User talk:Sol Solus

artificer subpages

Why did you undo all the moves of those subpages? The pages named after materials are inaccurate, since artificers do not use only wood in their recipes, which is why the pages were moved to use the rank names instead. —Dr Ishmael 17:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The original Artificer recipe table stood out as an inconsistency in that sense. All weaponsmithing uses a mix of wood and metal, and, like Huntsman, wood is used in all artificer recipes. Sol Solus (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

All the crafting profession subpages need to be organized by rank name.--Relyk ~ talk < 18:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll work on reformatting all crafting recipe tables and moving all subpages. Sol Solus (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because one page is different from all the other pages doesn't mean that one page is wrong. It's inconsistent, yes, but we should examine the overall situation and decide which alternative is best. In this case, using rank names is definitely best, because it can be applied with 100% consistency across all eight disciplines. —Dr Ishmael 18:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I've seen you working on the Weaponsmith and Hunstman subpages now, but you haven't moved them to use the rank names yet. Just curious why? —Dr Ishmael 02:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought I'd finish the subpages first then do the moves when I plan to harmonize the main pages. Sol Solus (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I leave you to it then! —Dr Ishmael 02:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

ascended weapons in recipe tables

No ascended weapon recipes are discovered, they're all learned from recipe sheets. That's why they didn't show up when you had |source=discovery in there. —Dr Ishmael 20:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw your fix shortly after. Sol Solus (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't use the source parameter, use discipline = <discipline> to constrain the table :)--Relyk ~ talk < 21:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

For weapons, that's redundant, since each weapon type is only craftable by a single discipline. For everything else on the discipline subpages, yes, discipline is a necessary parameter. —Dr Ishmael 22:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

re: [1]

I fixed template:recipe table to allow for rank 500. I also corrected all of my API-generated recipe templates that had "Speargun" instead of "Harpoon gun" for recipe type. (It seems that Anet can't even agree internally on the names for spear/harpoon and harpoon gun/speargun.) —Dr Ishmael 00:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that was quick. Would be nice if there were more general types too like Weapon and Armor. Sol Solus (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Weaponsmith/Deldrimor Steel recipes seems to be stuck in some kind of limbo after I tried to move it and got a 502 error. It has the new title and old address and is resisting further moves. Sol Solus (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Got it to move now. For future moves like this, you can blank the page (at least remove all the recipe table templates), move the page, then revert. That will let the move go smoothly without having to reparse all the templates at the same time. (I didn't do that this time because I wasn't certain what sort of state the page was in and didn't want to lose the content permanently.) —Dr Ishmael 12:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

<discipline> recipe navs

Just wanted to say thanks for adopting the odd formatting I implemented in the other two, I just thought it looked a tiny bit too tall previously :D -Chieftain Alex 07:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You have an eye for details. 4 pixels! My OCD empathizes. Sol Solus (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Wool, silk, etc

Why do you think they should go to the scrap page and not the bolt? --JonTheMon (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Just following the precedent set by the metal redirects (Platinum, Mithril, so on). And the search is likely to be done by a player who has just found the scrap in their inventory.

Fair enough. Just wondering. --JonTheMon (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

Stuff like crafting professions doesn't get capitalized, they aren't proper nouns. :)--Relyk ~ talk < 06:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok I guess that makes sense. :) Sol Solus (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

delete tagging

if tagging a redirect page for deletion, make sure to throw it at the top of the page so it stops redirecting <3 -Auron 12:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I wanted the redirect to work until the page was deleted in case the SMW cache was still providing people with the old version of the linking page but I should have just waited a day. Sol Solus (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

[2]

Fixed by adding missing level to the major attribute lookup for boots (boots bonus amount (+6) shared with gloves + shoulderpads) -90.217.231.103 09:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Still deciphering how these templates work. Sol Solus (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Cat slot.png to File:Toy slot.png ‎(That's not a cat.)

How did we all miss this!--Relyk ~ talk < 04:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I spent a moment trying to think if cat stood for something else... category? concatenate? Then I realized that the picture could be mistaken for a stuffed lion. Sol Solus (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Recipe Name: Promote X

I disagree with your decision to take away the recipe name out of the recipe boxes. While I understand that it is not an actual canonical name for the recipe, I don't think having the name simply being X ore, X ingot, etc. is good either. This is because for refined materials, the recipe name is already used by the actual crafting recipe of smelting ore into ingots, and so forth. There's also cases like platinum ore, where there are two promotion methods to obtain the result. I think its useful to have a specific name for these recipes, since it makes it clear what is actually taking place, the promotion of a certain material. Psycho Robot (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a canonical name that can be seen in-game, but the presentation of the table implies that the thing in the title is what is the recipe is making 40-190 of. I think the source, type, and ingredients make it clear what is going on, regardless if we choose to call it promoting, transmuting, etc., and the end product is the same item. Sol Solus (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Its true that for most recipe boxes, the name is simply the item being produced, but its not inherently set up that way. It just so happens that most canonical recipe names are only the item name. However one such case where the recipe name follows the pattern of "promote X" is the Transmogrify Ruby Orb recipe. Not only is this a recipe named after the process and not just the resultant item, but it is very similar to promotion of materials in terms of what it does. That's part of the reason I chose to give the recipes a name that wasn't just the item name. Psycho Robot (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You can see (and I checked in-game that the article is correct) that the name of that recipe contains end product. In which case, continuing to use Platinum Ore as an example, naming both recipes "Promote Platinum Ore" would be more correct, and still would not differentiate the two recipes by name. I do not oppose making such a change. Sol Solus (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Dammit, you're right! I still prefer it be promote x but at this point it has no precedent. Oh also the fact that we had this disagreement and the fact that you won it means we are now mortal enemies. Psycho Robot (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Only if I let you be :) Sol Solus (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Deldrimor Steel Ingot

So, funny thing, I totally thought I was on the Deldrimor Steel Plated Dowel page and was completely annoyed when my 450 dude couldn't craft it. That might explain why I was completely off. --JonTheMon (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Knowing that you're not a random newb, I was fearing for your sanity. Sol Solus (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

New Ascended Chests

New ascended chests only drop in Fractals and they are like this: "Healer's Chest of Ascended Shoulder". You can't choose the piece of armor you want. The old chests still drop from any other acquisition that appears on this page Ascended chest. It's just for you to know that there is no item named like this "Defender's Chest of Ascended Armor". W.Wolf (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah. OK, I'll fix it and make that part more clear. Sol Solus (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I remember one guy from my server posting one of the new chests as drop in WvW. Though I cant' confirm if and where exactly they drop. --Soulblydd (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

They drop so rarely, that would be hard confirm since the patch notes say nothing about them dropping anywhere else. Sol Solus (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Gemstones template

You added a placeholder link for "Gemstone nav" to Pebble, Nugget, Lump, Shard, Crystal, and Orb back in November, but the template itself has yet to be added. There's a draft Gemstones template in your sandbox; were you waiting on feedback from others before updating these pages? If you are uncertain if the template is suitable and are still working on it, I believe the red links should be removed until you are ready to add it. --Cali (talk) 11:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it's taken care of now. Sol Solus (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries. :) Looks like you were on a semi-hiatus, but you have returned with a vengeance. Nice to see the gem template added and all of your other edits. --Cali (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

dropped by

Even though you are replacing the template, we will have to add it back eventually...--Relyk ~ talk < 18:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

So you'll be adding level filtering to Template:Dropped by? I suppose I should stick with the template then. Sol Solus (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

assume any functionality provided by the template in the future will be whatever is currently there. Do as you like, you're improving the pages either way. -Chieftain Alex 18:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Ascended Insignia

Since you went to the trouble of creating that table, I'll ask you: are the attribute bonus numbers in all of the inscription/insignia tables really important? If so, it's the exact same progression for every variation (106/76 chest, 71/50 legs, etc.) besides celestial, so do those numbers really need to be repeated for every single row in the table? —Dr Ishmael 05:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually copied over the existing table from Armorsmith/Grandmaster recipes for transclusion, since it was getting retarded updating 3 redundant tables to make 1 addition. So a single table may be neater for that. I guess it's not really necessary, it's just that any method of simplification may get messy with, say, Silk Insignia, where there are actually 4 sets of stats (counting the first 3 fine insignia) and Giver's doing it own thing. Sol Solus (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What I'm trying to get at is that the exact numbers on equipment don't really matter. If you've got an ascended greatsword, then you've got the highest stats possible, and it doesn't really matter what the numbers are because you can't improve on them; if you only have a level 80 exotic, then you're 5% below the highest stats, and it still doesn't matter what the exact numbers are because the only improvement you can make is exactly 5%. Anything else, no one cares. Furthermore, we already list the exact numbers on the output item pages (e.g. Pearl Broadsword/Zojja's Claymore) which, to me, makes it redundant to list them on the inscription/insignia pages.

I'm not arguing against you, specifically; I'm arguing against the system that's been in place that you just happened to copy and become a target for. :) —Dr Ishmael 13:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the numbers are useful, because it lets you see if it's worth crafting an upgrade over that random loot sword you found, or if it's worth going for that rare sword over the masterwork version (it usually isn't). However, for the tables to actually fulfill that purpose, they would need to include defense/strength numbers, which are too varied to include, and as you said, are available in better detail on the item pages. (That said, [[Ascended Claymore|ascended weapon pages]] need to be brought in line with their lesser counterparts.) I'll remove the numbers. Sol Solus (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hard Wood Plank Forging

I think you edited the Hard Wood Plank page to add mystic forging. I can not replicate the use of 250 Season Wood Plank, 1 Hard Wood, 5 Pile of Luminous Dust, 6 Philosopher Stone. I think the dust part is wrong. Is there a correct recipe? 98.110.161.54 15:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Answered my own question. I changed it wiki to reflect Radiant Dust instead of Liminous. 98.110.161.54

Thanks for fixing it. -Chieftain Alex 16:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)