User talk:Zimoon

From Lotro-Wiki.com
Jump to navigation Jump to search
tools
Python Scripts
old todo

Item Tooltip documentation

Hey, I was looking over the changes to Template:Item Tooltip/doc and saw a few descriptions that might need to be reworded. The ones that say something like blank or "Yes" to show "Unique" in the right corner of the tooltip were correct before - leaving the value blank will not display anything, while putting any value (not just "Yes") will display the related text. -- Eggolass (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2012 (EDT)

Yes, you are correct, but, I wanted to remove the extra verbiage as it adds absolutely no value to the context, it was just redundant words. Adding extra weight to a sentence, even if the words are correct, also diffuse the content and the reader might miss some crucial part. And it also drains energy and is wearisome having to skip redundancies. What we could do, if anything, is to have a note explaining something like "Whenever we suggest 'Yes' you may use any other text as any text will enable that parameter". A one-note-rules-them-all kind of thing.
I am going to add that right away, but feel free to polish on that note. -- Zimoon (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2012 (EDT)
I think it is more confusing now. It looks as if either leaving it blank or typing "Yes" will make the word appear, which is completely the wrong message. Do we need to explain the blank option in each parameter? -- Elinnea (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2012 (EDT)
Hmmmm, good point. I will polish on my most recent edit and you have another look and fix possible grammar. Notice that the boilerplate is not changed in this regard, it has read "blank or Yes" for quite some time. Honestly, I have not noticed too many editor's mistakes during those long months, let us not make a hen out of a feather ;)
-- Zimoon (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2012 (EDT)
I like that better. I did get a question from someone who was confused by a "blank or Yes" line in a boilerplate. I can't be sure what exactly was confusing him, but it is true that the phrase is ambiguous in English. Hopefully any other confused person will read the note. And of course, if you figure out what it means there, you will know what to do with every other parameter in templates all over the wiki. That's the nice thing with consistency. -- Elinnea (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2012 (EDT)
Thanks Elin, for my grammar and spelin mistakes spotting, too. -- Zimoon (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2012 (EDT)

Old merger proposal

Account Type merged-- see Talk:Account Types Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

Splendid, awesome job! -- Zimoon (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2012 (EDT)
On the topic of the Redirects -- should Redirects have Category statements? I have assumed not. Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2012 (EDT)
No, and I think any other text at that page is either just not displayed or it is disregarded completely. -- Zimoon (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2012 (EDT)
The redirect should be at the very start of the page, else there are cases where it will not be recognized as such. In rare cases, it can look like part of a numbered list. You can put in delete or move request template calls, or anything else you want, but, because the redirect causes you to automatically get sent to the target page, the viewer needs to do something special in order to view the redirect page itself. So, yes, don't bother putting information on the redirect page. Putting a category link is somewhat useless, after all, the normal user is not going to get to the redirect page itself. Just put the category link on the destination page, where the viewer is going to land. RingTailCat (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2012 (EDT)
And they automagically end up at http://lotro-wiki.com/index.php/Special:ListRedirects
-- Zimoon (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

Scroll cases

Since the lists for apprentice scroll cases is complete I've added all of them into the generic page. I was thinking of leaving each list under each scroll case name, but thought that it would be better to leave them separated since one might not be exactly looking for that when seeing that page, but rather just the list of scrolls alone. So I left the recipes with reward to be easier to find a certain profession by the icon. Any changes you'd make? Gwenwyfar (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2012 (EDT)

That looks great and your decision was wise :) -- Zimoon (talk) 04:28, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
Good :) We can use that format for the next ones once their lists is done then.
Gwenwyfar (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
Sad that we cannot transclude from the generic page tho. Oooh, we can, but that is tricky and needs some serious thought. I would not go for that :( -- Zimoon (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
Wouldn't just a section transclusion work? (If its that easy, I'm not too familiar with page transcluding). If its not, could still just add a simple parser coding and transclude it with an option to just say the name of the profession and then a certain part shows up.
Gwenwyfar (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
It is easy once you get the hang of it, but what I thought of is messy :(
There was a sample somewhere but it involves quite a bit of extra code. Since these things are pretty static I don't think it is a bother, but, we could use a "meta-page" that just lists the possible results and transclude that one as usual. Such as am "Apprentice Scroll Case - Results".
-- Zimoon (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2012 (EDT)
That sounds good. Would only have to edit one page for all recipes of all tiers too. I'll make it later if you don't beat me to it :)
Gwenwyfar (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2012 (EDT)

Item Icons

Hi Zim! I was working on the Eastemnet vendors today and realized that when I put up the items Jagged Norcrofts Axe and Sharpened Norcrofts Axe back on 10/20, I hadn't created a generic icon :/ Is there any way to change the icon, or will we need to leave it as-is and maybe create another icon named generically? Thanks for your input! Garabrand (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

Hi, you can use the Template:Move to request that a user with higher privilege perform a move on your behalf. This places the page in a hidden TODO category, see Category:Move Candidates, where users that can do the move will find and execute the request. Usually, they will do any clean up necessary. Note that there is also a Template:Delete Page to request page removal for unnecessary pages (and files), see Category:Articles for deletion. RingTailCat (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
Thanks a ton, Cat....can you tell me if I did it right for those two icons? Still pretty green at a lot of things... Garabrand (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
That seems perfect. If not beaten to it I will fix it when I come home. There is always the behind the scenes checks to do, "is the target file name occupied?", "are the still something in what-links-here?", etc. which I cannot really do at the job ;)
-- Zimoon (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
Thanks a lot :) I did look at the generics and only saw up to style 9, so I put those 2 as 10 and 11. Garabrand (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
Just one thing, the page Category:Move Candidates is empty ;)
Next time, do not add the |nocat=y}} as it disables adding the page to the tracker category, but we really want to have them there for easy access. I do not know why that parameter is there in the first place and I will research and possibly remove it. I found two image pages anyway and will move them as requested. -- Zimoon (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
Having the nocat=y parameter allows you to give an example of template usage in the doc, without requesting that the doc page get moved somewhere inappropriate! I suppose the doc should be clearer about why you might want to use that parameter. (fixed spelling) RingTailCat (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
Rightoo, hmm, I guess it should not be mentioned at all, but in a foot note. The only place I can find it useful is at the template page itself, or its /doc page ;) -- Zimoon (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

Template Magic

Regarding this. I'm not sure what you mean, but it works for me at least.

Example One

{{templateX
| parameter1    =
}}

Example Two

{{templateX}}

If you now do a

{{#if: {{{parameter1|}}} | did it | fail }}

both Example One and Two, will/should give you a "fail". Basically because "{{{XXX|}}}" will only evaluate to an empty string if XXX hasn't been specified or is empty (aka consisting only of whitespaces).
(Only exception here are things like {{templateX|parameter1={{{mode|}}} }}, but I don't think you should or even want to worry about that kind of stuff ;) )

Everything clear now? :p You can also have a look at mediawiki's explanation.

--EoD (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2012 (EST)

My problem seems to be that creature Faerdûath does not work for me (neither does Faerdûath's Shadow). Both are using Template:Creature and both have nocat=yes set at their pages respectively. I had probably just complicated things by the #if: clause in this diff. Removing and using a simple |nocat={{{nocat|}}} worked. Thanks for you help.
PS: Yes, that wiki-help page was the one I studied over and over again, but I think there is some magic with my try to use an #if: that I do not really understand. Yet. DS. -- Zimoon (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2012 (EST)

Update 9...

...completely revises Stable-master window and Travel structure
See: User_talk:Magill#Update_9_completely_revises_Stable-master_window_and_Travel_structure —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magill (Contribs • User Talk) at 28 Nov 2012.

Whoah! You'll be overtaking me in contributions soon enough!

Haha! That's what I get for taking a long break from Lotro! I feel like taking my time with Rohan instead of screencapping everything like I used to do. Starbursty (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2012 (EST)

:)
I enjoy the editing and finds lots of stuff to polish and improve. But indeed, without much of the stuff that already is added it would quickly become a chore. Do what you enjoy the most :-)
-- Zimoon (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2012 (EST)

Congrats...

... to your sons on becoming fully(?) mature! ;) Sethladan 17:49, 13 December 2012 (EST)

Will they ever? :P -- Zimoon (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2012 (EST)

Quest: Crafting: A Superior crafting facility

Definition of terms:

I took several characters through these quests in the last few days. I did not notice that the expert craft NPCs offered the superior crafting facility quest. It seemed unchanged: You had to go find a novice craft NPC to get the quest. Then go tod the named expert craft NPC. The named expert craft NPC (and only that one expert craft NPC) would have the same quest comment as the novice craft NPCs when you found him. I don't believe he would offer you the superior crafting facility quest. He would just offer you his artisan craft quest, and after you completed that, he would complete the superior crafting facility quest.

There are lots of crafting areas, see South Bree and Snowbourn as examples, where there are no novice or expert crafting NPCs near the regular or superior crafting facility. There is just a nearby supplier from which to purchase crafting ingredients (but not recipes).

The problem with this arrangement, is that you just stop gaining craft experience. There was no message. Unless you are standing beside a novice crafter and notice that he gains a quest ring when you gain enough experience to get expert proficiency, your might have a WTF moment. If you aren't beside a novice crafting NPC, you might have a major WTF moment. Often, you will end up wasting a bunch of materials for no crafting XP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RingTailCat (Contribs • User Talk) at 2012-12-22T13:46:23‎.

I based my changes on what I noticed in the newly beefed up Three-farrow Crafting Hall in Bree. I had the initial quest and actually dropped it to check whether the Expert crafting vendor offered it or not. This was the new Expert Jeweller there, and I assumed this to be symmetric for all experts. -- He offered both quests.
Could it be that you had already accepted the initial quest from the novice? Or do you think only some experts offer both quests?
It could well be the latter, perhaps based on whether there is a superior X near them. Notice that the beefed up crafting hall in Bree now has a Superior Oven. Looking at the in-doors map it shows also superior of all facilities, but those are yet not realized in-game. And this Expert Jeweller is standing just near where the superior workbench show at the map. (Perhaps those facilities are planned for and will come, planned for and forgotten, planned for but withdrawn but forgot to fix the map; I think the first option.) Either way, I have done mistakes before and have always fixed them ;-)
-- Zimoon (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2012 (EST)
Now that you mention it, I had taken the Quest:Crafting: A Superior Workbench (Jeweller) some time ago but I had not made the dangerous trek off to Esteldín until recently. I will have to be more observant, and slow down a bit as well. I too have taken and dropped such quests back when I was researching them. Looks like a new round of research is called for.
I always get a crafting vocation for my characters as early as possible. Hopefully, there is someone out there who hasn't done that who can see what the situation is like in the guild branch offices in Galtrev and Snowbourn for un-guilded, and even un-crafted characters.
RingTailCat (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2012 (EST)
As I said, I may well be wrong with the generality of those edits, but until proven wrong...
As you do I pick up vocations early on, and I have not paid much attention. This time I brought my Cook (and I specialize in just one profession until a character until completed tiers so they do not compete about resources, and this Cook is back in the queue except Cook). He had the Jeweller (Tinker) quest pending and I noticed a quest ring on that new NPC. That was it. This could also be changed with the recentmost changes to crafting; the crafting hall in Bree now has a lot new services: auctioneer, Mailbox, vault. Though the Throphy Broker is gone (obsolete crafting trophies, I have to check Michel Delving and Esteldín as well). Perhaps there is an ongoing strategy to improve services within all or some crafting hubs. I will drop this quest (as it is definitely not urgent for me) and travel around for the other experts and see what they have to offer. That is still just the Jeweller, but I would be surprised if this is not symmetric over all experts.
-- Zimoon (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2012 (EST)

Rare scroll cases

Just saw the info you added about the rare scroll case, and it looks rather confusing. It says it "may also be obtained from the lottery", but rare scrolls do not drop from humanoids, they are rewards from quests and can be bought in skirmishes. They are not really related to the uncommon scrolls. Its interesting to have info about the rare scrolls there, but I think we should do it in another way (no ideas for it right now, maybe leave it at the end saying that rare versions of the scrolls are from quests and skirmishes and the lottery info along). Gwenwyfar (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2012 (EST)

Thanks for spotting that, I do not recall exactly where but will hunt it down and see if I figure something out. Later. -- Zimoon (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2012 (EST)
It was here. If you don't get at it first I might think of something later, then we can add it to other pages as well :P
Gwenwyfar (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2012 (EST)
I edited somewhat but realize that we really need to settle on a format, but also decide how to deal with anomalies such as Expert Metalsmith Scroll Case versus Expert Metalworker Scroll Case. So...
On format -- I like the style of Item:Expert Scholar Scroll Case. Notice that hover-over actually displays both scrolls ... nice :)
The shared information comes first, then the "rare" information. Which is quite informative. At least as soon as the this-scroll-yields-this is in place---and certainly since the "uncommon" scroll really yields "rare" recipes.
On Metalsmith -- I would not hesitate to suggest the two pages are merged: the "uncommon" takes the load and the "rare" redirects to the one page. After all, this is only a naming issue, and if Turbine continues to change names on recipes as they have done the recent year this is one that definitely is queued, don't you think?
My recent-most edits are not intended to be etched in stone, feel free to come up with a better thought out style. Best is a style that can be applied on all of these scroll pages, no matter the crafting tier.
On another note -- while I like the idea of a template to display what scrolls may yield, I find it a bit awkward to edit and think new-comers will not easily get around doing it. That said, I have not really a great suggestion to suggest.
-- Zimoon (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2012 (EST)

Happy New Year

And good luck with the onslaught of real life. You've been an excellent steward of the site (in addition to far and away the most prolific editor, so it's a wonder you juggle as well as you have. See you around! :) (And I think I'm going to send you an email sometime - you're a great software engineering mentor. -smile- ) Sethladan 17:53, 31 December 2012 (EST)

Thanks, and same same. And sure, send a mail any time :)
And I said "trickle" .. not dead stop :P
-- Zimoon (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2013 (EST)

A cute toy

While reading up on stuff over at the main MediaWiki site, I encountered a sig by one of their Admins. It made his sig stand out in discussions.
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC talk 00:59, 9 January 2013 (EST)

I prefer the less intrusive version. But I am the old school :P -- Zimoon (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2013 (EST)

New Effects

Hi Zim! I was trying to look around for some clues on how to set up effects, but I've got no clue. I wanted to create the effects for the new rings and items, specifically the might boost from Item:Flask of Rancid Oil and the crit bonus from Item:Wyrmfire Warrior's Ring of Rohan.

The bonus from the flask is called "Major Might Boost", gives +113 Might for 20 seconds, and has the same icon as is used for the Warden's Potency.

The stacking Crit bonuses are: "Minor Critical Rating Boost", which gives +760 Critical Rating for 20 seconds; "Major Critical Rating Boost", which gives +1139 Critical Rating for 20 seconds; finally "Greater Critical Rating Boost", which givse +1519 Critical Rating for 20 seconds. These 3 boosts all share the same effect icon as Terrible Retribution.

I'm wondering if it's not too much trouble for you (or anyone else reading this) to create these icons? I don't have an an item that gives a major will or agility boost, so I'm not sure if those are the same icons. Thanks for all your help! Garabrand (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2013 (EDT)

Got a Item:Mooncandle Warrior's Ring of Rohan recently, which gives the same effect icon as the flask, but gives +122 Might. Any progress on the new effects? Garabrand (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2013 (EDT)
This topic seems to be much like Character Stats -- an old topic that needs serious work to "sort out" and bring current.
I note however that the breakdown into sub-categories is ignored more than observed. Of course categorizing many of the listed effects is likely to be VERY arbitrary... Coldbear's Dish is that a Category:Damage Effects or a Category:Debuffs (like Chilling Howl?)
Also, Turbine has apparently gotten some "new blood" in the "Effects Department" -- the verbiage is being changed with the latest rounds of Lvl 85 stuff.
As for the Icons... two things happen - 1) Turbine frequently uses a "duplicate icon" as a place holder until the Art Department makes a new one. And 2) Turbine is in fact moving more toward Generic Icons for many things (just as we are)... to many art assets to track.
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 12:12, 29 March 2013 (EDT)

Class Traits/Skills

Hi Zim,

I saw that Magill is working on a few classes, but I'm wondering if there are big plans to overhaul the class pages now that we have new traits and skills. I'd love to help out with your overall plans and have a champ, rk, cap, warden, and burg that I can contribute to. Let me know what we're going to need! Garabrand (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2013 (EST)

Hullo Garabrand! Magill and I have talked a little bit about it at his talk page and a few of us have started collecting various types of information in sandboxes. There will need to be some changes to the class pages, and I'm planning to make a mock-up of how they might look, unless somebody else gets to it first.
Info on champ, captain, warden, and burg will all be welcome, as these are classes we don't have well covered among the editors I know. -- Elinnea (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2013 (EST)

MMOG

Hi Zimoon... With regard to your recent edit of Lord of the Rings Online:

  1. I believe it is incorrect to say that LOTRO is usually called an "MMOG"; I have never once heard it called that. That may be a term that is becoming more accepted, but I don't believe it is as popular as "MMO" or "MMORPG". But I could be wrong; where have you seen it? (Wikipedia says "MMOG, or more commonly, MMO".)
  2. You changed the MMORPG link to Game_Terms#MqMORPG which doesn't exist. What was your intention there?

Thurallor (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the second error, one should never edit using a mobile phone. Corrected now.
Regarding MMOG. LotRO has always been an MMORPG. Technically it is also an MMO which encompasses any game that involves an on-line connection, including TV sets that need one. However, as MMOG says, "MMOG is more often the spoken term where MMORPG is more common when writing".
Thanks for reaching out! — Zimoon (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
PS. I would not mind taking away that paragraph entirely. It is redundant since the very first sentence of that page says the same thing, save the "LOTRO" acronym. — Zimoon (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Haha, just because lotro-wiki says something, doesn't mean it's true. ;-) I agree the paragraph is redundant, and maybe the whole page is, too. —Thurallor (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure, there has been a long time since I played LotRO and edited at this Wiki, but those days we stayed close to truth ;)
Zimoon (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
But of course!Thurallor (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Daily server reset time

I think our handling of times of day (e.g. "3 AM server time", which is 3 AM EST/EDT) on the wiki could use some improvement. We can't simply change it to UTC, because the number would shift depending on whether the U.S. is in daylight saving time or not. But ideally we would have a template, e.g. {{server time|0300}}, which localizes the time to the user's local time zone, with a link to a page with more info. As a bonus, it could categorize events based on when they occur, so we'd have a list of them. —Thurallor (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't change to UTC but to GMT, though they are basically the same and neither of them use daylight saving time. Servers typically do not follow daylight saving time but stay true to UTC, it is the OS's job to convert to human rejoiadable time. GMT is known since almost 140 years ago, while UTC is best known by IT staff, but I guess it is a matter of taste or habit.
A template, such as you suggest, is a great idea. I don't know how but I believe there are people around with the skills to make it happen. — Zimoon (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of what servers typically do, the LOTRO servers reset at 3 AM in the local timezone of Boston, Mass. That means the time in GMT shifts at the beginning and end of U.S. daylight saving time. I do wish you were right, but alas, we deal with LOTRO as it is, not as we wish it to be. —Thurallor (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
In that case 3 AM ET is wrong as well, about half of the year. As long as nobody updates the time between ET and ETS at each daylight saving time shift for Boston. So both of us are not exactly correct, aren't we? ;-) — Zimoon (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
No, because "ET" refers to the timezone whether it's daylight saving time ("EDT") or standard time ("EST"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Time_ZoneThurallor (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, I see. That's ambiguous. But I bow to the facts and apologize. — Zimoon (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
No apology necessary! This timezone stuff is convoluted and esoteric. I will look into making that template (probably we already have the building blocks, previously copied from Wikipedia) when I get a chance. —Thurallor (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I have made a new template, {{Server Time}}, with a demo at User:Thurallor/Test. Please let me know what you think. I'll write documentation tomorrow. —Thurallor (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The output looks nice but I must admit my skills are not enough to understand the code ;-) — Zimoon (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome Back!

Welcome back Zimoon I see you have been very busy we have a Discord channel now that we use in addition to the talk pages. Joining is optional but we do have a admin channel for admin discussions and so forth. To connect, use this link from the Discord App or browser https://discord.gg/qhhtRnE thanks. --Oakheart (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Oakheart, no promises but good to know! — Zimoon (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I tried logging in to Discord but failed. Maybe I am having some old account there that interferes. Either way, their UI is not very helpful but simply puts me back to start at each attempt. I will try again later on though. If the invite is time-limited I will ask you for another one in due time. — Zimoon (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
You have joined the server you are listed on the user list and we have given you the appropriate rights on the server. You might need to contact Discord but everything looks good on our end. --Oakheart (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Are you using discord trough browser or the app? I have had issues with the browser version in the past, might be the browser is not supported or something like that. --Drono (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I will try the app then. I would be surprised if Chrome is not supported but you never know. Thanks. Zimoon (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately yes the browser seems to not work right so downloading the app for both PC and phone is best. Also because of your rank you'll also need to do 2 factor Authentication when logging in first time to our server on each device. let me know if you need help or yoi can also ask Skunark! Rogue (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
As a precaution I removed the ranks that might require 2FA, we can restore them once you settle into discord. Excited to see your return! -Lotroadmin (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Eventually I installed the Discord app and joined the superior community of LotRO-wiki. I see "general", "game-news", and "in-game-discussions" channels. But no admin channel. Yeah, I am late, so maybe the invitation is obsolete now. My username there is Zimoon, like it is here ;-) — Zimoon (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
All sorted now, with the help of Eldalleth and Lotroadmin, many thanks! — Zimoon (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The North Downs

Hi Zimoon!

I noticed you've been doing lots of changes related to North Downs Quests. Just to let you know I will likely change it up and redo all of it later, during my project for that whole region. So please don't feel like you have to spend much effort on it now. :)

Cheers!
--Stargazer (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

No problems. I saw you had that project and with fresh edits as well so... And this is a wiki, you are supposed to update anything after me or any other here ;-)
I am mainly fixing things related to locations but I also noticed that new quests (?) had not been added to the location category so they would not end up for transclusion in the tree-ish way I implemented 7+ years ago. Yeah, I know it takes an extra few steps to make it right, but in the end you gain a lot from it. Such as checking you do not miss a quest here and there. And you don't have to create, copy or update tables all over the wiki for new or edited quests.
Good luck and don't take my edits for 100% bullet proof, I always do mistakes. Zimoon (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Replace Text Function

Hey Zimoon, replace text should be working now if you want to give it a try for the crafting stations. --Oakheart (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Just be careful NOT to change the "Facility Required" on any of the crafting recipes (T4 and higher)!
Those should all still say "Superior" as they do so in-game — since they trigger off of the effect provided by the facility, and not the facility itself (where all facilities now provide both effects as opposed to previously only the 'superior' ones doing that).
--Stargazer (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Oakheart! and, yeah, I noticed that, Stargazer, I was too eager to begin with and will revert those changes to recipes in due time. — Zimoon (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Quest chains

In a recent article change comment, you wrote:

Chains are quite uninteresting and I will delete them over time. Of course, the quest-chain categories will remain but the try-to-be-guides are not wiki-style and should rather go into user-guides than being thrown on people. Usually it just suffices doing location by location and that's it, following the trajectory-quest to next location, or skip it if you like. In the end of the day, it is only the EPIC quest chain that matters!

Can you please elaborate on the kinds of quest chains you intend to delete, and your rationale, with examples? —Thurallor (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe my grammar was bad, or my brain dysfunctional. Of course I won't delete any true quest-chains or such. My meaning was rather those "meta-chains" that people have created here and there in some effort to "guide" people in different regions.
There are 2 kinds of quest-chains:
  1. Named quest-chains, those are read in the quest log (and some may be as short as just one quest (the rest were done away with at some point)).
  2. Logical quest-chains, where we in-game can see how more quest givers appear when completing a certain quest. Category:Crannog's Challenge Quests is one of the best examples of such a quest chain. It includes both named and logical quest chains in the same page.
But there are quest chain pages that are just awful. Their contents are rather suggested paths through the region. Hopefully I explained my intention better now? — Zimoon (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I agree that quest chains should explicitly indicate prerequisite relationships, and not imply them where there are none. Maybe it would help if we had a standard, unambiguous and succinct way to express these relationships. (Maybe we do, and I just don't know about it.) I don't agree that "chains are quite uninteresting"; they are useful to people who have an end goal in mind and want to figure out how to get started. (In my ideal world, each quest would have its own automatically-generated "quest chain" that is automatically compiled from a database of dependencies.) I hope you will attempt to repair any deficient quest chains if they are salvageable, and delete them only as a last resort. Also, can you explain what you meant by "not wiki-style"? —Thurallor (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
You are right in that "meta" chains may have an interest for some, but I consider such pages as user-guides and not wiki-facts-only pages (wiki-style). Even if we happen to spice the facts with some adjectives here and there.
I mentioned Category:Crannog's Challenge Quests and as soon as a quest has something in the questchain parameter a link is automagically created to a category. If it is a new quest that is a new and non-existing category. So, e.g. Crannog's Challenge initiated creating Category:Crannog's Challenge Quests and flesh it out to what it is today. The category will contain all quests that belong to that named quest-chain. However, people have abused that parameter and "invented" their own "named" quest-chains that are not found in the in-game quest log, and I am surely but slowly correcting those.
For logical quest-chains we manually add a Questbox to the quest and manually add the needed category link, and put the text for inclusion on the category page.
I think everything is explained in detail at Category talk:Quest Chains, but I can have a look and see if anything is missing or ambiguous. Let's do that now. — Zimoon (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I dont think that creating the categories is an issue, we could put them in a different category tree so they would be distinquished from the real quest chains. In fact, the quest-chain should be on a page and not a category page, since based on other discussion categories should not hold content. I think from the quest-chain perspective and maintainability it is a lot easier to create the quest chain page, and than include it to the quest page (weather trough the template for the 'real' ones or manually). We can maybe create a category for these pages - like "Unnamed Quest-chains", dont think it is needed to categorize the quests based on these questchains, would be just for displaying the info on the quest pages. --Drono (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I am against the "categories should not hold content" because the best place to have content such as lists of contained pages is the category itself. There you see the pages to include in the list, you won't forget any and you won't add anything irrelevant by mistake. Unless there is some technical problem that I am unaware of, I will continue to work as I used to do 7 years ago and earlier. At that time all Administrators agreed on that concept and that is how most of the < level 60 content is done.
(Interjecting) Please remember that the wiki operates on the basis of consensus—today's consensus, not that of 7-10 years ago—and that you are now in a conversation with other admins trying to establish/update the current consensus. Saying that you will continue to do it the old way, regardless of the current conversation, doesn't come across as friendly or cooperative. I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but that was my impression. Drono in particular has made immense contributions to the wiki relating to categorization and as a result has opinions that should be given a lot of weight. —Thurallor (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I am well aware of that but wanted to point out that there once was a consensus. Kind of a reminder in the case old knowledge has been forgotten since many editors have left the ship. Old knowledge is not a bad thing but I agree that it is not the only thing and we all evolve with time. I am a very pragmatic person and have no problems cooperating with others and I hope the respect goes two ways, 7+ years ago I was that time's Drono I guess, no offence meant ;-) — Zimoon (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Knowledge of how/why things were done in the past is valuable, because people in the past usually did things that way for good reasons. I appreciate your bringing that to the table. —Thurallor (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree. Oldies did it their way for a reason, that may now be outdated now but parts of it may still give some inspiration at least ;-) Or not! — Zimoon (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Today we mix named and unnamed (de-facto) chains into [[Category:<Region name> Quest Chains]] which in turn is contained in [[Category:<Region name> Quests]] as well as [[Category:Quest Chains]]. I don't think there is a need to change that. Often we transclude from the quest-chain pages/categories onto the region-quest-chains category, but not always.
For the, what I call "meta quest chain pages", they should definitely be pages. If they are good enough they can be linked to (only) from the regional-quests category and maybe from e.g. Category:Regional Quests and alike. But they should be considered user-guides. And they should clearly tell named versus unnamed' chains from each other. — Zimoon (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I have not been editor at that time. When i came, i have seen both approaches in use. Based on the discussion here Category_talk:Titles#Titles_page, in general they should not hold content. I personally don't have issue with categories that are used mostly for transcluding (like quest-chains) to have content, but i agree that in general it makes them less usable for us. My proposed solution was to put the content into collapsible element so it would not take lot of space on the category page itself.
I think it is not fair to consider the unnamed quest-chains user guides. I have briefly look around the data now, and the reason for not using the named quest-chain seems to me, it is a lot easier to define quest dependency now. Seems to me that before, the named chain had to be defined (didn't spent much time looking but also seems linear) and have npc tied with it. While now the quest directly can have a dependency set. From these dependencies we can construct what we are using now as unnamed quest-chains. They are very useful, as if you are interested in a particular quest, they will tell you where to start - and the 'chain' of quests you need to follow. To me an user guide is something else, something that contains users personal opinion, and thus can vary from user to user. --Drono (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Again, I am not talking about unnamed de-facto chains. There are many such true chains, though unnamed. Everywhere in Lotro. I am talking about the pages that are kind of all-inclusive-whether-true-chains-or-not. Usually trajectory quests are not prerequisites for any quests at the target destinations, they may have dependencies but they are seldom prerequisites. At least not in the < 55 level regions I have played and wikified. "User-guide" may not be the correct term, I am not English native after ll, but such all-inclusive pages are guides, and not 100% facts.
My only intention is to tell in-game facts on quests and quest-chains. I have no objections to guides but they should not exist on category pages, for which I agree they should be as short as possible. — Zimoon (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Using category pages for a massive load of information, that is not what I meant and I am against that. Which is what I wrote at that talk page 10 years ago ;)
Unnamed quest-chains that are indeed true chains does not equate "meta quest chains" in my world. Have a look at Category talk:Quest Chains#I know, I know and you'll see what I mean ;-)
There has been a tendency to create "quest chains" pages that are rather a collection of all quests and suggested trajectories between all locations of a region. Most trajectory quests don't have dependencies but are just a suggestion from the developers on where to go next, if you like. Hence you cannot call such a all-inclusive page a quest-chain page, it is a user-guide. — Zimoon (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Missions quest chains

The reason we had both a questgroup and a questchain parameter for the missions was that

  1. Each mission is split into two quests, a "wrapper" and the instance;
  2. The two quests are not located in the same quest group in the Quest Log in the game.

We thought it was important to be able to know where the quest is located in the quest log in the game, so we used questgroup for that. But we also wanted to have a single quest chain that showed all of the related quests, no matter where they are located in the Quest Log. So we used questchain for that.

The "Further Adventures" missions are the only exception, among the 5 mission regions, to #2 above. For "Further Adventures" missions, both the wrappers and the instances appear in the same Quest Log section. But we chose to still have the separate quest chain for conformity with the other mission regions. Here is the situation, with your changes indicated:

Region Wrapper quest group Instance quest group Quest chain
EldersladeWar of Three Peaks Missions questgroup=Mission: War of Three Peaks questgroup=Mission questchain=War of Three Peaks Missions
WildwoodWildwood Missions questgroup=Mission: Wildwood questgroup=Mission questchain=Wildwood Missions
RivendellFurther Adventures Missions questgroup=Mission: Further Adventures questgroup=Mission: Further Adventures questchain=Further Adventures Missions
questchain=Mission: Further Adventures
EreborKharum-ubnâr Missions questgroup=Mission: Kharum-ubnâr questgroup=Mission questchain=Kharum-ubnâr Missions
GundabadGundabad Missions questgroup=Mission: Gundabad questgroup=Mission questchain=Gundabad Missions

Maybe you didn't realize the inconsistent situation with the Quest Log sections in the game. But for all regions except Rivendell, the wrapper quests and the instance quests are in different sections of the Quest Log. So how do you intend to carry through the same change to the other regions; or do you not view it as important to have the same pattern for all regions? —Thurallor (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not know of your earlier decisions but corrected the quests and category to look as they do in-game. I don't think that broke anything, did it?
If the other regions are according to the in-game quest log I won't do anything. — Zimoon (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
After increasing my understanding of your thinking, I think what you've done is fine. —Thurallor (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
After rereading your comments above, I'd think your proposal would be to use questgroup for the Quest Log group, eliminate the questchain argument, and manually add "Quest Chain" sections to each quest, transcluding the same page within it for all quests in the same region. But that's not how you did it for Further Adventures; questchain works as a convenient shorthand there, because everything is in the same Quest Log section. But why did you choose to use questchain instead of questgroup? After all, there are no longer any "quest chains", per se, in the game—only "quest groups", a.k.a. Quest Log sections. —Thurallor (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I see now I made a mistake. Most often named quest-chain quests have both a quest-group and a quest-chain name. These quests have not. It is unfortunate that the location of quest-group moves when there is a quest-chain name, and that confused me. The only way to tell is to look at the font where quest-chains are somewhat bigger.
I will re-track my work and add the name to the quest-group. However, for convenience I will do the trick to also use the quest-chain parameter with the same name. It will automagically add the category link and the quest-chain box but it will not be displayed at the quest-info. That is the 3rd option read at Category talk:Quest Chains.
Thanks so much for taking all this time with me, I appreciate that a lot. — Zimoon (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Likewise, thanks for your patience and willingness to communicate. I would like for us to update the guidelines for using the questgroup and questchain parameters‚ and get rid of (archive) any historical information that no longer applies. The starting point should be an understanding that there are no "named quest chains" in the game; they are all either remnants of historical in-game quest chains, or "logical" quest-chains that exist only in the wiki. We may also want to modify some of the "magic" behavior of the {{Infobox Quests}} template w.r.t. handling of the two parameters. —Thurallor (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Question: Am I wrong? Do "named quest chains" actually still exist in the game for early regions? —Thurallor (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you are wrong there. Actual (named) quest chains DO in fact still exist in the game; it is only the higher-level regions (i.e. RoI and later?) that don't have them at all afaik.
Some earlier regions, during their revamps, had lots of quest chains (what would now be the aforementioned "historical remnants") taken away, as part of the revamping when those associated quests were changed and/or moved etc. But many of the quests that weren't changed still have their chains. These can be easily identified in e.g. LotroCompanion, as well as the quest log (in most cases, at least).
So yes; "named" quest chains still very much exist, and IMO should be kept intact here as well. :)
--Stargazer (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


Named quest-chains indeed exists. I am just looking at Warning Signs which is a named quest chain as well as a chain that must be done in order. Another one is Mighty Giants Indeed which is a named chain but order of the two quests does not matter (so not really a chain but they are named). This starts with the starter areas and continues as far as I have played, which is not as far as you have, I guess.
Unnamed quest-chains, de-facto chains, where one quest opens the next, also exists all over the place. I mean, they have true prerequisites and true dependencies.
"Meta chains" (as I call them and think worthy of "guide" pages) include both of those two plus trajectory quests, and their cousins, which do not have any prerequisites nor dependencies. Those should not be part of, or announced at, category pages or "official" pages as those are not facts but "helpers/guides". It is the plus that makes those pages non-wiki-standard as they display facts mixed with guidelines/suggestions.
Maybe we can improve the template but we cannot get rid of neither the questgroup nor questchain parameters. However, we could add an unquestchain parameter that does all of the questchain parameter except adding info to the visible quest-info box. That would save us from manually adding the quest-chain box, whether it transcludes from a category or page, or not.
There are more improvements we could do but let's walk step by step.
I updated the quest-chain talk page yesterday and I believe those "rules" are 100% correct now. But that does not mean we cannot improve. But I don't think my talk page is the best media for that, right? — Zimoon (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I may add that back in the days we also had Lotro-Lore (name accuracy?) which spelled out every dependency we wanted to know about. Almost. And more. It was easier then. Now we have to be very careful when entering a location. And for a larger location I guess we have to ride around to spot any new quest rings floating, finishing a quest, and ride again. I realize I have not yet adapted to that new way so I am too inattentive :-( — Zimoon (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Now we have LotroCompanion and extracted data. For example the quest requirments in the other comment i made can be found in https://github.com/LotroCompanion/lotro-data/blob/master/quests/quests.xml --Drono (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. I will check it out, at least the XML file. Thanks again! — Zimoon (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Installed it and had a quick first look. Many interesting hooks there. Quests show prerequisites if there are any, but they don't show being-prereq-for, which is sad. Better than nothing though. — Zimoon (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
It seems some quests tell next. Maybe I just mistook myself. — Zimoon (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I used a python script to extract the data from quests.xml. Result: User:Thurallor/Reports/Quest Chains As you can see, the use of the "prerequisite" and "nextQuest" links is quite inconsistent within named quest chains. —Thurallor (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. And it also shows a number of named quest-chains that we do not cover with a category. Not saying I will fix it right away but in due time I will, as I advance through the levels and unless somebody beats me to it ;-) — Zimoon (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Checked in my quest log to verify that named quest chains still exist, and familiarize myself with the distinction between those and quest groups. I guess I just never noticed them before:
Quest chain vs quest log.jpg
I agree that we should take further discussion to the article talk pages. I still haven't finished reading all of the old comments, but when I do I will add mine. —Thurallor (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
/thumbsup
Crannog's Challenge is one of the most complex transcluded quest-chains I have seen. If not the most complex. A mix of true chains and unordered quests that still are required for their parent quests, and then a chain there-in-between which is also required. Plus that many of the intermediate quests open up new quests all over Aughaire. Much of it existed before of I arrived to Angmar but I still had to spend many days there sorting everything out and to make the transclusion as neat as possible. Meaning, it was a team-work from start to end. Zimoon (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Into the High Pass

Saw your edit on Quest:Into the High Pass, the prerequisite is Quest:The Last Ingot. I'm not sure how it is supposed to be written there so just letting you know. --Drono (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Added a quest-chain box to Quest:Into the High Pass and updated the quest-chain category page for Quest:The Last Ingot with it being a prerequisite. Thanks again. — Zimoon (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation Pages

Hi Zimoon, I noticed you deleted the "Difficulty" page (which was created by someone whose name I don't immediately recognize) with the comment that disambig pages shouldn't exist for less than 4 entries. Is that from a style guide somewhere? I'm not sure I agree with that "rule". If we have multiple pages/categories which all use the same word or phrase, in significantly-different contexts, or with significantly-different meanings, I think we can help avoid wiki user confusion by disambiguating it. In the case of "Difficulty", it's used

  • (informally) for instance tiering,
  • for visual appearance of mob icons ("difficulty indicator", e.g. elite, nemesis, etc.) and also
  • for Landscape Difficulty.

I think that's sufficient diversity to warrant a disambig page.

I'd also note that the Help page for disambiguation has multiple examples recommending a disambig page, where there are only 2 uses of a word or name. I did some random spot-checks of disambiguation pages and most of the ones I looked at had only 2 or 3 entries. To be honest, none of them had 4 or more (unless one counts an entry which pointed to a category, which had multiple members; thus indirectly having more than 3 entries).

Again, if there is a past consensus that this is the rule, then so be it, but, to quote a phrase that might be culture-specific (Shakespeare's Hamlet), it might be a rule "... More honoured in the breach than in the observance". I.e more exceptions than the norm.

If it's not a rule and only a personal preference, then I don't share the preference; I find it too restrictive, for the reasons above.

-- Egarthur

It is actually documented but in a somewhat hidden place Help talk:Names. Together with a good reason.
Since it is somewhat hidden I will copy it to the {{Template:Other}} and Category:Disambiguation Pages. where it rightfully should have been from start. Sorry about that.
In the case you describe it is better to use the {{Other}} template, up to 3 entries.
I have had a long hiatus from LotRO and just came back o obviously there has been work added which moderators missed about. I will walk over those and see to it they are properly corrected. Thanks a lot for telling about it.
PS. Please use ~~~~ to sign your comments. It adds your username + time and date. DS. — Zimoon (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ReplaceBot misuse

Hi Zimoon,

Please stop abusing the ReplaceBot to make wide sweeping, erroneous changes to a large number of pages. Especially in pages which should not be altered at all – such as e.g. talk pages and patch notes above all others! You're creating a huge mess that will take a lot of time and work to correct, unfortunately. =(

If you don't know how to use the ReplaceBot functionality properly, by making sure beforehand that the changes being made are correct and properly constrained in scope (and it seems like you don't bother checking the result after use either?), then I would respectfully suggest that you stay away from using it altogether.

I also think it would be a good idea for you to help out in cleaning up the mess you've already made. I'm trying to go through the log and fix many of them for you, but there's literally SEVERAL THOUSAND edits to go through, and I don't wish to do it all on my own (and quite frankly I shouldn't have to either), not to mention I would likely not catch all of them alone. ;)

Thanks! :)

--Stargazer (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing to my attention the errors you are facing. Please point me to where you see the problems and I will of course correct them. I believe I know when and how to use the "replace text" feature and I spend a lot of time going through the list of pages that will be affected, no more than 250 at a time. And sometimes I deem talk pages can be included. But right now I'd rather need to know where to look and fix anything. — Zimoon (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I now see some of the reverts you are doing and I do not agree with many of them. Instead of reverting you could have asked beforehand what I was thinking. Please do that the next time and stop reverting anything right now. All of the reverts I have seen you have done, I did not abuse the "replace text" feature but knowingly carried on (I have not looked at all of them, yet). — Zimoon (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, here are some of the areas:
  • Release notes: These should never be changed (as in: textual contents); they are reproductions/copies of original (and official) source by Turbine/SSG, and should therefore always remain the same as their source (i.e. "warts and all", so to speak) – for historical reference, if nothing else. For example, changing "color" -> "colour" and other, similar textual changes in these pages, would be violating that.
  • Talk pages: Similar to the above, these are quotations from other users and should also remain as-is. They should likewise not be subject to textual replacements, for much the same reason.
  • Item pages: Doing text changes in e.g. the 'flavor' (intentional spelling, btw) text of the item tooltips (such as e.g. "color" -> "colour" again) would then be introducing errors that are not consistent with in-game information.
  • Link changes: For example, doing replacements of the nature "[[The" -> "[[the" introduce other inconsistencies, like a lot of "[[the Lord of the Rings Online..." and such. Likewise I've seen "the [[The" -> "[[The" cause problems in lots of places.
These are just some of the examples I've come across so far. There are probably a lot more cases than that. =)
But honestly, at this point I think the entire bot log – as in every single edit – needs to be "patrolled" (i.e. looked through and double-checked for correctness), for the last month or so maybe? The trouble is, there are many, many thousand edits, so it will take a lot of time and effort to do. :/
Per your request, I will of course stop reverting further edits for now. May I then in return, humbly and respectfully, request that you don't do any more bot edits for the time being? :)
Cheers!
--Stargazer (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I will walk over the "recent changes" for the bot, sure. I cannot agree to stop using the bot as some of the work I am doing right now would be very tiresome to do manually. Still there is much manual work to be done because the "replace text" feature does not find all pages for some odd reason.
I believe you are correct about the legal reasons and I will not touch such pages in the future, other than for fixing links, if there are any. So I think I have created a long backlog for myself then ;-)
Thanks for your patience with me! — Zimoon (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I have gone through the "contributions" log for "ReplaceBot" back until I rejoined the wiki after my hiatus. Hopefully I found most of the legally problematic updates made and reverted them. I had a look at many other pages as well and marked them as patrolled whether I reverted anything or deemed the edit harmless. Over time I will walk through not-patrolled edits as well, but doing them all right away would be lethal I think. /shrug
I noticed you were a bit over-zealous in reverting; a "[[The" to "[[the" in a link that also has a display-string is not necessary as the link is invisible ;-) No harm done though, better safe than sorry they say.
Either way, thanks a lot for reminding me about the legal details. — Zimoon (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Aftermath and Observations

Eventually I have reviewed all about 16,000 edits made by the "Replace text" feature, back to Nov 30, 2021. Of those I have reverted 147, undone 127, and manually edited a dozen or so. Error-rate: 1.8%. Beyond that I have edited other things I happened to see while reviewing. Disclaimer: Reviewing thousands of edits is eye-straining so I may have missed something but even so I am quite confident we are in a very good shape. (Of those ~16k some hundreds were done by others who left them behind non-patrolled.)

Many of my most "blind" edits actually corrected old mistakes. There were concerns that they should alter text away from what it read in-game. It did in some cases (now reverted) but actually corrected many more. I cannot tell whether Turbine was better at UK English than SSG is but almost all of my edits to UK spelling were correct (except those that touched materials directly from developers). Most of the "The" → "the" edits were correct; for deeds, titles, and quests I used LC as the source of facts. And most other edits were correct too, with just a few errors.

Some conclusions about us editors (incl. myself):

  • We are influenced by our mother tongue and since US English dominates, spelling mistakes have to be expected (e.g. color instead of colour, traveling instead of travelling, etc.) Any reading in-game text goes via our brain and fingers to the keyboard, and that path through the human body is error-prone. We can all be more observant on such errors when we review edits of others.
  • We do not know best known methods (BKMs) to solve certain issues and instead "invent" sub-optimal solutions. But no blame is meant, the Wiki do not have anywhere to put BKMs really. Or, actually we do but we do not use the Help namespace for them. Instead users have their own BKM-pages under their user-namespaces, helping nobody else. And not always with optimal examples either. And also, often our help-texts are so wordy readers will miss the important passages, but that can be improved.

Do not read those bullets as badly as they sound like, I wanted to exaggerate a little. Overall we do a brilliant job!!! As a team. As volunteers. Also remember that I came back after a 7 years hiatus and many of those "sub-optimal" things I have seen have built up over many years, they did not happen the recent month(s).

That said, I like to polish pages for best aesthetic results, and I will continue using the "Replace text" feature to accomplish that, though I have learned to be smarter and go for smaller scopes, I hope. And I will continue my "geographical studies" of the Middle-earth and update the Wiki as I go. Meaning, I will be everywhere anyway ;-)

A word about the "Replace text" feature
Currently the edits of that bot leaves un-patrolled edits behind. For good and for bad. The good is it makes is easier to review the edits and make sure they did what was intended. The bad is you must review your work, please do not forget that.

Also, the bot does not tell who run the batch job. I guess there are logs "somewhere" to find out but I have no clue. I don't know if there is a way to display who launched the batch without bloating the 'contribution scores' which User:Lotroadmin was concerned about.
Zimoon (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Quest Help Differences Found

There are differences in the suggested formatting between the following pages:

I think the "help contents" of the latter two pages should be moved and squashed/merged to Help:Quest-chain Policy (name?). Once that has been done we can move duplicated information about quest chains onto that help page, and add links and/or transclusions from it to the first two pages. Advice and opinions are welcomed. Since there are differences, which of the variations to select? — Zimoon (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Demotion

After a long talks the group of directors decided that you will no longer be representing the wiki in a leadership role. I have been appointed as a liaison to discuss with you, please DM me on discord. --Drono (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A ban has been placed on this account for repeatedly violating the Code of Conduct. --Lotroadmin (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Quest Template Project


Geography & My Game-play

A little heads-up on what I am pottering with (the quest project, mentioned above, aside). As I slowly vacuum clean the regions of contents I update or polish location pages at the same time, as you surely have seen by now. Since quests, NPCs, deeds, etc., are bound to locations, areas, and regions such pages get their share as well 😉

First phases of Angmar is now completed but there was some bigger work around same-name instances and areas (The Rift, as well as Carn Dûm) which slowed things down, hopefully completed soon. And then a few turns over remaining pages from bottom up, so to say, and I think Angmar will be in a pretty great shape. So far it has been the most labour-intense region to me but with the very good foundation previous editors have laid it is not too hard to connect the dots. Hopefully without too many mistakes on my side, and if any, please bear with me.

Next region is Forochel, which seems to be in a great shape already. I guess that deep-frozen region has not moved much in many long years ... or maybe something is hiding under the snow. We'll see. — Zimoon (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hard to read text

Hi Zimoon. Could you please stop using <small></small> tags all over the place? That makes the text very hard to read (and small italics are even worse)! Keep in mind that as a wiki we should be as inclusive as possible to everyone; even those who may have disabilities. So if you could please go back over your edits and remove all those tags where you have inserted them, that would be very much appreciated. Thank you!
--Stargazer (talk) 09:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I appreciate the feedback. I have used <small> where I thought that text is less important than the "real" text, to make the important info stand our. Because I absolutely agree, Lotro-Wiki should be inclusive while also focusing on important contents.
Hopefully you agree that in many places <small> serves its purpose so not everything must be redone, right? For example having <small>''or''</small> between sequenced items, such as between quest-giver names in quests' info-boxes? Or <small>&</small> because the normal & is quite obtrusive, right?
Do you have any examples where you believe <small> should not be used? Where the important contents have been lessened? Knowing that would help me redo such edits in due time.
Zimoon (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
No, I actually don't agree that the <small> tags "serves its purpose in many places" – quite the opposite, in fact. I believe the instances where the use of those tags might (and I do emphasise might) be warranted, would be few and far between indeed. And if it makes the text very hard to read for people then it serves NO purpose at all. Surely you would agree with that?
I think it's good that you here try to describe what your intent (and thought) was, as it then becomes easier to better highlight the issue(s). If the intent is to differentiate between the (relative) importance of various adjacent pieces of text, there are more suitable ways to go about it. Then it is good to try and alter the mindset in the complete opposite direction; i.e. instead of thinking of it in terms of there being "real" and "less important" text, try to think of it as there being "normal" and "MORE important" text! :)
In doing so, you would then not try to make some text smaller (and thus harder to read), but instead make other text bigger – and/or emphasised in some other way (more on that below). Then you would have achieved the same goal, but with a much better end result (for everyone)! :D
However, there's another inherent problem (which may not be apparent) involved in what you're describing: what is/isn't "important" is often (highly) subjective – different people might be interested in and/or looking for different information (which is in itself another reason not to make things harder to read, or otherwise harder to find). So how to deal with that?
It is generally accepted that e.g. headings are deemed more 'important' than normal text, hence they are usually made bigger; and as a result various increased sizes are often used to denote level of importance and/or other hierarchy between different headings – on the wiki as well as elsewhere in other forms of writing. This is of course the baseline. Then we have other basic forms of emphasis – such as e.g. bold, italic, and underlined – to use within sections of text, to bring the reader's focus to some specific piece of it, and thereby raise its 'relative importance' compared to its surroundings. There is also the use of e.g. colouring (or other types of 'highlighting') to achieve the same effect.
This is not to say that you don't already know all of this! On the contrary; I'm pretty sure you do. :P
I'm bringing it up in order to illustrate that it all points in one and the same direction: that you alter text to make it MORE relevant (in some fashion); not LESS so! Thereby not making anything harder to read, but instead calling into focus the parts deemed to be 'more important' (for whatever reason) and making those easier to see (and read). Additionally, I'm also setting the background context for the following: namely to discuss the examples you brought up.
To start with; using <small>''or''</small> in-between multiple queststarters/questenders in the info-boxes. First let me just say that personally I was fine with the simple comma separation between them, but I can see how that can be ambiguous and some people might find it confusing (i.e. "Do I need to talk to ALL of them, or just one? Two?"). So an "or" counteracts that ambiguity, which is good. That said, the markup surrounding the word itself has several issues, which may or may not be obvious at this point:
  • first the most obvious; using the small-tag makes it hard to read, and it should be clear by now that if it can't be read, then it loses the point of even being there at all. :)
  • second; also making it italic, at the same time, makes it even harder to read – and thus just compounds the first point. :P
  • third; from what I explained above, using the two alterations in combination is actually nonsensical! You're reducing the text with the intent of making it "less important", but at the same time you're also adding emphasis to it by making it italic, thereby calling it into focus and making it MORE important (which is the opposite of what you want, right?)! So the end result is something really weird, where the two would basically cancel each other out and you're left with something that's just plain hard to read. =D
In other words: while the underlying goal of resolving ambiguity is a good one, the result here becomes a bit counter-productive. My recommendation here would be to just use a plain, simple "or" between them – without any text-altering tags on it at all. Why's that? Because, from the information I provided above: if you were to step back a bit from it and just look at it, you would see that it already has a natural separation of 'relative importance' given for free – the quest NPCs are wiki-linked, making them stand out by highlighting them in colour, which (as shown by cognitive psychology) will pull the reader's attention and focus toward their names and thus away from their (near) surroundings (in this case the "or" text separating their names, which would naturally get "pushed back" to a more 'background layer', as it were, visually)! You will then have achieved what you initially wanted, without adverse effects in the process (for anyone). Win-win, right? :)
In the next example, you mention <small>&</small> because you think the regular-sized character is "obtrusive". Honestly, I don't believe it is, but you are of course free to have a different opinion! :)
Here's my thinking though: making text small makes it hard to read (broken record by now, yep, I know!), and this particular character is very squiggly and complex by default so when it gets reduced in size it's really hard to make out what that (small 'blob', essentially) actually is. And it also becomes much easier to confuse and/or mistake it from other characters that look kind of similar (e.g. '8', '$', '§', just to name a few; sometimes even 'g' and '£' etc. depending on the font). So then you have to squint and strain your eyes to try and make out what's there. And what has then just happened? You've drawn extra focus to that '&', away from the surroundings! Quite the opposite of what you wanted, right? Not to mention that when the '&' is smaller than the surrounding text it just looks really weird and out-of-place, and you conclude it must be a typo – especially once your eyes figure out what character it really is! :D
By contrast, a '&' that's of the same size as its surrounding text and fully readable, most people would likely just read past it automatically, without even thinking. What I'm trying to say is: you shouldn't be too worried that the normal-sized '&' is "obtrusive" in some way (for the majority of people, that is, who would most likely be quite used to seeing it), whereas using a different-sized one has a far higher likelihood of that due to it 'standing out' more from the surrounding text. :)
Finally, you ask about examples where <small> should not be used, and where it might lessen contents. Well, by now it should be pretty clear that in almost ALL conceivable cases it should not be used (and why that is so). There might be rare exceptions (that would need a very, very good reason for it), but as I said at the beginning; these fringe cases would be few and far between. :P
Here at the wiki, we (as a collective team) are in the 'business' (for lack of a better word) of providing information, to readers. And if the readers are not able to read that information (for example because it is too tiny to make out) then that content is lost and quite frankly becomes pointless. That may sound harsh, but it is the reality of the situation. :O
So to be perfectly honest, I would say like 95% or so – at the very least – of all the <small> tags (especially those added recently) should be removed, for reasons that ought to be self-evident at this point. Then whatever handful of instances remain can be looked at individually, to see if they have special reasons that would merit their use. One simple 'first-order' check one could use for the <small> tags, would be to ask the question; "Do I want other people to be able to read the information contained within the tags?". If the answer to that question is "yes", then those tags should definitely not be used. If not, then it becomes a case of looking at the next step (and one might also start to wonder about the information itself...).
I'm sorry if this response may have been a bit 'long-winded' or so (feel free to collapse it if you need/want to). I have a rather complex mind, and sometimes it's really hard for me to explain things in a brief and/or simple way that makes sense to, or is even understandable by, others – especially without also providing lots of background and context (in some sort of order that is coherent and would make sense). :S
Hopefully you'll be able to understand my thinking and reasoning here; what I deem to be problematic and why. And I hope you'll agree as well. :)
Oh, and my online presence is a bit sporadic and intermittent currently, so any replies from me might not be immediate, so to speak. ;)
P.S. Btw, if you really, truly wanted to lessen relative importance of text in-line, without carrying the adverse effects described above, the generally standardised way of doing so would be to enclose it in simple parentheses; hence also the expression "as a parenthesis..."! ;P D.S.
Regards,
--Stargazer (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Stargazer. Normal or should be fine, maybe use italics in the quest starters if they are not links. --Drono (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Ithildín Coin Obsolete?

Hi Zimoon, I noticed you've marked the quest Ithildín Coin, and all its rewards, etc as Obsolete. Is this correct the way, because they are still in-game.. even better, I just started a new character to verify, and I can still start the quests and receive the items. I would suggest to remove the Obsoletion, and rather add a note that newly created accounts are unable to start the quest (etc). What's your opinion? Tiberivs (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

If the quest is available for new characters I have made a mistake. Reading the walk-through I see it may be available to new characters on an account that pre-ordered Mines of Moria. If that is the case I did wrong and should revert my edits. Can you confirm, please? — Zimoon (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I can confirm :). I've got a 15 year old Lifetime account, which obviously also contains MoM. Earlier this afternoon I started a new char, played the intro, and after getting to Novice, I was able to start the quest. Tiberivs (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks, I stand corrected and will revert my mistake tomorrow. Thanks again! — Zimoon (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
I think I have reverted my errors and also improved the info a little bit. Many thanks, Tiberivs! — Zimoon (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)