User talk:NilePenguin

Good bye red link!

Teehee, hai. Just thought i'd beat Niel in welcoming you to the wiki :3! Have fun watching me fail! --aut (t) 14:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems you did it. l33t interrupt skillz :3 NilePenguin 14:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for the welcome, and hi. :D NilePenguin 14:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Aqua's design

Hi.

I saw your edits here and here.

• Google Chrome not being fully compatible (yet!) is a known bug. To see how the current version of the page appears, you should try using Firefox or Opera for an optimal experience. Internet Explorer also seems to be fine, but I would never recommend that anyone use it. Ever.

• If Aqua's design is chosen, some .css code will be added site-wide as part of the implementation. To view it in the meantime, this code must be added on a per-user basis. The code can be found here. If you would like assistance using this code yourself, please tell me which skin you use. The default is called Monobook. The information can be found in the Appearance tab.

I know for a fact you have not added the custom .css code, so it's to be expected that you are unable to properly view Aqua's design as of this time (obviously, photos are an exception to this). I must ask that you refrain from stating that the headers do not work / don't display for you / variations on this theme, until such time you try viewing it with a supported browser and with the .css code applied.

This isn't a "stfu" post. As said in the second bullet point, I'm more than happy to help you, and if you've any questions I'll certainly try to answer them. I'm just trying to avoid confusion being caused as the discussions regarding changing the main page design are extensive enough as it is.

Thanks! A F K When Needed 04:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's up to you, but you may want to copy this instead.

Aqua is making extensive use of personal .css, and you don't need all of it just for his design. If you want all of it then that is of course fine, just thought I'd let you know.

If you do decide to copy it from my page instead (caveat: which is not updated as often), copy it to the same page, not your vector.css :) A F K When Needed 11:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Craftable

For every other row in the triple attribute prefix table, a checkmark in the craftable column means that you can craft weapons, armor, and trinkets with that attribute combination. For Giver's and Winter, you can't; you can only craft one of those three things for each of those rows (unless you know something I don't). And the Gemstone column isn't there to indicate that trinkets are craftable, it's there to list an alternate name that also corresponds to the same three attributes (or at least that's how I understood it).

Since these are the first three rows of the table where the answer to "what's craftable?" was something other than "nothing" or "everything", I wanted to put new values in that column to indicate the difference. I don't think everyone looking at that table will necessarily make exactly the same assumptions that you seem to be making, and therefore won't infer the information if it isn't spelled out somehow.

But if you absolutely must erase those particular relevant details from the page, you should at least do it the same way on the single- and double-attribute prefix tables for consistency. --Felbryn 16:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any relevant details I'm removing - Giver's (armor) or Givers's (weapon) already shows the limit. If you want to do it your way, you should add "trinkets" to the craftable column for Emeralds as well. I honestly think it's more confusing when you add double information. Though yeah, I overlooked the single and double attribute lists. Sorry for the late response, I've been away over the holidays. -- NilePenguin 15:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really comfortable relying on the name column to express the crafting limits; the (armor) and (weapon) parts aren't part of the in-game names, they're just something I made up to distinguish two entries that would otherwise look identical (I'm actually kind of frustrated that they used a single name for what would have six different names under previous conventions).

Suppose in the next major patch ArenaNet releases new attribute combinations that are weapon-only and armor-only, but this time gives them different names? Would you want to have the table list "Shiny (weapon)" and "Cool (armor)" as the prefix names, if there's nothing else in the game called "Shiny" or "Cool"? Similarly, do you think that the "Winter" prefix currently in the table should be listed as "Winter (trinket)"? If not, then I think readers shouldn't be relying on that column to get that information, so it needs to appear somewhere else if we're going to track it.

Regarding the extra "Emerald" column, trinkets actually get the Knight's stats (with toughness primary); only the gemstones/jewels in the trinkets' upgrade slots have precision primary. So that definitely should not list "trinkets" in the craftable column. It could arguably say "jewels", but if we go to that level of detail then the Winter prefix probably needs to say "trinkets and jewels" and the Knight's prefix needs to say "weapons, armor, and trinkets (but not jewels)", which is getting pretty complicated for a table column.

I suppose one could argue that the "craftable" column should be split into 4 columns, or that it should be removed entirely and people can go to the crafting pages or Equipment acquisition by stats for that information... --Felbryn 18:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering the mess it's becoming, the latter actually sounds tempting, though perhaps the easier and more elegant solution is just having a sign for "partially" instead of just 1 and -. Click it and get sent on to Equipment acquisition by stats for details. Maybe a yellow 1. Yeah, I'm annoyed to about "Giver's" signifying two different kinds of objects, but nought we can do about it that looks better than this, I think. -- NilePenguin 17:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)