User talk:Just cute

 __NOWYSIWYG__ Symposium

You have reached the talk page of the user: Just cute , which she is known in-game as Fashionable.

Standard rules and format apply to when you post on a talk page. Thus, these are no doubt mandated when you are posting on this talk page.

Please do remember to annex a header for a new discussion, and sign it with four tildes at the end of your post.

Don't be coy
Watching recent changes over the past few days, I can't help but notice your name popping up every now and then. It's great seeing a budding new editor, but it's disheartening to see them not interacting with the community. There's nothing wrong with editing alone, but don't feel hesitant to pop into the onsite chat or IRC channel if you ever have a question to ask or want someone to talk to. 13:57, January 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * You are a very good editor. We need more people like you :). Like Mol said, join us in one of the chats! :D. 21:55, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

Spelling
Hello, Just cute. Your recent edit used American English. Per the style guide, British English should be used in articles, so please try to adhere to these guidelines in subsequent edits. Thanks. 10:20, May 5, 2014 (UTC)

Colors
Hi, I'm using the in-game colors from the color selection, which are exactly the same:

Show/Hide Image

http://i.imgur.com/XoUEHb1.png

Using colors obtained from elsewhere would be misleading because 1) they are not used in game on the selection and 2) if you obtain it from the model, there are about 200 different colors used. Making note that the colors are different when in use is fine (and I knew that the were), but please leave the template alone. It was meant to emulate the in game selector, and you're making it inaccurate. 14:45, August 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we both find this reasonable? 15:16, August 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean removing "Igneous blue is noticeably darker."? 15:34, August 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * I find the recolors are a useful bit of information. I'd open up discussion on the talk page if you want to discuss their removal. 15:37, August 14, 2014 (UTC)
 * You're more than free to take a shot at rewording it. 15:49, August 14, 2014 (UTC)

Explanation
I reverted this edit and thought I'd explain why it is like that.

Most item pages have a "detail" image somewhere near the top. In the majority of cases this is done by dropping the item on the ground and zooming in with the orb of oculus as much as possible. For destroyable items, however, this is not possible. The "detail" image on those is usually just the picture from the destroy confirmation.

Some destroyable weapons, it was found, are sheathed on the back with no visible sheath/strap/holder. For these particular items, the "detail" image is got by sheathing them and zooming in as far as possible. That is the case with the spear of despite. It just looks weird because no one's got round to doing the necessary editing to the image. 14:20, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * I sincerely apologise for not being able to magically fit an 896 character explanation into an edit summary box, preferring instead to put it on the other person's talk page. Next time I won't bother leaving any explanation at all. 14:31, September 10, 2014 (UTC)
 * If we don't have an image then either no one bothered to take it, or there is something impeding the view. Or it got forgotten about, that happens sometimes. 14:32, September 10, 2014 (UTC)

Saving space
Just in case you're trying to save some space on your talk page for that image, it may just be simpler to replace the direct image link with the following, to produce this result: http://i.imgur.com/XoUEHb1.png. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 16:33, September 10, 2014 (UTC) http://i.imgur.com/XoUEHb1.png

RE
I don't really see the point. It's pretty distracting to color text, and in this case, the title isn't necessarily more important than the rest of the text. It'd be best to leave it plain. 19:33, September 23, 2014 (UTC)

Titles
You did quite a bit of work on the page, and I'm looking for a second opinion.

What do you think of the table of contents? Should it be how it currently is, showing sections and subsections; or should it be like [ this version's] (ignore how the whole page is broken there, just focus on the ToC), showing only the main sections? I think the shorter one looks better, but the longer one seems much more useful, really ambivalent on this. Thoughts? 13:40, September 28, 2014 (UTC)

Your edits
To be frankly and brutally honest, whoever was praising you was probably just ignoring the problems in your edits and focusing on the good.

Your tenses are a mess, you mix up words quite frequently, and your grammar needs some work. You're good at citing things properly, but your actual ability to write prose is lacking. It's going to take me a while to fix up your recent edits, because no one else is actually willing to, and I was putting it off because of the sheer number of mistakes you made in places.

If you could improve upon the points I made, it would be much better for everyone. 17:54, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, after seeing your message on my talk page:


 * You're an arrogant and petulant child, who cannot take any form of criticism or censure. Please go grow up and come back when you're capable of accepting that this is a wiki and your edits will be corrected if they're wrong in any way. 17:56, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I have managed to fix all of your mistakes. In future, if you are going to merely paraphrase from old news articles, could you please make some effort to change the tense throughout your whole edit, rather than applying the "spray and pray" approach you appear to have applied on such articles as Sizzling Summer, Mad May and Wild Weekends. 18:42, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

Enough
Your edit was let through anyways. Don't be so arrogant, declaring people to 'tamper' or have the 'right' to edit what you made. It's very off-putting. If you wish to continue to contribute, please don't be so protective of them. You don't own the articles. 17:57, September 29, 2014 (UTC)

RE
I don't see any value in collapsing titles on a page about titles. I'd rather focus on making the page legible than hiding parts of it. The page is of reasonable length, and I think it's very fluid in how it presents the titles along with the prose. I mean, the page is kind of a list, so you shouldn't worry about it being listy. It really just makes more sense for someone reading a list of titles to scroll further down instead of hiding sections individually. 16:33, October 4, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Sortable Tables
I'm afraid I cannot help you with your issue. My knowledge of the wikia coding doesn't extend that far. Either User:Cqm or User:The Mol Man will likely be able to help you figure out the problem/fix it. On an unrelated note, please sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ) instead of only three: the date should be included. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 11:32, October 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd poke Cqm. I usually can't get sortable tables to work either. 17:28, October 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * On further unrelated notes, I have never stated my gender, and yay for copy paste grammar: "sadly they doesn't". Good luck finding a solution though; if even Mol can't get it to work... IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 17:48, October 6, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sortable tables are a bit of a pain. They essentially work by testing the first cell under each column to see if it matches a known type and then sorts it according to that. The data-sort-type attribute you've come across allows us to get in the way of that auto-detection, but even that's not completely infallible. There's also the data-sort-value attribute that allows us to manually submit a value to sort instead of what's in the cell. I've added that functionality to NA as the data-sort parameter, but for some reason that's not working either which is really confusing me. I'll have a look at it properly sometime in the next week and if I can't figure out I'll pass it on to wikia's devs to see if they can figure out what's going on with it, or possibly submit a bug in to mediawiki directly.
 * If possibly, could you list some more examples of where else it's not working? It would be really helpful to create something easily reproducible which is best done with lots of examples.
 * It could be down to the rowspans. Are those used because they happen to have the same values, or is it also used in cases where you can get two animations with one purchase?
 * Well, the rowspans can cause issues with sorting. For example what happens if you sort by one column that has separate values for each row, but then sort by another column that has cells with rowspans? If I was designing such a system, I'd make sure to split the rowspans into separate rows with the same value, then sort. I think that's more or less how the things works too.
 * Honestly, I think the problem is caused by NA but I'm having trouble understanding why. The script for sorting is rather complex and not written by mediawiki developers. It's also a bit behind the version you'd likely find if you googled jquery tablesorter, so I'm not sure how much of the docs are relevant which makes it harder to debug again.

Re: Regarding Your Undo
Colossus Armour's normal price is 279 coins, it is currently available for 65 coins. 65 is 23.297% of 279, which is a price reduction of give or take 77%. Not 70%. I don't care what the advertisement says, maths are correct. And this is the first instance where I noticed a price reduction that was, apart from rounding errors, not a proper round (divisible by 5) discount percentage.

Please do not use my talk page to rant and tell me to "get my facts straight". If you disagree with my choices, give me arguments or proof instead. Maths trump advertisements.

As for the coloured titles, feel free to add the colours. I never said those were a problem. My reason for reverting everything as a whole was that currently the title links to the actual title on the titles article, instead of just to the top of the article. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 11:00, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a wikia documenting information. There is no requirement for information to be "copy paste of the source". We want correct information, and in this case the correct information are the actual prices, not the "advertisement information". Examine texts, item names and dialogue copied exactly as given ingame, are completely unrelated to this. If you instead wish to document the exact cost before and after the price reduction, be my guest. There is also no problem with showing a non-rounded percentage if that is the correct information. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 11:17, October 18, 2014 (UTC)

Deal of the Day edit war
FYI, if you don't knock it off, you both risk a temp ban. You should argue on a talk page, then edit the article. -- 11:19, October 18, 2014 (UTC)


 * (this is in reply to your most recent message on IP's talk page) If you want to both come to a compromise, I suggest putting the advertised value(s) by Jagex but then afterwards saying the real one. Putting it in trivia seems unnecessary and editors may not see the ref notes, and the last thing we want to do is put it at the end of the article where it may be hard to notice.
 * Yes that sounds good and is consistent with other occurrences in the past.
 * I am fine with stating both the actual discount rate as well as whatever it is advertised as. However, I stated that this specific instance was the first time that I noticed the discount percentage did not match. I never said there was a previous case. In my opinion, either both should be clearly part of the table, or the incorrect/inexact advertisement price should be trivia or in a reference note.
 * You liked comparisons to other articles/data: if a piece of food heals 1400 (at any Constitution level), but the tooltip ingame says it heals 1200, the article itself should still state 1400. The fact that the ingame tooltip says 1200 would either be ignored by most, or be at best a trivia bullet.
 * And to completely resolve the edit conflict: the specific title entries should link to their actual section on the titles article, not simply to the main article. I saw no reason to generalise the link, when a more specific link is more useful and applicable. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 12:00, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks fine.