User talk:Rapta/Archive 1

Skill icons
I noticed you have added skill icons for some monsters/bosses. What is your logic and are you doing it anymore? I'm doing all bosses one species at the time. If you don't mind, could I do all the bosses alone? It helps a lot when there aren't sometimes bosses which allready have the icons. You could start doing the normal monster articles in some logical way if you want. -- 13:09, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I've just been using the Random Page button to do them, actually. Then I started going through random maps and doing the monsters there. And yeah, of course I can leave the bosses to you if you want me to. --Rapta 13:11, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks. You could go through the species one at the time by using Category:Bestiary. Do a whole species at the same time. After you have finished for the day, put a note here so that the others know which species you have gone through. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 13:22, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks for the link. --Rapta 13:22, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Btw, could you check at the same time that each article has all the necessary headings. (Many bosses are missing the 'Items Dropped' heading for example) Add the missing headings. You don't need to add anything below them. Also check if the articles have something wrongly done. For example if the skill are not listed in aplhabetical order, please change the order to alphabetical and so on. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 13:34, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * For the Shouts, do I order it by the Quotation mark or the first letter after? --Rapta 14:03, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Hmmm... Not sure. I checked a few of the warrior bosses and some do take the quotation mark into account, some don't. Do you know how the game does it? Do it the same way. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 14:09, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * In game, the player skill list puts skills with quote marks first, i.e. quote marks are counted as letters. -- Ledrug 14:26, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Darn. I guess I have some reverting to do. xD --Rapta 14:27, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

One more thing. You don't need to update the list of done categories all the time. Put the full list at once when you have finished. This keeps the history of the page cleaner. -- 14:21, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

Notes sections
No notes sections in bestiary if there are no notes. --Rainith 23:18, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Err... Gem told me to put the header anyways. O_o --Rapta 23:19, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Check Style and formatting/Bestiary, the very first line of that section: This section shouldn't be there if empty. --Rainith 23:20, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Gotcha. --Rapta 23:21, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I didn't tell you to add the notes section. :) I said 'all necessary headings'. Sorry, I forgot to mention that the Notes is only needed if there are any notes. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 03:10, 25 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh, no problem. I guess I should have scrolled down when I first read the Style and Formatting page, too. :P --Rapta 09:08, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

Timezones
Hehe it was a new day here, but you are right the relevant timezone is the one of the server clock. I'll try not to mess up your past featured build list in the future. --Xeeron 11:47, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Slightly related timezone issue
You've added Template:Unsigned to Talk:Dragon Mask but you've used it incorrectly, as it stands, 84-175 has replied to a comment made in the future! Now 84-175 is a good contributor but I don't think he's yet mastered the ability to see into the future :P The problem is that the time you set in your preferences may not be the same as server time; when you sign a talk page it uses server time but when you view the history of an article, it uses your local time. If you look at Template:Unsigned and Template:Unsigned2, you'll see that you need to set your timezone offset to -5 so it's the same as server time or manually convert local time to server time or simply don't fill in the time when you use the unsigned template. I've left the time incorrect so you can see what I'm talking about but when you get a chance if you could fix it, that'd be good. The correct time is 15:01, 4 July 2006 and not 20:01, 4 July 2006. Thanks. --Xasxas256 00:45, 7 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Ah, I never noticed that. Thanks for picking that up. :P --Rapta 13:34, 7 July 2006 (CDT)

Curiosity
Did you make those templates yourself? They're hilarious, especially the spoiler one. BTW, I'm a huge fan of Golden Sun. So ha. XD Mabin Maranwae 23:38, 10 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm not THAT creative :P &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 18:47, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Account
Thanks for the suggestion to create an account. My contributions have been getting heavier this last week, I guess it was about time. Sunyavadin 13:26, 11 July 2006 (BST)
 * Glad I could help &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 18:47, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Featured build
Thanks for keeping that one up to date. I like the idea alot and would like to keep track of it more, but schelude leaves only a tiny bit of time for guildwiki atm, so it is great to have someone else take care of it. Do you figure that keeping the featured build daily will work? Might we run out of good builds? And is one day enough to let people notice the build? I just fear that the "Past featured builds" category might come to resemble the "tested builds" one, kind of taking away the point of a featured build. Maybe changing the featured build every 2nd or 3rd day might work better?

PS: Hope you dont mind me slapping cat humor on your templated. --Xeeron 14:50, 13 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Every 2nd or 3rd day it is. :P &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 19:51, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Thanks
Thanks a million for testing my build. I thought you guys didn't like Archer's Signet in there... But you guys changed around. I have to ask you: I myself am low leveled right now. Can you help me get Archer's Signet? Because like I said in the build discussion: I don't actually have that yet. XD Mabin Maranwae 20:51, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Add any of my character names, and message me in-game, and I'll see if I can help. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 20:57, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks. Mabin Maranwae 21:23, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Cheese
Did you stop liking cheese? O.o -Gares 22:31, 14 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Sadly, yes. :P &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 22:54, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

Voting on Own Builds?
I noticed you restored a favorable vote by the creator of the build. I've been told by both User:Skuld and User:Honorable Sarah that it is assumed that the creator is in favor, otherwise, why submit the build.--&mdash; xis10al   03:34, 16 July 2006 (CDT)
 * i was kinda curious about that too, while not specifically outlawed anywhere, it does kinda defeat the purpose of community review. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 09:30, 16 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeh.. why would you submit a build you didn't favour Rapta? &mdash; Skuld  09:35, 16 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I was told according to Talk:Builds that 3 votes, including your own, is enough to vet the build. It makes sense, that usually we have a good build stuck in the Unfavoured category that is obviously useful, but is not looked at by many people. Usually, with 2 votes by others, and 1 vote by the author, it is enough to vet a build without any opposing votes, which appears to be the most case with current builds. If there are opposing arguments, another non-writer vote needs to be favouring the build in order to vet it. All in all, this just speeds up the process. Plus, it gives the writer to explain why they favour it, without having to type in a different section or in the main build article (which they shouldn't be doing), since the Rate-a-build section is the first thing most people see when you look in an untested build's discussion page. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 12:54, 16 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Whether the author votes for the build in the vote section, or automatically by submitting the build does not really make a difference to me. You just need to check to make sure you count his vote only once. --Xeeron 15:22, 16 July 2006 (CDT)
 * i was under the impression that it needed three independant approvals, and the original author does not count. i've reread that discussion, and a few others, and the only reference to self vote is that one entry by niles. it's not even on the original discussion. perhaps this was never decided? --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 16:36, 16 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Like what Xeeron said, it shouldn't really matter. Most builds are voted upon unanimously, anyways. The author's vote just speeds up the voting process. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 19:59, 16 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I was always under the impression that the writer had the space in the discussion page to defend his or her build, and that it then required three independent reviews from other users to pass the build as tested. If we are talking about reducing the lag time in terms of build processing, that needs a major review anyway and counting or not counting the author as a vote is not going to speed things up much if at all. Therefore I move that speeding up the process be regarded as not relevant to the discussion of whether we need three independent reviews.

With that said, I think three is a good solid number for us to have the confidence to say a build has been tested by the GuildWiki community. Two is a little short... Kessel 05:59, 17 July 2006 (CDT)