User talk:Clotho

From SpiralKnights

Revision as of 17:01, 30 October 2015 by Clotho (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

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.

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)

I'll discuss this with the billing department, but I don't foresee any changes in the near future. Sorry! --Clotho 20:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, what might work for the time being is a Sandbox/Operation Crimson Hammer where you guys make all the editions you want and I'll just copy/paste the contents into the protected page. --Clotho 20:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I view this as a bandaid solution for reasons stated above (quite a hassle to do it this way if we continue to get more expansion missions). I/We'll work on that...soonish, most likely, but real life is very pressing for me these days. Let's hope billing can be flexible! --Novaster 20:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
We have another idea that might work better. I'll post here as soon as it's fleshed out. --Clotho 20:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds exciting. --Novaster 20:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"Fixing" User usage of mainspace files

These files: There is still these icons of prestige badge: Prestigefinal-green.pngPrestige Rank 1 Red.png45kPrestigeBadge.pngPrestigebadgeaquatwostripedot.pngVermillion-badge-45k.png Prank vanguard.png (copypasted from previous post for separation of issues)

I will usually politely fix file usage on individual user pages if they are using an image that has an out of date or poorly named filename, something I was uncomfortable doing because it was userspace until I talked with a few people and saw this edit by Equinox. Hikaru and I decided it would be best to upload all of the prestige icons to consistent names, and Hikaru did the uploading.

Do you think I should just go ahead and fix those other prestige visuals? --Novaster 20:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I will probably go ahead and just fix these, since it's not a huge issue, and we've already had someone go and upload their own because they changed their color, and I am 99% sure while 100% guessing it's because they didn't know we had the nice high quality versions, and they would know if we had fixed the file for them. --Novaster 20:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Quoting Clotho from previous merged issue, now separated: The same applies to the prestige visuals, they are welcome to use them in that manner, but only in user space. --Clotho 01:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

So I am a bit confused now. Prestige icons are, well, I think anyway, official game images (seen in the upper left-hand corner of the HUD and next to user names), should we remove the list showing all possible color and rank configurations from the Prestige page (which is mainspace)? Or were you referring to only the above "cancerous" files? I refer to them as cancerous, due to the nature of malignant cancer and how duplicate files with different file names tend to propagate and confuse things on the wiki over time unless they are controlled. Since Hikaru and I made a uniform file system and provided the visuals, I view the usage of these prestige duplicates the same way as icons and other visuals around the wiki (just gonna link to this edit by Equinox again) and wish to rectify the issues. As I mentioned previously, users might want a blurry/different visual version for their own use, but I don't think that's appropriate for this wiki, again, considering Equinox's edit. But yeah, now I'm a bit confused but feel strongly we need to clean things! Just gonna stand here with a bucket of water, bottle of glass cleaner, and brandish my paper towels. --Novaster 14:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Now I'm totally confused. If the images are duplicate files then we need to remove the duplicate and correct the name in whatever pages the "bad" name linked to. If the image is an edition of an in-game file that it doesn't truly exist in game (i.e. a recolor) but it's only used in a user's page, then it's fine to leave alone. If none of that applies, please do clarify! --Clotho 01:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Soooo....Recolors don't exist in-game. Got it! But wait, what did we spend our money on!? Argh! :P (joking). Granted, these visuals are simply personal color variants of a tiny in-game visual, but they do technically exist in-game, for sure. Users might want to see the possibilities when creating a new knight, so I very much believe the versions advocated by me and uploaded by Hikaru need to stay on the prestige page, about as much as the visuals of, say, a Scale Helm do in that sortable list of recolors. If you leave this issue to editors, we would follow policy we (eventually) agree on below regarding editing the userspace. --Novaster 01:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Erm, well, "above" now, not below, since the "Duplicate Icon Issue" inquiry was resolved from staff viewpoint. --Novaster 02:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I feel as if the confusion of this issue is simply the order of publication. Previously, there was no file naming system for in-game prestige icon rank and color variation, nor were many of them present. So Hikaru and I made one and published it on the prestige page. They should be treated the same as any other mainspace file even though they were uploaded after the sub-par originals and were not part of a mainspace name change of an established file. Following the logic of this discussion, the sub-par-userspace-now-duplicate-prestige-icon-files should be taken care of. But we will wait until we iron out Sandbox/Userspace Protocol, as per the resolved "Duplicate Icon Issue" discussion. --Novaster 03:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. --Clotho 17:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools