User talk:Wolfie/Archive 1

Chat with helpful peoples
Hi there mate, you've spread your contributions out haven't you! Just a note, for quest articles gold is wikified (ie Gold). Check out Style and formatting/Quests if you're in doubt, my user page has lots of helpful stuff too if you're interested. Thanks. --Xasxas256 22:33, 31 October 2006 (CST)


 * Yes, returning to GW after an unplanned 8 month break. In the issue of the gold link, there seems to be two "competing standards" as have noted a large majority of quest reward sections show gold as simply "50 gold", while a few have as you suggest "50 Gold ", is the plan to eventually convert references?? Wolfie 22:47, 31 October 2006 (CST)


 * Ah dang, must be for Nightfall quests, I've gone through every Factions quest, they should all be: Gold and I think the Proph quests are pretty good too. It's been hard to keep up with it all unfortunately, I'm going through the Nightfall quests now but it'll take me a while. It should always be the same as Style and formatting/Quests though. Anyway, welcome back, hope you're enjoying it ;) --Xasxas256 22:56, 31 October 2006 (CST)


 * Heya there, just another quick note, in an article you generally only wikifying something once, usually the first occurance. For quests however if a term occurs in both the Obtained From and Summary sections, I'll only wikify it in the Obtained From section. Sorry to be a bother but there's always little quirks of wiki editing and this is one of them! :) --Xasxas256 01:30, 1 November 2006 (CST)


 * That's cool, no bother. Rather know how we want to standardise the entries, feel free to "undo" any edits as needed.  Maybe this quirk needs to be noted in the Style and Formatting/Quests page. --Wolfie 02:51, 1 November 2006 (CST)


 * The S&F guide has been updated now, I should have done it a while ago to be honest but anyway, it's done now! --Xasxas256 17:13, 1 November 2006 (CST)


 * An extra little note, we've been using " " to represent when dialogue refers to the character, as mentioned in the S&F guide Xas referenced. Not a biggie, but in keeping things consistant thought you should know. :-) Keep up the good edits! --Zampani 14:18, 6 November 2006 (CST)


 * For the record, I think " " is more meaningful and reads better, but ok, the point is to standardise. Thanks for the note (better to get in early, before I do too much "damage" :D ) --Wolfie 19:52, 6 November 2006 (CST)


 * Sorry to get in late here but I quite like it reads well to me. Problem is that because I've seen so many edits here I generally know how to interperate how things are written. But I do like to hang out on people's talk pages to get their perspective. For better or worse I'm never going to have that new GuildWiki user experiance. I guess that's why and S&F debates are often quite long, because anything implemented there will effect a lot of articles and will last for a long time. As for versus it's probably such a small thing that it's not worth looking over 500 odd quest articles to update it in my opinion. I can't wait for the new server to go in, it's just so painfully slow to look over Category:Nightfall quests at the moment! --Xasxas256 16:50, 7 November 2006 (CST)


 * Yeah, the diff between is minimal, it is something to correct while tidying up / adding to a quest record, so it's good that Zampani said something (the S&F can at times be open to interpretation, so worthwhile for senior editors to note if a discrepancy is creeping in). Of course, if someone has direct access to the wiki host and these documents are stored as text files, then could always look at using SED to do a simple search and replace, would save quite a bit of time. As for a faster Wiki, yes please! Have pretty much stopped adding / editing at the moment because it's so painfully slow, so whatever the server-gods can do to make it better would be useful. :) --Wolfie 18:21, 7 November 2006 (CST)


 * I also can't wait for the new server to go in, I can't RC (Recent Changes) patrol very well at the moment and as you say it's painful trying to format a large bunch of quests for consistancy. Hopefully it'll go in within the next week, fingers crossed. --Xasxas256 22:18, 7 November 2006 (CST)

Just for the record, I'm not an admin, just a hopeful ;) I guess I'm just bossy enough to look like one! :P --Xasxas256 06:43, 25 November 2006 (CST)


 * Ok, changed to reflect this "pending" status (wonders why anyone would want to volunteer for punishment, but each to their own! ) ;) --Wolfie 23:46, 4 December 2006 (CST)


 * Actually my punishment has started now! :P :P --Xasxas256 00:02, 5 December 2006 (CST)
 * Haha! If anything it's a self assigned punishment... you've been the spitting image of an admin for quite some time; now you just have the title to go with it! :-) --Zampani 03:08, 5 December 2006 (CST)

More S&F questions
Couple more questions about the S&F guide for quests: Comments? --Wolfie 22:40, 8 December 2006 (CST)
 * 1) There is no mention of what should be done with words that appear as green text in quest dialog, some ppl have wikified them, others use bold, could there be a standard set?
 * 2) No mention about whether the accept/reject options should be included in the initial dialog entry (though think I did read it should be somewhere), but could a standardise formatting be documented in the S&F.
 * Hope you don't mind, I took the liberty to put this in a new section for ya. As for you questions, here's my 2 cents.
 * There's never been a stance one way or another for the green/bold dialogue. A few of the veteran editors put emphasis on them as you noted, and nobody has reverted it. I personally have no preference. If you have an opinion one way or another, a great place to voice it and discuss it is on the Quest S&F talk page
 * The accept/reject is another topic we've not yet formalized. I personally feel strongly that the dialogue should be there. Not too many people have voiced an opinion on it. There was a short lived discussion here; feel free to add your thoughts!
 * As is the case with any wiki, the more healthy discussion and flow of ideas the better! --Zampani 13:44, 10 December 2006 (CST)

We may have a problem...
Hmmm...This is probably the most interesting glitch I've ever encountered on this site. I have my account set to auto-log me in whenever I visit the wiki. Today however, when I logged in, I was logged in under your account. No idea how this happened, and as soon as I leave the main portal it reverts me back to my account, but I just thought I'd let you know since it seems that the site is logging others in as you. You might want to contact an admin or something, as I'm not sure how this could have happened or how to fix it. Just thought I'd let you know.&mdash; Azroth   16:12, 10 December 2006 (CST)


 * It's a known bug. I presume that even though it looked like you were logged in as Wolfie it was still your login (ie your sig was still your own and your edits appeared under your contributions)? --Xasxas256 16:26, 10 December 2006 (CST)


 * Well I sure heck hope what Fyren says in that article about not being able make edits etc under other peoples ids is correct. Would hate to discover acts of vandalism had been committed under my user account!! Thanks Azroth for taking the time to let me know. --Wolfie 20:23, 10 December 2006 (CST)


 * I dunno, an excuse to blame some of my more useless edits on somebody else... :P Although you could be onto something, I wouldn't trust someone who uses IE7 either! ;) --Xasxas256 21:06, 10 December 2006 (CST)


 * Yeah, it looks like you're right Xas. It was my account with my watchlist, preferences, and contributions pages, but Wolies User page (which you might want to put something on imo, lol) and Wolfies talk page.  Glad to see its not as serious as I initially thought, but it would have been funny to sign my warning to Wolfie with his own sig :P&mdash; [[Image:Azroth sig.png||builds]] Azroth  [[Image:Azroth sig2.png||talk]]  23:25, 10 December 2006 (CST)

On a roll
You're definitely on a roll with updating quests. Kudos! :-) --Zampani 11:20, 13 March 2007 (CDT)