FANDOM


Archive

This page was archived. All discussions predating February 2012 have been removed. To browse old discussions, visit the archives linked below. Do not bring back these discussions from the archive. If you wish to discuss something, create a new section and link to the relevant discussion in the archive. Thanks!

Archive 1

-- Sixorish 09:34, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Rookgaard Quests

The Rookgaard Quest section is outdated at some parts. For example, the Torch Quest does no longer exist. Morlord 22:02, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Chest quests

Hey idk how active this wiki community is or if anyone will see this, but I think we should split the mainland quests up into like "chest" quests and mission quests. I like doing quests and I hate having to scroll through the entire list looking for ones I could do (mission quests). There's so many chest quests and in my opinion I think they should just be separated. Any thoughts?

Psykik 15:44, March 20, 2012 (UTC)Psykik


We need very specific criteria to categorize them, what is a chest quest?

Examples:

  • PoI doesn't have a lot of transcripts, mostly just the bureaucrats, should it be a 'mission' quest? If not, the quest line is not simply 'go to dungeon and claim your rewards!' as a 'chest quest' implies. What if you consider that?
  • The desert quest does not have transcripts traditionally but the long quest line involves a lot of problem solving which did include talking with NPCs ...

I'm not against the idea, but we need a strict one-to-one definition of a chest quest / mission quest. -- Sixorish 17:26, March 20, 2012 (UTC)


It will be most simple to define one of the two, and let the rest be the other group (if x quests are mission quests, 1-x quests are chest quests). A simple definition could be 'a mission quest is a quest where a NPC will give you a mission to do'. Although quests like POI require NPC interaction, they won't be a mission quest, because no NPC gives a mission to you.

Would you like the quest list to be seperated in two lists, or just add this parameter and make it sortable on it? -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 22:47, March 21, 2012 (UTC)


I think we should separate quests that appear on the Quest Log from these which doesn't. —Arkshi (Talk | contribs) 23:47, March 21, 2012 (UTC)


What I want to know most is: why? What does a mission quest offer a player that a chest quest does not? And I say this considering those two examples, "mission quests" may be more fun for example, but I believe if the entertainment value was of concern then we'd want those categorized under "mission quests" too because of the amount of problem solving. So I ask: what is the main reason to prefer a 'mission quest' over a 'chest quest'?

And another thing: does anyone else find this to be useful for inclusion? Or how can we adjust it to make it be more useful?

More examples ...

I don't think I would want to start a quest on the basis that it is a 'mission quest' or 'chest quest'. What are the real factors that one wants this information on the page?

  • If you want the quest to be long or short -> an 'estimated time' parameter would be of more help + would largely indicate the long quest lines.
  • If you want all quests with NPC reactions -> an 'involves NPCs' parameter would fit that purpose.
  • If you want quests that appear in the quest log -> ...

I'm saying, there may be better ways to categorize these quests if you are trying to meet a certain requirement. The original poster indicated nothing of what this list would be used for, so we cannot cater to his/her needs and we can't build upon his/her idea. Nor can (I) see the value in doing this, because I don't think the average player will make use of it (in this exact form). -- Sixorish 23:54, March 21, 2012 (UTC)


Personally I don't see the reasons to separate them on the Quests page, I prefer it as it is now and that's the way people are used to it. However, if it makes this information easier to find in an alternate way, one could define what each quest is and make a suitable category for them. That way, they will be listed in the categories without changing the layout of the Quests page. Beejay 01:01, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

About Spoilers

Hello. I want to propose to get rid off quest/spoiler pages. I mean, that quest pages shows directly the full walkthrough without the spoiler part. I know some people here will hate my idea, but that division doesn't help anyone.

First, the main quest pages ALREADY contains spoilers, the quest reward and the creatures are major spoilers, it's like telling us the end of the movie. We are just separating the walkthrough.

Second, most of the people who enter to the quest pages wants to enter to the walkthrough directly. When in-game I help people about quests, i always give them the /spoiler link, i never use the quest link because i know they will just waste their time. And i've heard comments of friends telling me that they hate that the walkthrough doesn't load in the first page.

Third, a wiki should evolve according to the needs of the people. Today, almost nobody do a quest without a walktrough, so we should make easier to access to the walkthroughs, not harder. And i dont think that the way its now it helps anyone.

Fourth, other sites show the walkthroughts on the quest main pages, like tibia ml, for example: http://en.tibiaml.com/quest/a_father%27s_burden/ This page shows the full walkthrough, and if you enter from the quest list you access directly to the walk.

I really think that this should be at least discused, and maybe a poll in the main page about the convenience of the quest & quest/spoilers. Thanks.

» Sez6 ~ Talk « 22:13, April 17, 2012 (UTC)


Personally, I don't like the spoiler pages at all and I can easily see why they should be in place. If really want/need to look up a quest, then I will spell it out in the search and add the /spoiler on the end so it goes directly to the link. Therefore it's easy enough to bypass the page, it takes about the same amount of time to do and solves those problems in one. That is simple enough for everyone to do provided that they spell correctly and include the capitals when needed.

I don't think you could really compare TibiaML with TibiaWiki as they aren't a Wiki. Besides TibiaWiki.com.br and Tibia-Wiki both also include the spoilers so we aren't the only ones who decided on this format. I remember sometime ago a discussion on fansites where TibiaWiki came at the top and reading through various topics there were indeed many which said they used TibiaWiki for quest information and many people which also said they hated how TibiaWiki spoils the information. In that case I don't see a problem with the spoilers. Many people don't need a spoiler to know what to do in a quest and I am not a person who uses a spoiler unless I am stuck, mostly then I will instead read transcripts as that's where my problem is.

You can arguably say that having a spoiler tag on a page immediately spoils that something is required for something else. However, those are in place for the people which don't want to know what it is needed for. I don't really see that explaining a location, rewards or creatures to be faced is a major spoiler because one does not know what is needed or where exactly one needs to go to start a quest.

I would prefer the quest and quest/spoiler links in place personally but I suppose it wouldn't be a major change or affect anyone too greatly. Beejay 00:38, April 18, 2012 (UTC)


I agree, although I think a warning is required before the walkthrough (it's in the fansite agreement, plus even if a majority read the spoilers, that doesn't mean everyone wants to ... let's allow people the choice). -- Sixorish 00:47, April 18, 2012 (UTC)


@Beejay: I do the same thing to bypass the 1st page, but not all people are skilled like us on the internet. I have seen people (on rl) having troubles with the wikia search, and complaining about the 1st page. So, is not simple enough for everyone.

The comparision between TibiaML and Wikia it was because they both are fansites, so i though there is no restriction about spoilers for fansites, my bad. Sixorish already cleared this.

The people who hate the spoilers, is not for the namespace, its because they exist. They hate spoilers because it ruins the exitement of even which rewards you can get. So i don't think this is a good argument against merging quest and /spoilers pages.

If you are stuck on mission X of Y quest, you still need to open ALL the walkthrough, so doesn't matter if you only use spoilers when you are stuck, you still open all. And if anyone really don't want to know the walkthrough, why he enter to the page at all? There is none usable information on that pages. With a red text warning just before the walkthrough it should be enough and it makes simplier the access to the walkthroughts.

Another thing, even the reward is a major spoiler. Why do you think that people ignore quests like kissing a pig? because they already know that the reward sux, not because they know the walkthrough.

Even if i'm totally wrong about all, what's the difference between 1 page with a red text spoiler warning and 2 separate pages? I really can't think in any adverse situation by merging the pages, but there is 1 advantage: it's simpler. (At least its what I think XD)

I wanted to make a draft of a poll about this to show it here, but i don't know in which week we are =S.

Anyway, thanks for reading and answering the proposal, and sorry for any spelling and grammar errors, english isnt my mother's language.

» Sez6 ~ Talk « 01:44, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: About ADS

TibiaWikiaAdvertisements
Registered people and people with ADB watch less or none ads. But few people meet this conditions, so they must load a lot of advertisements every time a page is load. I just made a test on my IE. 1 banner up, 2 ads right, 3 wikia ads in the bottom and 1 "popup-like" ad. All the ads are changed if we load an different page. So if an user enters to the quest page, and then to the spoiler, he is loading a lot of ads. And we should considerd that lot of people don't have great internet connections. This is another good reason to merge the pages.

The pop-up ad is really annonying and you must close it in every page you enter.

» Sez6 ~ Talk « 01:53, April 18, 2012 (UTC)


We could merge the quest and /spoiler page into one page, with a javascript show/hide function. This will prevent players from having to load a new page with new ads (which can be slow indeed), but the advantage is nothing will look to have changed. I made a poll for you here. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 09:05, April 18, 2012 (UTC)


It appears that "Merge the pages, but keep the spoiler invisible until a button is hit (show spoiler)." is the preferred option right now but I wonder if this is feasible for us... remember the reason we created TibiaWiki:Used Unused Files? The purpose of this page is to list all images that are in use but do not have working links to them. The spoiler block extension was designed to eliminate those links, and I don't think we want all quest images being classed as unused... -- Sixorish 08:37, April 19, 2012 (UTC)


I think that using the same spoiler template is not an available option because the problem Sixorish described. We only should merge the pages if we find a viable way to do that.

2 ideas come to my head, first one a plain text spoiler with big red letters and below the walkthrought. The second its similar, but instead plain text something like a big red box with the spoiler warning (the box like 1000 pixels high) to ensure nothing is visible at the beggining and again the walkthought below the box, not inside the box. And the box having an option to minimize it, or we can also scroll to reach the walkthrough. Obviusly, this are just rough ideas.

» Sez6 ~ Talk « 14:19, April 19, 2012 (UTC)


I have recently discovered the great options of jQuery, it seems javascript has few limitations to do awesome things and a show/hide thing is easy to program. We don't have to use the spoiler extension, if that is blocking files from being used on pages. I mean: the content in the spoiler will be loaded but will be set in a div with css display:none, after a button the jQuery edits the DOM and changes this. But maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about.. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 10:12, April 20, 2012 (UTC)


That's alright as long as the element is by default shown, because some viewers may have javascript disabled in their browsers. -- Sixorish 10:31, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers and Wikis

Hello again. I just want to know what is the big deal with the "spoilers" here in this wiki. You guys give spoilers too much importance.

In other wikis, they dont have any kind of spoiler warning on their pages. Even Wikipedia explains why spoilers tags should not be used on wikis. The special page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler says: It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality.

Also, Jay Walsh, a Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson, said that Wikipedia is intended to be an exhaustive knowledge source, so it would have spoilers. [[1]].

This wiki started having spoilers alerts because in that time, even wikipedia had :"Wikipedia previously included such warnings in some articles, but no longer does [2]". If wikipedia move forward to the no spoiler warnings, why this wiki dont?

I also have searched through another wikias sites, like http://www.wowwiki.com (the wikia site of WoW), and they DO NOT HAVE spoiler warnings on their quests pages. http://pokemon.wikia.com doesn't have spoiler warnings even in the pages where they include full game walkthroughts Pk Black & White Walkthrough.

I have gone further, and i also checked (¬¬!) the Phineas and Ferb wikia site where they put the entire episodes plot, again, without a spoiler warning (example: http://phineasandferb.wikia.com/wiki/Rollercoaster).

So why a simple text spoiler warning is not enough? Why the need to complete hide the "spoilers"? The objective of wikis is to have the complete information of X topic, not to protect viewers from spoilers.

You want to create javascripts or new templates when a simple text warning is enough for the purpose of the wiki. And in which cases the text warning will not be enough but the js or template will? If people can read the warning, its their responsability if they keep reading.

This are my thoughts, i just shared to give you another perspective and more background about how another wikis handle spoilers, but the ultimate decision remains in you guys. Thanks

» Sez6 ~ Talk « 15:10, April 20, 2012 (UTC)


I think the choices you made to check are biased, but I agree with you in part. I think we should note that something is a spoiler but not attempt to hide it as is the option we are moving toward. But if the community wants this as shown in the poll, are we going to disappoint the majority of our viewers? They are, at the end of the day, the reason why we edit this wiki, and if they don't like what we do then they won't use the site, which defeats the whole purpose.

Also, the hidden objects should be seen as a means to hide it so viewers do not unintentionally read it. It's not there to withhold information, the information is freely accessible to everyone who wants to read it. The only reason I see us using spoiler warnings is to hide spoiling information on pages where they are most likely to accidentally read it and where we can't easily prevent it (e.g. on item pages where quest information may be present throughout the text, but NOT on quest pages which already have the template warning on top). What I would suggest is:

  1. The "Quest/Spoiler" pages are moved to "Quest", no other change needs to be made because even the /Spoiler pages already have a warning.
  2. All our item, object, etc. templates get a new "Quest" parameter and table row. This would be positioned well enough so that viewers would read the other text in the template before reading on to the quest information. Thus, they would already have enough information to work with before reading quest info. In this design we don't hide it but we make it well aware that it is quest information. -- Sixorish 15:42, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Just some notes, i didnt made biased choices, wikipedia is the mother of the wikis and i pick wowwiki because i think it's the most popular MMORPG. To be honest, i've never player WOW and i don't know anything about it, i'm more a PS3 player. About the community, we voted for the option 3 because it was the one with the higher chances to win. If we make a new poll, only with options 2 and 3, the option 2 have chances to win.

And it's totally true that in items pages is where the higher risk of unintentionally spoilers exist. But there are some problems with the spoilers definition. For example, in Rashid the locations are under spoiler tags, when ALL players can see where rashid is (you dont need any quest to know where he is located), but the items and prices are not under spoiler, and it's information that ONLY playes who completed the quest should know (you can only see the items and prices after you finish the quest).

A complete definition of spoiler should be made, to avoid situations like this.

» Sez6 ~ Talk « 16:07, April 20, 2012 (UTC)


Ok, I have played WoW and much of the information needed was readily available on their own website, but also, the game was so confusing that you needed spoilers just to understand. It certainly isn't like Tibia where you can figure it out on your own, unless it was very basic. In this sense, CipSoft doesn't encourage spoiling like Blizzard do. Joining up with others requires the knowledge to accomplish tasks or you fail miserably. It's really best not trying to compare things and instead, going with how it is.

My question is, if such a change (of any sort) were to happen. Then if we so wanted to link to a certain mission (e.g. The_New_Frontier_Quest/Spoiler#Mission_05:_Getting_Things_Busy) would it be possible? Keep in mind that players ask questions and don't want to know everything about it (/Spoiler is a big give away for too much information). I enjoy the convenience of bookmarking mission links such as Killing in the Name of... Quest but I prefer finding most other quests myself and don't want the information in my face when looking. CipSoft limit Fansites on the information regarding update teasers so that not everything "can be spoiled". So in my opinionated mind, could we do this and keep functionality and not go against CipSoft? Beejay 01:06, April 21, 2012 (UTC)


To contribute a bit to the topic, even if CipSoft doesn't encourage spoiling like Blizzard you must admit that most of the tibia wiki users go into the quest pages for the walk trough, to force them to make 2 step instead of one is against most guide for software (which blogs, wikis are also involve) development guides. That was like a general concept, and concerning people that doesn't like the spoilers well they are aware that Tibia Wiki is full of spoilers, and if they enter to a quest they just be sure they don't scroll down their website, so they don't get "spoil" ( which in my opinion anyways just knowing even the quest name is spoil ).

Answering your question about bookmarking just by doing the command "== <title> ==" is done, so that won't change. In general concept if the change is done (as Sez wants it), Tibia Wikia will remove the extra articles (QuestA and QuestA/Spoiler) and people will need less steps and time to archive their "target".

I doubt by doing this change will go against CipSoft, I may be wrong, but many things are already spoil in many aspect and I only think Cipsoft is against spoil for future updates and not for the actual updates (spoiling is something that cannot be avoid, and I am sure Cip knows that so they only prevent future update to be the less spoiled possible).

Anyways if you really think we should keep the Spoiler as it is, I would suggest the following make "QuestA/Spoiler to QuestA" thus making it as default and create a "QuestA/Hide or whatever name" for people who only want to get reward info, but I really think is a waste of space and we are duplicating some info just for a small detail.
Juan Ariel 02:14, April 21, 2012 (UTC)


I understand your concerns Beejay, that's the reason i think we should put a text warning, not a javascript or something more complicated. With a pretty clear spoiler warning the job is done:

Warning: This article contains quest spoilers.

About the Fansite Agreement, i only have access to that one which says: Complete quest solutions need to be marked with a disclaimer that warns players that quests are spoiled in the following sections.

A text warning it's enough and it will allow to link missions in the same way we do now.

» Sez6 ~ Talk « 03:41, April 21, 2012 (UTC)


Never read that agreement page before >.<, so, we can actually take down tibiawiki.com.br when we want?, or we gave them permission to copy all our contents at some point? or maybe in eyes of Cip anyone is allowed to do Plagiarism to us because of the license we use?

on topic:

I always get a lot of input from friends and I never heard of the way spoilers are accessed as a problem. Hope everything stays as it is, but votes decide I guess. --Daniel Letalis 05:19, April 21, 2012 (UTC)


Not really, votes do not necesserily decide the thing, it is just the community input. If we have good reasons to do otherwise than the outcome of the poll, it can be justified to do so.

I think what Beejay meant was: a warning text at the top of the page won't help if you link directly to a section at the bottom of the page. So you can't link directly to missions, because people following the link would ommit the spoiler warning. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 05:44, April 21, 2012 (UTC)


And what is the difference right now? If you give any link to missions players ommit the spoiler warning The_New_Frontier_Quest/Spoiler#Mission_05:_Getting_Things_Busy.

Make any link to any mission, and the spoiler warning it's totally ommitted. I mean, nothing will change, only that instead of 2 quest pages you could just have 1. » Sez6 ~ Talk « 05:54, April 21, 2012 (UTC)


Ok, i made a rough example of a quest page without the spoiler tag:

and please compare to the originals:

Now, please tell me any advantage of use the 2nd one, because using the first have 1 huge advantage:

Half of advertisement is loaded, therefore pages load faster.

Note: Please disable your ads blocker and logout from your account for a FULL WIKIA EXPERIENCE (Or use Internet Explorer).

Thanks » Sez6 ~ Talk « 15:24, April 21, 2012 (UTC)


I wouldn't use Internet Explorer for web, not even for testing because it is unsafe, the only thing people should use internet explorer for is to manually running windows update. Most other browsers are not safe if not using the latest stable version. I think most real browsers have "private" mode people can use to test.

Comparing the 2 versions with ads enabled I don't feel any difference, in 1 page I have to do an extra click, in the other I need to do an extra scroll, but maybe that's because I'm used to quickly locate the "show" link. --Daniel Letalis 20:09, April 21, 2012 (UTC)


You're comparing the disadvantage of load 2 pages with the disadvantage of an extra scroll?

Can i ask you, (to all the people who have commented here) what are your internet speeds? I have the most used internet connection in México, and it takes an average of 10.7 seconds to load every page in tibia.wikia.

Also, which screen resolution do you have? higher of 1280 i guess, because in lower resolutions the pop up add BLOCKS THE INFO.

I ask to you, to step in the shoes of the average user, the one who still uses IE despite everything, with lower resolutions than 1280p, with bad internet connections and then make a decision.

To be honest, i'm the 1% like you guys, I haven't seen an ad in the last 4 years, I even use my own created filters (not the subscriptions), I have a 1920x resolution, and i always bypass the 1st quest page typing the first letters in the search box, and then choosing the 2nd option (the one directly to the spoiler) and i always refers people to the /spoiler extensions.

'The merging doesn't affect 1 single person, and it benefits at least 1 person. That is enough reason to do the changes. If your concern it's that is a hard work, i can do it all by myself. The Keyword here is: the way it is now it's BETTER than the proposed? because you are just asking if the way it is now its OK.

Of course the way it is now its GOOD. But it can be better.

Anyway, you have the ultimate decision and if you really think it's BETTER the way it is now, it's probably for a good reason i'm not seeing, so i'm with you.

» Sez6 ~ Talk « 20:41, April 21, 2012 (UTC)


Maybe it is how I configured my browser? I can click "show" after 3 seconds with prodigy infinitum @ 3 mb, the page load takes more time but the text is displayed after that time. I will do more generic tests later, need to test with firefox and chrome (the most used browsers) because they have semi fixed layout.

If we are considering resolution as a factor, this could give some rough data: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/default.asp

Anyway after viewing more times the example, I think I like more the sample page The Desert Dungeon Quest than the normal quest page. --Daniel Letalis 06:07, April 22, 2012 (UTC)


Wow! you are mexican too?

I have prodigy @ 1mb, its the 1st package the cheap one. In some areas they are upgrading the speeds, my grandma have infinitum @ 10 mbps and my father @ 8 mbps. But i'm still @ 1 and as far i know, the most of the country it's still @ 1.

One friend still have 512 kbps (no infinitum), and its the best connection available in his area.

Also in my tests i cleared the cache (or temp files) the 1st time, i have a great computer so i have a 4 gbs cache, so pretty much all quest images was already cached, that impoves the speed use after use. » Sez6 ~ Talk « 06:41, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: I forgot something about the statistics. Unfornately there are always different sourcers with different statistics. Acordding to wikipedia [3] the most used resolution is 1024 x 768. (early 2012) with a 20% of usage.

Also, according to wikipedia which recopiles information of various sources, the most used web browser its still Internet Explorer with an average usage share of 37% (wikipedia link: [4]).

It's very hard to make stats about this, and one source have an usage share of 53.83% of IE at march 2012 [5]

Even the site you provided (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/default.asp) have a disclaimer at the bottom about this:

W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to the browser that comes preinstalled with their computer, and do not seek out other browser alternatives.
These facts indicate that the browser figures above are not 100% realistic. Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is a more popular browser.

So we can't rely on those statistics, i made a mistake here when i assumed about the average player. But one thing we can be sure, is that lot of people still use IE and have low screen resolutions.

» Sez6 ~ Talk « 07:29, April 22, 2012 (UTC)


In the first year of this fansite the few contributors seemed to agree to hide spoilers. I believe Alreth first proposed a spoiler template in June 2005 and while several added to various templates Rune Farmer gave us our modern incarnation (compare with the old version) in August 2005.
While i am not opposed to reducing or changing spoiler warnings we are not and do not have to be like other game wikis or like Wikipedia. Wikipedia has the goal to provide all reasonable information on all topics with a neutral bias, so if it has non-facts/opinions/etc, then they should be balanced.
Personally i am fine combining quest pages with just a simple warning but i would like to keep spoilers on item pages, etc. although perhaps they can be improved for some users' experience. I also think the spoiler usage is excessive on the Achievements page but using Sez' arguments the names are still spoiled (at least secret ones) and people can choose to go to the page in the first place.
--DM ><((°> Contribs <°))>< talk to me 13:23, April 23, 2012 (UTC)


The achievements page should have ONLY 1 spoiler warning at the top of the page to avoid that mess.

In the last week Poll (week 16 2012) 65% of the people liked the idea about merging pages (options 2+3).

So what we will do?

Also, can i fix the Rashid page and delete the spoilers in the locations?

And please, define guidelines about spoilers, because i do not understand why someone put spoiler tags in rashid location when that is public information and didnt put spoiler in the items list when that is a spoiler.

One guideline should be: Maximum 1 spoiler warning per article.

» Sez6 ~ Talk « 15:25, April 23, 2012 (UTC)


Push

This needs to be pushed along. So the following needs to be established:

  • Guidelines on what constitutes a spoiler. These should be added to TibiaWiki:Standards.
  • A final decision on what design to use; should we hide it (poll suggests we should) or should we just warn of the following spoiler (this discussion suggests it)?
    • Depending on the decision we either need a new means of hiding or a new design for the quest template.

-- Sixorish 10:15, April 29, 2012 (UTC)


Also another thing, a new parameter should be added to all quests to say if transcripts (aka talking with NPCs) are included. This helps to make this list more relevant.

I don't know what option is best. We could put the spoiler on the quest page, but put it in a div which gives the option to hide it, if required. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 15:12, April 29, 2012 (UTC)


I just added the parameter to the template and to the quest articles A-I, someone can pick it up or I'll try to continue later. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 15:50, April 29, 2012 (UTC)



Sorting Broken

Bennie you know the latest revisions have broken lvl 100+ sorting and added a whole bunch of [[{{{name}}}]] entries right? I've just been using the old revision since the 17th because of it. Dragon Legacy (talk) 21:07, April 21, 2016 (UTC)