User talk:Rpeh/Arc 200708

imperial palace cuirass, guard uniforms page

hey i tried to fix it, but i messed up the table — Unsigned comment by 71.222.253.166 (talk)

Don't worry - looks like Saruuk fixed it already. --Rpeh^Talk 03:16, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

You say "yes", I say "no"...

Just thought you might like to know about the Yes and _Maybe templates which already exist. Don't have an equivalent for your No template, but I'd propose No to keep in line with the other existing ones... --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 13:34, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

("*£)&*!!!!! I couldn't see anything suitable!!!!! We could really do with some kind of library. The Templates category just doesn't cut the mustard. --Rpeh^Talk 13:57, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually, thinking about it, I'm not going to put on the sack cloth and ashes for this one - {{v}} is totally unintuitive! Whilst the letter v may look a bit like a tick if you tilt your head and squint, it's definitely not the most obvious name. At least {{yes}} has a sensible name. Also, it sets the ALT text unlike the former. I think it's by far the better bet to be honest. So you say "Stop" and I say "Go, go go!" --Rpeh^Talk 15:27, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

My main goal with those was trying to keep them a simple as possible, and take less time to type (okay, it's only 2 less characters, but when you've got 100 of them on a page, it adds up). Now, it's certainly possible to add ALT text to the old ones, so they'll be basically equivalent. I suppose "Yes" and "No" could also be used if we just make them shortcut redirects - that way they'll all be consistant. You could then use either one and it'll look the same. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 16:28, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I've gone and done it - {{yes}} and {{v}} do the same thing, as do {{no}} and {{x}}, and I also created a {{maybe}} which does the same thing as {{?}}, so now either formatting will work the same.

Faction links

Are you planning on doing ALL of those yourself? Seems to me like this would be the perfect job for a bot. You might ask Nephele if she can rig something up... --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 15:50, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

The thought had crossed my mind, but right now I'm in a really bad mood and some boring repetitive work is just what I need to snap me out of it. I was going to do Anvil's population as a start then save the rest for when I'm at work and ignoring the idiots that infest my company in... no - that's going to set me off again. Anyway, since you've done a thousand edits in about two weeks, I've got to try to keep up somehow! :-) --Rpeh^Talk 15:55, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

I do have the advantage of being unemployed at the moment... But whatever, suit yourself. Just figured I'd save you a bit of trouble there. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 16:02, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for worrying about me ;) Actually, doing them manually has the added benefit of being able to spot any dodgy images for your new Image Cleanup Project. --Rpeh^Talk 05:46, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Humans for food

Look in Fort Ash for my evidence.--Merco 08:09, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

I assume you mean the leg and torso in the rat pen? That could be a goblin corpse as easily as a human one. Yes I know there's also a dead treasure hunter upstairs but whilst I wouldn't put it past goblins to feed humans to their pet rats, I think it'd be more likely they cut out the middle... err... creature, and just eat the humans! There's no actual evidence in the game for the feeding of humans to rats. --Rpeh^Talk 10:18, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Intro To The Artifacts

Hey Rpeh I'll write an introduction to the artifacts page. I just need to know what to do.

70.178.149.162 17:26, 23 August 2007 (EDT)TheBoogeyman

Hi there, TheBoogeyman. I had in mind a description of what an artifact is; possibly even a brief etymology of the term from a gaming perspective (item given to mortals by the gods) as opposed to the standard meaning (essentially - a mistake caused by a manufacturing process). In general, a reason why we've got a separate page for this particular set of items and not others - despite the fact that there are (arguably) more powerful objects out there. It should also emphasise that such items aren't just left lying around but usually involve a quest of some kind. That's just put you off, hasn't it? :-) --Rpeh^Talk 17:44, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually not in the least. I would like to contribute more the the wiki since I use the forums and the wiki so much. I very rarely have anything to put. Last thing I added was that you get paralyzed if you try to set in Mankar's throne. I'll add what ever you and I decide works.

Worshipper vs. worshiper

It seems that they are both used fairly regularly on pages here. Wiktionary lists worshiper as an alternative of worshipper, while Google gives twice as many hits for worshipper. Having said that, OneLook.com lists 9 dictionaries containing worshipper, and 12 containing worshiper, and US dictionaries tend to list worshiper first. This seems to suggest (barely) that worshiper should be the approved spelling on this site, but does that mean somebody needs to go through and change all instances of worshipper? --Gaebrial 06:03, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. I use "worshiper" on the wiki and only made a point of changing that one because it had been specifically changed in the previous edit - normally I'd only change it as part of something else. The dictionary.com lists "worshipper" as a particularly British spelling, which has usually been reason enough to use the alternative on this site. --Rpeh^Talk 06:11, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

OK, if I spot any worshippers on one of my random trawls through the site, I'll change them to worshipers. Is it worth including on the Spelling page? --Gaebrial 06:15, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

I suppose it should go on there, yes. Not that anybody ever reads it! --Rpeh^Talk 06:22, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Sounds similar to the "levelled"/"leveled" debate. I'd say for consistancy that if either is a valid spelling, we use the one without the doubled letter, since that seems to be the US standard. But there's no reason to go and search out all UK spellings and change them, either is acceptable. (There's only a few cases where I'd go out of my way to change UK spelling to US - like "armour"/"armor", and that's only because there's a whole bunch of pages with the word "armor" in the title, and using the UK spelling confuses the Search function.) --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 09:00, 30 August 2007 (EDT)