STO banner UA gamepedia 20181008 500x80.jpg

User talk:Damixon

From Star Trek Online Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Note to self:

* To create table which is collapsed by default, and can be optionally expanded:

{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed wikitable" style="width:XXem"  

* Adding a reference:
<ref name="Word">Text</ref> --> <references/>

Welcome to STOWiki[edit source]

Hi,

welcome to STOWiki.org. Please fell free to add to the Wiki and be bold! If you have any questions, the Guidelines cannot answer, simply ask me on my talk page.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (--~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Again, welcome! --Dukedom (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Infinity Box[edit source]

Nice style change, I'll update all the other boxes accordingly --Dukedom (talk) 09:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping for a reaction before applying that change to other Lockboxes. Thanks for the welcoming message. --Damixon (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the Icons, I just tried if a redirect for the file will work (see Infinity Prize Pack: T6 Ship) but on my side it looks like that breaks the rarity overlay. Maybe ask SFC3 about his opinion since I haven't dealt with icons in a long time. At a second thought just move them as you see fit. I was concerned that people would copy paste the names from the wiki page to find the packs on the exchange then I rememberred that they are bound. :D --Dukedom (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I managed to figure out how to add icon which links to proper article when clicked on. No redirects or page moving is needed this way. :) --Damixon (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Fleet T6[edit source]

Some T6 Fleet ship articles have (T6) suffix in their name, while others don't. I found duplicate article of the same ship so I need help in deciding which one should continue to exist? Fleet Faeht Intel Warbird or Fleet Faeht Intel Warbird (T6) --Damixon (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

My Personal optinion is we dont need the T6 moniker in the page name.Jacobsodinforever2000 (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will go that way. Both articles were written with some effort, but one has to be blanked. Thanks for your reply. --Damixon (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ship variant test[edit source]

Throwing some ideas here to see how it looks. --Damixon (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Class Description
Magellan class, link Federation Advanced Research Vessel Retrofit (Magellan).png What the Nebula is to the Galaxy, the Magellan is to the Monarch class. The Magellan class has a broader, more angular mission pod, and its warp nacelles have a triangular cross section. This class is available for 2000 Zen small icon.png from the C-Store.
Nebula class Federation Advanced Research Vessel (Nebula).png The Nebula class reuses many of the components and much of the technology of the Galaxy class, but is tailored to be less expensive and more flexible. It has a large saucer shaped primary hull atop a smaller secondary hull, with the warp nacelles mounted below the saucer. To the aft is a large pylon supporting a triangular mission pod.
I like this very much! I agree that the ship the page is about shouldn't have its own variant listed under "Variants" section. Any description of it should be put in Overview section. --PiralDorrm (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I likle this..Lets do it. Jacobsodinforever2000 (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Great, this doesn't have to be the final version but I hope it is a step into right direction. If there will be no objection to changes with Variant and Universal Console sections, I can update the Boilerplate:Ship article to reflect this. --Damixon (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Another test below. --Damixon (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Class Description
Elachi S'ateth Escort.pngS'ateth-class The S'ateth-class is an improved variant of the standard Elachi S'golth Escort. This vessel follows the design lineage set by the S'golth, but features a more elaborate wings design.

Players unlock the S'ateth skin by acquiring the Elachi S'ateth Escort.
Class Information
Elachi S'ateth Escort.png
S'ateth-class
The S'ateth-class is an improved variant of the standard Elachi S'golth Escort. This vessel follows the design lineage set by the S'golth, but features a more elaborate wings design.

Players unlock the S'ateth skin by acquiring the Elachi S'ateth Escort.
Class Description
S'ateth-class
Elachi S'ateth Escort.png
The S'ateth-class is an improved variant of the standard Elachi S'golth Escort. This vessel follows the design lineage set by the S'golth, but features a more elaborate wings design.

Players unlock the S'ateth skin by acquiring the Elachi S'ateth Escort.
I think number 2 wins, at least imo. Number 1 is ok, but Number 3 I don't like at all. I think the photo should be above the class name. --PiralDorrm (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good and I agree - it looks better if photo is above class name. Article you made changes to should be standard for current and future ship articles. --Damixon (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ship article name[edit source]

Should we move Universe Temporal Heavy Dreadnought Cruiser to Temporal Heavy Dreadnought Cruiser? Since it is an exchange item, "Universe" won't provide any result because requisition pack containing it doesn't include class name, while Kdf and Rom version have a class name. --Damixon (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

So..I've commented that Cryptic does this all the time..The KDF and Rom ships have the Class name in front.

I put the class type on All Temporal ships cuz it just got confusing real quick between all the ships. I find the fed method for naming ships confusing...Most of the time (on the forums) people refer to the ships by class name..Especially Timeships.

I did a search today and couldn't find on the Exchange "Special Requisition Pack - Temporal Heavy Dreadnought Cruiser" nor 'Temporal Heavy Dreadnought Cruiser." But I couldn't find it on the exchange using Valkis either (for the Rom)..That pack itself says "Special Requisition Pack - 26th Century Heavy Dreadnought Tier 6 Ship" and still lists the Rom and KDF by class just not the Fed (mouse over)..It gets a ()..

Anywho..Thats my 2 cents..I think A pager starting with class (like in the kdf and Rom) makes sense,is consistent with the 2 other races and a note could be made on what to search for on the exchange if need be..

I'D also note..we have made similar changes by ignoring the [T6] at the end of most ship pages.


Jacobsodinforever2000 (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your reply. I have updated the article with additional explanation on how to obtain it under notes. --Damixon (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Synergistic Retrofitting Set[edit source]

I have undone the change you made to this set page, I corrected the name of the module, but you then changed it to say the pack has had the wrong name since it was released (though you note that you are not able to check this).

I can confirm that the name of the pack ingame is as I edited the article to represent "Console Pack - Dynamic Power Redistibutor Module/Disruption Pulse Emitter".

Cool, they must have changed it sometimes during the season 13. Item was released in January with name that wasn't matching the actual console name, so it wasn't easy to find it on the exchange. I have corrected the name on lockbox pages. --Damixon (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination as administrator[edit source]

It's been more than long enough now for me to get an answer from everyone I contacted, so it's time to proceed with the public nominations. I've set up your RfA page here with instructions for accepting or declining, and thank you for your interest in taking on this role. oOeyes User-Eyes-Sig.png 09:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Item Cost?[edit source]

Hi! So you told me to contact you if I had any questions, so... Anyway, I'm working on updating (among other things) the kit modules, adding in the base damage values and creating pages for those that don't have them. So I've been noticing that, for the kit modules that already have pages, the cost listed is usually 22,000 EC for a Mk XII Universal kit module. In-game, however, I am finding the cost to be 29,260 EC. I am using a (Level 60 TOS Vulcan) Tribble Character that has no traits or skill points or anything assigned. Am I doing something wrong in regards to calculating the price, or is the price actually higher than listed on the wiki? Shadowslasher410 (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That price originates from the time when those kit modules were very rare quality so I think it just wasn't adjusted when quality was changed. 29,260 EC should be correct price of epic Mk XII universal kit module. --Damixon (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Missing Icons Category[edit source]

So there are some Universal Consoles in the Category:Articles with missing icons that, as far as I can tell, don't actually have any missing icons, either in the page or the console nav. It looks like they're automatically placed there by the wiki, but is there a way you can move 'em out of the category somehow? I'm going through the category and uploading all the icons that are missing and fixing the ones that are done incorrectly. Shadowslasher410 (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure, but I'll try to figure out if something can be done. --Damixon (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Event Calendar[edit source]

Do apologize for spamming your talk page, but I was thinking... you know how we have a table for upcoming events? Well, I was thinking of making an Event Calendar similar to this one using Semantic MediaWiki and Semantic Result Forms (we currently have both extensions on the wiki), as well as making a form and a template for Event Calendar items so that users could add items more easily. I was thinking we could either put it (or a link to it) on the main page. If we don't end up putting it on the main page, and keeping the table, we could use the calendar to populate the table. You'd probably need to talk to the other mods about it, I don't know, so... y'know, let me know what you think. Shadowslasher410 (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad if we talk about changes and ideas. I'm not sure how would that work but if that form you mention can make things easier I'm ok with it. I don't have knowledge to implement something like that so you'll have to push this yourself. Events table is currently maintained by editing the {{Events}} template. Btw. Can it pull data from this? --Damixon (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

launch bleth choas fighter icon[edit source]

So I uploaded the icon for launch bleth choas fighters, but the stupid thing isn't linking like its supposed to. I think it's how I named the file. Could you rename the file so that it works right? I can't rename file pages. Or am I supposed to reupload them? Meh, too tired to think about it now. Oh, and do we have any guidelines about how to name different types of icons and images and all that? Would be useful. Thanks! Shadowslasher410 (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

{{abilityicon}} template requires faction tag in the icon name so proper naming would be "NAME icon (Federation).png" so that it can be used by the template {{abilityicon|Launch Bleth Choas Fighters|Federation|24px}}. Also, {{shiptypeinfo}} template used on playable ship pages also requires a faction tag in the icon name, although icon sometimes doesn't have faction specific icon. We should probably tweak this at one point for ability icons which are same for all factions. There are image guidelines here. You can use the Move option (upper right corner) to rename the icon - I think it should be available to you, but I moved it already. --Damixon (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Noticed this thread while looking at something else. Regarding the Ability Icon tweaks mentioned: Its been a while, but I was putting together an Ability Icon Index at one point - its probably out of date now, but does contain notes of some discrepancies I found. It may be helpful. I do recall some icons being common to different factions. My approach to that would have been to duplicate the icon, rather than change the templte - I think it works well as it is, and most icons, I think are coloured to match the faction UI (or was that the old system), and the template does the right with that. Tahno (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree, too many of these icons are already in use so modifying the template would take too much time to make everything work again. They moved from coloring the icon in a faction colors when they decided to have profession-specific colors. Now some abilities depict a faction unique element such as starship, but usually powers have cross-faction icons, which is best seen on the page you linked - now all the powers look the same, while previously they were blue or red. --Damixon (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Purple Nanopulse Weapons?[edit source]

So I was updating the Holiday Item Vendor with the new stuff from 2017, and for some reason it has a purple variant for the Nanopulse Edge Bat'leth and Lirpa. Cryptic hasn't announced any purple nanopulse weapons. Is it something that was removed and never got removed in the article, or what? Should they be removed? Shadowslasher410 (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Purple model was available [1] during the 2012 winter event, but it was replaced by green variant in 2013. It exists, but it can't be obtained at the moment if I got it right. --Damixon (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Faction colors[edit source]

Hi, I've finished changing the last of the RSE stuff over to direct RSE links so it is safe to change over faction colors and anything else that is "Romulan" to be Republic themed. No rush of course, whenever. Thanks very much.Scientifictheory (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Romulan switched to RR - a small but important step for their independence! --Damixon (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Comparison with ... variant[edit source]

{{Intrepid}} The recent edits you and PiralDorrm have done regarding the comparison sections are great, as I always felt the old comparisons were a little bit of a strange bunch. It does however overlap with an idea I was sketching out and I was wondering if the function I was thinking of should be folded into the comparison table or still be something separate.

My thought was in regards to ships that stem from the same, usually canon, design. I.e. all the tactical escorts built off of the Defiant, or the various Intrepid, Miranda, Oddy, Nova variants; ships that are united by a similar design (with interchangeable parts) and fulfil the same role, usually with an overarching label.

At present, these groups of ships are not well linked. When you are on the T4 Defiant page, there is no simple link to see all the similar ships and switch to the T6, T5 Fleet versions and so on. People are usually interested in families of canon ships like that, so I was thinking a side bar for each of these groups that have list all the different tier and fleet variants, maybe also NPC versions too, and related stuff like sets, under a heading of the common name and the type name. So;

(Standard Intrepid image)
Intrepid Class
(Long Range Science Vessel)
Tier 4
Long Range Science Vessel
Long Range Science Vessel Refit
Tier 5
Long Range Science Vessel Retrofit
Fleet Long Range Science Vessel Retrofit
Tier 6
Pathfinder Long Range Science Vessel
Fleet Long Range Science Vessel (T6)
Related
U.S.S. Voyager
Intrepid Class Science Vessel
Long Range Science Vessel Set

Now, if you were intending to list all similar ships like this in your tables, it would save a lot of space. If so, perhaps we can fit in the other bits of info somewhere near? If not, I'll continue working on that as a separate project.Scientifictheory (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Separate sidebar below the Shiptypeinfo? On some pages all ships from the same family are already listed under alternative costume variants so info could be repeated twice. For a moment I was thinking it would be cool if we could merge your idea and current Alternative Variants, but I'm not sure how would that look. I didn't planned on adding Playableshipbytype on all pages, I just wanted to replace those big comparison tables with something simpler (we could use that template to show ships from the same group). Not sure what is the best solution so maybe you could test your project so we can see how it looks. --Damixon (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
RE alternative costume, it doesn't show all different types (not all have a different costume - fleet for instance never does - and they aren't linked to the exact pages)
What I was thinking was if your simpler tables included all the similar ships already (i.e. T5 defiant page included comparisons to the T4, T6 etc. Defiants) then thats 90% of the work done already.
I'll see if I have time to run a few tests of my original soon so we can compare. I'll drop you a note when I've done a couple.Scientifictheory (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Scientifictheory's idea sounds good. Maybe we could replace the Alternative variants section with it. What information did you plan to include in this (just the article names, or also brief descriptions)? --PiralDorrm (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
See top right here for Intrepid (Template:Intrepid), I would put this about half way down the article. Further examples I've put in the noinclude section of the core template here: Template:ShipGroup Scientifictheory (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
EDIT: Regarding Bird of Prey, I was half and half on keeping it limited to just ships that swapped parts with B'rel, but from the point of view of why I aimed to make this was for people looking for a certain canon (or otherwise major) theme. I.e. everything inspired directly from the ship. All of those ships are thematically derived from the same canon design, so personally I'd say put it broad for something like the Bird of Prey, but I'm not married to that part (consistent use is more important).Scientifictheory (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks nice. I have one suggestion, though. Currently that table randomly shows up on the right to Abilities subsection. Could we put it on the bottom of the page, above the all starships template? But instead of it being vertical as it is now, how about we change it into a horizontal table (I don't think I'm describing this well, but hopefully you get what I mean). Or, another suggestion: how about we incorporate it into the main shiptypeinfo table? The table looks nice but its position just bugs me. --PiralDorrm (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to put it with all the others as there is already a ton of templates down there. Navigation should be fairly clean and easy to see where you're going quickly where as already with the current stuff it takes a while reading through to see where you're going. I'm not against having something horizontal, but if so it should be in its own section somewhere higher. Only reason it isn't higher on the page is because the variations sections have a lot of clear templates that, when combined with this, leaves a huge gap. Remaking those sections like the version on the pathfinder page would solve that of course, but that's a whole different workload.Scientifictheory (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I see. Can you try making a horizontal one and putting it immediately beneath the Overview section. Try it (if you want) both with and without the photo - as we already have an image on top of the page and those in alternative variants, maybe there would be no need for the image of the ship there as well. --PiralDorrm (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Vertical (sidebar) variant looks better in my opinion, but without image as PiralDorrm said (since we already have it above). Can it be placed just below the Shiptypeinfo template? Related to clear templates, can you check if {{Clrl}} makes it possible to place ShipGroup template higher above? --Damixon (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd agree there. Have made the adjustments and the alternative clear template does the job.Scientifictheory (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't been on for about a week, but I've checked the page now and looks great! --PiralDorrm (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Cool, thanks, I'll slowly roll out a few more of these.Scientifictheory (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for spoiler[edit source]

Just wanted to say I'm sorry for spoiling that one plot twist. I had just finished the mission in question myself and was just eager to update this wiki. Lots of twists and turns in this story arc, though. 78.20.208.71 17:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to update that wiki page, it should be added if it happened. Let me know if you need help with editing/formatting. --Damixon (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Broken Icon and Elite Colony Security Weapons[edit source]

Hey, its been a while! Took a break with STO, but I'm back now. Anyway, I was looking at the wanted files category and I noticed the reroute reserves to weapons (needs faction) icon exists on the wiki but is improperly named. Since I can't, would you mind renaming it?

Also, in the wanted articles section, some of the most-linked articles pertain to the elite fleet colony security weapons. There are around 30 of them that have their own individual pages, but that's not really necessary, because the only thing unique about them is that one shield restoring modifier they all have. I think it would be best to delete all the existing individual pages and redirect all the links to the Fleet Colony Security Weapons page, like was done with the Elite Fleet weapons. What do you think? Shadowslasher410 (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, welcome back, sorry for the late reply. Rename function doesn't exist so only option is to move an icon (with option to redirect the old file/page name to the new one, or not). I will check it tomorrow, in a hurry at the moment. Related to Elile fleet pages, I'd rather leave those individual pages since they already exist, but some mini vote would be needed on this (somewhere on Colony world space weapon talk page). --Damixon (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism to Gorn article[edit source]

Hello, please refrain from vandalizing articles, as you did with the https://sto.gamepedia.com/Gorn content. Your edit has been reverted. Further such vandalism will be reported to the site administrators.

Thank you.