User talk:Atarax

Kill Tasks

To be honest I am not a fan of the current naming for kill tasks. I Always thought they should either use the title as the quest name or go with some thing like Ebon Gromnie Kill Task. I don't even know who calls them hunter quests, I have always used and heard people use kill task. Once we get the quest guide done I was thinking about renaming and redoing all the kill tasks, or bringing the idea up anyway. So... do whatever you want with the wisp task. --An Adventurer 11:36, 12 February 2009 (CST)

---

It's a feature people have been asking for for a couple years now and as of 1.13 (the current release) still hasn't been added. 1.14RC1 was released a few days ago and I didn't notice any update on the issue in the notes but it's always possible it might get added by the time they get to the quarterly release. And I agree it's a pain. Here's a link to the discussion:

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=709

Edit: I missed something and am going to test it out, it may not work with our current version but it should work after the move to 1.14, will let you know in a minute.

Edit: No it doesn't work but it will after we upgrade.

--Tlosk 12:10, 11 February 2009 (CST)

Bots

I can answer it for you. Bots are accounts that you can use to do minor repetitive edits. Bot edits do not show up on the recent changes by default, thus saving the recent changes from being cluttered up with the same minor edits. Bots can also be used to patrol for vandalism and such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots

I dont actually have any software to automate my bot (tlosk might) but I do a lot of minor repetitive edits so I thought I could use a bot account. --An Adventurer 10:38, 3 February 2009 (CST)

I'm currently using custom scripts but after we upgrade to 1.14 we'll be able to use some of the utilities like the one you linked to. Our current version doesn't fully support the Bot API which is required (even though you can use AutoWikiBrowser with a nonbot account it still uses the API to function). If you'd like one also make an account and let me know. --Tlosk 17:37, 3 February 2009 (CST)

Templates

That's a good idea, to avoid agreement issues (a/an etc) I made it so it just says "* <Name> Locations." and added it the creature template. As I'm going through the old creature entries and changing them I've come across quite a few that were either missing the plural name all together or weren't pluralized so this will make it a lot better.

You can use a variable more than once, what did you have in mind?--Tlosk 13:08, 23 January 2009 (CST)

I started a central location to have ongoing discussions where we can discuss things directly or link to the talk page. --Tlosk 08:37, 24 January 2009 (CST)

• Forum#Titles in Patch Page
• Forum#Individual Creature Template

Spells

Unique spells like that can have their own page, marked as Category:Unlearnable Castable Spell. The only time that a unique quest only spell should redirect to a standard spell page is when it has an effect that can be seen to stack with or surpass regular spells. For example, there are many quest only cantrips (like on the living weapons, or the spear of purity) but these can be proven to stack or override standard spells and cantrips.

So in short, most unique quest/item spells that mimic a life, creature, or item spell/cantrip will redirect to the appropriate page. Unique war and offensive life spells will have an individual page. And I think, for now at least, most of those special boss only debuffs should have unique pages, since many of them do not have a standard spell counterpart, and it is also rather difficult to find what standard debuffs they do stack with. --An Adventurer 18:30, 19 December 2008 (CST)

Dispels

I was thinking that all dispels (castable and on gems) would all have a unique spell pages. The castable versions would be tagged with category:spell and category:<school> spell. And then all would be tagged with category:Dispel. --An Adventurer 16:11, 8 January 2009 (CST)

My reasoning is that all the spells are named differently, and not <name> I, II, III, etc. But I suppose redirecting them will work, assuming they follow a pattern with spell comps/spell words. --An Adventurer 16:56, 8 January 2009 (CST)

Yeah looks like the castable+learnable dispels can be redirects like standard spells. --An Adventurer 17:28, 8 January 2009 (CST)

The dispels look fine. Thanks for helping out on the redirects too. --An Adventurer 14:06, 9 January 2009 (CST)

Cantrips

I've started a cantrip template here. We'll use the talk page there to discuss improvements. --An Adventurer 13:10, 23 January 2009 (CST)

yes. All unique/set/quest only cantrips should redirect to the standard cantrip page for the stat they increase. --An Adventurer 15:53, 28 January 2009 (CST)