I test it many times. If drink no potions, the enemis in High Level Difficulty is rare, almost imposibble to make them "Fly". Whereas it's very easy to let them "Fly" in low level difficulty even with no potions.
I guess maybe your level is higher or similar compare to the bandits ?
For me, they are much higher.
I think "Sign Effect" may depend on
1. Level difference between Geralt and enemy
2. Difficulty level of game setting
3. Potions and Mutations
Besides, thank you very much for modify the grammer about the info I put in. That makes the description much more clear and brief. Really apprecite your contribution to Wiki.
P.S. I'm not very familiar with Fandom Wiki. Hope the Message Wall is an efficiency way to commiucate with you. If not, please kindly tell me which way to discuss the page subject is better ? Thanks.
Ah, in that case it's better to say something like "on X difficulty, enemies rarely fly so it's better to be on Y or lower difficulty" to make it clear why it's easier on lower settings :) You can add it back if you wish.
And yes, message walls are the best way to communicate on Wikia.
You recently reverted my edit to the Ancient Leshen Decoction page. This edit was based on extensive testing I did with the decoction, using the latest game update for PC(1.31A)
According to my tests, the Ancient Leshen Decoction does not function in any way except when using the Axii sign. When the Axii sign is cast, it increases stamina regeneration by 5 points. This does not appear to have a cap, as I was able to increase my stamina regeneration from 13 to 355 before I got bored.
Hi, thanks for talking to me. The thing is, what's in the infobox is taken directly from the game description (has no points listed). However, if you wish, you can add it to the page itself to let readers know.
Unfortunately, any information added to the page itself won't be include in the aggregate page. Perhaps some sort of note could be added, indicating that the decoction is significantly bugged, and to look at the page itself? A little [bug] note, or something along those lines.
Of course, at that point, why not just indicate the actual effects in the description and the in-game description in the actual page? I'd wager that knowing what it actually does is more important information than knowing what the game says it does.
We can try adding a notes section to the potions page then just to clarify it (as well as note on the actual page). From what I've seen, it's not just that particular decoction that's effected by the weird bug.
The main reason is to keep information consistent across the main pages: basically generalized info on the amalagation pages and more technical info on the specific pages.
For that matter, what's the purpose in omitting a single numeral on one page just to force people to click through to the other page?
The difference is between "All signs increase stamina regen", which is both false and uninformative, and "Only Axii sign functions; Increases stamina regen by 5." Which is completely accurate and removes any need to go into the actual article.
It's reallly just to keep game information consistent across all items. For example, swords: expereienced players know the damg. is based on level which is randomized and so there's no definite damg. set (with the exception of a few witcher items). However, we still get those who keep trying to add/change damg. despite this. I've also seen numbers for some of the potions themselves change based on if it's a NG or NG+ (just haven't had time to go back and find all the ones effected by this). Likewise, the amalagation page isn't meant to act as a detailed listing, it's meant to just generalize the information and, if one wants to know more, goes to that page (for example, the Acid extract page gets a lot of individual views because of its importance in crafting, despite being on an amalagation page as well).
The best we can do is add a note at the top warning, but for most they know to go to the individual page to learn more or of any bugs.
Most potions work exactly as described, so saying that 'some' of them are bugged is basically just telling people they have to check each page individually for what each potion actually does, which completely devalues the aggregate page. At that point you might as well just go back to having only individual pages.
Look; the part containing the effect of the potion is literally called "Effect". Not "Description", but "Effect", as in, "What it actually does."
Why not put the actual effect in there, and then put the in-game description on the individual pages, when it doesn't match up with the reality, with a note there that there's a discrepancy?
That way people using the wiki can see what the potion actually does. If they notice the difference, they'll click through and see the explanation, and all problems are avoided.
Because it's not just potions that use that standard: all game items use the "effect" section so to change it just for one section would lead to confusion. Having a warning at the top of the amalagation page will suffice, especialy since it's not meant to be a detailed page.
You're making that page completely useless. The point of a wiki is to provide information to the players. If you're intentionally providing incorrect information and then making it more difficult to access any accurate information, you're subverting everything a wiki is supposed to be.
I've already told you: the list pages aren't meant to be fully detailed and readers aren't stupid: if they have an issue with a quest, for example, they go to that particular quest page to learn if it's a common issue, not the main list of quests. Same with the potions: we can point out at the very top certain potions have bugs and they tend to know to go to those particular pages listed to learn more if needed. We know game information doesn't always match with correct information, hence why Ciri's birth year has notes at the bottom, why a bug is pointed out on acid extract, and so forth.
There is zero reason why the effects section must 100% correlate with the in-game text, especially given the in-game text is wrong!
If people want to see what the game has to say, they can look in the actual game.
If people want to see what it actually does, that's when they go to the wiki. So why are we making those people's lives more difficult when we could just list it right there?
Let me rephrase this. If I'm looking for a list of monsters in world of warcraft, I want to see their names, their weaknesses, and their damage types. I don't give a damn if the lore on them says they're weak to fire if they're not actually weak to fire in-game.
Put that useless lore information on the actual page, so people who want to read it can. But the entire purpose of an aggregate page is to save time, time wasted searching through each and every page individually.
That purpose is completely null and void if the information presented is so wrong that they have to go through each page individually to make sure the information on the aggregate page is actually correct, and not just incorrect information foolishly preserved for the sake of posterity and looking pretty!
we like to follow a consistent format. This means all game item effects (not just 3, but 1 and 2 as well) are in the infobox
any inconsistencies are noted on each page
we don't treat the amalgation pages as a stopping point in reading but rather a general overview. For example, we don't list what diagrams are needed on it or, like the swords, all their effects because it makes it too detailed (for example, back to the monsters, our monsters have a separate section on their pages that goes into a detailed tactics overview, doesn't simply say "use x bomb and y sign")
we're not doing it to look pretty, we're doing it to avoid confusion and back and forth edits (readers read one thing in game, but then sees something entirely else here, thinks its a mistake, edits it, people have to go back in and edit it, etc.) hence back to #2: we make sure to note that there are inconsistencies; we're not merely giving false information, we're showing what it says in game (and who knows, maybe it was meant to be like that but a bug is preventing it) and what it's actually doing. Think of it like the "sic" tags you see everynow and then: we're acknowledging this is how the game information is displayed but it's not actually correct.
I actually did it that way because remember this isn't just for weapons/armor but all items within the third game :) For example, horse equipment doesn't have armor/damage so you'd now have a redundant label: Effects header with an Effects label right underneath.
That's why I think we should change the header name, but I don't know what would be a good name for this section. Effects doesn't describe it well. What kind of effect is the duration time? Maybe something like Properties would fit better?
Hmm, not really liking that either (Properties gets too close to encompassing the stuff under "details" like weight, type, tier, etc.) May bug the others to see what they think or if they can think of something better.
Oh dear, I should fill you in on the bad thing about tabbers: it's not mobile friendly so if anyone using their phones to view the site (and about 55% of our views are through mobile devices) it wouldn't fuction correctly. The "tabs" you see on some pages (like FAQ, Easter Eggs, etc.) are actually subpage links with css designed to look like tabs. There had been an example one time Juraj found on another wiki that made the infobox itself change but unfortunately what they were using also didn't work with mobile. :( Not to discourage you though, it's just a sucky technical restriction we have to work around.
Barely anything works on mobile because why make Mercury editor friendly. We can exploit certain aspects of the parsing process. Certain template types make templates not appear in the mobile view and CSS (inline is stripped and sheets are not loaded on mobile) can hide mobile elements in desktop view.
I made some changes here (css same as in my previous post, but here's a link anyway) and it appears to work. Sorry for polluting the global namespace. I had to assign template type, but don't delete it yet.
BTW, mind if I expand the functionality of Template:Clear to clear left, right or both?
Actually, a good amount does work on mobile, but you have to find workarounds. For instance, use divs instead of tables for layout purposes (well, tables in general for layout is bad form but eh, that's another topic) and make sure icons, special templates, etc. look similar or at least function correctly in mobile view. It's a pain, certainly, but I view it that if it makes it easier for readers then it's worth it.
That said, it appears that it's not working on mobile view at all: at least in preview, all I'm seeing is one infobox with no option to switch to one of the others.
And what do you mean by expand it, like variables? It could be fine, but note that it may not be worth it: we never used left/right so I deleted them.
That was the intended effect. If you look at the source, there's only one infobox for mobile and three in tabber for desktop. There is no way currently to make a 'mobile tabber', so we will have the default 3 infoboxes in column on mobile and 3 in tabber on desktop.
Yup, vars. It will default to both, but, in case it (n)ever happens to be necessary, will have an option to use right or left.
At this point, for now it'd be easier to just stick to what it's like right now. We had discussed awhile back about the empty space and just chalked it up to something that happens, plus it appears normal on mobile and not all at once (mobile viewers just need to expand a header to show the related box) but I'd mention it to Juraj when he's back to see what he thinks.
So mentioned it to Juraj, but I just ran into a big problem and wanted to see if you knew of a workaround: for visual editing, there's no way to edit anything within the tabber code, which isn't very good when one's trying to edit infoboxes within it. Would you by chance know of a fix for this?
Also, he suggested "Attributes" in place of the "Effects" header. I'm ok with that, would that work for you?
The only workaround I know is creating subpages and adding edit buttons (buttons with link to a subpage with edit action), example. We could add a button "edit mobile infoboxes" and for each tab "edit infobox", but all of that creates unnecessary pages and makes everything more complicated. IMO, users should be familiarized with source editor because visual editor is not enough. To make their experience as pleasant and straightforward as possible, add comments. Lots of them. This way we can use advanced features and still make it easy for everyone to edit. Example: automated infoboxes
Yeah, there's the small problem where most of our editors are usually passerbys and most don't know even know how to even edit in visual, nevertheless source (as in, they don't even do basic formatting a lot when it comes to lists, links, etc.).
Also, please don't edit the infobox unless there's a clear all given. We do enlist DPL so sometimes it can mess them up if not properly adjusted.
And that's ok. As for the damg/armor, it's more to do with with them hardly existing due to them being randomized (one editor appeared to have found the formulas for some, but they didn't all of them).
just wanted to thank you for your work on this wiki. i just played the wild hunt for the first time (I know, im super late to the party) and now im reading the book series. and everytime i have a question i look it up here and see your profile on almost every page. thanks!
Looking at your contributions, I noticed that a lot of them don't have an edit summary of what exactly what you changed. For posterity's sake, please consider adding edit summary to your future contributions.
While appreciative, we don't care too much about summaries as it'd be a neverending battle with editors to always add them, especially since one of us always checks over the changes anyways. However, when there are big changes made, we do try to provide a summary. :)
Regarding this edit, I did keep the line breaks intact; we may need to adjust the wiki’s CSS for <dd> elements (::: lines in wikicode) to have them display as desired without making a mess of the resulting HTML. Setting larger vertical margins should do the trick, I think.
Can you clarify on what you mean by making a mess? It displays fine on my end and from what I've looked at in mobile. We essentially use colons more for indention purposes, not to actually create lists. Also, unless it's really ugly mess, trying to fix that across the entire wiki would be very time consuming to say the least (a lot of pages use them).
Yeah, the code for some reason required that, otherwise dd by itself wasn't working (the .WikiaArticle dd was overriding it, but there's no other dd code in the css so not sure where it was coming from).
The fun part will be manually correcting others, as game text is all over the place (sometimes it has breaks between paragraphs, sometimes it doesn't).
Following the Manual of Style, i'm adding all the out-of-universe references of a page to the section "Trivia", trying to be has syntetic as possible. I notice though that a lot of pages uses the section "Behind the Scenes", having extensive paragraphs about the real-word references to a character/creature/etc., with the additions of out-of-universe images (like the Leshy and Kikimore's page). Which version is more correct?
OT. Did you happen to work on the Assassin's Creed Wiki sometime in the past? I might be mistaken.