User talk:Pirho420

Getting rid of red link -- koolkat 11:39, January 30, 2006 (PST)

A title because it needs one.
Haha, you're a genius for creating the V, S, and M pages, and redirecting them to Verbal, Somatic, and Material component pages. I was visiting to every spell page and changing the links for V, S, and M to point to the full-worded versions. I guess I'm still adjusting to wiki-ness. Thanks, you saved me a ton of edits! Dedridd 07:42, February 9, 2006 (PST)
 * Not a genius  just lazy.  I try to do the simplest solution to every problem.  Maybe you see now how I envisioned the spell lists coming together.  I mean theres no real reason for having to type verbal component when you can just cut and paste the v in and just link it.  I still dont know quite how these categories work yet and I am forgetting stuff here that is DDO specific, but I think that there is enough crossover that I can do the DNDwiki and the DDOwiki at the same time and save everyone a bunch of work.  We could even have brd 2 redirect to the full bard spell list if you want.  Theres always the category link at the bottom of the page that does that as well so I figured brd 2 redirecting to the second level spells was something worthwile. --  koolkat 08:10, February 9, 2006 (PST)


 * Well, the only reason I thought of for changing them was to un-abbreviate, in case people didn't know what V stood for. It's better now that they're linked up! Dedridd 08:14, February 9, 2006 (PST)


 * I forgot to mention, going just to a list of the spells would be ok if there's a category list at the bottom of that 2nd level spell page to get them to the full list so that they don't get stranded there. I would imagine it would be beneficial to put each spell-level list in a template though, so users didn't have to worry about updating both places if something changes. Dedridd 08:20, February 9, 2006 (PST)


 * Seems like thiocan doesnt like my idea so Ill just make all of those redirect to the category anyways once I get around to it. -- koolkat 09:48, February 9, 2006 (PST)


 * You're talking about copy / pasting spell lists? Yes, I don't think it's a good thing, as people are going to update one list and forget the other. If we can put everything in one single place it is much much better. -- Tihocan 10:00, February 9, 2006 (PST)


 * Yeah I was worried about that, but I didnt know how else to generate a list of only level 2 spells from one class without doing a copy and paste. Is it possible?  Note I would like it to look like the summaries and not like a category page. -- koolkat 11:34, February 9, 2006 (PST)

--> Two ways to do it: one, use the 'anchors' to redirect right to the part of the page that has that level of spells you're looking for. Tihocan showed me how to do it, and I used it on the Cause fear spell page, for the levels. If you're really set against that kind of solution, you could put the list of spells in a template, and then use that template both on the complete list page as well as the page that has just the level 2 spells. An example of this is the Weapon Focus page and the Weapon Focus: Bludgeoning page that both use Template:Weapon Focus Bludgeoning List. Dedridd 11:48, February 9, 2006 (PST)
 * Thats perfect. I'll switch DNDwiki over to that and then maybe switch this over as well depending on what other people think.  Thanks for your help I didnt think of suing a template like that.  -- koolkat 12:04, February 9, 2006 (PST)


 * The only disadvantage of doing it the template way is that it can be confusing for new users to figure out where the data is when they want to edit the info they can see on the page. Dedridd 13:12, February 9, 2006 (PST)


 * Created Category:Level 1 for all that base stuff, unless thats what you mean by base. Big Gino 15:24, February 10, 2006 (PST)


 * Not sure if it should be there. Afterall leather +1 is a level 1 item as well, but it is enchanted leather armor.  I could also see cross referencing somehow all of the leather armors in the game on the leather armor page, butprobably in the leather armor category instead that way we dont have to make the page :P -- koolkat 15:27, February 10, 2006 (PST)


 * Ok, when i get a chance gonna go put all that quested stuff thats lvl 1 in cat lvl 1. We can realy get crazy and have cat armor, cat heavy armor, cat full plate and so on to sort like that.  Same for weapons, slashing weapons, 1 handed weapons and longsword.  thats alot of work, but if we get it set up now it will be easier to put the new stuff in as we get it.  Big Gino 15:34, February 10, 2006 (PST)


 * Man I didnt even think of one handed versus two handed.  I think that isnt a big deal.  I would just do like we did with the weapons so far.  Categorize them into the three types (because weapons focus is in those three types and also into the specific weapon, like dagger longsword mace for example. I am going to see if we can automatically add that to the template so everything happens at once.  -- koolkat 16:14, February 10, 2006 (PST)


 * Awesome as long as you dont like to the weapon type It is all set up. If you fill in the template it automatically categorizes it. Right now it will categorize each weapon and put it in category of weapon minimum level damage class and weapon type -- koolkat 16:22, February 10, 2006 (PST)


 * Is that going to work if it has 2 types like slash and magic. Or will it automaticaly start a new category which slash and magic Big Gino 16:26, February 10, 2006 (PST)


 * It takes the slash from the weapon class, and the specific from the weapon type so as long as the class is "slashing weapon" and the type is "dagger" for example it will put everything in the correct category, as long as the level is a single number and not level number then everything should work out fine. -- koolkat 16:38, February 10, 2006 (PST)


 * Sigh* can't believe I didn't notice this page developing and nip it in the bud. Ok, removing indents, this is still my reply below:

Here's a list of the correct answers...
 * For the spell lists pages, I now see where PiRho was getting his weird system lol - it's all fixed up right over a DNDwiki now, I just completely corrected the Druid and, I think Bard perhaps spell lists and links. You can as pirho found out the hard way, you can pull any page like a template, it doesn't have to be a page name like Template:This and that (which you would just pull with ). Instead, sometimes it is easier to pull a normal page, like This and that (no template namespace, see?) - that's as easy as typing  - notice the colon right after the opening curly brackets. So, the lists have been converted. Secondly, you might want some text on the Drd 1 page that you DON'T want on the Druid spell list page - so, just, on the Drd 1 page, put said text in no include tags just like that! Then it will appear when someone is viewing Drd 1, but not when somebody is viewing Druid spell list. Just so I don't have to get frustrated and tell you later, a  tag is also available.
 * Anchors don't redirect. Period. Well, at least, yet - even not fixed on WikiPedia itself yet. Poor sops aint got xevo, so I'm sure we'll have it soon enough, and long before wikipedia - just have to wait a bit. Anyway, yah, no go for #Redirect Page name, sorry.
 * Categories should be placed for EVERYTHING you can think of. My goal is for users to be able to browse complete from the category system if they want. However, they should also be as collapsed as possible - a page about oranges would NOT go in Category:Orange colored things, Category:Fruits, and Category:Spherical things - instead, it would go in a category Category:Spherical orange fruits - then THAT page, the Category:Spherical orange fruits page ITSELF, would go in the aforementioned three categories. Make sense? Then, all 4 categories mentioned above will appear on the wiki page for that item. *Sigh* I need to host like lessons or something I am getting tired of explaining all this.
 * More later, maybe. Damn we need a FAQ page. 17:34, February 10, 2006 (PST)

New category stuff
So it seems to me that you are overcomplicating things. So if we were to make a page about oranges we would put it in a new category and then put that category into three mother categories. Isn't it simpler to put all of the qualities of a fruit in a category and then you would have one less page per fruit. So if I wanted to create a papaya it would be in category orange category oblong and category fruit. That way in category orange and category fruit it shows up, but not in category spherical. I am just trying to organize things how they would exist in my mind in a way that I could find them easiest. I started with the spells and now I am working on the items in DDO. (well I really need to finish the spells first I think) -- koolkat 21:42, February 10, 2006 (PST)


 * Nope. No time to explain reasons now - watch the categorization policy page for updates, I'll post the exact reasoning later, I promise. Just right now at a party and no time to really explain it, sorry - trust me? I would hope you can trust that I know what I am doing, been using and perfecting the wiki system for 4 years. In short, it's to make browsing and finding stuff easier for the end-user. We've had numerous comments about how hard it is to navigate through the site, two people have separately even said that it makes the information useless if you can't find it quick enough. 21:54, February 10, 2006 (PST)


 * I do think you have an idea for organization, but I also think I have a different idea for organization. I have never worked with a wiki before, but I have played D&D for longer than you have existed.  I have most of the rules already organized in my head, and am just applying that to the wiki.  I would find my personal categorization system easy to use, and probably find yours very convaluted.  If you give me a nice logical reason of why your system is better then I will immediately switch (once I know what this imaginary system that I am just supposed to magically know without being told) to your system.  -- koolkat 07:24, February 11, 2006 (PST)


 * I have 3.5 minutes of battery left on this computer. Point is, I am the admin (damn it I hate to have to play this card) and I respectfully ask that you respect my wishes and know that this organizational system is easier for newcomers to read- and that is what is the most important. All we are doing is adding multiple levels of categorization, DMOZ-style, instead of a completely flat categorization system. Make any sense? I hope so. Battery dead bye. 17:49, February 11, 2006 (PST)


 * I know you provided a fruit example, but maybe a more in-depth one when you get a chance would help us all understand your design, Peerless, and be able to follow it. Dedridd 18:55, February 11, 2006 (PST)


 * I have no idea what DMOZ style is. If you explain it and it makes sense thenall is good and I will start doing it that way.  If you explain it and it makes no sense, well then I will do it because you are the "admin" and I am a lowly worker bee.  I just need to know HOW to do it and also a WHY it is good.  I dont see how having a specific category for every item helps anyone find anything.  I mean if we are going to be so specific as to make a round orange fruit category, and then put it in a round category an orange category and a fruit category.  If you want mutiple levels then why not say an item category as a branch, and then have that branch into weapon armor shield and misc.  Then for example split the weapon off into dagger sword and every weapon.  -- koolkat 18:57, February 11, 2006 (PST)


 * Back for a second onna friends comp - I am doing my best to get this across to you in my 5 minute little snippets of time today. What you are talking about is flat categorization, 2-dimensional. A leads to B, B leads to C and D, C leads to C1 and C2, right? So you could go A-B-C-C1, or A-B-D, right? What if, though, X fits in both C1 and D - well, you could put it into both categories, and a user could find X by going A-B-C-C1, OR by going A-B-C-D, fine and all, right? However, say BOTH X and Y fit in C1 and D - what if the user wanted to find all the pages that fit in both C1 and D - as an example, X and Y are two weapons, both which are martial prof. (category C1) and both of which can be used by a level 2 (category D) - A user would be able to find all the weapons usable at level two (D) with your system, and all the weapons he can use with his martial weapon proficiency feat (C1), but there is now ay for him to find weapons that he can use, because there is no way for him to automatically find weapons to fit both categories. So, my way, X and Y would be tagged with the category "C1 and D" as a single category (in the example, "level two martial weapons" category) - THIS way, the user can go from A to B to C to C1, so he is now browsing the Martial Weapon Proficiency category, then he sees the sub-categories of the various weapon levels, one of which is "Category:Level two martial weapons" right? Woot now he can see a list of ALL the weapons he can use! So, although it requires creating that extra category page with the arch-categories for it, it much simplifies the browsing experience. Sorry for the horrendous explanation, I am quite tired and stressed. Now, I would hope in the future you would be able to trust that I actually do think about what I say before I say it, and have put MUCH thought into the way I categorize things and stub things and templates things and move things and name things and create things and arrange things and in general run things. I am NOT saying that I am always right! I am saying that you should give me the benefit of the doubt. IF you have a good reason why something I have said should be done or have done on my own is not as good as it could be, or outright stupid, SAY SO! However, until I have acknowledged that my way was deprecated, if I have told you to do it a certain way, please respect my wishes and do it that way. Understand that I am *VERY* open to suggestions - here, I said the way I wanted things done, and although you did offer an explanation of why you thought it should be done your way, you continued to do it your way. Better would have been to offer said explanation and start doing it the way I had suggested out of courtesy and deference, *NOT* to my position, but to my experience working with wikis! I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I believe I really do know what I am doing. I make mistakes, of course, but here I had no chance to explain my reasons for my thoughts. When you posted your thoughts and I replied that I had reasons that pre-empted even yours, you should have, at that point, believed me and at least attempted to follow what I had said. Everything on the wiki is a power structure based not on who I say is admin and who I say isn't, but instead, based on knowledge and how much the said person can benefit the wiki. I won't lie to you, if you weren't so 'aged' on the wiki, having been around and making a GREAT MANY of great contributions, I probably would have temporarily banned you, perhaps 2-3 days, for going directly against the wishes of an admin. Although your experience and our need for you cushioned you this time, you are the DNDwiki administrator - I expect MUCH more independence, but at the same time, MUCH more ability to follow my suggestions than I do to other users. Did all that make sense? For instance, if lion had done the same thing, directly told me he was not going to do what I told him until I explained it, I probably would not have banned him, as he is new and doesn't really know what is going on, and is under no obligation to do what I say (except the aforementioned possibility of a ban). However, if you had done exactly the same thing before making some 500+ edits on the wiki, I would have temporarily banned you and removed your priviages as an administrator until further notice. I need to be able to trust that my administrators will act as extensions of my will, that you will do your best to pass on my wishes to your respective domains. Does that make sense? I really don't want to sound like a major jerk, but this needs to be explained. Also, I have no problem explaining things - if a situation like this arises, where you dis-agree with me, at least keep doing it the way I have asked until we can come to a conclusion, until you have explained your reasoning to me and I mine to you, and we have seen the other's position and morphed our own to accomodate the pros of the other's and refuse the cons of our own. Does that make sense? I have to go now, so much more I wish to say. Also, look! An immediate example of my lack of perfectness, I should have broken this into smaller paragraphs to increase reader comprehension (namely, your comprehension) - no time now, will have to remember that in the future when I go on a talk binge lol. End of post. 19:26, February 11, 2006 (PST)



I knew that you had a plan. I just didnt understand that plan (and still for now I dont know how to accomplish it in a wiki sense. I didnt know you couldnt do a search with boolean operators in a wiki.  Also I didnt really go against your wishes as much as I added in poorly formatted content.  I figure data in is better than data not in and seeing as I had no idea (and still dont) as to how to make it work your way I just fit it into my correlating filters.  I think more examples are in order so I can see exactly what I need to do.  Also I am not an admin on dndwiki, Im just the most active person.  and as an asie dont ever ban me.  If I make a mistake tell me and Ill fix it, as is blatantly obvious from the spell organization schemes on dndwiki, but throwing around bans for something as simple as not understanding your request and still inputting data seems to me to be vindictive.  Note I am not mad I just need to know what to do and Ill do it. To see if I have understanding lets say a weapon has 4 qualities Type (aka dagger) Class (aka slashing) Minlevel (aka 2) and Quality (aka elfbane or something like that). Does that mean that we should put it in the following categories: (shortend to t - type c - class m - minlevel and q - quality) T C M Q TC TM TQ CM CQ MQ TCM TCQ TMQ CMQ TCQM and is there q way to automate that as it is a lot of typing. I played around with automating categories (see template:itemweapon) and it worked but not well. -- koolkat 20:07, February 11, 2006 (PST)


 * No, it should just be in the relevant categories. For the template, just put.. whatever. Too tired to keep this up. Do what you want, and I'll make the corrections I think are appropriate when I have time. Watch this list Special:Contributions/Peerless like a hawk, I'll just fix up one or two so you get an idea what I mean perhaps. Love ya lots, don't ever think I don't (-: 20:16, February 11, 2006 (PST)


 * I'll just work on spells until I get some examples then. Much simpler.  -- koolkat 20:55, February 11, 2006 (PST)


 * I may have jumped the gun here, but I entered in pages for most of the base weapon types last night. And as I went to bed, I remembered this category discussion and wondered if I should have held off. I'm more than willing to go back through and clean up the categories on all the weapon pages. Could you use one of the weapons on the Martial weapons page and categorize it as an example for us sometime, Peerless? I think that'd help both koolkat and I by giving us something to emulate. Dedridd 05:48, February 14, 2006 (PST)

Sysop promotion
You've been set to sysop on DDO wiki, so that you should be able to edit protected pages, rollback on spammers, delete pages, and do a few other minor things like patrolling (whatever that means). Just in case you would need to :] -- Tihocan 10:51, February 13, 2006 (PST)
 * Thanks much What is patrolling? -- koolkat 11:24, February 13, 2006 (PST)
 * A little hack of mine. Will esplain it later here: Enter:Patrol. 11:26, February 13, 2006 (PST)

Spell entries
Koolkat, can you please include a '|cd= ' blank parameter line when setting parameter values for the spelldescription template in your spell entries to prevent the spells from showing the following: 'Cooldown = '. I've been fixing the ones entered so far. Dedridd 18:06, February 16, 2006 (PST)


 * He I was leaving it blank on purpose because we dont know the cooldown. Do you think it should be in there as nothing until we know? -- koolkat 20:51, February 16, 2006 (PST)