GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.




For the grammar demons out there: TEF uses they for the missing third person, gender-neutral pronoun. This has wide-acceptance among a number of people, although, afaik, it hasn't really been adopted by the largely white-male dominated krewe that gets to write the rule books. And, to be fair to their point-of-view, there are a good number of herstorian types who eschew its use as well. However, until someone comes up with an acceptable substitute pronoun to use when the person is known, but the gender is not confirmed, I'm stickin' with it.

TEF Prefers: I know that Chris is a good person, having spoken to them online many times. However, they have never mentioned their gender to me.
TEF Avoids: I know that Chris is a good person, having spoken to him/her online many times. However, he/she has never mentioned his/her gender to me.

  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:07, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Another archive[]

Congratulations on your annoying-comment free page, that I've just messed up. I see you don't move your page to archive RandomTime 09:53, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

thanks! (I think) This wiki's official archive recommendation pushes Cut/Paste with equal weight to Move. (Plus, I know I can reliably c/p; not so sure I can manage a move without ruining something.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 10:08, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's all pretty simple. I stayed by copy-pasta too at first, but from wiki perspective, moving is a lot interesting. And not much harder. The only problem is that you make a few edits more to get the archive boxes on and stuff.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 11:30, June 10, 2010 (UTC)


You back in the world of Tyria, or could you just not stay away from me and my dashing good looks? A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 23:15, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

A little of both! I'm considering checking out the new quests... and would also review dashing good looks, if only you were @keyboard...  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:44, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
The new quests are rather nice. Don't underestimate the peacekeepers though, in HM they rival the Slaver's Stone Summit, and it's worse because they have random skillsets and there will mostly be 1 or 2 people with a res, and you can't know which one until you actually see it being used.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 05:22, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
Ouch!! Defeating those dwarven groups in Slavers' was super-PITA (although satisfying). Random skillsets sounds intriguing! sounds like I've missed a lot since January. (Thanks for the tips.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:18, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
In NM it's ok, as long as you don't aggro too many (although lvl 15 henchies don't help a lot). Also, the white mantle of the war in kryta (in the "mission-like quests") have some seriously effed up skillsets, with mesmers using WoH and rangers using chaos storm (though their entire build was e-denial I think).--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 06:36, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
tl;dr: Vanquish in Proph then do WIK A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 21:16, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
Vanquish? Wow...when I began my sabbatical, I think I had VQ'd maybe 2 zones in proph and I doubt I tackled any of the Mantle areas :-(.
BTW: the only WIC I know provides nutritious food to Women, Infants, and Children. In GW, I assume it's War in Kryta?  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:25, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
He did say WiK (k, not c). War in Kryta yes. And also, yes, vanq difficulty of prophecies just went through the roof.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 07:48, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
Hey, if you want to be pedantic, did he really say anything? (Insert favorite John Cusack joke here.) Also: my brain draws little distinction between WIC and WIK, possibly b/c they are misspellings of wick or because I used to think the nutrition program was for Women, Infants, and Kids. Regardless (of my misinterpretation, deliberate or otherwise), thanks for the clarification/confirmation. :-)
So, it looks like I'll never VQ prophecies... the rewards seem so weak relative to the effort. Sigh. —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:58, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
Alas we meet again, my nemesis, The Typo! (all adventures of Nazgir the Great vs The Typo are now available in the better comic book shop in hardback. Subscribe to the Nazgir weekly now and receive 10% off on all of the comics!)--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 08:34, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
Do it for the challenge, not the reward :P Also, I think you can team up with someone who hasn't started the war yet and "lose out" on the Peakeepers. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 09:19, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
Completing Prophecies/EotN (the initial requirement for WiK) will trigger some Peacekeeper spawns in Kryta, but once you visit the Shining Blade Camp, that triggers a lot more of them. And they really aren't all that hard if you've got a good team build. It's the new White Mantle that are really difficult, and I don't think they spawn at all until after you visit the SBC. So if you do decide to vanquish Kryta, do Talmark Wilderness last. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 14:40, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

I found the mantle to be a lot easier than the peacekeepers. Only wiped once in Riverside assassination (and that was due to the fecking Mursaat Tower), and wiped a lot throughout Kryta when hunting the bounties.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 14:46, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the Ether seal. The burden of caster-heavy groups everywhere. RandomTime 16:51, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
No, the Mursaat Tower, burden of any non-warrior/paragon. I'm a dervish myself and they too much health regen for me + 7 wandings and initial spells to kill, if there are still other dudes around attacking. --TalkpageEl_Nazgir meant to sign this previous edit on 08:59, 13 June 2010, but was blasted by a towering Meerkat before he could place the tildes
Wow! I really missed out on a lot. So, lots of non-contradictory advice! (A rarity here on GuildWiki — awesome!)
  • VQ Talmark Wilds last
  • Team up with s/o who hasn't started with Women/Infants/Kids
  • be cautious visiting the SBC (or the SEC, for that matter...although that's more of a real-life issue, I suppose)
  • read EN's new graphic novel
  • give Peas (sic) a chance, but give the Peakeepers (sic) an inch and they'll take all your veges.
Anything else?  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:46, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
Well, never eat yellow snow, and don't wake up sleeping dragons (oh wait, we did that at the end of EotN anyway...).--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 11:00, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
If TEF didn't wake the dragon, he wouldn't be bothered by these darn pea thieves in the first place. Why are you always so late with your useful advice, Naz :P (another thing to consider is looking at the recent Mesmer changes and exploit the fork out of it. Nearby range AoE-KD Psychic Instability omg wtf. Also, Pianc) --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 15:00, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, nowadays, discordway is gone from my dervish. I always have a panic mesmer with me now (and an SoS rit with splinter weapon, which is awesome on a scythe ^.^). I guess I could try Psych instability too once in a while, though not on my own mesmer, who is currently also in Panic-mode, because my interrupt-reflexes suck balls.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 17:54, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

You don't have a choice.[]


If you use a signature template, Wikia will automatically add SUBST: in your signature line, and will continue to do so. The only way around this is to use two signature pages. So, basically, unless you go out of your way to avoid it, you will be substing your signature. A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 13:33, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Is that new? I first noticed peeps such as this guy using a non-subst'd sig in Jan/Feb (and it seemed common among frequent contributors at the DA wiki). Or are we talking apples and oranges here? (Or, I suppose OSx and WinOS...apples and microsoft.) Either way, thanks for the tip.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:43, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
I've no idea, but I tried yesterday and Wikia... ah, insisted. A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 20:28, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
Interesting! That's very new; it appears wikia is inserting SUBST: into the beginning of a template, if it's not already in the first 6 chars. It certainly wasn't doing that when I was active on Dragon Age. (there's all kinds of talk pages there using dozens of transcluded sigs). Good for wikia — doing something actually useful and without harming users.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:36, June 17, 2010 (UTC)


If you find yourself on a (media)wiki with no "watch" links, you can append ?action=watch or ?action=unwatch to a page URL to watch or unwatch it. (Use "&" instead of "?" if the URI already has a "?" in it, and edit the action= if it's already got one, but you know that.) --◄mendel► 22:35, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

cool! - I should have thunk of that. (Easier than manually editing my watchlist.)
I suppose partly I wanted admins to see it might be useful to have a watch button. (Not everyone is going to have a friend who suggests some simple wikifu, as above). Thanks for the tip!  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:41, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
We've been discussing that on irc just a short while ago, I think AFK wouldn't mind making one. It has to be a "dumb" button though, because it won't know whether you're already watching the page or not. --◄mendel► 22:52, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
So, the encyclopedic wikis can has watch buttons (that know whether you are/are not watching), but others (e.g. Answer sites) cannot? Is this a wikia not understanding what they are offering issue? or something more fundamental? somewhat rhetorical question - just seems odd to me  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:05, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
Wiki thought it was a good idea to cut the "page bar" from the Monaco version they run on "answers" type wikis. I have no idea why. --◄mendel► 23:22, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Polling data[]


Verification of sampling community

Not A Poll[]

I consider you a friend, don't use a watchlist.

Havn't voted on the second one, want me to go with the "watchlist" option or leave it? A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 22:26, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

eh, they are both more silly than serious intent, so... either; feel free to use "watchlist" (spiritually true, if not technically). I suppose, "I lurk everywhere" is also correct (patrolling RC would count, with a liberal definition of "everywhere")
Regardless, thanks for participating! I am sorta curious how many of us what hang out @GWiki still play.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:27, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
I stopped playing in any way actively for a long time, but in the recent months have made an effort at God Walking Amongst Mere Mortals. When that's over with I would imagine I'll only log on once in a blue moon to add something to my HoM.
For the love of God I hope ArenaNet release a date (and stick to it) soon. While the new info is great, without a date being released - forget the date being near - it's largely trivial imo. A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 12:41, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

de jure[]

I noticed that, but I wasn't going to go into it. I'm also fairly certain that people without mathematical training are going to misunderstand "Expected" (as opposed to average), but maybe you want to give a confidence interval? ;) --◄mendel► 05:57, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

I think ppls without statistics training will grok "expected," so it's mostly for pedantry's sake (in the vernacular, I'm sure "expected" = " average" = "slightly less than what I should get"). De jure is the opposite; it's a $5 phrase where a nickel word will do. Mebbe "average" should remain, but we can surely do better than de jure.
Re: confidence interval. I almost re-wrote that section; it rubs me the wrong way that we say, "equal chance of winning on each circle" and then later say, "but in the center circle, you can last longer without restocking." (That has the air of a contradiction.) But I couldn't figure out any way to express that without statistical justification (and beyond the scope of the article). So, even though you were joking about it, ... it's not a crazy idea to convey variance or, despite the equivalent odds, that there are good reasons to sit on each circle, depending on what you want to achieve, how long you play, etc.
However, the article should be tl;dr, which it mostly is: all circles same for lucky, outer circles good for unlucky, longer lasting in center.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:37, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
They aren't longer lasting in the center. The chance is just lower that you'll get a short run right away (but the chance that you get a long run is also higher?) Mmmmh, I should run some monte-carlo on that ... --◄mendel► 14:07, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
Right, the third (implied) bullet is that standing center, with limited tickets (= 250*# of slots down to just a stack), you are more likely to suffer a bad run during which you are losing far more than 1 ticket out of 18. Of course, you are also less likely to enjoy a bonus streak, in which you are losing less than 1:18.
The problem I have with the "longer lasting" or "less likely ...bad streak" text is that the implication is: stand in the center, play longer (on average), → therefore play more games, → therefore earn more lucky points, contradicting one of the other main points (it doesn't matter where you stand for Lucky).
So, if you can easily run Monte Carlos, it would be useful (and game changing) to know the extent to which bad/good streaks plague/benefit the player. I would imagine that for N=1 ticket stack, it matters little. But perhaps for N=20+, center is 80% likely to give you X rounds while corner might be only 50% likely (well, I'm sure it's not nearly that extreme). (Also, probably also useful to run a simulation for indeterminate tickets, over 72 hours.)
If that's true, that would mean that the center/corners have the same expectation for winning lucky points. However, except for the theoretical player who nine rings for 1000s of hours, the rest of us might be better off in the center. (Well, except for my main toon, who, until this weekend, was growing the Unlucky title about 3x faster than Lucky, due to a faulty lockpick supplier.)
In the meantime, I'm leaving the text alone.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:51, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

No, the expectations don't change. (And the center/corner do have the same expectation re:lucky, as that's based on the number of tickets won.) Imagine you have ten tokens left, and play one round.

  • On the corner, you get 11% for getting enough tokens to play 5 more rounds, 22% for playing one more round, and 67% for game over.
  • In the center, you get 11% for playing 2 more rounds, 44% for playing 1 more round, and 44% for game over.

So if you're lucky, you last a lot longer in the corner; but it's also more likely for your game to be over. If you start with 15 tokens, the numbers change to corner: 6 and 2 and center: 3 and 2 rounds; if you sum them up, you get

corner center
 10  7/9 6/9
15 10/9 11/9

So when your tickets run low, and you're not going to buy more, the advice is to stand in the center if you have 15-19, and to stand in the corner and hope you strike it rich if you have 10-14 tickets.

Before you ask, the numbers are lower than the average return because I haven't figured the return on the rounds you are now able to play. --◄mendel► 19:37, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

what happens simulating the very large numbers that players typically have going during AFK weekends? e.g. 3, 20, and 40 stacks?  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:17, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
I've went as far as coding a Python function that simulates the game with a given number of tickets on any position, but haven't written the part where this is done repeatedly and the results tallied.
I would predict that for large numbers (e.g. 750 or 10000 tickets) there's no visible difference. It might be interesting to find out how much empty space you should have in your inventory to not lose any winning tickets, though. --◄mendel► 22:57, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Just want you to know[]

This made my day. You won the Greatest Edit Summary of July 5th Contest, ed. 2010. Your prize has hereby been granted. --- VipermagiSig.JPG -- (contribs) (talk) 17:03, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, best summary of the day. 5 points -- RandomTime 17:09, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
Aw, shucks. Ty.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:45, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
/agree.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 18:28, July 5, 2010 (UTC)


Explaining anything has always been my weakest part. Many thanks for rewording that mess I made, it was barely readable. Your wording skills continue to amaze me :)
EM Signature.jpg ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 18:24, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you. (Of course, it's much easier to reword than to word, so I am but a short person standing on the shoulders of giants.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:04, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

non-chaotic alignment[]

I'd like to remind you that your personal .css aligns table headers left. To edit an article to effect a hard centering via style="text-align:center;" would be adding clutter to the page that the general editor does not profit from, not to mention alienating people who may like their headers left-aligned (not sure if there are any, but I'm talking hypothetically here anyway). However, susbt'ing the {{STDT}} wherever you run across it is beneficial. If you wanted table headers that span multiple columns always centered, you could add the line

.stdt th[colspan] { text-align:center; }

to your monaco.css. Of course you could do analogously for rowspan, if you so desired. --◄mendel► 22:04, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

argh! I completely forgot about the alignment in the css; I meant that as temporary rather than perm. Whoops. I'll fix that momentarily.
Also, does this wiki support the other wikimedia coolnesses of "wikitable" and other classes? I don't think we have a demo (or link to a demo) that helps illustrate. (Obviously, non-standard tables should get something other than "standard table" classes.)
Thanks for the re-alignment!  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:27, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
BTW: I hadn't seen a reliable way to force-center wiki table headers before; thanks for that tip, too.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:32, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Effective editor guide[]

Wow, that's a large edit to the Mesmer guide. Good job. -- RandomTime 22:51, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! (It needs at least another (big?) revision (not including the obvious gap in PvP). I'm hoping someone else will be inspired to update it.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:20, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
My only complaint is that you need to follow GW:ULC on the section titles. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 00:05, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
And that is one small complaint.
I plan to soon start work on a Mesmer to try out one or two things and the newly updated guide might now assist me with that. Thankies. A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 22:43, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
My pleasure. I hope that you take note of the many things that what needs fixing. I think the two easiest elites to start with are Keystone Signet and Panic. KS allows the Mez to avoid energy management and still nuke/interrupt/hex. Panic + Wastrel's Worry pretty much nerfs any clumps of foes. (Get a tank to ball them up and they are damned if they use skills, damned if they don't.)
Thanks for the compliment.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:25, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

FC table[]

In this edit, you edit the first column from e.g. ! 7 to | '''7''' . Why? Both should be bold, and the left version correctly labels the cell as a header; and it is center-aligned instead of left, which looks better to me. What advantage do you see to your edit? --◄mendel► 20:17, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing since you did that to the Daily forecast. The end result is the same, so why use the version that requires a greater amount of source text? —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 20:31, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
Must be User:Tennessee_Ernie_Ford/monaco.css acting up again. ;) --◄mendel► 20:56, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
That is b/c I keep forgetting that my stdt doesn't match the wiki's in two subtle ways (one which doesn't matter and one which does). I've got things setup so that th has a light gray background (headers that have same coloration as the rest of the table drive me nuts). Consequently, when someone uses a ! on a row cell, things look dorky to me.
tl;dr my screw up. I'll fix it. My apologies for making it look dorky to 99% of the wiki.
alternative tl;dr what Mendel said,  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:00, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
Those are the row headers, though. Would you like some .css that does not (or differently) colorize row headers (strictly speaking, don't color <th> tags ( ! cells ) in the first column unless they're in the first row)? --◄mendel► 21:51, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
Erm, by "row header," I meant "the first cell in a row that acts as a label for the row" rather than whatever <th> was originally designed to be.
And yes, I would love it if I could shade the ! first row of every table without colorizing the ! first cell of a row.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:57, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
Well, the following should fix the Fast Casting table for you; but it'll probably look ugly on some other pages, link me to those that do and maybe I can make it better.
.stdt th { background:lightgray; }
.stdt tr:not(:first-child) th { background:transparent; }
--◄mendel► 22:43, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
So far, so good. Thanks!  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:56, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
To open your other eye,
  • .stdt - something with class="stdt", usually a table
  • tr - a table row inside that table (or in a table nested within that table)
  • :not(:first-child) - not the first element in its parent = not the first row in a table
  • th - a header in any row that fulfils the conditions above, i.e. isn't the first
  • background:transparent; - use the background of the elements "behind" it: row or table or page.
This rule trumps the other rule (that sets the lightgray background), because it comes later and is more specific. However, any style= formatting on the page will override both rules. --◄mendel► 07:33, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
One problem with that is that it will override formatting if a table uses header cells as a footer, like on drop rate tables or... bah, can't think of any better examples. Not sure if that matters to you, though. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 13:48, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but unfortunately there isn't any .css that says "do this if the next sibling is whatever". Of course if we added class="header" to rows like these, private formatting could match that easily. --◄mendel► 14:28, July 17, 2010 (UTC)


Re this edit, I usually prefer for active users to "police" their talkpages themselves. This means that unless outright vulgarities (or worse) are posted – and I wouldn't count "dumblesnatchet" as one –, the users themselves are in the best position to judge whether what they see is a friendly rib from an acquaintance, inoffensive nonsense, or an attempt at vandalism. --◄mendel► 17:17, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

In general, I agree. In this particular case, I felt that it detracted from a public conversation between Felix & TEF and that, therefore, either TEF or Felix could decide whether it was interfering nonsense (as opposed to silliness). (Being nonsense, I couldn't tell if offense was intended. Being from an IP, I didn't feel it was likely to be friendly or acquaintful ribbing.)
If your goal was to get me to rethink my actions, you have succeeded. If you wanted me to be less likely to repeat the same under similar circumstances, I am open to further persuasion.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:15, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
And the actual outcome doesn't convince you, either? (Mind you, I didn't know that when I wrote the above.) --◄mendel► 03:33, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

you want "this"?[]

Here, Dr Ishmael mentions something that you wanted and that my demo doesn't address. What would that be? Populating the locations table? Unfortunately I can't see the pages where he achieved this. --◄mendel► 05:42, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

I think things are worth automating b/c Nick will be repeating requests...and after 137 weeks, we will be playing GW2 and, one hopes, have no time to keep his articles up-to-date. I also believe that, whenever possible, it makes sense to separate data storage from the storage architecture from the presentation. Currently, we combine data with templates.
Others (including Doc Ish) suggested that this might be a lot of trouble; obviously, it's not worth making things overly complex as there is plenty of WiK that needs help, too. The follow list includes those things that I hoped might be reasonably achieved with enough benefit for the wiki:
  1. Store dialogues; populate Nick article automatically using appropriate wiki code.
  2. Separate Nick location/request data from the Nick template.
  3. use the (now distinct article with) Nick loca/req data to automatically tick off the relevant locations on our countdown from 137.
    • Ideally, be able to add information to the data table with other points of interest (e.g. farming locations), so that those, too, could be automagically retrieved.
Generally, wild ideas like this get discussed a bit before people start coding. It might be worth taking a step back to see what is worth doing and if there are better/worse ways to do it (seems like there might be some options). Does that help enough?  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:56, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
before people start coding -- Well,that's what the demo code is for. Sometimes you have to see what works and what doesn't. And it's fun.
In MediaWiki, usually the wiki pages are the data, and the templates are the presentation, at least when it comes to infoboxes and such (or categories!). When you try to keep data out of the pages, stuff gets complicated, as with the skills. If you keep a page separate and say, "that is our database", you lose a lot of the ad-hoc-ness and flexibility that wikis are; and you get, judging by the "past dialogues" page, humongous pages that don't work well with the system architecture.
  • A few numbers:
    • "Nicholas the Traveler/Past Dialogues" now has 105 sections and 78,096 bytes.
    • The average dialogue is thus 743 bytes (~640 bytes).
    • In the end, a new dialogue will have gotten added 137 times.
    • The page is then 87680 bytes long.
    • Every revision of that page gets stored in the database. Hence, the complete history (notwithstanding eventual corrective edits) is around 640*(sum of 1 to 137) bytes long, that is 6049920 bytes (6 MB).
  • That seems frightfully ineffective. We used to get a warning when page sizes exceeded 32kB.
The Semantic MediaWiki (SMW) puts this concept on its head as throroughly as wikis did to web1.0 content. The wiki pages become the database, and the page names are its unique identifiers. The beauty is that the code is hidden from the page: a page that uses infobox templates looks the same with SMW as it does without; the SMW markup can simply be stuffed into the template. The DPL extension predates this, and it, too, provides a simple means to access data stored on pages that has often sufficed for us, with no extra coding needed - all the logic is in the query. When I looked at this last year, I found it fairly difficult to find good illustrations of how these tools work; maybe you can find some now, but if you don't, I'd gladly answer any questions you might have.
With that in mind,please ponder my data in locations idea; would this be ok with your "separation of data and presentation" goal? (I could probably rig up some demo queries with the Zaishen Quest data, which is already stored this way.)
I think that what Dr Ishmael may have had in mind for the "past collections" was to make each table row a template call (with rising ID parameters); the template would then keep running tallies of the "statistics" which would then be available below the table automatically (but not on any other page). It might even be possible to do the location boxes that way, if you used a variable for each location, possibly automatically named. However, this would probably lock the page into a "huge table with data below" layout, because otherwise the code wouldn't work - and judging by the talkpage of the extension on, it might not work even then. You don't know before you try.
What is it about my discussion style that helps drama explode? --◄mendel► 10:33, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
Wow! What was that post like before you shortened it ;-)
  • Lessee... if I understand correctly, you propose that dialogue and location data be stored together. Seems sensible to me. The dialogue is generally short enough that it's not going to add that much (percentage-wise) to the data table. Plus, paralleling the zaishen tables system is also sensible; no reason to have two distinct methods if one will do. (Assuming that the z-data algorithms are robust enuf to handle the two Nicks.)
  • I have to trust the technical experts on SMW vs. Variables storage and processing needs because I don't have any direct experience. It's all the same to me: a bunch of gobblygook that makes sense only if one has the relevant rosetta stone. If the tech experts disagree, then, sure, examples are probably the best way to resolve it.
  • What I meant by discuss first was to make sure that anyone taking the (humongous amounts of) time to code should get a chance to hash out the goals/requirements, to make sure (a) there aren't simple ways to achieve the same, (b) that there aren't other issues that make sense to address at the same time, and (c) to help articulate the methodology and to be able to proceed incrementally in (near) lock-step with the non-techies involved. It was not intended as a criticism (implied or otherwise) of anyone except myself, hence the adjective wild; the idea was to make sure that the suggestions were tamed first.
  • Both solutions also seem to have merit in terms of viability and repeatability. Both also seem to have some minor issues in accessibility to the non-gurus among us (something worth noting and dealing with as we get closer to an 0.8 version.)
  • I'm not sure about the tallying approach, since it seems vulnerable to data-entry error (enter the wrong location and whammo). Aren't we simply tablulating how many visits to each zone? (When the answer for 137 weeks will be "0" or "1")? But maybe that requires 137 columns (yes/no for each location). I do that sort of thing in Excel all the time and leave it as either a dynamic query or a refreshable pivot variable. I have no idea of what is easy/not in SMW/variables.
  • "What is it about my discussion style that helps drama explode?" Srs question?  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:55, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstood my proposal. I took the opportunity to clarify it with more bells and whistles, please look (and comment) at Template_talk:Nicholas_the_Traveler#Data_in_location_pages.3F.
And yes, that was a serious question; you might answer it here or via email. --◄mendel► 21:07, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
My memory was actually a bit off there; what he had actually requested was a way to "automatically populate the location list (at the bottom of the page)", which was not the section that I had linked to at that time (that was the summary tables, not the checklist). However, I have now fulfilled that requirement at User:Dr ishmael/Nicholas the Traveler test#Locations checklist. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 18:37, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Energy denial[]

You refer to your low set's 25 energy as your "base" energy several times throughout your edits. I understand you're talking about your basic 30 adjusted by your low set modifications, but I think this is misleading and/or something of a misnomer; the 25 displayed energy while in a low set isn't the base of your energy but rather the top of it. If your energy bar were vertical, it would be the top 25 of your total 72. As you equip higher energy sets, the visible line extends deeper downward to allow you to draw on reserves. Without finding ourselves in conflict edits or revert wars, we should agree upon semantics for article solidarity. Ethigenetic 21:27, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm conflicted about turning a glossary article into something more substantive. It seems to me that your useful advice belongs more prominently in guides to PvP and to energy management. Consequently, I was aiming at something different than you were.
I might also have had different audience in mind, the one which spent its formative game years with a single weapon set, and has had their impressions altered by the horizontal and statically sized blue bar. To this audience, "base" is a way of describing initial energy; high-e sets add to that base. Left to my own devices, I would hesitate about using "up/down" or "base/top" because of the default horizontal bars; I would probably try for a gas/petrol tank analogy to avoid any confusion.
Having thought about it some more, I have to admit that the picture you paint is more useful; the concept of "reserve" is more likely to help people overcome their original impression than anything I was aiming for. Consequently, I'm content to follow your lead and respect your word choice (only stepping in if I think something is unclear).
I do think your shorter explanation above is very helpful and, if combined with some images of vertical blue bars, I think that would make a fine glossary article. I would like to see the more detailed version in the appropriate guides; I believe that they have a wider readership than the glossary items.
Thanks for taking the time to ask me my views.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:22, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
If you're wanting to move some of that content into a guide, there's this and this that are in need of some major updates anyway. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 22:29, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
Thinking about this, I get the mental picture of a horizontal blue bar with the monster munching on it from the right (and reaching some sort of stop sign?) and the player adding to it on the left.
Actually, what the player has is 72 energy, but the low set exposes only 25 of it to be taken; and switching to progressively higher energy sets exposes more energy. Thus, 25 is the base exposed energy (you can't expose less), and you expose more as that energy gets used up. --◄mendel► 05:22, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, base" is also appropriate. However, its other connotations could lead people astray (I speak from experience here). Base could be bottom (as in Base Camp), short for basic, or short-hand for where you start. It's unnecessarily ambiguous in this context.
I think both the "exposure" and the "reservoir" imagery are equally valid; one describes the foreground and the other the background (sorta). The question is: which mental picture is going to most quickly help peeps used to 1 weapon set to adapt to multiple sets? "Reserve" paints a cognitively dissonant picture, while the "munching from the right" reinforces the single weapon-set philosophy — so, I am leaning towards Ethigenetic's argument.
And again, I would rather see a very short description in the glossary entry and the more nuanced details in appropriate guides.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:22, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
For simplification and ease of learning the concepts behind energy hiding and exposing, I think it's best to have people see one static pool of energy rather than trying to paint a picture of "base" energy with "reserves" behind it. A lot of players new to hiding energy don't understand why their energy appears to be locked at 0 while in their low set because the idea of "base" vs. "reserve" has a connotative disconnect between two sets of energy while it's only one source with variable segments exposed. It's abstract, for sure, but thinking about it as one pool helps to illustrate what's going on when you're at "0" energy. I tried to diagram this on the energy hiding article using a horizontal bar akin to the default energy bar in-game, but I may draw up a series of vertical ones, if necessary. Does the horizontal image here seem unclear or not detailed enough? Ethigenetic 20:25, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think it looks as good as a single picture is going to get.
Possibly this is an issue where an animation or a video would work best: this is my energy with the high energy set, this is my energy with the low energy set, now somebody siphons my energy, now I swap in my high energy set, then I cast something, then I swap the low energy set back, repeat as needed. If these were in-game videos (which they needn't be), could the energy bar be resized to be oversized and clearly visible, and maybe also the weapon sets? --◄mendel► 20:57, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
It's not just a question of clear/unclear. Those who don't already practice hiding are going to have trouble getting past what their bluebar tells them: with set A, I have 25Energy and with set B, I have 72. To break that common sense, it might be useful to have more than one diagram (e.g. the single pool under different conditions, such as switching to high-E after denial and vice-versa). It might also make sense to use something other than blue to avoid confusion with what ppls see in-game. (Vertical bars would also help with that.)
However, I'm suggesting a degree of detail appropriate to a guide article. For a glossary entry, I think your original instinct (and current diagram) work well. Here's another attempt at glossary simplicity, that sidesteps the question of "base/basic" or "single pool:"
The prepared caster has the potential to use 72 Energy, all of which can be drained (denied?) by opponents. By switching sets, the caster can hide all but 25 of those points; the remainder is protected (shielded?) until the character needs it to activate a skill. (For details, see Guide to Energy Management.)
For the longer article, I fully support the "single pool" concept b/c I think it will help people overcome their reliance on the in-game bluebar as telling the whole story (although it's correct, it makes it harder to understand what the fuss is about).  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:32, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
Huh, I've never thought of energy hiding that way. It just kinda... made sense to me, without having to think about it in terms of a single pool with weapons sets acting as "locks and dams". Though now that I think about it... I can totally understand that concept. But you have to remember to take the energy degeneration into account; even if you're not fighting any sort of edenial, staying on your high energy set is still a bad idea. I'll add that to the article somewhere... --Macros 22:23, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

collapsing the dialogues[]

Your testing:

div.dialogue { display:none; }
div.dialogue:hover { display:inherit; } 

I can't imagine that working, because you can't hover something that's not there; does it work? I'd try something like

div.dialogue { max-height:2em; overflow:hidden; }
div.dialogue:before { content:"Move Cursor here to see full dialogue!"; color:orange; }
div.dialogue:hover { max-height:none;}
div.dialogue:hover:before { content:""; }

max-height:2em; limits the height of each dialogue section to approximately the size of a line of text, with margins. overflow:hidden: ensures that the dialogue that doesn't fit this height does not get displayed (else the dialogue would run into the next section). div.dialogue:before inserts the content in front of the dialogue, and as you see, you can specify any formatting for it. (You could e.g. make it smaller if you wished.) The div.dialogue:hover { max-height:none;} undoes the height limit, which expands the section to show the full content when you hover your mouse over it. The div.dialogue:hover:before removes the message by overriding the :before defined earlier.

The problem with this approach is that if you want to interact with the bottom of the page, the section expands on you once you move your mouse through it, and only when you move to the sidebar or to the bottom of the page (you could pull your cursor all the way down off the window or at least into the status bar) does it collapse again. So an improvement is needed: limiting the max-width of the section as well, ideally, to display our :before message fully, but not more; and adding a background or a border to it to indicate the "active area". The final version (which, of course, you might want to tweak to make it look the way you like) is this:

div.dialogue { max-height:2em;overflow:hidden;
 max-width:18em; text-align:center; padding:0.5ex 1ex; border:thin solid silver; border-radius:1ex; -moz-border-radius:1ex; -webkit-border-radius:1ex; }
div.dialogue:before { content:"Move Cursor here to see full dialogue!"; color:orange; }
div.dialogue:hover {  max-height:none; max-width:none;  text-align:left; padding:inherit; border:none; }
div.dialogue:hover:before { content:""; 

--◄mendel► 06:08, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks for this. I think I'm gonna stick with no display for the moment; it's pretty rare that I care about the dialogue details. (e.g. only when someone points out to me that our old debate regarding Giant's Basin has been given new ammunition in the WiK dialoges) (I will try it out on something else, tho!)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:09, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I wouldn't normally have gone this far, but we were talking about this for the spoilers, so you might want to try it anyway and see what it can do - it's really neat. --◄mendel► 15:51, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

"combine like ideas, move key concepts forward"[]

You could just say "cleanup". :P —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 14:26, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

If you or e.g. Mendel were the last editor of the section, I'm sure that would do. For others, I prefer to see more detail about what "cleanup" means, esp. if the contributors were anonymous or ppls with whom I'm unfamiliar. Not so much here, but at other wikis, "cleanup" sometimes means doing away with ideas of which the editor disagrees/disapproves. And actually, my use of the more verbose description reminds me to keep those types of edits separate (or to notate them distinctly in talk or summary).
Silver Edge @GWW also tends to include longer summaries these days and I appreciate it; when reviewing RC/watchlist, I can easily see which of his edits I might be interested in reviewing (e.g. to learn something new). It takes me 2s extra to type (or get firefox to repeat) and provides a benefit (small though it may be) to enough lurkers/infrequent-contributors to be worth the effort. If not, it didn't cost me much.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:18, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
The summary bar is obviously there to be used. I approve of verbose edit summaries. --Vipermagi 19:23, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
I think you complimented me on mine, once. :) And of course we all love TEF'S summaries! \o/ --◄mendel► 21:03, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
So... when I "overhaul" an article, that's not good enough? —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 00:20, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Nobody said that it wasn't; in fact, TEF wrote: If you or e.g. Mendel were the last editor of the section, I'm sure that would do. --◄mendel► 01:09, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so maybe that's a bit too concise. I guess my problem is that when I'm scanning RC and come across summaries like this, they just feel too verbose for what they're describing.
Take the edit you made to Survivor just now. "combining like ideas; removing redundant phrases" is redundant in itself. And surely "rephrasing to clarify key points" could be rephrased for clarity as simply "clarifying key points"? —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 00:57, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
You are correct; the last summary was, in fact, dumb (← TEF's description of own summary, not a paraphrase of The Doc's impressions). I was working on three different things and I thought, initially, that the edit was going to move one thing. Then I found something else, so I updated the summary...etc. By the time I was done, I didn't think to also apply even 5% of that scrutiny to the summary itself. The edit summary in my head was shorter: rephrasing to combine like ideas, clarify key concepts.
Still, I much prefer to have written too much in the summary than not enough. There should be enough that those who trust me implicitly can decide to ignore the edit and for those that know better to take a quick glance (or slow peruse) to verify that no lasting harm has been done. For Mendel, whose edit I just trampled over, it also gives him some clue as to what the heck I was thinking. (So that if/when he disagrees, he at least understands what I was trying for.) On rare occasions, it also makes it easier to review article histories, when deciding which two versions to diff.
I'm not sure how to reconcile your feeling that an edit summary can be too long with my feeling that it can't be. Clearly, there are short summaries that are useful/appropriate/helpful; clearly, there are long ones that are not. However, I think the odds favor -verbose being more likely to be more helpful to more people.
Still, less is often more; in light of your comments, I am reconsidering whether there isn't a better way to satisfy my self-imposed requirement that my summaries describe what has been edited and why, in a way that is useful/usable by others.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:37, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say your summaries are too long, only that they are too verbose. Maybe "garrulous" or "loquacious" would've made my point better. Like the example I gave above, "rephrasing to clarify key points" --> "clarifying key points" — the "rephrasing to..." part feels unnecessary. If you're clarifying an article's text, then logically you are doing so by rephrasing it to make it more clear — how else would you do it?
Let me try yet another way: it's not about number of words, it's about efficiency of words. I started off by learning in high school and undergrad how to be extremely verbose while saying very little in order to stretch my papers to the minimum word/page count with a minimum of effort. My grad school advisor had to beat that out of my head, because writing a paper for a scientific journal is very different: you've got to say as much as you can in as little space as possible. "Don't use 5 words to say something when 1 word will do," was one of his maxims. I guess I'm still in that mode of thinking, 5 years later. Maybe that's why I don't like writing or reading WoTs very much - if someone feels like they have to write that much in order to get their point across, is the point really worth it? And will it really be worth my time to read it? ...And why the heck am I writing one right now? :P
I'm one of those people who looks at nearly every single change on the wiki anyway, so for me it's not a matter of "(not) trusting you" or anything like that. And I completely understand your argument from the standpoint of article histories — attempting to compile the skill histories made me want to shoot some people for never leaving a summary when they edited a skill due to a game update. I know I don't always leave summaries either, but when all I'm doing is fixing a bad link or correcting a typo, it feels wasteful to leave a summary that's longer than the text I actually edited.
Meh, I had written a whole paragraph about why I don't bother with anything more than "cleanup/overhaul" on my big edits, but after re-reading it I felt it was too pedantic and not very pertinent to the issue (simply listing my reasons for doing something one way probably isn't going to affect your reasons for doing it a different way). So... yeah, I don't really know how to wrap this up, but I need to stop typing and go to bed. A 500 word essay in 1.5 hours... geez, wish I could've done that back in high school. But then I went back and edited some stuff, so it's probably not 500 anymore.Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 03:20, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so doubly ironic, since (in theory), the relevant edits are meant to make things more concise, less verbose/loquacious...and Lo! the edit summary is none of above. That's fair. But that's probably part of the cause, too; it takes time to make 1 word do the work of 5 and I would rather that effort be directed to the article (not the summary). Still, if I can spend 10s on an edit summary, I can spend 25s on it to make it more readable.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify your original thoughts on this; it was helpful to me.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:40, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
Unlike mainspace edits, edit summaries are not meant for public consumption; an editor is free to express himself somewhat and use his personal style (as TEF has discovered early on). Redundancy might be bad in an article; in an edit summary, it is merely curious.
Long summaries for small changes - as far as these are standard tasks, when I use a standard wording (i.e. in my case, remember what I used last time), Firefox offers me a dropdown after a few letters that "knows" what I typed last, so it's actual short to add. (Maybe a "minor edit summary dropdown", much like with deletion reasons or similar, would be a good wiki extension?)
WoTs -- I discover that people have problems when I make my WoTs too concise. There's often several complex ideas to a WoT, one per paragraph, and some people don't get them. If an edit summary aims to prevent editor conflicts, "overly clear" doesn't seem a problem, and redundancy helps get the message across.
Lastly, instead of rephrasing, one can clarify a key point by adding a WoT :) — and yes, that would show up as a big + on the size, so that's, again, redundant. --◄mendel► 08:25, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

About this edit...[]

Image below for emphasis:
Survivor Title Guide.png

A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 08:47, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I confus. The next text looks more sensible than my earlier edit (which was simply to get the link on the page). Can you 'splain your thoughts more clearly to this ignorant one?  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 14:57, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
It mentions the exact same thing twice ("see also: [link]"), but one is a full sentence, the other a bullet point. --Vipermagi 15:16, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I completely missed it (despite the proximity). Clearly, I was taken over by invading, body-snatching pods and my contribution should have been undone.
@AFK Thanks for trying; sorry that I didn't make better use of your assist. (Sometimes, a few words are worth a couple of uploaded JPGs.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:44, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

walking all over my edit[]

No, you weren't - you built on my edit by keeping the structural changes I'd introduced, and your edit actually makes it more clear why I moved some of the info together. You made the article better by going further in the direction I had already been going. I enjoyed seeing that! --◄mendel► 08:43, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

I want you![]

To be a sysop. Please see GuildWiki:Requests for adminship/Tennessee Ernie Ford. Felix Omni Signature.png 05:16, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Great editor too. User Ariyen sig icon.gifriyen 17:48, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
You ever going to make a candidate statement? --JonTheMon 18:22, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
I'm still considering: there are plenty of capable admins, I already spend too much time on GW, and there's some advantage in having a gadfly that's respected enuf to be an admin...but is not. (I am flattered by the support, so I should say something. I was hoping no one would notice I hadn't yet ;-)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:04, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Then go and decline the nomination already. This decision is hardly final; when/if you change your mind, you can easily RfA again. --◄mendel► 05:52, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Or accept it. ;D Felix Omni Signature.png 06:46, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
See, this is what happens to the internal dialogue inside my head. (I'm not sure if it's the devil advocating for the accept or or if it's the angel.) And, before you know it, instead of deciding (or postponing by declining), I find myself cleaning the dishes or grinding for kurzick faction.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 11:05, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Why not have a change, put the dishes in the dishwasher, and grind Luxon faction? -- RandomTime 11:45, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Or grind the dishes and wash the Luxons? —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 12:32, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Or grind on Elder Rhea and then wash your privates with lava soap. Felix Omni Signature.png 18:23, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that presently, your decision is to not accept, or you would already have done so; whether you're aware of it or not. If you decline, and at some later point it turns out you'd rather have accepted, the solution is to run a new RfA. If you accept, and find out you'd rather not have, that's going to be harder to undo.
Mind you, I'd love for you to decide to become an admin, but you seem to still be shying back; it is very much ok (some would have said, desirable) to have editors with clout who are not admins, because it makes "admin" be less of a prestige position; we're not lacking admins at the moment, as far as I'm aware; if we do lack admins in the future, you'll be promoted in no time. :)
If you don't feel that not having admin is setting you back in what you want to do on this wiki, there's no reason for you to become one; if you do feel that, don't hesitate to accept. --◄mendel► 21:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to a decision; it's not the one I would have liked you to arrive at, but maybe we'll get you some other time! :) --◄mendel► 17:07, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Sure and sure. (I was sorely tempted...which is why it took me so long to undecide.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:07, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

who, me?[]

Thank you for agreeing with me, but I don't think I've made any comments there to be agreed with. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 18:27, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

And I shall take that as a compliment, I guess? :P --Vipermagi 18:30, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
My apologies to both of you for the confusion. Sure, take it as a compliment :-)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:36, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

GPL is not Public Domain[]

Although they may look similar on paper, a GPLed image is not in the public domain, as it is still copyrighted, although under a different (less restrictive) license than normal. I've fixed the image you uploaded in regards to this. -- RandomTime 17:14, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think that they were the same, but I was confused by the pull down. (I looked for "GNU" instead of "GPL" and chose PD as the least bad alternative.) Thanks for fixing. (And my apologies: I almost certainly will make that same mistake again.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:17, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Tip: Choose no license and name the license (link to your source, name the author) in the summary section of the upload page; that will a) correctly legally license the image and b) give somebody else the chance to format it prettily with little extra effort. --◄mendel► 20:52, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Well, you know me: I hate to leave the clean-up to someone else. So, w/luck, I'll remember RT's tip that GNU=GPL.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:05, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Except in those cases where GNU = GFDL, or some other. --◄mendel► 22:48, August 16, 2010 (UTC) & 22:53, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Market Watch[]

I noticed RuneScape Wiki has one at w:c:runescape:Grand Exchange Market Watch. --◄mendel► 12:57, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Love the idea. That's somewhere in the universe of where I hoped to find a GW1 commodities market report. Thanks for the link.
Not sure about it's implementation b/c (a) my random spot check only found 1-2 updates in last 6 months; (b) if I was newbie to wikis, I would have a hard time figuring out how/whether to contribute; (c) something trouble me about its focus (or lack thereof), but I'm not yet sure of what/how to explain. (Possibly, b/c I'm not familiar enough with Runescape to know what is/isn't important.). Eh, I need to look at it some more.
As a side note, I think this is a potential area where GWiki can provide game-relevant data that's not (currently) available in GWW. The official wiki has good data collection/presentation tools for the most popular drops (GotT, GotH, Royal Gifts, ...), but it's PITA to contribute usefully or understand stats for anything else IMO. I'm not sure why both wikis shy away from collecting market data, as (depending on how it's done), it's just as legitimate as collecting drop data (again, IMO).
Anyhow, thanks for the link.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:37, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
"I'm not sure why both wikis shy away from collecting market data..." I believe that's mostly because no one, so far, has volunteered their time to moderate such a system. Without vigilant moderation, it would be too easy for unscrupulous people to insert false info on the wiki, then scam people in-game by quoting their manufactured data while defending themselves with, "Hey, don't blame me, that's what the wiki says!" If such a system had been started 3 or 4 years ago, it might have had enough users that it could mostly moderate itself, but with the playerbase and wiki-communities having dwindled so much, it would be foolish to rely on that now. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken.gif 15:58, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
Besides, there's always GWGuru, which is fairly reliable. --Vipermagi 16:02, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
I actually find GW Auctions to be more reliable, since it clearly records the actual agreed-upon prices in an easily-searched db. There's a variety of things about the guru system that make me mistrust it, even though it does seem to get a lot of traffic.
Regarding unscrupulous peoples: I suppose the risk of that is greater for market data than for drop data, but the same safeguards are in place: people monitor (via RC, e.g.) and question out-of-whack numbers; people offer screenshots. Obviously, a wiki would have to make it easier/more systematic to enter data, note/question reliability, add proof, etc. The runescape system linked above... as I say, I very much like the idea.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:18, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

79,048 bytes?[]

Time to archive? -- RandomTime 01:33, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

But of course!  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:40, August 22, 2010 (UTC)