FANDOM


m (RE)
m (RE)
Line 141: Line 141:
   
 
:[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#contrast-ratiodef Please familiarize yourself with proper web content accessibility standards] {{Signatures/The Mol Man}} 16:48, December 6, 2014 (UTC)
 
:[http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#contrast-ratiodef Please familiarize yourself with proper web content accessibility standards] {{Signatures/The Mol Man}} 16:48, December 6, 2014 (UTC)
  +
::Congratulations. But, believe it or not, this wiki wasn't made for you specifically. Because anyone is allowed to read it, then anyone should be allowed to access its content. That includes (especially) easily readable content. There are people out there with color blindness and other vision-related disabilities. Your arrogance over this is selfish, offensive, and downright despicable. {{Signatures/The Mol Man}} 17:03, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:03, December 6, 2014

__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.

Welcome!

Wiki-wordmark

Hello, Just cute, and welcome to the RuneScape Wiki! Here are a few pages that you might find helpful:

If you have any trouble or need help, feel free to ask questions on my talk page or any other editor's talk page. We hope you like it here and decide to stay! Honour Coelacanth0794 Talk Square sandwich 16:47, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

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. MolMan 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. User:Jr Mime/Signature 21:55, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

Spelling

Information icon  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. Small recharge gem AnselaJonla Slayer-icon 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
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. MolMan 14:45, August 14, 2014 (UTC)

Do we both find this reasonable? MolMan 15:16, August 14, 2014 (UTC)
You mean removing "Igneous blue is noticeably darker."? MolMan 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. MolMan 15:37, August 14, 2014 (UTC)
You're more than free to take a shot at rewording it. MolMan 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. Small recharge gem AnselaJonla Slayer-icon 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. Small recharge gem AnselaJonla Slayer-icon 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. Small recharge gem AnselaJonla Slayer-icon 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 <no-REMOVETHIS-wiki>http://i.imgur.com/XoUEHb1.png</no-REMOVETHIS-wiki>]

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. MolMan 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? MolMan 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. Small recharge gem AnselaJonla Slayer-icon 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. Small recharge gem AnselaJonla Slayer-icon 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. Small recharge gem AnselaJonla Slayer-icon 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. Honour Coelacanth0794 Talk Square sandwich 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. MolMan 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. MolMan 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. User:Cqm/Signature
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?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cqm (talk).
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. User:Cqm/Signature

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. --User:Saftzie/Signature 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. Ozank Cx 11:34, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
Yes that sounds good and is consistent with other occurrences in the past. Ozank Cx 11:44, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
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. Ozank Cx 12:43, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
Can you please also leave the September sales uncollapsed and under October. Because the page documents current information, it makes the most sense to have the recent stuff first. It's also a small page, so collapsing a table is completely unnecessary. I'm tired of having to put it back in that way. MolMan 12:46, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that's all well and good that you think that, but:
  • "No other page does it" is not a good reason. And that's also false. Plenty of pages go in reverse chronological order; e.g. Game updates and Postbag from the Hedge. The page should really be in complete reverse chronological order, I've just been too lazy to fix the tables thus far.
  • I understand that you think the archived information should be hidden, but that's not really the case. If the deals of the day continue long enough that the page becomes long, then sure, we can can make a separate page to remove long dated material, but in the mean time, there's no reason to hide it. You realize that the page is about these daily offers and nothing else. What sense does it make to hide content on the page about it? You think that the normal reader understands collapsible content? That's actually false. When information is hidden, it confuses people, and I've had to explain to plenty of people how to display the collapsed content. Most recently about Sign of the porter.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by scroll friendly. Whatever the hell it's supposed to mean, I doubt it wants readers having to scroll all the way to the bottom. If you ask any seasoned expert, page readability is based on the length of the readable content and prose on a page. Scrolling is a thing your browser can do, and there has never been a legitimate reason to avoid it. Your argument about TOC also works against you. If you can easily reach a month from the table of contents, then what use is collapsing everything else?
Again, this is a page about daily deals, and it's to be expected to have the daily deals on it. You also haven't really listed any pros other than speculation and false assumptions. MolMan 13:46, October 18, 2014 (UTC)
You'd probably do well not to make baseless accusations. Notice how my reasons contained logic rather than "I like the article this way, so it should stay this way." You should avoid trying to persecute people when you get trumped in argument. MolMan 17:19, October 18, 2014 (UTC)

Deal of the Day

While I agree that this definitely should be included, you are breaking your own stance on "showing the information as provided by Jagex". The Lobby Deal of the Day banner/tile explicitly said "All Skilling Animations". IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 07:46, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

To be consistent with our previous debate, the table should contain "All skilling animations" (direct information from Jagex) while the 'discrepancies' section should be used to explain that it wasn't really everything. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 08:29, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Deal of the Day... AGAIN

I was just making sure on the date, as from what I remembered they said it would last for "one week", which'd strictly end on Sunday the 30th. We'll see whether or not it is still available on the 1st of December.

As for the rows, a few links to dates are simply not good enough of a reason to include all of them as separate rows, making the table needlessly higher. Noting a range has all information relevant for the table, aka all the 'vital information'. I will await your reply, and if we cannot reach an agreement I suggest we include a third party, because I cannot agree to making the table larger for such a pointless reason. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 12:02, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

Simply linking to dates does not constitute "vital information". The date column is used to indicate when the rest of the information in the same row was relevant. There is no need to explicitly list all dates, when a date range is a complete and compact representation of exactly the same information. To explicitly answer your first bullet: I am thus not excluding any information. Links are not information either. To answer the second part of your second bullet: there is thus no reason why date ranged should be excluded from a "Date" column: it represents exactly the same information.
Secondly, writing something in a nutshell, without exlcuding information, is in no way lazy nor is it bad. It can even be considered cleaner and easier to understand.
Maybe there are other tables that could benefit from a similar cleaning. This specific instance stood out because listing all dates creates seven rows, when one would strictly be enough. The only downside here is the width of the table, which is why I had to settle for three rows, potentially two. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 12:41, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

Signatures

Hello, it has come to my attention that you have been signing your edits lately without using a time stamp. While it is not a solid rule on the wiki, most editors appreciate it if you do sign your edits with a time stamp, so that they know when you have signed an edit. I would greatly appreciate it if you would use a time stamp in your signature in the future by signing with ~~~~ rather than ~~~. User:ThePsionic/Sig/2

RE

Yes, and it's hard to read. The shadows don't help. Don't sacrifice readability for trivial accuracy. MolMan 16:31, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

Don't use white text on a white background. Why do I need to state this. Do what you want in your userspace; mainspace, readability trumps it. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 16:42, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

Hi I came here from RC. "If you can't read it, it's your own problem, not mine, not the readers, not anyone else. You." - Surely at that point he is one of the readers? Ancient talisman Oil4 Talk 16:48, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with proper web content accessibility standards MolMan 16:48, December 6, 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations. But, believe it or not, this wiki wasn't made for you specifically. Because anyone is allowed to read it, then anyone should be allowed to access its content. That includes (especially) easily readable content. There are people out there with color blindness and other vision-related disabilities. Your arrogance over this is selfish, offensive, and downright despicable. MolMan 17:03, December 6, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.