User talk:Ermabwed
Contents
Graphviz for knowledge
This is just a test, to see how Graphiz could work for knowledge trees. Node styles etc. can be changed in all sorts of ways, see Graphviz documentation. In theory, the image below includes links to the pages but I'm still trying to figure out, how to get them to work (without having to work with ImageMap extension or GraphViz extension (Graphviz is not installed on the server and ImageMap would mean doubling the work edit: I guess I will install GraphViz etc.).
created by
digraph G {
node [URL="http://el-wiki.net/\N"]
"Moon Medallion Building" -> "Silver Medallions Building"
"Silver Medallions Building" -> "Generic Medallions Building"
"Generic Medallions Building" -> "Book of Silver Molding"
"Generic Medallions Building" -> "Book of Gold Molding"
"Generic Medallions Building" -> "Jewelry Technology"
"Book of Gold Molding" -> "Book of Metal Molding"
"Book of Silver Molding" -> "Book of Metal Molding"
"Book of Metal Molding" -> "Book of Metallurgy"
"Moon Medallion Building" -> "Sapphire embedding"
"Sapphire embedding" -> "Book of Sapphire Processing"
"Sapphire embedding" -> "Crystal embedding"
"Crystal embedding" -> "Jewelry Technology"
"Book of Sapphire Processing" -> "Book of Crystal Processing"
"Book of Crystal Processing" -> "Book of Crystal Technology"
}
saved to a file (say MoonMed.txt), then ran
dot -Tsvg MoonMed.txt > MoonMed.svg
--Ermabwed 05:20, 9 January 2011 (CST)
Coordinates of Quest NPCs
I saw you revoked an edit from Rowan with the message 'no coordinates of quest NPCs'. I dont think that we should avoid coordinates, as long as no secrets are involved. Is there any discussion or agreement i missed about this one ?
regards Gilrain
As far as I know this wiki has always considered quest information to be secret, thus the coordinates of quest NPCs shouldn't be posted here but on the relevant quest thread in the forums. If we start adding this type of information to the wiki, you won't be able to post links to pages of the wiki to public channels anymore because giving secret information (and I'm sure the Eternal Lands crew regards quest information as secrets in that sense) is as far as I know not allowed in public channels and the people in charge of the channel certainly don't want to check each link and thus we'd soon have a "nothing but main page" ruling against the wiki.
However, if the location information is presented in a more circumspect way then that would be fine (e.g. Kalana is living at the north west edge of Corren at the border to the Evergreen Woods, should be permissible, though that would have to remain to be seen of course).
--Ermabwed 07:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
i tend to disagree. First i was already told that we currently HAVE a 'nothing but main page' ruling for the Wiki already. Second: quest are NOT secrets. The fact that quest info isnt allowed in public channels doesnt logically allow the conclusion that they are game secrects, like other secrects are. Additionally, the location of NPCs are pretty obvious, so IF there should be any info concealed at all (which i still dont think), it must be the info that they are quest NPCs, not their locations.
regards, Gilrain (maybe we can discuss this in a forum thread?)
Category:Books of Weapon Building
Re: your edit. I was making the [[Category:Books]] match up directly with [[Category:Skills]]. So that was why I was thinking that [[Category:Books of Weapon Building]] belongs as a subcategory of, and not directly in [[Category:Books]]. Thoughts? — MrDolomite • Talk 21:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, I can't quite follow you there (as in, I don't know what you are talking about). Books are no skills, however books are related to skills and thus one should be able to find them looking both in the books category and in the related skill's category. So basically this is a problem of both structure and making relevant information accessible where ever appropriate.
Let me add the general remark that after all is said and done, this is a wiki and while I assume that all of our contributors take pride in their work to some extent, I hope they all appreciate it when someone wants to improve it (Which is why I don't understand it when people think that guides are somehow tied to the original author). Sometimes the ideas and visions for pages or other aspects of the wiki will collide, which will hopefully lead to some discussion and a solution and an improved wiki as it may or may not have in this case ;-) If you have a different vision about how to categorize pages etc. I'd encourage you to draw a graph and put it up on forums, though as I indicated in the first sentence, I might have been totally talking at cross-purposes here (don't look at me, I looked that phrase up), so, just keep up the good work.
--Ermabwed 22:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
PS: If that looks like a lot of rambling, it's probably not too far from the truth, I place the blame in my first sentence though and offer a solution in last one.
Suprisingly, I was able to follow most of that. :) Wiki categorizing is always a matter of interpretation, and you are correct, it is all about making info easily available to other people.
While there are always ways to group info, and in this case, it is very logical to put the Armor and Weapons building book info into their own groups. But instead of putting them into directly underneath [[Category:Books]], I thought it made more sense to put them underneath one of the "canon" subcategories, based on the skills. The same reason for putting [[Category:Mining books]] underneath [[Category:Harvesting books]] instead of directly under [[Category:Books]].
But, there's no reason to say they can't be in more than one spot, as everyone has their own logical layout of ideas and concepts. The important part is that it is out there to help folx who come looking for it.
It's too bad that Special:CategoryTree or the http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CategoryTree doesn't exist on this wiki as it would make it easier to navigate and explain categorization. — MrDolomite • Talk 23:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I guess I misunderstood your edit or the intent of it then at least partially. I thought you wanted to place them in the skill's category and the skill in the books category.
By the way, the only reason why the extension you mention above isn't yet installed, is that I want to look at related and other extensions and get the "best" for the purpose. I actually started to go through the extension list but was busy with other stuff so lost track of that "project". I guess this conversation gives me a good reason to take care of some other unfinished stuff around here as well (e.g. donations button went MIA with the update of MediaWiki).
If you would like to see a certain extension installed or a feature enabled/disabled, feel free to start a forum thread giving some details as to the why etc. Oh yea, and if someone could tell me what I need for the Template:!, I figured it somehow ties in with the ExpandTemplates template, but whether that is all I need and then create a template ! that gives | isn't clear to me...
--Ermabwed 10:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
CategoryTree
This is kind of an update to the above mentioned extensions to be installed, I just finished installing the CategoryTree extension. With this extension you can show ease the navigation and visualization of categories. For details see the link. Here's an example:
created with <categorytree mode=pages>Skills</categorytree>.
Thanks
Thanks for getting that installed. Drill down into Armor Building and Manufacturing books and hopefully my original comment makes more sense now. :) Yeah, sometimes it means that the category isn't a traditional tree and sometimes the branches are duplicated, but hopefully it helps people find what they are looking for. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
<categorytree depth=1>Books</categorytree>
Category links
Sure, there are all kinds of ways to link to a category. I personally like using a template, because it is shorter to type than all that bracket and other syntax. Also, having {{ccl}} format the output the way it does makes it easy to copy/paste the times when you actually need all that syntax.
As for the having {{ccl}} link to Special:Categories, since this wiki uses a root category, [[Category:Contents]], I have modified the template. I had copied that code from elsewhere. — MrDolomite • Talk 13:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, my point was: "what's the point for the reader?", using a template is fine with me, but the current output isn't adding anything while at the same time removing a significant amount of readability. The way I've seen that template used so far was to link to categories, now why would one say "look here but you really want to look here" (link to root category followed by link to category) and add [[]] around that as well. You will (hopefully) notice that linking to anything else but to what you actually want to point the reader to, that being the category, doesn't make any sense, especially once you try to improve it's readability.
In other words: using a template is fine, the current output isn't suited for regular pages, I'd rather install an extension that allows for easier editing of categories of a page than see that output everywhere just because I could then use it to copy/paste it to pages that I want to add to a category.
"Historically" the page names were sorted in pseudo subdirectories as whoever started that scheme hadn't realized that all this goes into a database and isn't stored as a filesystem kind of thing, every link had to be written as [[Category/Element|Element]], the current output of that template brings us back to that without prettifying the link but adding the squared brackets.
So far, I've not seen any real reason why readers should have to endure that output... --Ermabwed 15:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
If the extra linking seems confusing, just remove the link from the Category portion.
Since it is a common wikisyntax typo to forget to include the leading colon prefix when you want to _link_ to a category instead of actual _being_ in a category, a template is a little easier to use.
Also, I'm a big fan of having links be self-explanatory before clicking them, imho, so people know they are heading to a list of articles. So having it show the Category text Category:Skills is preferable to a hidden piped link like Skills. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, I have no problem with that if it's fits into the flow of the text, you could do the piped version as Skills (category) too and get an even better result in terms of looks and readability though.
And actually, all browsers (at least those that I have used so far) show the address of a link somewhere when you hover the mouse or move the focus to that link, the only reason why somebody wouldn't notice he was being sent to a category page is that he wasn't paying attention ;-)
--Ermabwed 21:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Image problem
Hmm, maybe it's just me, but I wasn't seeing the Image:Latis.png on the Latis or Morcraven Marsh pages. I had even tried to re-upload the image but no luck, so I substituted the Image:Cantemir.png instead. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I see the image just fine, maybe try deleting your browser cache and reloading the page. --Ermabwed 19:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Pages that need attention
Should we start an extra page for a list like this where people can look?
Some that come to mind are
- Instances (completion, list of special drops etc.)
- Various Guides (need updates, completion or writing in the first place)
- Various Quests
- Lots of Maps (need updating to reflect changes with the latest client)
- A lot of item pages are missing information in regards to where to buy/sell them from NPCs.
Thanks
For finishing Magic Cloaks comparison table. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
My pleasure. --Ermabwed 20:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Few Changes
I did the following changes while I was given editor rank:
- Fixed the Iron Cuisses and Dmg Iron Cuisses comparition it was not showing the - (negative) Defence penalty.
- Fixed a few (already known) "Advice" in Alchemy Section.
- Created two pages: Day of Faster Respawns Stone and Day of Faster Respawns
You may already know if you check Recent Changes Page
Elven Lord 04:25, 13 March 2018 (CET)
Thanks :) --Ermabwed 20:53, 10 October 2018 (CEST)
