User talk:Clotho

Archived discussions can be found here. If you have a suggestion for Spiral Knights, please use the Suggestions Forum instead. If you need assistance with your account, use the links on the Support Portal to get help.

<div style="width: {{{width|60em}}}">
<div class="NavFrame {{{state|collapsed}}}">
  <div style="text-align:left" class="NavHead">{{{1}}}</div>
  <div style="text-align:left" class="NavContent">
{{{content}}}</div></div></div><noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

Supply Pack Icons

I did what is likely the next best thing to a move. Wiki just needs to tick through its silly cache issues and it will be smooth sailing. The bad filenames are ready for deletion now, nothing links to them. Thanks for trying! Computers can be so feisty sometimes. They definitely have moods. Now to pester about OCH options for the next...future time unit(s).--Novaster 18:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Organized section better so it's more clear. Fire the deletion laser at the following files:

• File:Equipment- Standard Supply Pack icon.png
• File:Equipment- Compact Supply Pack icon.png
• File:Equipment- Deluxe Supply Pack icon.png

Operation Crimson Hammer

Okay! As you can see, several of us are working on getting anything mission related up to date, and Operation Crimson Hammer (OCH) is a mission - expansion subtype. Editors really need to be able to edit this page, because it is a large part of the game and connected to several things. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, the only reason it's locked to general editors is because it has Billing information. My solution to this problem:

Create the subpage: Operation Crimson Hammer/Billing and protect that.

Have {{main|Operation Crimson Hammer/Billing}} in an acquisition section somewhere on the OCH page, and let the main OCH page be edited by us (unprotect it).

Unless it was protected for some other reason? Could we have a similar solution(s) for that if so?

Thanks,

--Novaster 11:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That page is linked to our billing documentation therefore it needs to be protected in full, not just part of it. An alternative would be to make the changes in a sandbox, once ready, let me know and I'll update the changes in the page itself. --Clotho 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That's going to be a bit difficult. Editors really need to be able to freely edit a page that's such a large interactive and dynamic part of the game. That makes a lot of hassle to unprotect/protect a page on staff end over time. It's not possible to create Operation Crimson Hammer/Billing, protect that, and then adjust billing documentation to link to that page instead? If not, I'll have to work something out on our end, but it likely won't be as pretty. --Novaster 17:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Quoted from email to support (regarding my inability to log in for a day or so, but another employee resolved the ticket so you might not have seen this): OCH issue: make a billing page about OCH, named "Operation Crimson Hammer/Billing" and protect it. This page would be a page in its own right and be able to be fully protected. Attempt to make billing documentation link to this "Operation Crimson Hammer/Billing" page instead of the "Operation Crimson Hammer" page. Unprotect the "Operation Crimson Hammer" page indefinitely and make sure it always links to the "Operation Crimson Hammer/Billing" page. This is because OCH is a major part of the game and editors need to be able to edit it freely. This method of billing protection as a subpage with a main expansion mission page should work for future expansion releases. Just imagine having to protect/unprotect OCH and any future expansions every time the game changes and editors need to update aspects of this/those page(s) - awful, right? Other editors seem to agree with me, and they should write a response on your (Clothos') talk page soon. Additional requests/details in the #subsection ("Operation Crimson Hammer") on your (Clotho's) talk page.

--Novaster 21:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Missions

We have been pushing improvements regarding mission page format and organization on the wiki. I notice that there are several admin-related entities on the mission page. Before we go through reformatting and merging, are there any specific things editors shouldn't remove, or that staff wishes to emphasize, on the missions page? Of specific concern to me (due to our previous discussion about this image) are subsection linking and images in relation to the forums. --Novaster 18:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead and work as you would, just be careful that important historical information gets a note, perhaps a "historical notes" section at the bottom. --Clotho 23:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Roger that. Right now the only other issues I can think of that are most important and requiring staff attention are the above Supply Pack Icons and OCH. --Novaster 00:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Phew...okay. Let us know if we missed anything important, or didn't explain something in the way the developers want it to be understood. --Novaster 19:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate on what exactly is needed for the Supply Pack Icons and OCH? (I got lost somewhere!) --Clotho 19:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Details should be in each subsection of this talk page and signed with a timestamp. Would it be better to put resolved issues in a show/hide? I remember trying to organize my pile of requests here before and it wasn't the best idea :P. Icons are resolved, they just need deletion, OCH is a major issue that many of us are worried about and feel that a subpage (a page able to be protected in full in its own right) would rectify. --Novaster 00:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, using a show/hide for resolved issues is a good idea. --Clotho 19:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Alrighty! Did that. Unresolved issues remain exposed. Regarding this particular issue, "missions": Let us know if we missed anything important on the main Mission page, or didn't explain something in the way the developers want it to be understood. --Novaster 21:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey! About Official Image

I was Equinox but he seems AFK, Novaster suggest me to ask here. I want to know about the official image's meaning. I want to upload this to the spanish wiki as "SpiralKnights_News_106-big.png". It is allowed?.

• Yes, this is allowed. You may upload any image found in game, our official sites, including the wiki to the ES wiki. Please do remember to use tags! --Clotho 15:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, to make the same question here, should i re-upload the image as "SpiralKnights_News_106-big.png" here in the english wiki too?. I know you are busy so take ur time, i still have a lot to do in the spanish wiki and this can wait xD. Bye~ --Hikaru 23:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not necessary if the image already exists. --Clotho 15:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Artifacts

We have recently been improving the Artifact page. As usual I made a mountain out of a molehill, but users really seem to like the new format because it caters to everyone (regarding wanting/not wanting "spoilers"), and we can stick artifact content anywhere it's needed around the wiki with ease now. So I feel it was well worth my time. I'm "fixing" the semi-disambiguation issue between Artifacts and The Artifact. It's not a true disambiguation issue for editors, just a terminology similarity for general users. The Deluxe Starter Pack should link to the official arsenal term, as the Hatch Handle is an arsenal item, no matter the issues us editors fiddle with regarding how content is organized for user convenience. Right? TL;DR: please edit the link in the Deluxe Starter Pack to link to the true arsenal term. --Novaster 19:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Done. --Clotho 15:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, we are looking to improve File:The Artifact.png by making it an animation of this gorgeous object in its full glory. I'm 99% sure this image is not a true screenshot image, but it's been on the wiki since January, untouched by admins, and it really is a nice thing to see. I realize this is infringing on the "no spiral spy images" policy but since it's just an exploration entity, not something the player might "spend money on because it looks a certain way on the wiki and then be disappointed by how it really is in-game," and we know for sure it exists in-game and looks like this. I can't imagine this would be worse than all the outdated images we're working on updating. Unless it has something to do with the tools editors are allowed to use to manage official game images. I don't know, I'm an innocent soul and like to think the Bic people don't own what I draw with their pens, especially under CC. If not, I will just make an APNG of the artifact sitting pretty on the ground, but it won't be as nice.

• Please use images taken from the game, not from external sites. Thanks! --Clotho 15:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if there is any legislation about Spiral Spy images outlining exactly why we can't use them, I'd like to have it added to the Style Guide so I can consistently answer the extremely common question "whyfor no spiralspy" editors and users ask me. As it is now, it's just "no spiral spy images." That's like saying "You can't have a cookie because it will make you fat" minus the "because it will make you fat" part. The best staff-related stance (besides my prodding support in the past) I can find is this, which is why I keep prodding :P --Novaster 00:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• That post is as official as it gets, we can continue to refer to it when this comes. The reason is easy: we want our wiki using images from the game, not from third party sites. --Clotho 15:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

GuildInfo

A small request - did some template cleaning and organization. Can't edit the code of Template:GuildInfo. Please add Category:Infobox templates to its <noinclude> section. --Novaster 21:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Added! --Clotho 15:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Naming of "area"

There is a distinct in-game naming convention for places players can explore, such as "Wolver Den:Statusvariant" and "Lichenous Lair:statusvariant" and so on. We are trying to settle on a name for these things, and so far have Category:Areas. I'd like to use the word "world," as it's more specific than "area" and opens up use of the word "area" for general use (as it should be), but the category was deleted in the past, and it seems to be both a point of confusion for users and a sensitive wording issue with how staff wants their game to be understood based on the turmoil of deletions and edits. Is there a term staff would prefer us to use, now that the game is a lot more settled? Certain areas are "worlds" while others are not, according to this staff edit. English doesn't really have a word for "a consistent geographical phenomenon which may or may not encompass an entire area or similar-themed areas at some point, and we only have access to small parts of the geographical phenomenon, and only sometimes." It's similar to very fast continental drift that used to have country/state borders but may or may not in the future. Heck, maybe "geographical phenomenon" would be best. --Novaster 05:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• No official stance on this. A consensus should be reached in the forums. --Clotho 15:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)