User talk:Ricky

Interesting and useful pages:
http://ringofbrodgar.com/wiki/User:MvGulik/tooltips_dump

Need a template? check out this page.
http://ringofbrodgar.com/wiki/Template:Infobox_metaobj

old messages

Old messages

Ricky can you add me on h&h forum, i have some qustions about properities and templates. My nickname are same "rootconsoler" --Rootconsoler (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2017 (EST) Hey, re: Symbel being deleted, can we get the table that used to be there re-added to the top of Category:The_Symbel perhaps? I used that all the time and it being gone is pretty annoying. Ideally this would be automatic, but we do already do it in some other places (see Category:Baked_Goods and others). Way more handy than opening up dozens of tabs. Twincannon (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2017 (EST) Hey, sorry about that. I added the table back to category:the Symbel --Ricky (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2017 (EST) Those tree pages not redundant.- As jummy told they are used for redirect pages. But i think, every ingame item must have their own page. All links to tables must be added to item page, same for tables. --Rootconsoler (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2017 (EST) Why do we have separate pages for different trees, when all the information is neatly organized on Tree? It seems redundant, and I think we should just do away with independent tree pages. --NotJimmy97 (23 January 2017 (UTC)) Yeah, I understand that it feels redundant, but I wanted each tree to have its separate page in order to be able to link specific trees in articles. before I gave each tree its own page, most trees were dead links. While it would be reasonable to have each tree redirect to the tree page, I wanted users to be able to type a tree name into the search bar and actually pull up that tree, instead of a list of ~45 trees. On top of that, certain special trees already had their own page, such as the mulberry tree and apple tree so I felt it would be reasonable to give each trees its own page and its own metabox to add info to it. I should have at least filled in the metabox info for each tree, but that is quite a bit of work. Ideally, each tree page would have a description of block and board textures as well, without having to visit the Block of Wood and Board page I did however change the metabox to link to the tree page in the first sentence of each tree page, so that should at least help users find useful info on the (unfortunately) empty pages --Ricky (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2017 (EST) I think those special trees only had pages during legacy. There's no special information conveyed on the Apple or Mulberry tree pages that isn't already sufficiently described in Tree, Apple Pie, or Silk Cloth. --NotJimmy97 (23 January 2017 (UTC)) By That logic, we should also remove every food item and curiosity and simply use the tables. Within the next week, I'll go through and actually add information to the individual tree pages, and create a table similar to the FEP/curio tables that can pull info from each tree page which will appear on the infobox table on the main Tree page. --Ricky (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2017 (EST) Hello! For attacks and restorations on Combat moves what order should the columns go in? Restoration I was thinking Name-Cost-Reduces-opens-cooldown-notes-wieght-learned from For Attacks I was thinking Name-Cost-opens-attack type-damage-grievous damage-weight-cooldown-notes learned from. Is this ok?--Pinkie-Pie (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2017 (EDT) Hey Pinkie-Pie, Thanks for going through and revamping the combat moves! I would do it myself, but I dont know anything about haven combat. I agree the tables should be rearranged into a more coherent order, and if you're up for that challenge, that sounds great. It'll be a bit of work, but I think you can manage. I went ahead and arranged some "sample" templates in what I think is probably the best way you can arrange the info. I added some formatting to help the tables look clean as well. I felt having all the info that overlaps (cooldown, IP, weight, openings) next to each other would add some coherency Along with rearranging these pages, a glossary of sorts needs to be added defining terms like initiative(IP), cooldowns, attack weight, and the Mu/μ symbol. Cheers and good luck with your project. if you need any pictures of specific moves added I might be able to get a hold of them. Either leave a list of moves here or leave an unuploaded file on the combat page such as [[File:MoveYouNeed.png]] And i'll upload them Move Cooldown IP cost Attack weight Openings Reductions Notes Learned from Artful Evasion 40 None None None 20%·μ Striking 20%·μ Backhanded 20%·μ Sweeping 20%·μ Oppressive Opponents' IP: +1 Bats, Boar, Deer Move Cooldown IP cost Attack weight Openings Attack type Damage Grievous Notes Learned from Chop 40 1 Melee·μ +15% Off Balance Striking According to weapon None Any edged weapon Ants, Bats, Boar, Deer, Foxes, Badgers, Moose

Roasting Spit

Related to pages:

• :File:Roasting Spit.png
• File:Folded_Roasting_Spit.png

Why not just Move(rename) a image page if its not using the right page-name ?
Deleting and re-uploading it is 1) more work, and 2), from a history point of view, your kinda erasing the work history a other user (which, if done in general, could/might effect the motivation of some users to contribute to RoB wiki).
--.MvGulik. 13:51, 30 November 2017 (EST)

Yeah, I should have just moved it, didn't really think about it. I was on a mobile browser at the time, which is pretty difficult to navigate. In the future I'll keep that in mind. --Ricky (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2017 (EST)

Aha, Mobile. Roger that one. --.MvGulik. 23:12, 30 November 2017 (EST)

pics

Why did you change the Abyssal_Chasm image file from jpg to png ?

In-game images are general intended to be jpg's because those are generally smaller in size versus png files, while png is generally for the icon files (quality over size). Just converting a jpg to a png will only generate a bigger file with the same image quality. --.MvGulik. 03:32, 23 December 2017 (EST)

When I made the Abyssal Chasm page it asked for hafen-Abyssal Chasm.png, so instead of just slapping an |image= field in the infobox I just reuploaded the file as a .png. It's mostly a matter of preference on my part, I just dont like jpgs that much and find it more fitting to (re)upload images according to what the infobox wants rather than forcing a |image= field into the infobox.
--Ricky (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2017 (EST)

But that is what the |image field is for!
Also I don't think its a good idea to have all Localized Resource related (or other) in-game images being converted from JPG to PNG. Besides its kinda breaking the general rule to use JPG and not PNG for in-game, or larger than general icon sized, images. ... Please undo/reconsider this particular change.

PS: Some additional things to take in consideration when it comes to image file sizes.

In the past image size might still have mattered for the speed a page was fully loaded/displayed at the users side, now a days (with general fast internet all around) that seems kinda questionable. But the same can't be said for bandwidth use. User on mobiles can have certain total bandwidth restrictions, although I'm not sure that is a real issue as I have no personal experiences in that area. However the total bandwidth the RoB site generates itself can be of some concern here. The bigger the image file sizes are, the more bandwidth it consumes. For one image that might not matter, but if extended to all images that will add up. Now I don't know what kind of account Spiff uses to host RoB with, but trying to not use unnecessary large image-sizes seems to be the smart and considerate path here.

PS2: Redirects on file-pages can also be used (as long as they don't contain an image them-self or other text. I think)
--.MvGulik. 11:11, 23 December 2017 (EST)

I decided to make the changes I suggested for the Abyssal_Chasm image (due to the, to me, apparent stalling of the discussion). --.MvGulik. 16:03, 17 January 2018 (EST)

Apologies for my evasive behavior. I'll admit that was shitty, but I just didn't want to bother with it.

--Ricky (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2018 (EST)

Roger. --.MvGulik. 03:07, 18 January 2018 (EST)

Contacting Spiff.

Ricky. Can you PM me, at H&H forum, Spiff's email (or contact him for me). Using the separate bot account (mvg_bot) I have with normal rights will not really work, its just to limited in rights. I could use my regular/admin account, but I really don't like to do that. --.MvGulik. 20:26, 4 December 2017 (EST)

Seems like you have PMs disabled on the HH forums. I have his email, but I hesitate to post it here for various reason. if you could re-enable your pm priveleges on the forums i'll PM the name to you.

Oops, I did not check that. Forum PM enabled again. Also send you my personal e-mail. Just in case. --.MvGulik. 09:43, 5 December 2017 (EST)

Thanks Ricky. E-mailed Spiff. --.MvGulik. 23:59, 5 December 2017 (EST)

Dungeons

Hey, with that new dungeon stuff, I guess we should start new category.. And what u think, maybe loot should be another category too? Not sure how name this, just loot not correct - because technically butchering animals is loot too.

Yeah, We'll have to make some new categories for dungeons and such. I'm not sure how I want to approach it yet, however. i'm waiting until more info crops up about the dungeons first before I make anything in depth. a few more dungeons to help set standards on what to expect wouldn't hurt either.

Just from what i've seen so far I was thinking about having a dungeon category, an 'all dungeon' category for items you can get for any dungeon, and then any other items should go under a 'dungeon x' category

so:

- Category:Dungeon
- - Category:Universal Dungeon Items
- - - Heart Container
- - Category:Beaver Lodge
- - - Beaver Crown
--Ricky (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2017 (EST)

"Ring of Brodgar" namespace

> Trying to mov away from the RoB namespace

Why ... What's your reasoning for moving all the pages in the "Ring of Brodgar" namespace to the Main namespace ?

--.MvGulik. 22:02, 8 April 2018 (EDT)

I believe there's too few articles to justify having a namespace for them, and i don't think they're easily accessible (i.e. users wouldn't know to type 'Ring of Brodgar:') to whichever users might wish to see those articles

--Ricky (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2018 (EDT)

That particular namespace is one of the default namespaces that comes with a MediaWiki installation. As such (technically) its not a deletable namespace. That leaves 'to use or not to use'.

.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Namespace:

>"Namespaces allow for the organization and separation of content pages from administration pages"

>"Namespaces separate data into core sets, those intended for public viewing, and those intended for the editing community.

Which is why Namespace 4(Ring of Brodgar) is there. In this case for potentially separating none haven game related stuff (ie: wiki/RoB admin/doc, editing community, etc) from game related content/data.

As such the number of articles in such a namespace plays a not so significant role in my view.

.

>"not easily accessible"

Based on the above, we got two wiki-user types in play now. Those Namespace 4(Ring of Brodgar) pages are not really intended for the general RoB/wiki readers, just the editors (for which I think one may assuming a bit more wiki skills/knowledge). Besides, if the/those pages on a wiki-site are properly organized (good page-linking implied). "not easily accessible" would be a none issue too.

.

General personal view: ... Its might seem easier to merged all kinds of stuff in 'one fits all' box (wiki-pages, program-code, or clothes). It also tends to results in an unorganized mess over time, and if one needs/likes to separate and reorganise it again its usually more than double the work. (ie: easy sort turn gain, while passing one the potential workload to clean/reorganize things up to others in the future. ... which seems a familiar sounding Human theme. :-( )

--.MvGulik. 13:35, 9 April 2018 (EDT)

Page deleting note

Seems there is some wm database issue that restricts restoring revisions that are older than July 2013, as such deleting of pages with revisions older than 31-July/1-aug 2013‎ should be put on hold. --.MvGulik. 13:45, 29 July 2018 (EDT)

rgr --Ricky (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2018 (EDT)

Admin status

I have kinda had it with having to fix basic problems due to lack of attention (or plain laziness) to what it is your doing(or did). => [1] (ignoring a wiki-warning, not checking the end result, and thereby also not fixing the created problem)
If you can't handle, or don't care about, the potential responsibilities that come with special rights/status. It might not be a bad idea to return that status an become a general RoB-wiki user again.
I might have high standards. But I have not seen you grow when it comes to wiki-skills, -actions, or paying attention. As such I suggest you make up your mind about holding RoB-admin status.
--.MvGulik. 11:46, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

Yes, i'll admit i'm not as active as I once was, and i'll even say that some of the work I did do when I was active might not have been up to your high standards - which you weren't around to enforce when I was actively managing -

I'll renounce my admin status after Borka, ApocalypsePlease, DatOneGuy renounce theirs.

The fact is that i'm one of the very few people who still care about the wiki, I may not be a wiki-power user, but I do know I check the wiki at least once a day in order to make sure no catastrophes have occurred. I'm not sure the other three admins I listed above can say the same.

There have been several instances in the past where I make some small innocuous change which you either remove, revise, or reprimand me for making, again, due to your high standards. This is not encouraging behavior.

As it stands, you seem to have very large goals for the wiki, as well as the means to achieve those goals, so for the most part I've chosen to stay out of your way.

--Ricky (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2019 (EDT)

Your kinda proving my 'not paying attention' point. As I was not talking about the quantity of your RoB activity, but I was talking about the quality of your actions on RoB.

...

Aha.

>"There have been several instances in the past where I make some small innocuous change which you either remove, revise, or reprimand me for making"

At first I asked you about some of those, apparently still perceived as innocuous, actions. But other than some oops-sorry words, Over time I saw no change that showed you actually learned, or even tried to learn, anything from them. Overall your edits kept having a hit&run feel (this is where quantity comes into play).

Don't you think someone with wiki-Admin status needs to do at least better than general wiki/RoB users, and not worse?

In relation to my 'high standards'. Overall it seems to me you generally do like to sound knowledgeable (more knowledgeable than I think you actual are). Sounding knowledgeable in my view also comes with the right to put you on a higher accountability level than others (on top of holding admin status).

If you think that's unfair, we have different opinions about that.

--.MvGulik. 04:44, 25 August 2019 (EDT)

Sandbox

You 'really' needed 21 consecutive edits on the SharedData Fish template. There is a sandbox page for stuff like this, and you don't even have to save it if done properly, as an edit preview will usually also can give the info one seeks. --.MvGulik. 08:18, 21 March 2020 (EDT)

Yep, can't see how the template affects real pages without pushing the edits. Tbh the only reason I stopped was because I got bored, theres still some stuff I want to do--Ricky (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2020 (EDT)

Wrong answer(/lazy-excuse). You generally seems to act like you know it all, You don't. A solution here would have been to simulate the stuff in or with the sandbox page(s). And if you would have asked I might have set it up for you (if only to prevent stuff like this). But you generally just seems to do stuff without thinking or planning ahead. Also Previewing or Post-reading your own edits seems something you generally (still) don't like to do (or if you do (even worse) not caring about deliberately leaving your own error lying around). As per example, I see no other reason (anymore) than just plain laziness for not spotting or not fixing this recent error by yourself. --.MvGulik. 15:13, 21 March 2020 (EDT)

Ngl bud you're pretty abusive--Ricky (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2020 (EDT)

I call it "being direct", at which point I can become kinda harsh, but not unfair in my view. But if you like to call it abusive, so be it. In my view I have initially tried in way nicer ways to make you more general wiki (and quality(I think)) minded, but that seemed to have no effect at all. Lets go back to your comments related to me deleting your uploaded image. Don't you think the user of which you deleted his upload might think the same about your action? (and no, the image was not wrong. It was just a bad quality). Words(or excuses for that matter) are easy. And anyone can make mistakes. But after some time actions will start to speak louder then words, and with it one will unfortunately also lose the benefit of the doubt. (needless to say, you kinda lost that last part with me) --.MvGulik. 09:42, 22 March 2020 (EDT)

Calling someone a lazy, presumptive, excuse-making idiot while pointing out flaws and mistakes without offering constructive (yes- - - your critcism is largely NOT constructive) criticism isn't "being direct", it's "being an asshole". If your behavior towards me on a videogame wiki is in any way indicative of how you treat people in your life, at your work, then God have mercy on them. --Ricky (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2020 (EDT)

>"(Roasting Spit) Yeah, I should have just moved it, didn't really think about it. I was on a mobile browser at the time, which is pretty difficult to navigate."

>"(pics) Apologies for my evasive behavior. I'll admit that was shitty, but I just didn't want to bother with it."

Figure your don't like to bother to fix this one either. So I will do it for you. (edited while on difficult to navigate mobile browser again I guess)

Don't you think your kinda proofing my lazzy/not-thinking points yourself ?

If you really look at RoB as "just a wiki ... for a videogame" it kinda makes sens to me why I felt any constructive criticism I might have given in the past was falling on deaf ears.

I think where done here. You now know how I think about you, and I know how you think about me and RoB wiki.

--.MvGulik. 06:20, 23 March 2020 (EDT)

SharedData Tree

Any particular reason why your are dumping Treeplanter's Pot text into the SharedData Tree template. Its completely Misplaced, and in fact its duplication of already present data/text (guess you still don't understand that rule, and what its purpose it). --.MvGulik. 21:00, 26 March 2020 (EDT)

Page-infobox usage style

| branch       = 10
| bark           = 3
| tfruit          = Maple Samara
| tfruitqt       = 2
| tother        = Maple Leaf
| totherqt     = 6
| log              = 3
| block1        = 47
| block2        = 59
| board1        = 14
| board2       = 24
}}

I fixes the sloppy and lazy editing looking tree infobox's for you.
I take it you had more pressing personal priories on your mind to bother about how it looks (sloppy and lazy). After all its not like it has any effect on how the displayed page looks, right.
The question that comes to my mind now is ... should I just do this for all pages. I mean, looking at that mess there seems to be no point in maintaining any special formatting. Defaulting to a simple and easy to maintain fixed format seems more logical to me at this point.
--.MvGulik. 11:31, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

Space bar go brrrrrr --Ricky (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

Sure. It is the keyboard's fault of course. All 50+ times. And you did not spotted that in time to correct that of course. Yea, lack of keyboard (or mobile) control makes perfect sense.

Figure you didn't spot it at all. I mean, as that would kinda look like you didn't even care about it. But than again. Only other RoB editors would run into it, although I doubt they mind.

So. As you seems to have overlooked my question (my fault of course as I forgot the question mark).

Defaulting to a simple and easy to maintain fixed format for infobox-calls than ? (perhaps even alphabetical ordered at some point ?)

Or should we just forget about trying to maintain any infobox-calls styling? I mean. if its ok for you (as admin). Its seems only fair its ok too for all other RoB editors to style it in whatever way they please.

--.MvGulik. 14:21, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

Hey thanks for treating my like a human being, i'll actually reply now

Personally, I prefer infoboxes to be a set and uniform distance (let's say 2 spaces from the longest call), but that's a somewhat arbitrary preference with no real impact on output or user experience

As for order, I always try to order them the same order they appear in the infobox. Additionally, I try to order infobox parameters in how likely they are to appear for that infobox (all trees have branches, bark, fruit, so those go at the top above 'other')

Trying to make the handful of editors try to adhere to a somewhat arbitrary infobox styling is already asking a lot of editors who don't usually edit in the first place. If you take a sample of 20 infoboxes you're going to find 20 different styles from 20 different editors

I guess perhaps 1 space after = is most appropriate and most likely to be followed, otherwise it just feels like more minutiae to keep track of and clean up after (And we all know how fun it is to constantly clean up after someone)

That being said, if you can create a script that can automatically maintain infobox calls without editor input, go for it. I'm all for the uniformity/consistency.

--Ricky (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

Just like I thought. Nice political correct words, with important escape clauses included. Including a nice >"If you take a sample of 20 infoboxes you're going to find 20 different styles from 20 different editors" generalization too boot.

I guess I just should have left your tree infobox-call edits as style nr 21. The "I don't care, as its irrelevant to me" style.

>"I'm all for the uniformity/consistency." Yea, yea. Sure, sure. On paper only of course.

Like to guess which RoB user I have had to constantly cleanup the most stuf of ?

--.MvGulik. 20:12, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

Jesus H Christ. --Ricky (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2020 (EDT)

Hallelujah, praise the Lord! ... O wait, I'm a atheist. One that compares someone words against actual actions. And if the former continues to mismatches the latter, the latter starts to overrules the former. (just and other version of "losing the benefit of the doubt" I guess)

Still wonder why the >"Don't you think the user of which you deleted his upload might think the same about your action?" part (in other section) was ignored. Some other RoB contributor feelings probably deemed irrelevant too I take it.

Wonder what 'is' relevant to Ricky. Advertising his recent tree work in his second post at RoB wiki Discord perhaps. Just guessing of course, but it kinda fits the Ricky picture I currently have.

--.MvGulik. 05:13, 28 March 2020 (EDT)

Why are you treating me this way? Is this secretly that "tough love" everyone always talks about? --Ricky (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2020 (EDT)

Good question (sincere or not). Why am I talking to you this way. For one, of course, to vent my, over time, build up frustration towards you. An other is to see to what, and how, you react. And so far it seems to me that my hope for any meaningful change on your side is wishful thinking. And like you said "its no fun to constantly clean up after someone", which of course goes for me to. What do you think? Should I just flip my RoB caring switch and focus only on what seems directly useful to me personal (because that's the picture I'm getting from/about you). --.MvGulik. 15:23, 28 March 2020 (EDT)

Summary

Did you know that edit summaries are not only shown on the "Recent Changes" page but also on page-related histories pages?
A summery of "ditto" makes even less sense on those history pages than not adding a summery at all. Did you ever think of that?

O yea.
Also fixed those "==Update History==" headers to match the already in use "==Game Development==" headers for you. Certain changes work better if suggested or discussed at for hand. Letting everyone just change general stuff to there own liking would probably not be very useful. Did you ever think of that?
Also changed that odd, and kinda lazy in my view, "J:" part in your Game Development edits to "Jorb:". As I don't think one can expect every RoB visitor to know what just "J:" is suppose to mean. Did you ever think of that?
I also see you have not noticed, or don't care for of course, that Game Development entries where ordered from first to last. Do you think it makes sense to keep them ordered in the same way across RoB?
--.MvGulik. 08:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Noted, complaint is now on record under Ring of brodgar:Internal Complaints

I'll use game development/Jorb/first-last order from now on :)