should stay. Like club said, there's a bunch of stuff i'll never have that's nice to see listed, personally. occasionally i have wished they weren't there for purposes of "items i might use", but i think that's not the wiki's fault. In my understanding, the wiki is intended to be a completely comprehensive repository of all kol information not specifically requested to not be spoiled. whether it is or isn't isn't this discussion, but that's what i believe the intent is.--Alabit (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Add my voice to Club and Alabit's. I would prefer to see the lists be as comprehensive as possible, whether it's items, tattoos, or what have you. And seeing something like the Toddler-sized Dragon Costume on the wiki is usually how I get to learn about the cool stuff TPTB are doing for their dedicated fans.--MageRed (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
        • A little late to the discussion, but I do want to add in an opinion on the other side: While I like learning about cool items I will never have, it's irritating to have to sort through a list where 70% of the stuff doesn't apply to my hardcore run. "Let's see, I don't have the normal X, Y, or Z I'd have by this point, still need that extra +5 to beat this area... what might be in my inventory that I wouldn't normally pay attention to? Well, not that unique item, or that IotM from 2008, or...." I'm actually really grateful that someone made a secondary food list for only HC-accessible food (even unlikely stuff like Feast of Boris drops), because it makes that list much more manageable when I'm trying to find info in a hurry (say, right before rollover). Would like to see something like that for other lists as well... and the color-coding that tells what sort of item is what is complex, but useful. Kilyle (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The difference between articles and pronouns

While looking at a monsterdata page, I realised we use "pronoun" to mean the word between "You're fighting" and the monster's name, rather than "article". Surely this is a mistake? Additionally, we have no way to specify their actual pronoun. So, what I propose is that we revert all the lines saying "pronoun" to "article", and add pronoun to, well, indicate pronoun._-^Blargh (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)^

  • What would the new "pronoun" be? — Cool12309 (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The (real) pronoun field in Monster Data would specify he, she, it or they. Alternatively, but tougher to ensure consistency, it could be male, female, neutral and group.-Foggy (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
      • How would the second example make consistency harder to ensure? I don't understand.-Blargh (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's badly named, and s/pronoun/article/g makes sense. Adding an actual pronoun field for pronouns is ok too, as it is clearly part of the monster data the game stores so why not document it, although I can't find anywhere it would actually be used here... --Fig bucket (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • you hit him/her/it/them in the nards? --Evilkolbot (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • ...but player/weapon hit messages aren't associated with any particular monster, so having monster pronouns wouldn't help that... --Fig bucket (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed with Fig bucket. Gender essentially would be like Monster Parts. Recordable, not very usable.-Foggy (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • If by usable you mean useful, then of course not. It would be nothing but a curiosum.
      • Another thing I forgot to mention is that we should have a template for pronouns so we don't have to use annoying pseudo-templates such as the <it> or <she> thing some people do; It could be something like {/{pr0n|nomi}} and {/{pr0n|accu}}, and output a random from the list, just like {/{Metal}} does.-Blargh (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Erm, should I take your silence as aggreance/acceptance?_Blargh (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Oh well, I'll just go do that... thing._Blargh (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)_
            • So why is it named 'pr0n'? — Cool12309 (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Also, some uses mess up the verb agreement, since "they" is plural, while he/she/it is singular. --Fig bucket (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Also, also, uses in the same message should be consistent, even if the case is different, so you get stuff like "He hits you with his" rather than "He hits you with her". So I'm going to revert the uses of the template (rather than just fix the name) for now, although I do like the idea of a randomizing pronoun template, and perhaps there is some way to address these issues. --Fig bucket (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
              • Perhaps there is, I wouldn't know. Over here, I tried to rewrite it in a way that should solve the latter problem, except it doesn't. If the correct form of verbs is going to be an ißue, too, then I gueß we need a different template entirely, one that can detect the gender of pronouns. This, I have absolutely no idea how to make.
                Also, it seems the original questions of articles in data pages and documentation of monster gender have been abandoned, which are obviously both gravidly important matters that should be debated for weeks and handled with the severity of ten thousand religious fanatics._Blargh (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)_

user css

  • people (ahem) have been including css to hide the ad frames in their vector.css. this directly affects coldfront's revenue. the admins have complained. apparently there has been talk about turning off user css altogether. perhaps it should be made explicit that any attempt to remove ads server side will be frowned on, and repeated offenders asked to leave the wiki.--Evilkolbot (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We Need Some New Categories!

I personally would like to see some more Useful categories. No offense to monster parts or anything, but we should probably condense those into one big category with them all as subcategories. Other than that, I think it would behoove us, now that they've added daily reminder for some of the usable items and skills, to add the categories Once a Day Usable Items and Once a Day Skills, helping those searching for those things, and the game editors trying to find what they missed. Like the Warbear breakfast and soda machines, and the red and green rain stick. That Name Is Already Taken (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Monster parts categories are admittedly a bit silly for the single items... However, they are already subcategories of Category:Monsters With Specific Parts; do you maybe mean making using the sort-headers extension? Once a day categories would be a good idea; it might also be easy to automatically add items, at least the ones tagged "once per day" in their type field. --Fig bucket (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm Sorry, I Really Am, But I'm Going To Start To Remove Any Finished Posts Now

This page is starting to get cluttered. End of story. Some of the inquiries have been answered already, and so I'm going to remove those. We need others to remove their inquiries once they are finished. That Name Is Already Taken (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Before I remove anything, just tell me it's done. Or do it yourself. That Name Is Already Taken (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Please do not remove anything. If the page is too large then the move this page to Proposed Standards/Archive4 and we can start a fresh one. --Fig bucket (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    • But only some of these have been concluded, and the page needs cleaned up. I won't remove anything, but I'm not sure what to do here. That Name Is Already Taken (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Not every topic will have a conclusion---lack of an obvious conclusion after a long time can be due to lack of support or because it requires a lot of work involved. Some discussions also moved around, or were acted on but not updated. It's all a bit sloppy admittedly, but the number of active discussions has never been so many that finding them has been difficult. nb: Discussion is more active than here (which isn't to say it's particularly active, except in bursts). --Fig bucket (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Elemental info page changes

Right now, the pages Hot, Cold, Stench, Sleaze, and Spooky all list a bunch of resistance sources and a bunch of damage sources. The Resist categories are okay, but should follow Maximizing Your... format, while the damage pages are just a mess.

  • Remove combat item damage listings, those are largely irrelevant to the purpose of the page
  • Format resistances to be like Maximizing format
  • Format damage bonuses same way
  • Format spell damage bonuses same way

This should not be too much work because Mafia can track down damage listings, this will be helpful for PvP, NS Lair test, and so on. Requesting backup, or the go-ahead.--The ErosionSeeker (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm for formatting into the maximize (table) style. I would keep the combat items (in their own column) though. If I need to know what combat usable item(s) deal a specific elemental damage type (and how much) I will visit the elemental page to find out, so I think they should stay. --MageRed (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ditto---reformatting them is a great idea. But I'd also prefer keeping the combat item info somehow, as I've consulted that in the past. --Fig bucket (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)