Category:Arts and Letters[edit source]

I like it ... -- that old bearded guy 14:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking we needed one like that! -Acacia 16:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

HE LIVES! And good choice for a category name. --mnenyver 17:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Madness[edit source]

I am not happy -- to put it mildly -- about your pre-empting with the "Mad:" namespace and wiping out Heppler wrench/Mad. As I noted on that page, it was experimental, with the goal of testing some breadcrumb ideas and tools (the proto-template on my Sandbox page) before "going public" with them. At the very least, a courtesy note on my talk page would have been to the point, which among other things would have allowed the process of consensus building to continue, and would have enabled me to make modifications to the proto-template that point it to the namespace. Consensus and buy-in is important here, and every attempt should be made to arrive at consensus before something is deleted. Is that too much to ask? In the spirit of that consensus building, I have modified the proto-template so that it does point at the Mad: namespace. This time, rather than pre-empting, please look at the result (reflected in Heppler wrench) and let's discuss. -- that old bearded guy 13:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that caused you pain. I'm sorry I didn't put an explanation on your talk page; there was some explanation in the reasons for moving and deletion and I created a new watercooler Forum for Mad:. Excited by getting Mad: created, I had decided that my own experimentation with subpages should be put out of its misery and I did yours as well without considering a possible negative impact to your feelings or alternative points of view. I have now also continued the discussion in Forum:What goes on a main subject page; as implied there I would at this point be willing to move the Mad:Heppler wrench back to Heppler wrench/Mad (for you, if you wish, though you should have the power to do it yourself). — Zarchne 18:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive[edit source]

Archived messages (/threads ending?) before 2008-05-31

bots[edit source]

Hi there! Danny asked me to check out the message on his talk page about running a bot here. I'm not familiar with pywikipedia, but I know that AWB will run on Wikia. Let me know if you need any help setting it up. —Scott (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat[edit source]

Totally unnecessary for me to have anything beyond ordinary editing powers, but there it is. You do go out of your way to make people feel welcome and as though their input is valuable, which is very much appreciated. So... thank you. :) --mnenyver 18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Roll overback[edit source]

Thank you. I promise I won't let the power go to my head—at least until I figure out what it is. Argadi 15:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And again, thanks for the additional vote of confidence. Argadi 16:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for the vote of confidence! -- Corgi 04:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Me too. --Quadibloc 03:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Future of Mad?[edit source]

So now that the madness has died down a bit, dare I ask what your plans are for the Mad: namespace? :) --mnenyver 16:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably a bad idea on your part, in fact.
I haven't changed any plans, really. I hadn't verified it, but now I see that Mad: is not considered part of the main content (at least, in the widget listing top pages/recently modified), so I would feel pretty free to do whatever krezy, schtupid stuff there that I feel should be done in public (not User:) that doesn't fit into the style of the rest of the wiki. However, as long as /Mad articles seem to work like I think they should (when people have "Crazy Theories" they can write them up there as if they were factual until proved one way or the other) one major motivation for adding to Mad: is vacated. Another motivation for building metapages, to reduce number of page loads required to get from reading everything that's on the wiki about a topic to editing the appropriate page (ideally, edit boxes for each page would appear on the metapage as well) is on hold until I learn how much using a clank might relieve that annoyance.
And once I do that, I have things like more The Works cards I'd like to catalog, I have a copy of Volume VI to pick through and VII should be on the way. I'd like to see more indexing of the Yahoo groups discussions. None of that is necessarily "Mad" material, but I like having the namespace there if it's needed.
(And there is real life, still, too.)
Zarchne 22:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
"as long as /Mad articles seem to work like I think they should (when people have "Crazy Theories" they can write them up there as if they were factual until proved one way or the other) one major motivation for adding to Mad: is vacated."
Well, yes, that's why we wanted to have Mad: pages to begin with. :) My reason for asking was that I wanted to know if you still had grand plans for the namespace or if Mad: could somehow be put back to its originally intended use. As it is, you have plans and the subpages really are an elegant solution, so there's no reason to change anything. I was just curious. --mnenyver 01:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What do we do when page numbers don't match?[edit source]

The changes you are making to the Volume VI chronology can cause some confusion since the page numbers in the Chronology link to comics with different numbers. How can we solve that? Should we have both numbers in each entry? (There at least needs to be an explanation at the top of the page.)

It also looks like we need a way to specify pages without links to comics. Argadi 19:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There are also situations like Lord Selnikov where the first appearance is cited in terms of the page number used in the web comic version. There are several other references that need to change (and be explained) if we switch page numbers. Argadi 19:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ask in a (new?) forum (topic)? ⚙Zarchne 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I asked in a forum topic (and you answered), but neither you or anyone else has responded to the two questions I left after your response. Could you let me know your opinions? Thanks, Argadi 18:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Apparently this has nothing to do with the fact that the Volume VI chronology page is currently empty of text inside the various boxes,
No, that's due to filling out the structure and then not going back and filling it in. Yet. Feel free. Pick a section.
or that "Pages with too many expensive parser calls" is now a wanted category,
I think that has to do with the per-page "start a discussion" links.
or that (as you noted with some dismay) a revised edition of the Volume VI collection will be coming out with two extra pages of comics, so as to make an important two-page spread come out right.
I am glad to see that they have the resources to publish a corrected version, though. When I first saw "2nd Edition" somehow I thought there were going to be more changes than just adding a page or two to fix that one two-pager which was obviously wrong. (Perhaps along with numerous places with the same error that are much more subtle.) Like I said, I would have thought "Revised" edition would be more appropriate, but... well, they probably know publishing terminology better than I do.
Since my copies of Volume 5 and 6 had problems with their bindings, and they now have a new printer, I think I'm going to take the opportunity to support the Foglios by going for their sensational pre-order offer.
Yes, my local comic book store was kind enough to replace my copy of volume VI at least twice, and I'd given up. Maybe I should seal it away as a collector's edition, even if it isn't exactly mint.
I don't live where they hold the science-fiction conventions the Foglios attend.
I ought to be able to attend Kumoricon (Portland anime), but I'm pretty bad at anything that requires advanced planning, funding, and is not a moral imperative.
And since, as Kaja noted, so that those who feel no inclination to purchase a second printed copy of Volume 6 don't feel left out, the two new pages will be available in high-resolution PDF format on the Girl Genius site, it seems there's hardly any reason to complain! --Quadibloc 21:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Right, I spoke before really reading the News post. (It's not entirely my fault the shoutbox only gets a post or two per week, if that, leaving expletives unscrolled.)
So, I'm going to suggest that when the "2nd Edition" comes out we just use those page numbers.
Zarchne 22:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Email?[edit source]

Hey, Z. Do you get emails through the wiki? I've sent some in the past, but never heard if they reached you. --mnenyver 05:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. It might be noted, however, that in practice wikiediting and reading e-mail tend to be mutually exclusive for me. ⚙Zarchne 08:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC), updated 20:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Mad Sort[edit source]

You should consider how you want the Mad category to be sorted. Currently Sleipnir is sorted under O, but Sleipnir/Mad is sorted under S. Argadi 14:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Och, gut point. ⚙Zarchne 14:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

the canon[edit source]

Given the excellence of your recent post on Yahoo, you might want to drop by The "canon" some time and improve it. At present, the article is all wind-up and no swing, to use a baseball metaphor. It sounds like you have the chops to make that page present its case. It needs someone with formal education in this area to do it right. One more item for the bottom of the old to-do list. --DryBrook 14:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't read the History of that page, which is one of several that I have started and not really finished; although I would welcome contributions from the village here, it's been my baby all along. So, the idea has been percolating for a long time and I do feel that in that post I finally produced a relatively convincing argument, and I was, in fact, thinking I would try to reword it a bit for that page. I'd even not complain if you tried to do it.
By the way, I'm actually a college drop-out (liberal arts engineering school turned out not to be the best choice from a degree-acquisition perspective and I've not gotten around to making another attempt elsewhere); I only style myself "Professor" because it fits. (I've never been formally diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder, but one of the symptoms of Aspberger's in children is "little professor" behavior.)
So, yeah, someone who had actually taken a few philosophy courses or minored in it might be able to do a better job. On the other hand, actual academics tend to be even harder to understand, at least for the lay reader, than I evidently am (and I have a pretty good set of data points for just how hard that is or can be). The point here is not really to teach continental philosophy but just to suggest how some high-level features of it (as if the Foglios took a few courses without necessarily majoring in it) would be relevant to Girl Genius.
Zarchne 16:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cite templates[edit source]

There's something wrong with the Twitter's examples - they don't display at all like the others do. Corgi 00:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I'd like to delegate it to Argadi. ⚙Zarchne 22:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Why remove the "von" from the sort?[edit source]

Why did you remove the "von" and "van" from the sort of the mad pages? I've been told that how "van" get treated depends on family tradition. When I look in my unabridged dictionary I see many names listed in the "van" and "von" section, so including those terms in the sort is reasonable in some cases, and that's where I would look for those names in a category listing. Argadi 22:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Um... They looked wrong to me on the Category:Mad page and they didn't already have DEFAULTSORT set so I set it, figuring we could be dealing with a lot of vans and vons. I'm not very invested in it, though. Obviously they should match the main article page. ⚙Zarchne 03:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Just as long as you keep the 'von's away from 'Wulfenbach'. *grin* -- Corgi 18:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Down! Off! Good doggie. ⚙Zarchne 08:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Bug Squad/Vespiary Squad, and oh yeah, 'Mad'[edit source]

I'm confused - are we going with Vespiary Squad (my preference), Bug Squad or which? You've got recent edits on both, so I'm not sure where it's landing.

I say, make it "Vespiary squad" (not capitalized), then fix the references & redirects. I edited Bug Squad because that's where the content currently resides and made Vespiary squad a redirect to it. ⚙Zarchne 15:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am unclear on what exactly needs to be done to 'mad' a page, since my handy mimmoth recipe was shooed in that direction (but nobody's actually DONE so). Help?

Corgi 18:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, the best choice for that is probably a user page. See Talk:Mimmoths on a stick for now for alternatives and explanation. ⚙Zarchne 10:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"usually the other way works"[edit source]

Pipe tricks (and a few other things, such as template substitution) do not work inside <ref> tag. Although the fact (born out of technical limitations imposed by the way <ref>s works) has long been familiar to people at Wikipedia, it's not surprising you'd fall prey to it. Circeus 15:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks. I keep meaning to install Mediawiki somewhere and get a broader perspective, but so far it's been too far down on both my list of "would like to do" and my list of "can get paid to do". ⚙Zarchne 21:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

'mostly sane person, apparently'[edit source]

*sporfle!*

Moved Theory[edit source]

Back on March 20th, you had added a note to Zeetha, Daughter of Chump/Mad to the effect that Lucrezia wasn't necessarily sincere in her claimed intent to try being good for a change. While I approved of noting that, I replied to another aspect of what you said about Lucrezia. The result was rather too much of a digression about Lucrezia on a page about Zeetha, and so I ended up, on the 26th, taking the liberty of moving most of your edit of that day, plus my comments on it, to the Lucrezia Mongfish/Mad page.

I had hoped I hadn't given offense; now that you're back, I hope you'll take a look at your comments as I've squeezed them in on the Lucrezia page and make any necessary changes to make them correspond to your actual intentions. --Quadibloc 01:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Inspirations[edit source]

Might I persuade you to add a little on your 'Tatterhood' entry to explain why it's being included? A brief summary, or comment of relevance, something like that. Please? -- Corgi 16:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I should. ⚙Zarchne 18:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We have been hacked and badly.[edit source]

This is Rej. I am currently in exile.


After browsing around on the site anonymously I went to log in.


The login for a while has been a box asking you to login or create an account. This time its formating was strange. instead of buttons there were options on different lines.

Going to log in. It told me my user name was invalid. I looked it was the correct spelling.

I tried a second time. Same result.

All of a sudden. The recent pages page showed up blank. (I reloaded it to see if it had logged me in dispite the message.) Now there were no pages listed.

The front page showed redlinks for all the page by page forums. I have no Idea how deep the damage goes.

I assume some hacker has trojaned a sysop id and password. (I'e the one I can no longer use).


So this is bad.


Your attention is needed.

--Rej 01:37, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not?[edit source]

Rej¿¤¤? : Hmm. Curiouser and curiouser. It now shows me logged in. The page by page forums are no longer red linked on the front page. I am still paranoid but it may also be just wikia hic-cups due to the watch-->follow patch.

Cancel the code red! --Rej¿¤¤? 01:49, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

In any case, please remember that I don't have any power over the underlying software. (As long as we are a Wikia site) when something like this happens, it would be best to go to Wikia staff. ⚙Zarchne 02:43, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
Ha. To paraphrase Alice: It's hard to remember something you've not thought before. I wasn't thinking it was a software problem. And I figured you would know what to do even it that were only to direct me to the wikia staff. Thanx.
Login seems to still be working now. Though the format of the login box keeps changing. I figure its wikia staff playing with our formats. Would be nice if they said something though. --Rej¿¤¤? 02:30, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Doctor Mittlemind.[edit source]

The action of deleting the redirect is correct. For the record. Both the spelling and the link were correct when I made them. The Professors chose to change the spelling the next time it appeared and other sparks beside me fiddled Doctor Mittelmind's id/anchor on the Castle Heterodyne inmates page.

Ha, I struggle with my spelling all the time. So it hurts my vanity to be thought to have misspelled when I didn't. Thus the need to set the record straight. Damn glad this is a wiki. Always changeable! --Rej¿¤¤? 22:56, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Forest?[edit source]

As I logged in I was greeted by a confused wiki. It now seems to have settled down into the Forest skin. Was that your doing? --Rej¿¤¤? 00:44, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

The "confused wiki" was not my doing. Apparently Monaco-custom no longer works. I made Zerogee an admin and he made the switch to forest. Check out Special:LogZarchne 00:57, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Holy crap - that was me? Sorry guys, wasn't trying to mess with anyone -- I thought I was just changing my own preferences. I had tried out the new skin earlier and found the issues -- then tried to revert - and since I had to actively select something to do this, I naturally selected the wrong thing. (Which promptly hosed me up to the point I had a hell of a time getting back into my preferences to sort it out further. Whoops.) --Zerogee 05:28, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Lol. When tinkering, we all have our "wocketa wocketa wocketa SNAP ting POK!" moments. --Undomelin 06:07, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
Zerogee: it wasn't you who made the wiki nigh-unusable, it was Wikia staff reorganizing things. In any case, we need to be looking at the new interface. I selected some colors in the Theme Designer closer to our yellow-paper/leather-binding/brass-accents theme, but that's a very rough draft. ⚙Zarchne 14:25, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

"Borzoi female"?[edit source]

What does this phrase mean?--Bosda Di'Chi 14:17, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Borzoi is a breed of dog. Female dog. Clear enough? ⚙Zarchne 14:25, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Glad to have you back.[edit source]

I'm glad you have time to edit again. I've been around, but without much free time to edit pages. Argadi (talk) 23:08, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, actually I got sucked into an (or, at first, more than one) MMOG via Facebook, so it's not like I've had a good excuse. (Also, the game has a wiki!) But at the time, most things here had been covered and they had just switched the Wikia software, which I still find overbusy and confusing, so the motivation wasn't there, I guess. RL (which is what prompted me to get onto FB in the first place) has suffered somewhat as well, so we'll see. I'm still playing (a newer version of) the same game... ⚙Zarchne (talk) 06:07, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Why does Hristo Tiktoffen belong in the "Librarians and library staff" category?[edit source]

I am loathe to question someone who has been associated with this wiki so much longer than I have been and I am very pleased to see you have found time to devote to it again. (In fact, you seem to be making up for lost time.) But I just don't see why Hristo Tiktoffen belongs in the "Librarians and library staff" category. If you wouldn't mind explaining your reasoning for this categorization, I'd appreciate it. -- William Ansley (talk) 03:21, May 11, 2016 (UTC)

Heh. ☺ The answer is, because he's working for the Silent Librarians. ⚙Zarchne (talk) 05:19, May 11, 2016 (UTC)
OK. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say he is either a librarian or a library staff member nonetheless, but it's arguably true to say he is. -- William Ansley (talk) 02:47, May 12, 2016 (UTC)
It is undoubtedly a stretch. I guess I saw it as sort of reverse fourth-wall humor. And you could look at it the other way: is he really a Wulfenbach minion or Storm King Conspirator? I don't mind a little liberality with the categorization (until User:Corgi bites my ankle for it). ⚙Zarchne (talk) 06:57, May 12, 2016 (UTC)
Tiktoffen tells Agatha that he's working for them before the Castle put a stop to all that and squishes him. -- Blitzengaard (talk) 01:08, May 12, 2016 (UTC)

With thanks, and additional kerfuffelry...[edit source]

As for the name, well....you will have to ask one of the real-life friends of the Professors one day, its connected to a real name  Blitzengaard (talk) 01:04, May 12, 2016 (UTC)

Links to redirect pages in new works entries[edit source]

You have recently added new sections to some article entitled "The Works". In these sections (some of them, at least), you have created links made up of a version of the character's name that are specially crafted to point to a redirect page without redirecting. What benefit do you see in this?

It seems to me this is at least potentially confusing and I fail to see any benefit to be gained from it, myself. Two examples are the new "The Works" sections for Punch and Baron Klaus Wulfenbach. -- William Ansley (talk) 15:23, June 20, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... I was getting annoyed because it seemed more difficult to access the actual card name page than I wanted. So I fixed it.
Of course, the convention I've been following with The Works cards (admittedly, with a six or so year hiatus) is to make sure that the page for the actual card title exists and to categorize that exact title with the card epithet categories, while at the same time making that page a redirect if the wiki had a page for the same thing under a different title. (Another convention is to place things that only appear in The Works in Category:The Works, and those only, although I'm reconsidering this.)
I suppose instead of a handcrafted link that does exactly what I want, it could be a wikilink that would, when clicked, redirect back to the same page, but with the "Redirected from" preamble that would allow access back to the page I wanted.
Zarchne (talk) 18:23, June 20, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and The Works[edit source]

Many thanks for the promotion *throws a salute*. Feel free to nudge me if you want more Works images to go up, I have to get round to scanning some more. --Blitz (talk) 22:38, June 23, 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think the The Works images that would be the most valuable are ones for pages that don't already have an image at all, which would mainly be the pages that only exist (so far) because of The Works... which I have categorized in Category:The Works directly (scroll down past the card epithet categories). ⚙Zarchne (talk) 01:15, June 24, 2016 (UTC)

Useful Administrivia[edit source]

Thank you for the thorough Administrivia write up. It is very helpful to me to know what you are doing and why regarding role updates on this wiki, for my own future reference. -- William Ansley (talk) 11:11, June 11, 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think I'm done now, for the next few months-to-years. Feel free to comment on that page (Forum:Administrivia), which if you'll read down at the bottom I originally created to have these discussions (er, ahead of time...when I was the new and only bureaucrat). ⚙Zarchne (talk) 14:20, June 11, 2020 (UTC)

Patrol is spam protection[edit source]

Patrol is one of the approaches for detecting inappropriate pages in a wiki. I've been marking pages as Patrolled weekly for some time. (We've been fortunate in having a low spam rate in this wiki for the last few years.) If you see the "Mark this page as patrolled" link on a page just click it if the page isn't bogus.) Argadi (talk) 20:50, June 25, 2020 (UTC)

Do you track what mentions aren't used?[edit source]

Can your automation for Appearances generate a list of appearance mentions that aren't matched by any existing Appearance page? That could guide you to other pages to generate (especially if you can sort the results by the number of times mentioned). Argadi (talk) 00:45, June 26, 2020 (UTC)

Eventually... I think it had crossed my mind. The way the program works for the moment it isn't possible (for each entry it just tries to match the whole field against each character's regex to see what succeeds). Well... technically I guess whenever there's a match I could remove it, but what was left would be a lot of garbage. Soonish I was going to improve it (possibly rewrite the whole thing) to deal with links better. After that, maybe I'll be in a better position to break the non-link stuff into subfields on commas and semicolons and identify what matches specifically and what's left over. But before that even, all I've matched on at this writing (with the exception of just a couple of manually configured characters, like Bang) is the nicknames in Category:Antidisambiguation, not even the official page names. So I was going to add subpages for all the entries in Category:Characters (proper, not subcats yet) searching for those full names along with any nicknames. (If there's a way to extract all the redirects, I'll probably do those after that, too.) ⚙Zarchne (talk) 01:21, June 26, 2020 (UTC)

Agatha Heterodyne 1?[edit source]

Can I get rid of the "Agatha Heterodyne 1" redirect page?

um... oh. The reason that exists is because it's a card in The Works, as mentioned on the page (Agatha Heterodyne#The Works, and that's how it is categorized (e.g., Category:The Works:Girl, Category:The Works:Spark). My policy was to have the cards in The Works have articles on the wiki that are named with the exact names on the card and categorized with "The Works:" categories, but if the subject of the card later gets a better name, then have it be a redirect to that name. Does that make sense? ⚙Zarchne (talk) 20:38, June 28, 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid it doesn't, to me anyway. I believe I understand what you are trying to achieve, you want anyone who is navigating through the category tree to be able to find something that is categorized appropriately for every card in the original Girl Genius: The Works game (or at least a representative sample; given your logic, I don't understand why you don't have redirects for "Agatha Heterodyne 2", "Agatha Heterodyne 3", "Agatha Heterodyne 4", and "Agatha Heterodyne 5", as well). However, the original game is long out of print, so most people who discover Girl Genius these days won't have heard of it. I would guess that the vast majority of people who use this wiki aren't navigating through the category tree, they are searching for specific articles. And if they are navigating through the category tree, they are unlikely to find their way to the "The Works" branch.
Instead, most people's exposure to your specialized links will be to find them in an article, at which point they will click on them, find they take them to a redirect page that redirects them right back to the article they were just reading, which, if they are anything like me, they will find irritating. One rather fairly new member of this wiki recently marked Agatha Heterodyne 1 as a candidate for speedy deletion for (I would imagine), this very reason. In my opinion, either "Agatha Heterodyne 1" should be made into a page with actual (albeit minimal) content or be deleted; and the same holds true of all the other pages in the same state. In my opinion, the annoyance occasioned by the "redirect loops" you have created far outweighs any utility of having a full category tree for the long obsolete first edition of the works card game. -- William Ansley (talk) 22:54, June 28, 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take the minimum content compromise.⚙Zarchne (talk) 01:22, June 29, 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the fact that you listened to me and took my concerns seriously. Obviously, I feel strongly about this issue, but that doesn't make me right. You really don't have to do anything about the current set up regarding the Works redirect pages if you don't want to.
Of course, I would prefer it if you did or if you didn't object to someone else doing so. However, another possible option occurred to me. The existence of the redirect pages, now that I know what they are there for, doesn't bother me as much as the links that take you to them. If the links to the pages were removed, that would erase most of my irritation and would still let people find these pages when navigating through the category pages. That being said, I do prefer the minimal content compromise. Perhaps the fellow who was scanning in cards from the first edition of the works could be prevailed upon to scan more card images to add to these pages. I think it was Blitzengaard. I will check and contact him if I am correct. -- William Ansley (talk) 03:31, June 29, 2020 (UTC)

How'd you find André?[edit source]

In the latest set of appearances pages, the André the Jäger appearance page has a match for André the Jäger in a chronology entry where he is only identified as André, without a link, in the Actions section. It is correct, but I don't understand you did it, or rather, how your bot did. Would you mind explaining, please? -- William Ansley (talk) 03:52, June 29, 2020 (UTC)

It is a link to the specific page. So even though I don't (currently) parse links as links, the text is there to match. However, I would note that I addressed about three bugs yesterday that affected 1) names with parentheses or (other regex metacharacters) 2) names that end with parentheses (or other symbols), and 3) names with certain XML entities: &AElig; &auml; &Oslash. Since it hits all three, it took a bit to get André (Jäger) to match. I say "addressed" because 2 & 3 aren't really fixed correctly as much as worked around (2 by stripping trailing symbols and 3 by adding those entities to an ad-hoc de-xml routine), but maybe in the rewrite. ⚙Zarchne (talk) 13:13, June 29, 2020 (UTC)
Oh, there was also 4) I wasn't decoding XML entities outside the character field. As it happens actually neither #3 nor #4 apply to the entry you're talking about (they were relevant to General Øsk's one appearance) (although you can see they could have been). There was also the fact that, up to now, I tend to do a few runs against data I download once (and many more, if you count the ones not uploaded), so that I don't confuse changes in the program with changes in the data. (This is why I'm trying to get it to note at the bottom when the data was downloaded.) Someone (probably Argadi, or else you) just made that mention a link in between downloads so there may have been uploads after it was changed that didn't reflect the change (although not too many, because bugs #1 and #2 had to be fixed also).⚙Zarchne (talk) 15:02, June 29, 2020 (UTC)
If I have the time zones right, Argadi changed it to a link at 2020-06-28 17:07 and the data was last downloaded 2020-06-29 01:30 (8 hours later), so that fits. And that's what the colophon says when I look at it now (BTW, do you know a way to force templates to take effect immediately?). The page was actually posted at 2020-06-29 02:19 (1 hour later) and you posted the question at 03:52 (1.5 hours after that).⚙Zarchne (talk) 15:28, June 29, 2020 (UTC)
I've bookmarked your errors page and plan/hope to keep working making edits to remove items. When viewing you can add ?action=purge to a page to force a rebuild of a cached page to get updated templates. I don't know of any way to force that without viewing the page. Argadi (talk) 19:57, June 29, 2020 (UTC)
Isn't there a THISPAGE type thing that I could put in, so that there'd be a link, and then include the purge parameter with the "Stand by" message? ...here it is, PAGENAME (e.g., "Zarchne") Anyway, I started using Category:Characters with no appearances especially if I felt the character would likely never show in the comic. (Spad Buckforth hasn't yet, but I'm confident he will... of course, the category can always be removed. Could be part of one of those warning templates instead.)⚙Zarchne (talk) 21:03, June 29, 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect sanitization of HTML[edit source]

Take a look at the second heading section of Savannah Goodwin/Appearances. The ampersand is handled incorrectly. Argadi (talk) 23:18, June 29, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, will be fixed in next round. ⚙Zarchne (talk) 02:32, June 30, 2020 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.