FANDOM



Boss Monster and Signature

I noticed boss monster Son of Verminor but it isn't listed on boss kills statiscits on Erig.net, i hope this can be redirected to Erig. also if can someone pm me how to make signature appearing after clicking button? --Chaosu 17:28, 23 August 2006 (PDT)


Son of Verminor should now be on erig's lists, thanks for bringing it up, though!

About the signature, Check the page of tips, there was one there that explained how to do that.

-- WhitelacesTalk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 07:14, 24 August 2006 (PDT)


Son of Verminor was not recorded by any of my scripts. --Erig 01:33, 1 September 2006 (PDT)


Hmmm. Evidence would suggest that it is actually a real creature, but I do not understand how someone could have seen it, and not killed it/been killed by it, especially if they were strong enough to be wandering around Goroma (assuming it wasn't spawned on the surface).

Do the kill statistics on Tibia.com maybe hide certain creatures? I guess the only other logical explanations are either that whoever saw him ran away before defeating him/being killed.... or they were killed by one of the summons instead of the boss.

-- WhitelacesTalk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 06:54, 13 September 2006 (PDT)

Protecting Templates

Do you think we should protect all templates? Since one change to a template can potentially effect a lot of pages, I'm starting to think it's a good idea. Of course, any legitimate changes to a template can be requested in that template's talk page.. Opinions? --Erig 01:31, 1 September 2006 (PDT)

I personally think the templates should stay open. Afterall - you have to be at a certain stage in wiki knowledge to know what they do and mean. If you have that knowledge would you use it to try and ruin wiki? Well thats my opinion.
Craggles

I think, it would be a pity if that step would have to be taken, but then again I can fully understand it. Still, I'll vote for leaving them unprotected and maybe protect a few very centrally used ones, if neccessary...

Ereglam —> May the Force be with you <—  04:43, 1 September 2006 (PDT)


I'm inclined to sit the fence on this one. I think key templates should be protected, particularly the ones that are "visible" (most-used in article pages), and "stable" (not altered in a long time).

Other templates are not so important (er... dangerous?). I'll go ahead and protect some templates.

I would agree with Craggles, but you don't have to know anything about wikis to destroy a template, either intentionally or by accident.

If a template needs updating, then it's pretty easy to post on an admin's talk page, or on the template talk page.

-- WhitelacesTalk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 06:06, 1 September 2006 (PDT)


Yikes! While I'm in there, I'll do some cleanup of the templates.

-- WhitelacesTalk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 06:11, 1 September 2006 (PDT)

Rolling Pin

On its attributes say that is used to make cookies, but is this really true?, is there a way to make cookies?, cuz if not, that attribute should be removed.


To the best of my knowledge, it is NOT possible to actually "make" cookies in-game.

The Rolling Pin page should be fine now.

-- WhitelacesTalk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 07:01, 5 September 2006 (PDT)

User violation

An user, Adikwiat, erased all about the Tibian Explorer Society. I saw it from the "Recent Changes" place, and got it back to its correct state.

Dreyesbo 04:35, 4 September 2006 (PDT)


Thank you for bringing this to my attention, but that article needs re-writing anyway. Since this is the only offense, I will not add a block to Adikwiat, but I'll certainly watch his edits for a while.

-- WhitelacesTalk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 07:44, 5 September 2006 (PDT)

Dragon Scale Helmet: legal entry?

Is the Dragon Scale Helmet a legal entry, if it was only seen on a test server?

Ereglam —> May the Force be with you <—  13:26, 12 September 2006 (PDT)


As long as it is clearly stated on the page that it was seen on a test server, and not yet in-game, then I see no problem with it. I generally assume that if an item is seen on a test server, then it actually exists in-game, even if it has not have been discovered or is unattainable.

-- WhitelacesTalk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 06:46, 13 September 2006 (PDT)

Hi! About an user.

I've came across the page Asterix and I have noticed this should of have been placed into the page User:Asterix, if you could move the page to User:Asterix, I'd be thankful!

Thanks in advance! -- Maverick the hunter


I moved the page. Thanks!

-- WhitelacesTalk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 12:29, 13 September 2006 (PDT)

Page Generic

--- I really still don't think people should be allowed to use tibiawiki for personal reasons www.tibia.com has forums for people to post events and such. If we start adding people like "Sunshine" and others might as well turn this place into www.Igottolevel100.com. basicly i believe no one should get any publicity from this site its meant for info not about a guild hosting a event. or a player who got to level 250. If you wan't to talk about your chars or your guilds I say keep it to your own user page no where else.

-Silent Ghost


You are not the first person bring this up. It appears that the face of TibiaWiki is changing. Rather than fight the change, I embrace it! I think that means I'm going to start rambling.

It was back in February that the issue of listing in-game events first came up. At the time, there was a lack of consensus among the Admins (actually, a lack of input). I consider myself a servant of the public interest in regards to this wiki, and the only input I had received was from the admin Edwin de waterman, who is very involved and interested in role-playing and event planning. In response to what was requested, and not objected to, I made a template to facilitate and organize a listing of in-game events.

Bringing us to the current issue of objectivity in articles. Ideally, the content on TibiaWiki should be encyclopedic in structure, and by nature inclusive of all things relevant to all Tibia players. The tension comes from articles that are only interesting/relevant to a small subset of people (pertaining to a specific guild, gameworld, player, group of friends, vocation, etc.)

At this point, the line has been drawn at gameworlds. Everything that could possibly be interesting/relevant to all gameworlds is included, even if other groups are excluded (different vocations for instance). If something is only interesting/relevant to one gameworld, then it generally should not be included.

Please note that there is (currently) an exception. The pages for each gameworld can, and do, contain information that is only interesting/relevent to that specific gameworld. The primary justification for this comes from the vicarious relevence of that information to other gameworlds. For example, if someone is trying to decide which gameworld they should create a character on, they will be interested in general notes about the gameworld's economy, specific high-level players, or even guilds that are in power on the server. In this respect, even the "irrelevent information" is truly "relevent", and will benefit the wiki if it is included.

Concerning the discussion about articles for specific players, this has been a re-occurring point of contention (see also the brief discussion at Talk:Eternal_Oblivion#Irrelevancy). There are two separate sides to the discussion. One side insists that allowing any articles about specific players will lead to abuse of the wiki as a whole and rampant disregard for the wiki policies, resulting in chaotic and disorganized articles and lowering the quality and benefit of the wiki overall. The other side (currently supported by TibiaWiki:Policy) asserts that information about certain players is interesting and relevant to the entire Tibia community, and therefore should be included in the main article base to benefit the TibiaWiki community. With the current state of the wiki and my understanding of the situation, I agree with the second side, that articles about specific players can be interesting, relevant, and beneficial to the TibiaWiki community, as long as they are well-written, accurate, and limited to players and information that concern more than themselves.

As the wiki has grown (over 8,000 registered users at the time of this writing), there is a definite need for objectivity in articles, and the site should be a true encyclopedia of information about the game. I feel that this includes some information about certain specific players as well as some information specific to individual gameworlds.

To address the specific issue of in-game events. I digress. The relevency of specific in-game events might, in certain circumstances, be allowable. The facility exists to keep them organized, but history has proven that they will not stay updated. I find myself at total indifference whether in-game events are included or not. As I said, I consider myself a servant of the public interest. Since this particular issue does not strike me as being especially beneficial or detrimental, I will fully support the majority opinion in this case.

Since the issue of specific player pages has arisen so frequently, I will make an article to organize the pages, and to provide clear guidelines that are understandable and enforcable by all of the admins.

-- WhitelacesTalk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 08:33, 14 September 2006 (PDT)

Suspicious template

I think we need a template that we could add at the top of an item/monster/etc page that would basically tell the user that the content is highly suspicious/inaccurate and that proof is needed. I think Wikipedia have similar such templates? It would need to be intrusive enough that people actually read it. That way, we wouldn't necessarily need to delete potentially bogus items straight away. --Erig 01:42, 14 September 2006 (PDT)


Way ahead of you, Erig. I made Template:Disputed about a month ago, used it in one article, and then forgot about it.

I'll update the template a little, but please use it wherever you think is necessary. Now that my memory has been refreshed, I will try to also place it in articles that need it.

Just add

{{Disputed}}

to an article to include the template.

-- WhitelacesTalk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 07:22, 14 September 2006 (PDT)

Page Lopator seems to be User-Page

Page Lopator seems to be a User-Page, that should be moved to User:Lop

Ereglam —> May the Force be with you <—  06:03, 14 September 2006 (PDT)


I moved the page. Thanks!

-- WhitelacesTalk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 07:16, 14 September 2006 (PDT)

Date format and it's interpretation

The date 08/09/2006 may be interpreted differently in different parts of the world. Namely in the US it is normaly interpreted as mm/dd/yyyy, whereas in europe it is rather interpreted as dd/mm/yyyy: 09.AUG.2006 vs. 08.SEP.2006

In order to have a common basis I suggest using (the US-military) style dd.mmm.yyyy => 08.SEP.2006 .

References: Level, Sunrise etc.

EreglamMay the Force be with you ←  07:34, 19 September 2006 (PDT)


That is a genuine concern that I had not considered before.

The assumption can be made that dates on the wiki should be/are in US format. This can be verified by looking at the dates in later parts of the month (08/23/2006 could not possibly be in the format dd/mm/yyyy).

In order to remove all doubt or confusion, I agree that it should be more clearly distinguishable. The main problem is enforcement. It is nearly impossible to "force" people to use a specific format. It will primarily be a matter of just changing it wherever we can, and then gradually most people will start to follow our example.

As long as the date is clear, I'm not very concerned about what format it is in. The US-Military format you suggested is very readable.

-- WhitelacesTalk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 11:05, 19 September 2006 (PDT)


Well, that's really the point. Me being from good old Europe, I would normaly read the dates on the level page as:

  • Bubble getting level 100 on 23.APR.2002 (which is not a problem, as you can't misread this one)
  • Bubble getting level 200 on 05.DEC.2004 (but in the US it would be 12.MAY.2004, which I suppose would be the correct date)
  • Sunrise getting level 100 on 09.AUG.2004 (although I think it was 08.SEP.2006)

Of cause one could say, that it doesn't make a difference, but that would not qualify for precise and correct information inside a wiki. Therfore I cannot agree on leaving it the way it is.

Also, Tibia is a German invented game, which could be regarded as another reason, not to imply an US-oriented point of view. But then again, afaik Erig comes from the US...

Therefore the question is:

  1. who is going to check and update the mentioned pages using an undisputable format?
  2. how are other dates found and adjusted, if neccessary?

PS: I once worked for the US-Army...

EreglamMay the Force be with you ←  03:03, 20 September 2006 (PDT)


I come from Australia, not the US. Anyway, I suggest using YYYY-MM-DD, or 2006-09-20, etc., "05.DEC.2004" is... ugly, "05 Dec 2004" would be neater, I guess. --Erig 03:49, 20 September 2006 (PDT)


oops... Now that is a really big grease pot (kein Fettnäpfchen, eher ein Fetttopf: as one would say in Germany)... ;-)

Hm, yeah, that's even better. YYYY-MM-DD is the only format, that will sort dates correctly in chronological order... Although I prefere the '.' (dot) as a delimiter...

Btw.: I've got some relatives down there, mostly in Victoria and Tassi...

EreglamMay the Force be with you ←  04:02, 20 September 2006 (PDT)


I'm inclined to agree with Erig. While keeping the dates unambiguous, it is still important to make sure the articles still look good.

As far as a delimiter, a hyphen is more universally used than a period (outside of the military). Also, when reading, a period would essentially break the flow of an article. Visually, a hyphen or space would be easier on the eyes. (To learn more about this, there are plenty of articles on the differences between block, serif, and san serif fonts, and how they affect the appearance of words and paragraphs)

"dd MMMM yyyy" is the format that the wiki natively uses for dates (just check most user signatures), but it is a little unwielding to type dates out like that all the time. I guess my preference (if I have to choose one) would be "YYYY-MM-DD".

-- WhitelacesTalk † χρισtoς αnεσtη, αληθως αnεσtη -- 07:02, 20 September 2006 (PDT)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.