User talk:Lint

Search Odds

hey.. thanks for the nod in the search odds! As I guess you noticed I was working on something.. I think it should work ok, but I am worried it may, due to the colspan thing, be complicated and prone to error for the uninitiated. Take a look, it is on my talk page.. http://wiki.shartak.com/index.php/User_talk:Fitzcarraldo I left out the actual check boxes for items for now, but I think they could be added :) Let me know if you think it would work? Fitzcarraldo 11:44, 22 February 2006 (GMT)

thanks again for your comments, I added a response to try to explain the approach I am trying to take. Nonetheless I would like to prove it out to see what doesn't work. :) I am going to give it a test over the next week (Search odds condensed)where I will add data and then try to analyze it. The more data the better so you are welcome to add as well if you would like! Fitzcarraldo 15:19, 22 February 2006 (GMT)

Data from the first trial I have put up for analysis, here Search odds condensed (results) not really enough data, but interesting nonetheless I think. I have redone the table, it did not work as easily as I had hoped, too much of a pain to have to look up territory types. :| Anyhow, thought you would be interested in the results. -- Fitzcarraldo 18:25, 2 March 2006 (GMT)

hello lint.. a user put your search odds on the front page, I reverted that change back to the condensed page.. I hope that is a-ok. please see talk on their user page [1] to see what I left for the user (do you think we should track classes and type.. native shaman for example?.. that makes collation exponential as you must understand) as they also had changed the Search odds condensed reporting table including classes and then saying the condensed page didn't have a table (it does) pointing people to your Search odds page.. I am not looking to cause any trouble, if people want to use the regular Search odds.. that is super cool, in fact it seems you added the condensed without adding the search odds on the front page.. honestly, at the moment it would just be cool if users added data to something somewhere!? (btw, it seems you were behind the main page update.. it looks good, good job!) -- fitzcarraldo|^T 15:47, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Search Odds Data Collection format

My request for comments about using tables is the first section of Talk:Search odds condensed. --Tycho44 20:20, 31 May 2006 (BST)

Village Pages

Hi Lint, just wanted to extend my appreciation for your helpful edits to the village pages. Nicely done! Cheers -- Berry 08:35, 14 March 2006 (GMT)

Shipwreck map

Thanks for fixing that shipwreck map so it's like the others. --Murk 21:33, 4 April 2006 (BST)

Locations

I like what you've done with the village/camp/town locations pages on the wiki, very nice. --Murk 22:32, 12 April 2006 (BST)

Bolding Change (Dalpok stock)

Dalpok has & had a blunt cutlass in stock both times, unless you bought it. Did you want me to mark both of those inventory reports with a (1) to show only one blunt cutlass was in stock? :) --Tycho44 20:01, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Special weapon event odds

I just created the page Special weapon event odds in the hopes that we'll be able to approximate odds for weapon breakage, dullage, and extra-damage-age as you and others have for searches. Any time you can invest in the project will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! — Elembis 12:03, 21 May 2006 (BST)

Capitalization and article names

I noticed you moved User Interface to User interface and then back again, and I'm curious as to why. I think articles with lowercase names are great, because it lets you link to pages [[like this]] instead of [[Like This|like this]]. — Elembis (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Response: User talk:Elembis#Capitalization and article names

I think what you're saying is that rarely-linked-to pages don't need lowercase names very badly — I agree. But in addition to uppercase names being a [[Bit of a Pain|bit of a pain]], I think you'd agree that they're distracting (e.g., Category:Clans for Natives and Category:Clans for both (which I think should be Category:Clans for everyone, BTW)), so I hope you won't mind if I start moving pages (and fixing links to them) on my own time. — Elembis (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Links and redirects

Original message: User talk:Elembis#Links and redirects

You're right, it makes future page moves easier if we link like [[this]] instead of like [[Page#This|this]], so feel free to use the former link style wherever you want. (The only problem is that you can't redirect to a section on a page, but that doesn't bother me.) I'm creating a page for XP (which XP Gains will redirect to), but redirects for AP and HP will probably be more appropriate than individual pages, since their summaries in Gameplay say all that needs to be said. — Elembis (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2006 (BST)

Healing Herb(s)

Act of first aggression: User talk:Elembis#Healing Herb(s)

Elembis attacks you for 3 damage. Actually, more redirects are fine with me. I prefer the singular form myself ("Villagers start with healing herbs" is vague, and "Villagers start with a healing herbs" is silly), but the game uses the plural. Perhaps we should petition Simon, or else start referring to healing herbs as pairs in the way that scissors and boxers are spoken of. =) — Elembis (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2006 (BST)

Style

Original message: User talk:Elembis#Style

I've responded with a list of changes my private Greasemonkey script makes. Thanks for starting the thread. I hope Simon won't find it's too much trouble to brush up the game's HTML. — Elembis (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Category:User

Original message can be found here

I've got no problem with that. To be honest, I had forgotten all about it.--Wifey 02:41, 10 June 2006 (BST)

Discussion locations for delete-marked pages

I'm glad you started a section on Category talk:Delete for redirects, and I think that page would be a good hub for all delete-related discussion. (I'm reminded that Wikipedia article delete requests are kept on the same page, more or less.) It'd also translate to fewer created talk pages (that would be deleted in some cases). What do you think? — Elembis (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Delete-marked redirects

Redirects marked for deletion (about 75 of them) are cluttering up the deletion page and the deletion discussion, making it difficult to find discussion of possible deletion for pages that actually matter. In my opinion, redirects are pretty trivial and I could take them or leave them (and imho our policy should be informed in part by whether new editors keep trying to add them back after deletion). By comparison, there are proposed deletions of pages that actually have (or historically had) content. Since it's been more than a month for Redirects, I propose that we Keep the Keeps, Delete the Deletes, clean them all off the Category:Delete page, and move on. --Tycho44 05:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)