Talk:Eirik Ratcatcher/Archive1

Back to page | < User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher

104,549pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Add New Page
Again, welcome! -Howbizr (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Amusing! --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't blame me, just because I'm the only wikian nice enough to welcome you Grin -Howbizr (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I save my vitriol up for folks who break pages, templates, etc and ask other folks to fix 'em up for them. You're a long way from that. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewel template Edit

Gave up on a generic Jewel template. "JewelFit" template should be deleted. Will mark it so once I find out how... Made simpler replacements: "Red Jewel", "Meta Jewel", etc. 'Sphere' for the generic name for "fits 3 colors". Considered "Omni", but "Sphere" is the section heading on the Jewel page. --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:24, 16 February 2007 (EST)

Quest disambig pages Edit


i just posted to village pump about the disambig pages and seeing as it was your idea i would love your feedback. Laurly 13:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the poke. Think I'm satisfied with my comments. But as I said there, "is my opinion, take for what it's worth." Would like to hear YOUR opinions... You asked the questions, and said "could be implemented", but didn't say YOUR preference. (Or I flat out missed it.) --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

engineer Edit

moved them to their specialisation pages  - CJ talk / cont  03:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, CJ! Loved the content, hated the context. This should be much better. Now, of course, I have to look through the lists to see if they have all the new BC recipes. :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 13:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

quest Edit

Didn't even think about the links in the box; I have no issue with you removing them if you so feel. However, no links should be broken by the move; the old page is now just a redirect. :]. --Sky (t · c · w) 21:18, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Spell pages Edit

Heya, nice idea you had but if I were you I wouldn't bother changing all of the pages, they will eventually get deleted very soon when we get the mediawiki upgrade. --Adys 20:29, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Started updating fish pages, then discovered that the spell pages were sorted poorly. Is it worth bothering, to update tooltip template entries to use spell page templates? --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:35, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Nah honestly it's not, to be honest. --Adys 21:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I started using the spell pages "because everyone else was". For a very few effects, it might be useful - where the spell effect is used by several, or a lot of items. On the other hand, there are plenty more things worth spending time on. ... Like shared cooldown items... :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 14:48, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Tooltip vs Tooltipcss Edit

Hello. I believe we are supposed to be using {{Tooltip}} now instead of Tooltipcss. Just so you know. Kitan T / C / B 16:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Others may use the Tooltip template, but I have taken a disliking to it. ... aside from it being a single template that folks break every now and then... --Eirik Ratcatcher 16:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok. There is a bot that is updating tooltipcss to tooltip. WW:BR I am unsure of the exact implementation so it may not hit your pages. Just an FYI. :) Kitan T / C / B 16:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Impressive task for a bot. And IMHO, a mistake to move working text into a template that duplicates it. But that's a discussion for the tooltip page. Thanks for the warning. Wonder who's ankles I will be chewing on about this one... --Eirik Ratcatcher 16:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

do -not- readd the icons Edit

please. the icon and stack number is already in {{tooltip}}. --Sky (t · c · w) 19:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

... and is too small to see details of the icon. I don't care either way about the stack number, but I do like to see the full sized icon image. --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
That's nice. And not with the boilerplate. And the hundreds of other pages. This is part of the reason tooltip was designed. Really. --Sky (t · c · w) 00:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid you have confused me, pretty much with every single line of that comment. I will, though limit myself to two particular points.
  1. Please address my central point: the tooltip icon does not provide the detail that the full sized icon image provides.
  2. I'm afraid your tone smacks of "The decision has been made. Sit down; Shut Up". I fear to read it that way. Has a vote occured on this particular issue? Please, educate me. Barring a vote, I currently believe this devolves to a preference issue. If you know otherwise, again, please educate me.
For the moment, I have refrained from adding back icons on pages from which they have been removed. I would like to resolve this difference of opinion, though.
--Eirik Ratcatcher 04:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Edit

I just wanted to say thanks for the helpful advice you gave me about the quest chains and my siggy. I am still very new to the wiki community but I am really enjoying contributing so far, so I appreciate any suggestions. You can delete this comment after you read it, just wanted to say thanks :) --<Jiyambi> talk || contrib 00:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, Jiyambi. Happy to suggest. And feel free to innovate, if you think something can use improvement. I do. (Perhaps much to the distress of certain other contributors, I admit... :) ) --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to say I really like the changes you have made to the quest boilerplate. I mostly work on quest stuff here so I appreciate the added efficiency/aesthetics. Thanks! --Jiyambi t || c 22:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC) EDIT: One other thing, it might be nice if you made some sort of boilerplate for the quest chain page, since I think you have more of them than others. I would find it useful, anyways. --Jiyambi t || c 23:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Will see what I can do. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I tried my hand at a couple quest chain pages, tell me what you think: Errands for Kravel quest chain, Freedom for All Creatures quest chain. I put in a lot more "guide" type info in the Freedom one, not sure which I prefer. Anyways when you have time, let me know how they look. --Jiyambi t || c 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Tooltip Bots Edit

Making sure you see my response to Foxbot and their 'rampage'. --GRYPHONtc 02:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I appreciate the explanation, particularly since I don't have IRC access. The whys and wherefores are hard to interpret from just the visible record; as it is, I suffer from message-board-itis... --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Quest Chain Edit

Eirik, could you point me to an example of a chain you feel is particularly good/comprehensive? I would find it useful for writing my own. Thanks :) --Jiyambi t || c 20:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Um disregard this comment, just found the example on the help page. Sorry! --Jiyambi t || c 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

See my response on Help talk:Quest chain articles --Jiyambi t || c 21:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested, I made quest chain pages for all the Thousand Needles/Quest List chains. Let me know if I should change anything, and if you like the questchainbox template. --Jiyambi t || c 19:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I like. Dunno if you should change anything on the thousand needles quests; I've only ever done the neutral/alliance quests there. With all this work you've been doing, I have to ask: do you have time to play the game, anymore? :) I'm impressed. --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, yeah I play too, I just have no other life right now because I am on summer internship and all of my friends are back at school. So what do I do after work? WoW and WoWWiki :P --Jiyambi t || c 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick note: It seems we should not be making pseudo namespaces such as "Quest Chain:", I am going to start naming things "<name of chain> quest chain" from now on. Since I got set strait on IRC :P --Jiyambi t || c 17:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have IRC access. What does your source say about the "Quest:" pseudo namespace? Same difference, isn't it? And what of the (effective) namespaces created by recipe items: "Schematic: xxx", "Pattern: xxx", "Plans: xxx" --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Also: "Guild:", "Server:" ... what makes these different than "Quest:", "Quest chain:"? Not a rhetorical question. Are "Guild:" etc "real" name spaces, with some different mechanism, that requires operator intervention that hasn't happened with "Quest Chain:"? --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
In all honesty, I don't know much about this, but I will point you to the page where all this is being discussed: WoWWiki:Namespaces and WoWWiki talk:Namespaces, it looks like there are similar discussions taking place on other pages. From what I understand, the "Quest:" one is a pseudo namespace with no functionality of a namespace (what that functionality is I really couldn't tell you), just the appearance in the name. It is under debate right now, though I don't think anything will be changing for that one since there is a *huge* amount of quests already created with that naming convention. However the Guild and Server ones are either already proper namespaces or they are planning on making them so. I will ask about this next time I'm on IRC and let you know what's up. --Jiyambi t || c 18:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and as for those recipes I think they are leaving those since it is the actual item name and it would just confuse navigation if they tried to change it. Since some people do navigate by typing in the name directly (myself being one). --Jiyambi t || c 18:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Nothing like a new topic to spur a spurious diatribe out of me. Still, if the Quest: pseudo-namespace is changed, it'll be changed by a bot. Too many pages, and too many uses of the {{quest}} template out there to do otherwise. I await further input by People Who Know via your good offices, sir. --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
By sir you mean madame? ;) I probably won't be able to get on IRC until next week as I am going camping, we will have to remain in the dark until then I suppose. --Jiyambi t || c 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I see!:) --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

coughirsourcecough. :) Yes, if we do change anything, it will almost definitely be by bot, as I'm sure you saw on the ways to fix our namespace issue. As for "Recipe: x recipe" and such, those aren't actually namespaces at all, faux or not, just as "World of Warcraft: game" is not. :) --Sky (t · c · w) 19:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

/chuckle. your own quote: "What does your source say about the "Quest:" pseudo namespace?" :) --Sky (t · c · w) 20:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
btw, do you use Firefox or some other browser currently? jw. --Sky (t · c · w) 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Firefox. Flash and quicktime have been stripped, and images are on a very short leash. Javascript usually disabled. Makes for idiosyncratic browsing.
-- btw, do we already use a WowWiki namespace (eg WoWWiki:Voting policy), or is that another pseudo namespace? --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No, that's an out-of-the box namespace. If you need to check which are real and which aren't, go to the Special:Recentchanges page and click the tab over on the right. Those are real namespaces. As for the browser comment, I was just wondering why you don't use wikipedia:ChatZilla as an IRC client. I know you've said before you don't use IRC, but is that voluntary, or a work thing, or? --Sky (t · c · w) 20:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Work really. I do use wikipedia:Trillian (software). --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, cool. --Sky (t · c · w) 20:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

RE the use of 2nd person, I like the way that reads too. It reminds me of the old "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. For me, the quest chain articles are usually for me to remember what the story was, after I've completed the quests in-game without reading too closely. So the narrative feel and description of what "I"/"you" (the player) has done feels right. I could see an argument for a more 3rd-person approach, but it would be difficult to write as effectively or clearly -- always using "the player" or "an unnamed adventurer" or passive voice. So nice work! Keep it up! And so on. :-) -- Harveydrone ( talk | work ) 21:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Quest chain redux Edit

Hey, I noticed you fixing the links to {{questchain}}. I threw something together a couple weeks ago to change the links to Quest Chain. Maybe you'd like a look at it to double check I got the if right? --Sky (t · c · w) 23:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing it by hand, so thought I was changing just the individual quests to remove the redirects. Tried out questchain/dev...
Altered the usage text, used 'questchain/dev' for illustration. Simple enough to change when it goes live. Otherwise, looks like it will work.
Simply wasn't terribly interested in defending "quest chain:" as a prefix, though I suspect we may revisit the decision down the road. I started this from finding you'd changed the names and left redirects. Do you have an automated way of fixing all the links, or should I continue pounding them out by hand?
... you might note my Village Pump note. One of my quest chain pages utterly disappeared from human ken... Wouldn't know how that came about or where it has gone? --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(copied from my talk)So... how do you plan the transition from the current quest chain template to the new one? --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The easiest (but also the most odorous) would be to just pound it out, and replace by hand. Now, how to switch: move the pages that are at Special:Prefixindex/Quest Chain: to their quest chain equivalents, change the functionality of {{questchain}}, and then go through the what links here from those same pages to double check that all their usages are gone. If they are, kill them off with a {{sd}} or some such. For those pages which have parentheses, we need to move them so that the parantheses is the last set, else it makes it hard to link. in which case, we use {{questchain|alt=something quest chain (night elf)|something quest chain}} --Sky (t · c · w) 02:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Darkmoon Faire Edit

Yeah I can confirm the first part, Unfortunately I did not write down the other parts when I did them --Renowna 17:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC) (moved from user page)

SD Edit

When marking a redirect for SD, please remove or break the redirect function from the article. I can get a bit carried away deleting and may delete the resulting redirect instead of the article marked. Thanks. --GRYPHONtc 22:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --Eirik Ratcatcher 22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
And please fix all the things that include that page before you SD it, it messed up a bunch of the goblin sponsorship quests.
Edit: Make that, links to. You got the inclusions, just not the links lurking elsewhere in the article. Regardless, please double check. --Jiyambi t || c 21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
My bad. Too used to editing chains I'd done up myself... --23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

stave Edit

i left the bot tag as i didnt have time to fully look at everything (busy busy), but restored at least the template thing  - CJ talk / cont  07:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

So little time, so much to do. I hear ya. --Eirik Ratcatcher 18:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Jewels Edit

This is a major pet peeve of mine, and I recently unloaded on a random editing person with this little goodie... "I've seen this issue a few times from a few different people, but Jewels are gems. An uncut raw Gem does change when it is cut, it's a refining process. The things you put in pieces of gear are CUT gems, not jewels. With this line of reasoning, if you want a separate category for raw gems and cut gems, I'd say a sub-category for RAW gems is required for a distinction. The term Gem is much more widely used than Jewel, and there is no Blizzard documentation that I have come across that suggests that they should be considered Jewels. The profession is Jewelcrafting because it sounds better than gemccrafting, and the jewel factor comes into play with the JEWELRY that is made as part of the profession (rings and necklaces). So, again, cut gems are NOT jewels, and this category is broken in my opinion, so please don't change and Gem category items to Jewel category as these two categories are redundant. Jewel categories needs to be replaced by Gem categories, not the other way around. There doesn't seem to be an official authority on the category issue, but if you contact an admin that shares similar views as you, please put me in contact with this person so we can get this straight." It just seemed to me that you'd be a better person to discuss this with. Thoughts? --ShardeeDetheroc 08:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you've seen some of my own diatribes... :)
There are a number of categories, or possible categories, going on here.
  1. things you dig out of mineral veins that sparkle and aren't metals or rock
    • called gems, or sometimes 'minerals'
    • many (all?) are used in Jewelcrafting, thus also belong in 'Jewelcrafting Ingredients'
    • I would be willing to stretch the definition to include products of transmutation that also "seem to be gems".
  2. things you put in socketted items
    • often called 'jewels', though 'cut gems' is also descriptive.
    • never (to my knowledge) used in jewelcrafting recipes.
  3. things that start as gems, but can be crafted in to jewels
    • a sub-category of gems, clearly.
    • also a sub-category of 'jewels', as not all jewels are crafted.
    • also a sub-category of 'Jewelcrafting Products'
Engineering is more my particular hot button, but I know how you feel. For my own part, I have no particular druthers on what the categories are called, outside of my "you break it, you fix it" philosophy.
Looking at the Gems category, there are clearly entries ("dodge gems") that have no business there.
As to names, well, I fear you've no real help in me. As long as the category is well defined (which it isn't currently, but I may take that up), I'm happy. (see: "Engineering is my hot button"... :) ) --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The "minerals" that come out of veins can belong to multiple categories since they have multiple purposes. They are used in blacksmithing, jewelcrafting, and I believe engineering, so they can belong to all of those categories. I don't think that they can be named (or renamed) for one purpose (naming "jewels" for jewelcrafting), thus my point here. I've always thought they were "gems" until I came to wiki and saw these "jewel" things. This made me quite confused.
The reason for the mixed up categories is, perhaps, that the categories are ambiguous and hard to define in this case. What is a jewel? What's the difference between that and a Gem? It seems to me that they are synonymous to Gems in all contexts, and there's not any tangible difference other than who named them when, or who changed their name after BC came out. The obvious thing to me, would be to accept some sort of standard (gems versus jewels), and I would vote for Gems hands down due to the way they are presented in-game.
Drawing back to the tangent of real life, gems are something to be coveted, something valuable. In the raw form, huge pure chunks of minerals are referred to as gems. When you cut and polish gems, they are still considered gems. The exact same can be said for Jewels, though since they are synonymous.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShardeeDetheroc (talkcontr).
I think you're considering "category 3" items there, yes? I'm not against having a category for such (as shown by the fact that I defined such a category, above). You may note that I've added comments to Category:Gems (category 1) and Category:Jewels (category 2), as well as a perhaps overly long rant on Village pump. I did not create a separate category for type 3 items, but it could be a subcategory for both gems and jewels. And, of course, both categories are still up for being renamed if desired. I would be happy to for your comments. --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice dude, thanks for helping get the ball rolling. I also stumbled across the AH classifications when I went to research some examples of "Jewel" being used. I found no jewels, just gems as I expected, and I found and listed the way the AH classifies gems. I really think this would be an excellent way to represent these items. --ShardeeDetheroc 03:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
edit - Pearls are also listed under "Simple" gems, so that category may need to be put under gems.

Engineering Edit

Yeah, I've been looking through a lot of the pages and there are quite a few of things I'd like to keep. The lists of Schematics through trainers and through the world/NPC/vendor per skill level is one table I'd like to construct. In my sandbox (/User:Ithar/sandbox) I have a few quick things set up, like how I'm going to do the main page and junk like that.

You can email me with some ideas and junk at I'm really hoping that I can make the engineering page into something at least a little more respectable than what it is now.

--Ithar 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ballou Edit

I've been a long fan of Civil War history - though I haven't seen the Ken Burns documentary myself, we had a copy of the soundtrack in my house. The last track on the CD was a reading of the Sullivan Ballou letter, with "The Ashokan Farewell" in the background. I also study Civil War-related topics (just for myself, not for any schoolwork or anything) on Wikipedia. When I saw Sara Balloo in-game and heard a mention of "Sully", I wondered if this was a reference; I went to Wikipedia, and sure enough... --Joshmaul 14:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Following you Edit

Being my usual perfectionist self. I live by F5 on special:recentchanges, so I usually check the diffs of a variety of edits. If it doesn't look quite right to me, I go after it. =) --Sky (t | c | w) 06:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Poking. You tagged "User:Eirik Ratcatcher/ExampleTooltip" for sd; did you mean to tag the pages that it is transcluded to? --Sky (t | c | w) 19:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Both, actually. I've given up on the idea of a set of tooltips boiled down to "this is a weapon tooltip", "this is a socketable armor tooltip", etc, given that so many pages seem to be generated by bots these days. Just doesn't seem worthwhile. --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Mk. Just double checking. --Sky (t | c | w) 20:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
in that I had to look up what pages linked to that exampletooltip thing... :) Which brings up a question: How do I find "all pages that have /this page/ as a root?" for any given page? --Eirik Ratcatcher 20:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Special:Whatlinkshere. example: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Template. Should the target page transcluded, the linked-page will say (transcluded) after it: eg Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Tooltip --Sky (t | c | w) 20:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops... You got my intent backwards. What I wanted was, for instance, to see what pages are named (eg) 'user:Eirik Ratcatcher/xxx'. What you described won't (I think) catch these unless they specifically link back to the base user page... Or am I missing something? --Eirik Ratcatcher20:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Try Special:Prefixindex/User:Eirik Ratcatcher or Special:Allpages/User:Eirik Ratcatcher. The only difference between the two is that the first has only those which begin with the requisite namespace:name, the other lists those articles named the parameter first, and then continues on in the User namespace. --Sky (t | c | w) 04:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
TYVM! :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 19:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sections Edit

As for the Rewards and Gains sections, we're trying to keep them separate as well. User:Coobra/Sig3 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I disapprove, strongly. You don't get any of the results of the quest until the quest is complete, at which point, you get them all. Where do I vote? If a vote has not been called for, I will start one. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
A reward is something physical, while gains are intangible things you get for a job well done. You receive both when the quest is completed and the sections are right on top of each other...Also with lootbox being used (in rewards) it makes it look cleaner to have them separated. There is no vote currently cause there have been no complaints. At least until now. User:Coobra/Sig3 23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
... You are hitting all of my hot buttons, today, aren't you? I've been replacing Reagentbox and lootbox with Item wherever I find them in quest pages. Tooltips make lootbox unnecessary, and reagentbox is just plain too large for any conceivable benefit (IE the icon).
As for having two sections, one for material things, one for immaterial, ... why? I see no need to make things more complicated. Worse is having them separated with the conclusion text between them. You may have noticed my changing that state of affairs. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Worse is having them separated with the conclusion text between them. You may notice (since you didn't read the part where I said it above) that they are on top of each other. The rewards is moved down to join the gains. And I don't know if you've noticed but laurlybot also has the two sections when the quest page is created by it. Furthermore most quests have been done this way, go click on 10 random quests and see. User:Coobra/Sig3 23:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was referring to much older pages, which have 'gains' but no 'rewards', or have both; and have the 'gains' above the completion text section, and rewards (if any) below it.
And curiously enough for the "immaterial/material" argument is that cash awards seem to appear in the 'gains' section.
10 random quests - well, sir, when I've done that in the past, 80% of the time I've gotten one of three results: a laurlybot page, an ancient page, or a stub. It is circular to argue that because laurlybot does something, that is the right way to do it. Ancient pages and stubs are slated for renovation anyway. I disagree with laurlybot, but laurlybot has the advantage of speed, focus, and 'interest'. So there you have it. --Eirik Ratcatcher 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand in part corrected. Some of the 'money' lines I'm seeing (but not all) are "money if you're capped on level".
edit: ... which comment blurs the distinction you are making, Coobra --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea...I don't like those lines...Every time the cap is increased every single quest would have to be changed to at level 80 (90, 100, etc)
Personally I'd removed all of them if I could, but so far I only remove the incorrect ones...ones that the cash amount is wrong. If they're correct I don't touch them...for the most part. User:Coobra/Sig3 00:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
/agree ... too much to do to take on all the little stuff (__NOTOC__, 'gains' vs 'rewards', 'external links') most of the time. There are too many other pages that need more work; and several pages that still need to be written. But that's also why I get up in arms when I find someone coming around behind me on those issues. --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup.....btw hear anything from laurly?...I haven't seen anything tagged done for nearly 2months now. User:Coobra/Sig3 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Laurly has made changes in the last 2 months, though. OTOH, I was under the impression that at least some bots were triggerable via IRC or something. I'm not in on that, so I don't know. And on the gripping hand, I consider it a mixed blessing. Better a laurlybot bot-generated page than a blank one, but better still one that's had human eyes on it. So little time, so many pages. Thus, so much acquiescence... :) --Eirik Ratcatcher 00:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki