User talk:Neouni

(Please remove this tag once you've seen it!) · catHEY!! Check out Talk:Questions_for_DDOGamer. It's a PoI that I think that you will find interesting. — LrdSlvrhnd (Contributions • Message) 17:48, April 6, 2013 (EDT)

(Please remove this tag once you've seen it!) · catHEY!! Check out User_talk:Xevo#Semantic_MediaWiki. It's a PoI that I think that you will find interesting. — ShoeMaker ( Contributions • Message) 08:18, March 7, 2013 (EST)

(Please remove this tag once you've seen it!) · catHEY!! Check out DDO_wiki_talk:Administrators#Promotion_.2F_Demotion_requirement_discussion. It's a PoI that I think that you will find interesting. — ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 09:07, April 10, 2012 (EDT)

(Please remove this tag once you've seen it!) · catHEY!! Check out DDO_wiki:Administrators#Promotion_to_this_group. It's a PoI that I think that you will find interesting. — ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 09:07, April 10, 2012 (EDT)

(Please remove this tag once you've seen it!) · catHEY!! Check out Crafting/Item_Upgrading. It's a PoI that I think that you will find interesting. — ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 13:31, March 31, 2012 (EDT)

(Please remove this tag once you've seen it!) · catHEY!! Check out Template_talk:Backlog#New_Template_Proposal. It's a PoI that I think that you will find interesting. — Unsigned

(Please remove this tag once you've seen it!) · catHEY!! Check out Talk:Home#Updated_New_Home_Page_Look_Proposal. It's a PoI that I think that you will find interesting. — ShoeMaker 20:12, March 8, 2012 (EST)

(Please remove this tag once you've seen it!) · catHEY!! Check out Help_talk:Category. It's a PoI that I think that you will find interesting. — ShoeMaker 01:25, January 3, 2012 (EST)

(Please remove this tag once you've seen it!) · catHEY!! Check out Category_talk:Items_without_a_description_image. It's a PoI that I think that you will find interesting. — ShoeMaker 01:38, January 3, 2012 (EST)

Thanks for the correction for the Named Armor Template, the reason why some of the things don't work is because I haven't finished the Named Armor template, lol. Currently you will find that the majority of armors use the Unique armor or Unique armor new template, so I decided to redo the entire template under Named Armor in line with Named Weapon, Named Clothing and Named Jewelry. So it is my fault that at this point it is not finished. UltraMonk 20:56, December 4, 2010 (EST)

Named item template

zomg! thats zber template! is that rip-off from the compendium or are you really that good at html/css? --yoko5000 10:52, December 20, 2010 (EST)

I'm actually pretty handy with reading code and using it for my own, so i grabbed some ideas from wiki's of games i used to edit on Neouni 11:16, December 20, 2010 (EST)

sPraser mode bug

let me ask you this if you dont mind. when we go to a different skin form current default website skin, such as sPraser mode, lots of html tags get broken on this site. good example is {{popup}} and {{longpopup}} mouseover.

• example: http://ddowiki.com/page/Category:Durk's_Got_A_Secret_loot?useskin=sparseman

any idea how is that happening? if so, can we fix that by editing those templates? my html knowledge is so 1998, so help appreciated. --yoko5000 23:05, February 8, 2011 (EST)

Probably need to add something like http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Tooltip to make it work instead of simple html code Neouni 16:50, February 11, 2011 (EST)

Named Weapon Template needs tweak

Hi Neouni,

I try'd to correct and update some missing information of the Hooked Blade and noticed that the Template:Named Weapon need some tweaks. Especially for the Fusible and Malleable items we may upgrade to more then one item. That mean the line:

{{#if: {{{crafting|}}} | [[{{{crafting}}}]] {{#ifeq: {{{craftingupgrade}}} | | | to [[{{{craftingupgrade}}}]] }} | Not upgradeable }}

should be addapted accordingly. Maybe adding a 'craftingupgradeS' line or removing the automatink link in 'craftingupgrade'? I would do it myself but is locked (with reason) ;) -- SisAmethyst 11:43, May 7, 2011 (EDT)

If you check the history for that template Sis, you can see I was already working on that issue when some people had a temper tantrum.. So I just dropped it and left it broken.. Well, at least until I can figure out a way to have it check the input to see if any link brackets exist in {{{craftingupgrade}}}.. Then I can have it automatically put link brackets on only if it needs them.. If you find a forum post that shows an idea for a way to make that work, let me know. I've found posts requesting this and suggesting this, but no actually ideas on ways to do this.

ShoeMaker 12:41, May 7, 2011 (EDT)

Got an idea, using a template {{!}} gave me an idea.
Okay added the {{Extra}} template, when the first argument is not blank it will create 'or' instead of ',' so press the anykey.

Neouni 14:26, May 7, 2011 (EDT)

I did indeed look in the history and saw the last edit from Neouni, which is exactly why I posted it. Nice idea and it works! ;) ... only problem I guess may be is, that it is not straight forward to use for most forum editors. Especially the 'any key' is probably looking confusing for some :)

SisAmethyst 08:52, May 8, 2011 (EDT)

Category Flagging

Awesome job on the list category switches in the item templates for the things that need "picdesc's." I would have never thought of that! -- Taurolyon 11:52, May 7, 2011 (EDT)

Template:Spelldescription

I've already played with it a bit and got it to work on Template:Extra.. We now have Extension:Loops. May make it easier on the server for type 1-4 to just have it loop through all 4? Just a thought..

ShoeMaker 09:34, May 16, 2011 (EDT)

For the server it would be the same ammount to process, unless I can think of a way to drop types from the list once they have been seen before.
So the only thing it adds it's obfuscating the code.

Neouni 09:41, May 16, 2011 (EDT)

Gem of many Facets in "in development" section

Hi, in regards of removing my contribution. While I appreciate your effort, I believe it doesnt counter the fact, that the Gem *is* introduced into the game.

I am not clear, if your comment "Dev says it doesn't work like it's supposed to.." is meant for the regular or the epic version or the item as such.

So I would prefer, that the general note is back (Gem is introduced with update 7) and maybe extend it with a general warning, since I didn't see a statement somewhere else.

Please comment. Cheers, Kaz

Dev says: it is supposed to work for either item, currently only replaces necklaces.

The Dev doesn't seem to make a comment on which version. --Neouni 12:22, July 7, 2011 (EDT)

Really? That seems odd to me... the description specifies necklaces - "This necklace is one of two pieces of the ______ set" for each set. - LrdSlvrhnd 17:19, July 7, 2011 (EDT)

@Kaz Its for both versions. The gem was meant to replace EITHER missing piece (necklace, boots, gloves, belt, ect) to complete a set. This item is one example of "Dev 1 (in charge of brainstorming new items) draws the idea one way, Dev 2 (the code monkey slave they keep chained in the corner,) cant read Dev 1's handwriting and programs it differently". Since Genasi is working on the Epic - Epic Revamp, once hes finished with some of the other items im sure he will tweak both versions to work as intended - Yawgmoth 18:43, July 7, 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for the feedback so far. Just to clarify my understanding:
1. The item is live with Update 7.
2. It goes in the trinket slot.
3. It replaces the set bonus, not the necklace specific boni of the set piece.

Intial statement was: "Dev says it doesn't work like it's supposed to.." After the reading here: Dev says: it is supposed to work for either item, currently only replaces necklaces."

Makes me wonder, how is that supposed to work with one item only? Sounds like one can have full set (2 pieces) replaced with this one item?

For the time beeing I would say: "It works as per description on item." If future changes are planned, we will see.

In either case, the information should/could be removed from "in development" section or rewritten like "..changes in future planned to change behaviour of item.." or similar.

Cheers, Kaz

Reverting edits without explaination, and marking them as minor is not very co-operative. There is a very good reason to link effects to a redirect rather then directly i've explained before: A vast amount of our effect pages are missing "found on" entries.. To correct this, the easiest and fastest way to do so is to check the "what links here" tool. If all the entries link directly to a page with multiple effects listed, it doubles the workload neeeded update it.

Even worse for pages where we don't list "found on" at all.. As for those, our only option is the what links here tool.

Regardless, its not a big a deal.. Reverting my edits and not expalining why ,and improper use of the minor box is the bigger issue. You seem to make many changes to game info and mark them as minor. From wikipedia:
A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. An edit of this kind is marked in its page's revision history with a lower case, bolded "m" character (m).

So please try to make proper use of the minor checkbox, and if you feel my edits should be reveted, explain why and don't mark the reversions minor without explaination when they are obviously disputable.

Example in question: http://ddowiki.com/index.php?title=Alchemist%27s_Pendant&action=historysubmit&diff=117147&oldid=117123

Shade 23:06, February 20, 2012 (EST)