Talk:Lotro-Wiki Contributors' Corner
| Archives |
|---|
| 2017 |
| 2016 |
| 2015 |
| 2014 |
| 2013 |
| 2012 |
| 2011 |
| 2010 |
| 2009 |
| 2008 |
| 2007 |
Welcome to the 2017 Talk Page of Contributors' Corner
- Here you can ask questions and/or discuss general issues concerning LotRO-Wiki.
- Discussions regarding a specific article should be directed to its talk page.
- Please remember to sign and date your post by typing -- ~~~~ (four tildes) or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar!
- Start new discussion!
LOTRO and DDO have been acquired by Standing Stone Games
See: Standing Stones Games Announcement - December 2016
LOTRO-wiki Disclaimer updated
- The Lotro-Wiki.com:General disclaimer and the Game_Terms#Legal for LOTRO-wiki has been updated to include the relevant information from our new Publisher: Daybreak Game Company LLC and Developer: Standing Stone Games.
New Logos
- Here are the couple of logos and Icons which are new with the change in ownership.
- There are probably others that are also relevant that I have missed.
- New Logos
-
LOTRO Point-icon.png
-
Logo Standing-Stone-Games.png
-
File:Logo SSG LOTRO 41.png
-
Logo Daybreak Logo White48 ex.png
-
Logo saul-zaentz.png
- Parental Guidance Logos
-
File:Logo lotro esrb 2013 162x83.gif
-
Logo usk.png
-
Logo pegi.png
Orphaned Pages... that aren't orphaned?
- I think I get the idea behind Orphaned Pages - that they are stand-alone articles without links to or from other articles. If that is truly what the Orphaned Pages is supposed to show, then I am confused. Because looking at the first 50 items listed, 19 are creatures that have an appropriate link from their respective instance or skirmish page under the Mobs section, within an expandable listing. Admittedly, these creatures are not transcluded, but by being listed, aren't they being "linked from"? Or does the bot/script for determining orphan status not see all entries in an expandable list? If they are being "linked from" then doesn't that mean they do not meet the orphan criteria of being "not linked from"? Or has the convolutions of logic escaped me again? -- Squirmier (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would assume that this is not a live page but one which needs to be refreshed from time to time and has simply become outdated. Somewhere like Wikipedia you might need to refresh this on a daily basis or more often, but on a small wiki like this it's needed rather less often. Someone with the appropriate permissions needs to trigger the script, I guess. —NotACat (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks NotACat for your answer. I started to try and wrap my brain around so I saw "orphaned" from the other perspective (ie, glass half-full or empty, but with orphans!) and ummm... lets just say I encountered Rod Serling and he was intrigued. (O-o) ! -- Squirmier (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- What I have noticed with orphans is that some are orphaned if the only links to the page are from categories. If you access them from a drop down list, that is probably from an embedded category list. I don't know whether a clean up process fixes these ones. Noddi (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Noddi, that seems to be exactly what I'm encountering. I'm not sufficiently versed in Categories and their edits to comfortably perform such changes. I'm more then a dabbler, but less then a dedicated editor; my "simple" edits take me at least a couple of hours to craft. So I try to raise questions and point out the tougher issues when I encounter them. Which, quite strangely, seems to be astoundingly often. -- Squirmier (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- IMO, these false positives need to be addressed. They are wasting effort by misleading contributors to track down non-existent errors (3.5+ hours researching the issue before I started this thread). New contributors might get so annoyed they stop contributing altogether. Unless it would require extensive time & resources to correct, I cannot imagine why the status quo would be maintained. -- Squirmier (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to one example? The orphan maintence script found no incorrect orphan pages. Feel free to ask these types of questions on my talk page. --Lotroadmin (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- I should point out that MediaWiki's defination of a orpahn page
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan#What_is_an_orphan.3F
- Sadly the categorytree doesn't count but there's been a few feature requests, but the sole response was it wasn't possible.
- An alternate approach is to focus on pages without categories. I will review the extensions to see if there's a way to build an alternate list of orphans without categories.. --Lotroadmin (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- There are only 4 orphan pages without categories and i found those after creating a simple extension that i will enable after some more testing. With a newer version of MW, i will try to add a hidden category for all pages with category tree and craft another extension to find orphans without that tag on the page. --Lotroadmin (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
indexing multi-level items
While working through the low level vendor and intro items, I have found many items with a similar name but different levels. These are being created with "(Level xx)" in their Wiki page name. Over the years there have been several attempts to index these, usually involving the item name without the level indicator, and a manually added list of pages with similar names or some comment about there being multi levels. I have a proposal to organise these. For each multi level type, create a sub-category for that type (eg, Bear Knife items), as a sub page of the type of weapon category. (eg, Dagger items). Then in each weapon page use the additional 1st, 2nd... category pages to add the page to sub-category. For each group created, create or modify the generic item page (eg Bear Knife) to include the category tree, similar to what I did for beasts. This will automate the indexing of these multi-level items. Feasible? If interested I will set up Bear Knifes as an example. Noddi (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm for this change, setting it up like Category:Star-lit Crystals, and in turn Category:Legendary Items would be great for better organization, in my opinion. Balorgor (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- see Item:Bear Knife, Category:Bear Knife Items and Category:Dagger Items for an example of how this will look with this set-up. Is this fine or are there better ways of doing this?Noddi (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)