User talk:Fleanetha/Archive 1

Welcome

Hi Fleanetha, just wanted to drop by and welcome you to the project! Thanks for the work you're putting in -- Cpt kirstov 18:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages

While i'm here, I noticed you including "A link to this page has been made from..." to the talk pages of various pages after you add information that links to them. This shouldn't need to be done, if you look on the left of the page in the 'toolbox' area there is a 'what links here' link. If you click that it should give you every page that links to the page you are currently on. Just thought I'd save you a bit of extra work! Thanks again! -- Cpt kirstov 18:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Cpt kirstov for your kind words of welcome.

I am fairly new to updating wikis so my edits so far have been additions to existing articles where I can see what others have done to copy it. I do hope to be able to help here now that I have some wiki skill after finding and using Obsidian Portal; though some things are different here from there. I also was encouraged by an article on a Know Direction podcast to have a go.

Thank you so much for pointing out that I no longer have to add links on pages I reference - that will save a lot of work. I had read the Manual of Style and thought I had to do it. Here is the section that made me think so:

PathfinderWiki:Manual of style

That should perhaps be better worded, unless I have completely missed the point of that section.

I have been a user and admirer for some time of the Wiki and now feel I can help out. —This unsigned post was made by Fleanetha. Please sign all posts with ~~~~.

The type of notation mentioned in that section of the style guide applies to sections within an article and uses hidden notes instead of the article's talk page. If, for example, you added the line Flail snails have their own [[Darklands languages#Flail Snail|language]] to the body of the Flail snail article, you would be linking to the specific subsection "Flail Snail" within the larger article Darklands languages. Since this link would cease to function were the "Flail Snail" subsection be renamed, adding a notation to that page would alert other editors of the repercussions of making a change to it. Thus, you would add the following text to the Darklands languages article:

== Flail snail ==<!--This section is linked from [[Flail snail]]-->

This way anyone changing that heading will know where else they need to look so there are no broken links. —Yoda8myhead 20:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense now in both understanding and why one needs to do that - thank you --Fleanetha 20:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Updating Gods

When updating a God / Philosophy the following pages need amending or checking as appropriate:

Portal:Religion/Pantheons [direct edit]

http://www.pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Category:Deities_by_pantheon [adding Category template for appropriate list(s) to God page and checking this page]

http://www.pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Category:Deities_by_alignment [ditto]

http://www.pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Category:Deities_by_domain [ditto]

http://www.pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Category:Deities_by_power_level [ditto]

Then check this page:

Portal:Religion [and its links]

Empty pages

Generally, we try to avoid empty pages on Pathfinderwiki. If there isn't enough information to create an entire page on a given subject, it is wiser to include the item in a list of related items. If the page is a work in progress, it can be developed on a sandbox page. Let me know if you have further thoughts or questions. --Brandingopportunity 05:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Brandingopportunity, first thanks for improving my pages and correcting typos (I looked at those pages so much and still missed them).

Second to address your point above, I'd agree empty pages serve little purpose but would suggest that the pages I created over the last two nights are not empty and are useful. Bear with me:

1. I think all the sections created are worthy of their own page (the list of related items you mention is already there on the Heights page)
2. They are now fully categorized (except around the category issue I raised in the forum here: Forum:Categories about people inconsistency) and thus are searchable in that way
3. They have a proper reference so anyone wanting to know about inns in the Heights (or generally) gets hits on these pages and has information about where to go to look them up (this I think is really useful as the wiki is a guide to the sourcebooks rather than a replacement)
4. It fills the gaps from other pages getting rid of the red links - there is some information there to be of use for someone hitting the link.

So in summary, I think something is better than nothing and there is something on those pages.

On the sandbox point, hmm, I can see the use there and I have used it, Brandingopportunity, but when messing with categories I found it less helpful because they all blur at the bottom and you wouldn't get the right item text in the category you were testing - any advice/experience here would be useful. Also, I cannot commit to doing every part of Korvosa (!) [current plan is to try to do the parts referenced in Winter Witch but to add peripheral material too as a bonus]. So, sitting on them in my sandbox may imply to others that I am making that commitment and they may shy away from doing those pages; plus you'd lose all the benefits outlined above.--Fleanetha 17:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Fleanetha, I agree with your points, but it still doesn't remove the issue of the empty pages. I would rather have red links than empty pages, even if those pages have categories. Empty pages just don't look good. I would suggest that you and I work on turning those empty pages into at least stubs. There isn't enough information on most of them to field a full article in any case. It's only a little more work, and as I said, it doesn't have to be a full article. Even two to three sentences would be enough in my opinion. --Brandingopportunity 18:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Deal, Brandingopportunity, but no work tonight for me I'm afraid. But with 2 of us we could do the whole Korvosa gazetteer (!): chapter 2 of Guide to Korvosa - not much of it looks like it was included in detail. What say you? Happy for you to choose districts.--Fleanetha 23:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Art index

At some point I'm going to update all of them with the badge, but as it is, I'm already to the amount of time it would take me to add a whole module to make all the badges... When I look at it as add a module to the index, or add badges, I would rather be closer to up to date on the index itself...at least that's how I've been looking at it. If you can think of a better way time-wise, I'm all for it, but since i only have like an hour to two a day on the days I have time to work on the wiki, I thought having the index itself up to date would be a better use of my time. (actually thinking about it, would this be something a bot could do, find the anchors on the index page and add the badge to the actual page? hmm....) --Cpt kirstov 16:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Bots always a good idea - sounds good.--Fleanetha 23:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny, and thanks...

Nice category on that spam article :-D

Also, I just wanted to say that I'm really impressed and appreciative of the work you've been doing. You're on here almost every day doing total grunt work, and that is to be commended. I know I haven't been around much lately (life sure can get hectic at times), but if you ever need to get ahold of an admin for something (like deleting a spam page), fire me an email (aeakett@gmail.com). —Aeakett 17:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words and offer Aeakett: it's good to be part of a great team working on a great project.--Fleanetha 11:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Worshypers

Sorry 'bout that, I thought it was a typo - I didn't know "worship(p)ers" was spelled differently in the UK and US.--Filby 21:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for seeing the joke. More importantly, thanks for all the hard work especially the deity/pantheon/philosophy edits just recently --Fleanetha 22:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

Welcome to the janitor squad Fleanetha. You'll likely want to add {{User admin}} to your userboxes. —Aeakett 19:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Congratulations! Now grab a mop. --Brandingopportunity 04:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, and there is a record on this website to check, I remember very little being mentioned about mops and janitors BEFORE I got this new role. Nevertheless, thank you for the trust and well-wishing; I hope I can mop as effectively as you chaps.--Fleanetha 10:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say you mop more effectively than most of us, especially when it comes to categories. --Brandingopportunity 07:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

10,000 Edits

Congratulations to Fleanetha on his 10,000th edit! Woohoo!! Keep on trucking. --Brandingopportunity (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Using Bots

I noticed the Recent Changes page fill up with a lot of the same change made to a number of pages from you today. I just wanted to again offer the use of YodaBot should you need this sort of thing done in the future. Not only would it take me literally 30 seconds to set the script running on this task, but it would hide all the changes from the Recent Changes list so it doesn't push legitimate changes off the first page. Let me know if there's anything else you want me to do with the little clockwork who could...— Yoda8myhead (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Yoda8myhead for the offer. I do, however, try to keep work away from you as a maxim and this was trivial, but I do forget about your little friend - good reminder.--Fleanetha (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me!

Hey there and thanks for welcoming me to the wiki. Hopefully you'll continue to see my edits here and there as I further ingrain myself in this massive (and massively helpful) project. --Infinifold (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Planet symbols

As promised (though late as usual)... the easiest way to see them all is to check out Category:Artwork by Andrew Eakett. —Aeakett (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, that is superb and a lovely Christmas present: thank you. I shall set to work now making sure they are viewable in all their glory. --Fleanetha (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Template Spring Clean (Navigational Templates)

I don't have a problem with reorganizing the navbox categories. Bringing them all into the consistent "new" style is still something I'd like to see happen, even if I'm not the one doing it. I will add all of the navboxes that still need to be updated to a new category that can serve as the todo list (similar to how I plan to use Category:Files_using_Template:Image_info to denote files that need to be converted to using {{File}} with YodaBot. Then we can change the categories however the two of you see fit without messing up my todo list. I still suggest mass renaming of categories be done with a bot, though, as that will make the process almost instantaneous and mostly invisible unless someone's specifically looking at bot edits. — Yoda8myhead (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And YodaBot is now at work adding all pages in Category:Content templates to Category:Old format navboxes. See, that was easy! — Yoda8myhead (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can see - so bots are definitely v useful thanks. On the original query - what are the differences between old style and new? I just cut and paste from one I think is a new style (i.e., choosing one from Category:Navboxes) so adopting the new format automatically. I know the new one is directly editable from its 'e' in top left, but I notice Template:Chronology of Dave Gross' characters navbox is now in the new Category:Old format navboxes, yet that is editable, so I must have miscategorized that one. --Fleanetha (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of templates that need cleanup beyond simply being updated to newer or correct navbox formatting that got put in that group. As I go through them, I'll clean them out and make sure they're properly categorized as well. The script to add categories to a new category or move them around between different ones isn't always perfect, especially if something was miscategorized to begin with, or if a page transcludes a template that brings a category with it because of a <noinclude>, <includeonly>, or <onlyinclude> error. In the case of the navboxes, the changes I was making were primarily to ensure that uses of {{CT navbox}} were correctly implemented (these are the ones that often don't allow direct editing from the "e" in the title bar), and that, when applicable, the {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} template was used and used correctly. — Yoda8myhead (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox2

I deleted the section in your sandbox for Knights of the Inner Sea after resolving the issue. If you'd rather I strike it out or do nothing instead of deleting, please let me know for future reference. Thanks! FoiledAgain (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bill - I hereby award you a licence to use my Sandbox2 - don't mind at all, in fact I would encourage it. Thanks for completing Knights of the Inner Sea - have a look at Isles of the Shackles next???! I have reinstated the book's title just to cross it off so I know that book has been 'done' for future reference. On the specific point you edited, I am going to make a suggestion on that page (now I understand it's a conflict case). See what you think and revert if you don't like it. In mediaeval texts there are always variant spellings so I always assume that's the same in Golarion too. --Fleanetha (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That's an elegant way to handle the conflict. Isles of the Shackles is one of the few books I don't own that I don't think anyone in my normal Society group has either. I'll double-check. I've gotten an itch for Broken Chains and Fangwood Keep (module), but found that big updates to Katapesh and Nirmathas need done first. -- FoiledAgain (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Queen's English

Sorry about dueling vs. duelling. That's a difference from American English I wasn't aware of. You'll notice I left practised alone :) --FoiledAgain (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No problem FoiledAgain - I caught Brandingopportunity writing 'worshipping' recently which made me titter. But please tell me someone on the Mayflower didn't whimsically swap the 'c' and the 's' from noun to verb and vice versa - that was not known to me and beggars belief. 'c' comes before 's' in the alphabet; 'noun' comes before 'verb' in the alphabet - simple! --Fleanetha (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Replacing templates

Would you like me to swap templates across the entire site without needing to go to each page and do it manually? Just let me know what swaps you'd like to make and I'll take care of it. While I do other things, no less! — Yoda8myhead (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Yoda8myhead, but I'm done. Templates seem to be the way to go now rather than pages like Gazetteer of Ustalav, so wanted to catch up with the good ISWGII work happening recently. This was a complex one though, as it was replacing text or adding text depending on the page and also different text depending on the type of page so I figured a bot would find it too complex. Anyway it's done.

I confess looking at the monster categories that are still plural made me give up today, so if yodabot wants something to do there's still plenty of work there; not to mention <cough> prestige classes that are already on his list! And I can now see Mythic classes looming too needing similar treatment. Perhaps it's best I spared him Ustalav today. --Fleanetha (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

Didn't mean to remove information from Chamidu. I copy-pasted the deity template and just accidentally left that bit out.--Filby (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No problems then Filby, but please accept my apologies for jumping to conclusions. --Fleanetha (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It's cool :)--Filby (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Devils

Concerning the pit fiend and other devil articles: should we be copying from Paizo sources word for word? Help:Plagiarism says "you must not include wording directly from the source material unless it is a short quote that could not be adequately represented otherwise". I blanked and rewrote imp for that reason. That said, thanks so much for cleaning up after my edits; I appreciate the help. --Filby (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Filby; your edits are always of high quality and meticulously done. On the whole your point is correct, but have a look at the debate here: Forum:Cut & Paste regarding not sourcebooks, but the use of the PRD. We can all agree that, if the words are not from the PRD, but directly from a sourcebook, then a rewrite is appropriate.--Fleanetha (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Great Work

Jason, I just wanted to congratulate you on initiating the Edit Day last week. It's a thought that I've had rattling around in my head for a while. Hopefully, I'll be with it enough to participate next time. In the mean time, please accept the following:

This chronicler has been awarded the PathfinderWiki Merit Ribbon for initiating the PFWiki Day of Editing.

—Aeakett (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Andrew, I am chuffed - many thanks for this award - I shall wear with pride (i.e., shortly copy to my userbox). Looking forward to the next one and some chat too, so hope you can join. --Fleanetha (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Work on Ustalav

Jason, you've won another ribbon for your work on Ustalav and its navbox. Please accept the following:

This chronicler has made significant effort promoting Ustalav, and has been awarded the Prince's Unity Ribbon.

.

Thanks for all your continued hard work on the PFWiki! --Brandingopportunity (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Incredible I am overwhelmed and have no acceptance speech but thank you, Andrew and Alex; I must say it is a perfect ribbon for Ustalav too. Please don't consider me ungrateful, but this time it is a little premature. A lot of work has been done (and thanks Branding for losing the last few red links on the template) but it's not yet complete. So I shall attach the 'medal' when I finally finish the ISWG for Ustalav: it thus provides extra motivation. Fair? --Fleanetha (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's up to you whether you want to display it or not. The fact is that Brandingopportunity thought that you deserved it (and I would tend to agree). If you think that there is somebody else who has contributed heavily to Ustalav related articles, feel free to award the ribbon to them as well... My hope is that these are a fun way to show thanks and recognize our fellow chroniclers.

Also, I'm glad that you like the design. It was fun coming up with with a scheme that evoked Ustalav's coat of arms, and I think I captured it fairly well (if I might say so myself). —Aeakett (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the chap who has laid all the foundations for Ustalav on which I have been building is a chap called User:Aeakett-spamtest1 - know him - he's everywhere? Branding has had a late flourish and Dmeta has laid siege to Castle Kronquist. And I do want to display my ribbon, just when I feel it's earned. --Fleanetha (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ugh... what happened there I wonder? It seems that user adopted pretty much *every* early edit. Interesting find. Thanks... I think. —Aeakett (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

(DM Corerue (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC))

Thank you for the welcome and I did try to dig up some of the discussion's here about Triaxus just to make sure I didn't neglect someone who was actually trying to expand the articles but ran into not having the time to complete their to do list. Know what I mean~ ;) I appreciate any help, constructive criticism and editing that you guys want to give. I was mainly aiming at just getting some articles in and then following up by expanding them with links/hyperlinks to files and other parts of the wiki. It's awesome though that you guys are so helpful and I will most definitely continue to contribute. Distant worlds is one of my favorite books in regards to some of the homebrew games I have ran, so it should be a semi easy, albeit lengthy, task to get the articles filled out.

Awesome. Just remember that you sadly can't include any material you yourself created in your homebrew campaign on the wiki. For more info on this topic, check out PathfinderWiki:Canon_policy. --Brandingopportunity (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Distant Worlds was a surprise for me as I didn't consider it particularly interesting as a concept when announced but, like many people, was thoroughly converted once I started reading it. Then Paizo used Triaxus very successfully in Reign of Winter to boot. I am very pleased you are picking it up here. I certainly understand having ridiculously long unfinished to do lists as I have a large one here amongst others. All help is very much appreciated and we are a friendly team here. --Fleanetha (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU!

I just found your sandbox filled with references of items from adventure paths that need to be filled. You... you are amazing, simply amazing! HUZZAH!

My pleasure, User:The Vizir, and if you can make blue any of that red, we'd all be very happy. Than you for your kind comment: much appreciated. --Fleanetha (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Text on gods' category pages

Hey, I noticed you removed content from Category:Kurgess. Is there a guideline for when a divine being has content on their category page? Is it only for major deities like Category:Cayden Cailean and Category:Desna (in which case, Category:Gozreh and Category:Aroden are missing it)? Thanks! Oznogon (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

So I did and made no comment - that was rude and I apologize Oznogon. That'll teach me to rush when I have real world deadlines. The link I gave you is the de facto policy for creating the common category pages: Help:Creating category pages. If you are interested I have some more 'standards' on my sandbox page which I perhaps should write up as a help page one day too: User:Fleanetha/Sandbox. We formulated the standards some years back to bring consistency to the Maelstrom of categories that had 'organically' grown to that point. One decision in that work was to stop adding content to category pages. This had happened in the past but was, again, inconsistently adopted. In addition, any content carried by a category page was seen as:

1. extra work and we do not need any more of that;
2. more importantly, something that would need updating if elements changed / got updated by Paizo. This would probably get missed and lead to more inconsistency.

Instead we decided to keep categories 'clean' and keep all content on the main page with a {{Main}} template to get access directly from the category page to the content page. So, in summary, the guideline you ask for is - no content on the category pages and use the standard category rules in the help pages.

Of course, so far I have avoided the issue of content existing on category pages today. Well, that is just an historical legacy I am afraid. I try to delete it when I find it, but no one has systematically gone through and done so; that strikes me as a pretty dull job. We should also ensure that any content on a category page is mirrored on the main page before deletion too.

If you look in the Forum, you might find the debates we had about this long ago, but I think you have better things to do.

So, that was a long explanation and perhaps why I lazily didn't bother writing it in the first place, but you are owed it - great work you're doing Oznogon. --Fleanetha (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Aw, thanks. No offense taken, I'm still new here. Better to get straightened out before I get some bad habits going. :D Oznogon (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the mention with the ENnie Awards feature nomination! --Oznogon (talk) 09:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thoroughly deserved. --Fleanetha (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Tier 1 monster sources

Thanks for clarifying the sources on Akata and Moonflower. A point of confusion for me here is the canon policy on monsters:

• Bestiaries and APs are both Tier 1; newer sources trump older ones within tiers
• Bestiaries trump APs, but only for monster statistics
• APs trump Bestiaries, but only for monster text

But this is specifically tailored to conflicts, not when the information is consistent.

To confirm, regardless of conflict, the best practice would be to:

• use Bestiaries as the source in the article's Creature template, as that's more associated with the statistics than the text
• use APs as the source in the article body, as that's more associated with the text than the statistics

Does that sound right? --Oznogon (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That does sound like a good rationalization of the canon policy. We only just changed that policy so you might want to review the debate we had that caused the recent change: in essence we could have had 3.5 level AP stats trumping Bestiary 4 stats, which just seemed daft. Of course any policy is open to grey areas, so we can always seek advice if something is unclear. Paizo often publish monsters in APs then re-release them later in a formal Bestiary hardcover. We have tended to update the infobox link to the Bestiary reference at that point so the reader can find the most up to date rules for the creature. The AP text is almost certainly much richer than in a Bestiary, so we can leave AP refs there. Either way, the reader can see links to both sources on the page, which is useful. Does that help? --Fleanetha (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It does! Thanks. --Oznogon (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Cheers on 25k edits!

Congrats! Ale's on me! --Oznogon (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow - Thanks for all the great work! --FoiledAgain (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Steelwhisker's Emporium

Hi Fleanetha, while trying to populate the few remaining red links in the Magnimar Navbox, I came across the above link that I can't find a reference for anywhere in canon. Since you did so much work on that particular template, I thought I'd ask you if you know where it comes from. Thanks! --Brandingopportunity (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Brandingopportunity. It is in City of Secrets 2, so off the beaten track. Have a look here for related material: User:Fleanetha/Sandbox (Comic). --Fleanetha (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Complex citation template changes

Yeah, it takes a few minutes for those esoteric templates to show changes on the template page itself. You can force it by purging the template after saving the changes (add ?action=purge to the end of the template URL). --Oznogon (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it all seemed to work without further tinkering. Thanks also for tidying up after me this afternoon and the bits I couldn't do. Good team work. --Fleanetha (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Preventing navboxes from collapsing (re: Diamond in the Rough/Index)

The state and stateⁿ parameters can be set to uncollapsed or plain to force the sections open, with or without the show/hide link respectively. If there's a nested navbox, I think both the parent group and the child navbox have to set the state parameter.

Also, the state parameters are overridden if selected is defined. —Oznogon (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Categorizing artwork by product line

I see you've been categorizing covers and artwork from the PFACG and accessory lines (Battles, Cards, Maps, etc.). Should we also be categorizing covers and artwork from the editorial lines (Campaign Setting, RPG, Player Companion, etc.)? If so, do we need to update Help:Categorizing artwork to note that? —Oznogon (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Almost certainly. To be frank I can't remember what prompted this new level of categorization, but it makes sense for non-books - I think we had it for minis. Perhaps we could add also for the book product lines? As this is for categories I did update the Help:Creating category pages section re this. --Fleanetha (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Creatures with humanoid forms that lack the humanoid type

Re: Category:Images of ganzi, does that mean the "images of" categories are purely governed by crunch? The image suggests they're pretty clearly humanoid in form. -Oznogon (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's my understanding Oznogon. Have a look at Help:Creating category pages. --Fleanetha (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I did; as it does not define what a type is within the wiki's context, there is no guidance on that page. We do define race in the wiki's context, however, and if anything the definition of race makes it explicit that crunch does not purely govern categorization:

A race is defined on this wiki as a type of creature that can have individuality: it can be named as a distinct being. This is a much more loose definition than that made within the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game where a Race is a creature type that a PC could play.

I appreciate that the subject of race is different than of type, but with no definition of type within the wiki's context—either in strict governance by crunch or, as with race, using some other definition or guidance—categorization is up for interpretation. If type is defined as the creature's mechanical type, this should be specified on that help page to avoid this sort of ambiguity. (Also of note: subtypes aren't mentioned at all on that help page, and probably should be.)

If we rule that mechanics govern type, we wind up with the odd situations like this, where a creature defined by its humanoid biology or form in its description cannot be categorized as a humanoid because of the mechanics, but a creature with a racial identity in its description can be categorized as a race in spite of the mechanics. -Oznogon (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A bit philosophical for a Saturday night, User:Oznogon but as you have done a huge amount in that department recently I shouldn't be surprised. I think you may be in danger of overcomplicating here. 'Type' is in capital case so, although not defined, most gamers will take that as the standard Pathfinder definition and, within the category tree, 'Humanoid' is most definitely again based on the RPG definition. Please do add a clarification if you wish - I think I wrote that help so change as you wish - it is not sacrosanct material and is there to help, which, for you, tonight, it is not. Generally, I think it a reasonable assumption that we take a Pathfinder RPG definition where none is given for a particular game term unless stated otherwise. It is unfortunate that 'humanoid' has other uses but I'd be reluctant to blur a Type based category structure as that will start bringing subjective decision making in to an area that took a lot of time to standardize. For image categories, if you want a further category based on what a creature looks like - a human looking outsider, for instance, and there are many of them - I'd avoid crunch terms. Do undead look like humanoids, do dragons look like magical beasts? It could get messy.

'Race' is a more tricky subject and I wouldn't blur that here - it is not perfect to be sure and I would not use that as a model. When I standardized, I just took the inherited concept and went with that for good or ill.--Fleanetha (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"May" vs. "can" and "might"

As I think it's more helpful to have this sort of discussion in public than by email: I'm not targeting your use of may, and I'm only changing it when the more specific meanings of "can" or "might" are clearer in context than "may". -Oznogon (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Secondary children

Please see: Template talk:Korvosa navbox --Fleanetha (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Replied there. -Oznogon (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Welcome back, Fleanetha! It's been a little lonely here as you can see from "Recent changes". --Brandingopportunity (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You must be lonely as I've only been gone just over a week, but well done for holding the fort and improving quite a few articles too - we do seem to have a summer lull just now, though. Still we seem to have a healthy sign up of new users currently too. Thanks. --Fleanetha (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

thanks...

...for the welcome. I'm coming back to D&D and need to bone up on this newest edition and figured i might as well do some copyediting on the way. Hammercatfunk (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Xin-Gastash

Hello, fellow Pathfinders,

While working on a project, I stumbled upon, what appears to be a typo. In the section on Xin-Gastash, it is listed as the capital city of, the Thassilonian realm of Greed. However, in a section on the "Sleeper" monument, it is named as the capital of, the Thassilonian realm of Gluttony. Could someone please clarify, as to which realm is correct. Thanks and keep up the good work. The PF wiki has been a tremendous aid to my writing project.—This unsigned post was made by Zarnithian. Please sign all posts with ~~~~.

Answered at User talk:Zarnithian --Fleanetha (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Hi Fleanetha, I noticed that almost all of your edits are marked as being minor edits, even when writing whole new sections or otherwise very noticeably changing the page. Do you have that checkbox always turned on? Or can you help me better understand what it means to make a minor edit? VestOfHolding (talk) 7:57, 24 April 2017 (PST)

In the 'editing' tab of the user preferences, there is a checkbox for "Mark all edits minor by default". Personally, any edit so minor that no one would ever need to look it over (things done automatically, corrections to grammar/spelling, fixing infoboxes, or adding unincorporated sources/things to talk pages) I do as a minor edit. Things that may have conflicting information elsewhere, I do as regular edits. Fleanetha has done a lot of project cleanup - fixing templates, adding unincorporated sources to pages, and adjusting how we use the infoboxes. My guess is that the checkbox for that preference is on for that reason. I don't think we have any policy on what qualifies as a minor edit. -- Cpt kirstov (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed I am caught out - the button is pressed so all my edits are classed as minor in my Preferences section and, if I remember, I can untick the box for any 'major' edit. These days though most of my stuff is maintenance and I have forgotten about unticking the box completely. There are no rules really: Cpt kirstov's view above seems very sensible as usual, though I try to review every edit minor or major so, for me, it is a bit meaningless. Go with what you think is best and there is some guidance here: Help:Editing articles. --Fleanetha (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. This all makes sense and thanks for the responses. In the future, is there a better PM system I could use for these types of things? I can't find anything like that for these Wikis. Editing a user talk page for something like this feels weird. VestOfHolding (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2017 (PST)

Hi VestOfHolding, no problem at all. I'd perhaps use the Forum as first choice for this type of question, though use of an administrator's talk page is also fine. Things here may get a bit lost, but the Forum acts as a more public record. For a private email, the link on the left 'Email this user' should work too. --Fleanetha (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ships category tree

I was looking at Category:Ships page when I started the Through the Gate in the Sea pages I did this weekend, and was surprized that we don't havea category tree for types of ships (IE Pirate ships, merchant ships, Ferries, Salvage ships, etc) since there are not too many pages here yet, I figured I'd start it, and thus made the Category:Pirate Ships page, but I wasn't sure if there should be a ship/uses category to fit these under and pin to the top of category:ships or not.... since you've done a ton of the category organization, I figured I'd get your opinion, since I'm like 50/50. -Cpt kirstov (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a really good point, Cpt kirstov. Ships are not well categorized as everything is just bundled into Cat:Ships. I suppose, initially, there were few ships to categorize but, with several seaborne APs, that has changed. I noticed your Category:Pirate Ships and it looks like an excellent improvement (though to be picky it should probably be Category:Pirate ships now I look at it again!).

I had a look at wikipedia, which should probably be our guide. Under their Cat:Ships, they have:

• Ships by city of construction‎ (51 C)
• Ships by company‎ (79 C)
• Ships by conflict‎ (19 C)
• Ships by country‎ (153 C)
• Ships by designer‎ (3 C)
• Ships by period‎ (15 C)
• Ships by navy‎ (167 C)
• Ships by type‎ (83 C) (They also have 'Ship types' which seems to overlap with 'Ships by type',‎ but let's gloss over that.)

I think we could easily stand the two emboldened categories above that would add value within Cat:Ships. The rest are less useful, I'd say. Where we have the data then, we could also add to each ship's page:

• Cat:Nation/Ship [Wikipedia has Cat:Ships of Nation which we could use but we might as well standardize with the other Nation-led categories]
• Cat:Type_of_Ship [let's keep that simple so we don't need to keep looking up a vast list of possible types, but Category:Pirate Ships definitely goes in there along with any others that make sense]

So, we'd have:

• Cat:Ships
  • Cat:Ships by country or probably better for our wiki Cat:Ships by nation [this would also be a subcat of its Cat:Nation]
    • Cat:Nation/Ship x many
  • Cat:Ships by type
    • Cat:Type_of_Ship x many

How does that sound? --Fleanetha (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. I started going through the 111 pages in Category:Ships. I also made Category:Pirate ships and transferred the one page from Category:Pirate ShipsSo the empty one can be delated. Looks like we may also need to look into when we crate categories below the individual ships. For instance Category:Marvel and Category:Wormwood exist but Category:Stargazer doesn't. This is especially interesting considering the Stargazer crew almost all have pages already. --Cpt kirstov (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Excellent - I can see you are well into effecting this now. I added another obvious type of ship too. I notice many ships are just categorized under their country or settlement as there is no better way currently to categorize them, so some form of Cat:Nation/Ship does look like a further improvement. Re individual ships, I think Marvel and Wormwood are fine and a category for their crew and officers seems right. Maybe /Complement would be more accurate than /Members though? We can sensibly incorporate each ship into the Organization tree as well. Let me know what you think and if I need to move categories around / delete redundant ones. --Fleanetha (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of stuff that make no sense from templates

I hope you've understood my reasoning for removing these particular entries from the templates. If you and nobody else object, I guess they should be RE-removed from the templates. - HTD (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow to reply HTD and understand the frustration - I am a bit swamped now - give me a couple of days and I'll try to respond more effectively. --Fleanetha (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Proforma page templates

I can't find a way to access them, but from what you've described of them I don't think I really need them that much. - HTD (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope, no such button appeared to me, not that it's necessary anyway. - HTD (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't explain why you're unable to see the template, but thanks for looking. -Fleanetha (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Ostovites

As it turns out these creatures are magical beasts, not demons at all (source provided in article). - HTD (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, and that's the sort of info that'd be useful at time of deletion. This is now a simple canon conflict to handle based on our canon policy. So, the ostovite becomes a magical beast as per Bestiary 5 [Tier 1] rather than its original appearance in Pathfinder Tales. I can handle the tidying up later, but feel free to delete it from the demon template in the mean time if you wish. I have also seen a bigger issue here about the Tales line. --Fleanetha (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Giant template

Because they aren't really 'species' of giants. Inverted giants and runeslaves are transformed from other giants, and mongrel giants are freak mutations. Neither of these is a qualification for species status. - HTD (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

21st level

So, should all the characters detailed in Inner Sea Magic as level '20+' that later received stat blocks as level 20 (instead of 21 or anything higher) get re-added to the level 20+ category? And, by extension, should the level 20 characters that did not appear in that book but have mythic tiers or special templates be put in the level 20+ category as well? For the record, I'll just repeat the reply I got from this thread:

“

20th level is the cap. If we/you want a creature/NPC to be more powerful than 20th level gives them, you have to give them racial hit dice, templates, mythic abilities, or just make stuff up for them; when you do so use the monster building guidelines in the Bestiary as benchmarks.

”

- HTD (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

To clarify what I said, I don't think this is a real canon conflict. We were never supposed to interpret the '20+' number in that book as 'at least 21' at the first place, but more like '20 but with extra bonuses that make the characters in question stronger than stock level 20 characters'. - HTD (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to rehash the discussion here, HTD: Category talk:Wizards of 20+ level. Please reread. --Fleanetha (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Lissala/multiple aspects of a single deity

Hi Fleanetha, can you provide some feedback on Talk:Lissala about proposed changes to the navbox? Determining the best practice there could help establish a better practice for other similar situations, like Talk:Nocticula, which we could turn into an improvement to Help:Writing an article about a deity. -Oznogon (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Achaekek

In 3.5, Achaekek was a CR 30 demigod, and now he's a full-on deity with no stats. I wonder why he was not kept in the CR 30 category, while the demon lords were (even those that got proper PF stats or those whose CR is 31-32, which are not used by Paizo anymore). Also, should he be added back to the Hell divine beings template and associated categories? - HTD (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Have a read of the PathfinderWiki:Canon policy, HTD, especially around conflicts. One element we try to achieve on the wiki is to ensure a reader coming from any source understands the contents of a page. If someone comes to the wiki from an old source and only finds brand new material, the old having being deleted with no comment, they might be confused and frustrated: they bought a canon book from Paizo, yet it has differences to what is documented on this wiki and there's no explanation why. Better, when conflicts or updates occur, we have some reference and explanation within the wiki. We now have a footnote explaining the change of realm to help any reader who comes to the Achaekek article who might otherwise be confused. This replaced the text you deleted with no explanation. Re CR 30, it looks like that category was never added, so I reckon that's why it's not there today. --Fleanetha (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

That section doesn't really speak clearly about categories, though. Would it be possible to add footnotes to the articles of these subjects explaining why the old CR values are no longer valid as well, or is there no choice other than adding the categories back? - HTD (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for confusion re: canon conflict subcats

I flipped a canon conflict resolution category on Talk:Fungal creature/Conflicts from officially to unofficially resolved before I realized it's related to the official clarifications about CR and max levels on 3.5 rules. I'm running out of time to do this at the moment and might forget; if you get a chance, can you link back to other discussions or external sources to clarify that it's been officially resolved on that page, and on Talk:Rakshasa maharaja/Conflicts? Thanks! -Oznogon (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

That's my mistake, not yours. I have only applied PathfinderWiki canon rules to both. Personally, I have no further evidence. I'll flip both now until there's an official statement. --Fleanetha (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Character page clarification

Hello, I have a question regarding making pages for characters. Most specifically, I wanted to know how it is the wiki treats characters whose fates are dependant on player intervention. For example, I was interested in making a page for the main villain of Conquest of Bloodsworn Vale, among others, and the module is tailored so that it ends with the PCs killing him. I've seen other pages for characters involved in adventure paths only having a brief description of the person without touching on their involvement in the stories they're part of, and I'm unsure if this is a deliberate choice due to the spoiler policy or if these articles are simply incomplete. How should I proceed in such a case? Can I simply add the spoiler badge and write about the character's involvement in the lore, or should it be left unmentioned? The latter doesn't sound like an interesting read on its own. And on another subject, how should I be treating page names when the characters have titles? For example, the aforementioned villain is named "Lord Vardak", so should his article be named that, or just "Vardak"? I figure the latter is correct but I'd like to make sure. OluapPlayer (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello OluapPlayer and thanks for seeking clarification. Two policies touch your points above, namely, PathfinderWiki:Spoilers and PathfinderWiki:Naming conventions. The latter agrees with your choice of Vardak over Lord Vardak. The former doesn't fully answer your first point though. Unless a later source documents Paizo's canon version of the outcome of an Adventure Path or Module, we shouldn't assume a conclusion to its story and, thus, a death of a particular NPC. Some products have had particular conclusions declared canon, usually when a new work continues the story, such as the resolution of Rise of the Runelords or Curse of the Crimson Throne. This is timely, though, as Paizo may well conclude many First Edition storylines ahead of Second Edition and have declared they'll now move Golarion's time line forward. Conquest of Bloodsworn Vale is particularly old, so there may well be later sources that declared a canon result to that adventure but, personally, I am unsure. Can any others help here please? --Fleanetha (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Conquest is the the only adventure set in the Vale. This is backed up by Category:Adventures in Bloodsworn Vale. My guess is that in canon no PCs have touched him yet. -- Cpt kirstov (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers! I'll keep them in mind when editing such articles. OluapPlayer (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Bloodsworn Vale, there's a bit about it in the Mindspin Mountains article in Giantslayer, and I remember the half-page illustration of the gazetteer depicting Fort Thorn, but I don't think Verdak's fate is specifically spelled out.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Harbingers and divinity

I tried to ask this question once but received no answer, so I'll do so more directly this time. Why does that particular sentence have to be repeated on every single daemonic harbinger page, despite the presence of the deity infobox, complete with cleric alignments and domain lists? As a related thing, should I set up a bot to add that sentence (or do so by hand) to the pages of all Horsemen, infernal dukes, qlippoth lords, nascent demon lords, etc? - HTD (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

So, you remember been asked not to do it and maybe the rationale given at the time. You also raised a question and somebody may be able to answer it. Until then, no harm is being done and, as there are numerous instances, best to leave them all consistent, so any change can be made simpler to enact. Why you would want to add further instances to the wiki of what you are trying to delete, I'll leave unaddressed. --Fleanetha (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The reason is, again, consistency. I don't understand why this sentence is (and has to be) present on all harbinger articles, but not on those about other demigod-level outsiders, and either removing it from the former or adding it to the latter would remove inconsistency (I'd prefer to do the first thing, but it seems unacceptable). - HTD (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Lie Setiawan

I would strongly prefer listing artists only once in {{Pathfinder contributors navbox}}. That navbox is already an organizational nightmare without adding intentionally duplicated names to the list. -Oznogon (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

On the whole we don't need duplicates - I agree. However, this talented artist has had pages made for him under the wrong name and art attributed under the wrong name because art under the name 'Setiawan Lie' has been published by Paizo. In this case, I think we have a case for an exception to prove the rule. The navbox will also help people find the right page if they are looking up 'Setiawan Lie' in the navbox when 'Lie Setiawan' would be difficult to spot in, as you say, a organizationally nightmarish navbox. BTW Thanks for adding the target link to the restored Setiawan Lie as per Korvosa navbox discussion so it emboldens both names on the artist's page.

What is really needed is a wholesale reconsideration of that Template:Pathfinder contributors navbox as per its discussion page: Template talk:Pathfinder contributors navbox, especially as we also have the nearly forgotten Template:Comic contributors navbox and Template:Contributing artists navbox all out of sync and also not aligned with the latest info or the respective category listings. I am going to copy this para there and add the Category:Discussions to revisit, so I can get to it once my current project is in hand. It's long overdue. --Fleanetha (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If we know someone was mis-credited in a Paizo book, we should use the correct name with redirects from the wrong name as a rule. People change their names, either due to marriage, divorce, gender transition, etc. and we honor that by using their "real" name. We should do the same here. Just because Paizo made a mistake in their credits doesn't mean we need to perpetuate that error.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That's already been done, Yoda8myhead, for the main pages, we are just discussing a line item in the navbox as a search aid, like the redirect.

A quick web search and this particular case is also complicated by the artist's own use of the 'Setiawan Lie' form for his LinkedIn and Facebook. --Fleanetha (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Facebook and LinkedIn, which both have strict name requirements, default to Western name ordering on profiles. His own website, his portfolio sites (including the ArtStation containing all of the works he links to from LinkedIn), and CV all use Lie Setiawan. His own biography on his site and ArtStation portfolio both start with the phrase, "Hi, my name is Lie Setiawan." This seems extraordinarily straightforward. -Oznogon (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, but we don't have separate in-line listings of both Amanda Hamon and Amanda Hamon Kunz. For the sake of simplicity and consistency, we should just list each person once on any list, even if they have been credited with multiple names.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

We disagree. That's fine. Can't think of anything else to say. It's a line item in a monolith. --Fleanetha (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Norgorber

Fixed. I put Crownfall where I intended to write The Reaper's Right Hand for some reason. - HTD (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks HTD. --Fleanetha (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Cat:Race and Cat:Race/Inhabitants

Are both of these categories needed on the same page? I thought we had a consensus (sort of) on this thread. - HTD (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

You reference Kaikyton I think where I have restored yet another of your subtly deleted categories HTD yesterday evening, namely Category:Kyton. You'd added another category (Category:Kyton/Inhabitants) to the page the previous day, after I had questioned similar behaviour on related kyton demagogue pages where you'd also subtly deleted categories (I expect to find more). So, this is a problem you have made yourself. No explanation either time, and now you question if we need the two categories. It has been mentioned numerous times that it is better to discuss before than squealing after; no one can read your mind, so we don't know what you are trying to achieve by deleting all these categories on demigod pages mid December, nor why you are randomly attaching /Inh categories to some of them mid January. I will continue to restore any such deletions, but it is tedious to do so after so many polite requests for you not to delete without discussing first. I see you have since added a forum comment, which is progress. However, might I suggest that if it's consistency you are after, gaining broad agreement and then making a mass change to all affected pages is going to be a better method than changing random pages in a particular collection and telling no one. --Fleanetha (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Break

Obliged. Take as much time on it as you feel like, I accept responsibility for what I've done and I think I'm mostly staying away from editing for an extended time, the wiki would be better off without me. - HTD (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)