Category talk:Reviewed - Revision history

Tao alexis at 21:03, 29 October 2023

2023-10-29T21:03:45Z

Tao alexis at 21:03, 29 October 2023

2023-10-29T21:03:26Z

Maxwell at 20:59, 29 October 2023

2023-10-29T20:59:32Z

Tao alexis at 20:03, 29 October 2023

2023-10-29T20:03:00Z

Tao alexis at 20:02, 29 October 2023

2023-10-29T20:02:30Z

Tao alexis at 20:02, 29 October 2023

2023-10-29T20:02:20Z

Tao alexis at 19:56, 29 October 2023

2023-10-29T19:56:06Z

Tao alexis at 19:55, 29 October 2023

2023-10-29T19:55:57Z

Maxwell: Created page with "~~~~ A question. A while back, I was doing a bunch of routine edits of the form "X is an amateur-tiersage study in the field of Y", and there may..."

2023-10-29T19:00:53Z

Created page with "~~~~ A question. A while back, I was doing a bunch of routine edits of the form "X is an amateur-tiersage study in the field of Y", and there may..."

New page

[[User:Maxwell|Maxwell]] ([[User talk:Maxwell|talk]]) 19:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC) A question. A while back, I was doing a bunch of routine edits of the form "X is an amateur-tier[[Sage Study|sage study]] in the [[Sage Field|field]] of Y", and there may yet be abilities here and there which got missed for that treatment. Is it okay to fix those when I spot them, or should I refrain even from that in favor of hitting reviewed pages?

Speaking of the reviewed category: every link on this page is now purple for me. Some of those I might have visited a while back, before you gave them the review treatment, but I'm certainly close to done with a first pass on everything so far.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, 29 October 2023
Line 11:		Line 11:
	As for no editing of unreviewed content (besides bestiary attack/damage): yes, gotcha loud and clear.		As for no editing of unreviewed content (besides bestiary attack/damage): yes, gotcha loud and clear.

−	[[User:Tao alexis\|Tao alexis]] ([[User talk:Tao alexis\|talk]]) 21:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC) ~~honestly~~, moving as fast as I can. Spent all afternoon on Grassroots movement the other day and still failed in the attempt to complete that sage ability. Some of these are radically difficult to manage. Getting 7 or 8 done in a day is a good pace for me.	+	[[User:Tao alexis\|Tao alexis]] ([[User talk:Tao alexis\|talk]]) 21:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Honestly, moving as fast as I can. Spent all afternoon on Grassroots movement the other day and still failed in the attempt to complete that sage ability. Some of these are radically difficult to manage. Getting 7 or 8 done in a day is a good pace for me.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, 29 October 2023
Line 10:		Line 10:

	As for no editing of unreviewed content (besides bestiary attack/damage): yes, gotcha loud and clear.		As for no editing of unreviewed content (besides bestiary attack/damage): yes, gotcha loud and clear.
		+
		+	[[User:Tao alexis\|Tao alexis]] ([[User talk:Tao alexis\|talk]]) 21:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC) honestly, moving as fast as I can. Spent all afternoon on Grassroots movement the other day and still failed in the attempt to complete that sage ability. Some of these are radically difficult to manage. Getting 7 or 8 done in a day is a good pace for me.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:59, 29 October 2023
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Please understand, there's no point in editing unreviewed content. I'm painstakingly rewriting every page using chatGPT, which means chopping, cutting, pasting, getting chat to think of new content to add, changing pictures, re-adding links that were never there or were there with the original, formatting, etcetera, etcetera. Here, if you want extra work, I'll suggest this. If you go to [[Axe Beak\|axe beak]], you can see how I'm reformatting the "attack forms" and "damage" on the monster stats chart. I've done everything for the A's of the bestiary and I hope everything for the reviewed. Take the time, go through all the existing pages of the bestiary, reviewed or not, and change the formatting to match those that are already done. If I see a bestiary page that hasn't been already changed, I'll leave it alone until you touch it. Deal?		Please understand, there's no point in editing unreviewed content. I'm painstakingly rewriting every page using chatGPT, which means chopping, cutting, pasting, getting chat to think of new content to add, changing pictures, re-adding links that were never there or were there with the original, formatting, etcetera, etcetera. Here, if you want extra work, I'll suggest this. If you go to [[Axe Beak\|axe beak]], you can see how I'm reformatting the "attack forms" and "damage" on the monster stats chart. I've done everything for the A's of the bestiary and I hope everything for the reviewed. Take the time, go through all the existing pages of the bestiary, reviewed or not, and change the formatting to match those that are already done. If I see a bestiary page that hasn't been already changed, I'll leave it alone until you touch it. Deal?
		+
		+	[[User:Maxwell\|Maxwell]] ([[User talk:Maxwell\|talk]]) 20:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Okay, so I wasn't as close as I thought. Sorry, and thanks for the feedback. I have been adding links -- I'm utterly convinced of the value of copious interlinking, especially having used your wiki for more than a year at my table -- but I'll have to go back and scrutinize all the reviewed pages more carefully. How about I focus on that for a bit, then move to the bestiary. Let me know if your priorities change.
		+
		+	As for no editing of unreviewed content (besides bestiary attack/damage): yes, gotcha loud and clear.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:03, 29 October 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	[[User:Tao alexis\|Tao alexis]] ([[User talk:Tao alexis\|talk]]) 20:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Yesterday I found 11 sage abilities that I'd failed to include in the "category: sage abilities" at the end. I miss things. Everyone does. I see that you're fixing spelling errors, but are you making sure that everything that ought to have a link does? At random I picked a file, "grey ooze," from the reviewed list. Under advantages it reads, "the defender's shield is eaten ..." There are three mentions of "shield" on the page. Is there a link to "shield (weapon)" here? No. Took me what, 15 seconds to find a missing link. I see that the word "weapon" also appears twice and yet there should be a link, "Weapons List" and there isn't. You can't be serious that those two hundred pages don't have problems.		[[User:Tao alexis\|Tao alexis]] ([[User talk:Tao alexis\|talk]]) 20:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Yesterday I found 11 sage abilities that I'd failed to include in the "category: sage abilities" at the end. I miss things. Everyone does. I see that you're fixing spelling errors, but are you making sure that everything that ought to have a link does? At random I picked a file, "grey ooze," from the reviewed list. Under advantages it reads, "the defender's shield is eaten ..." There are three mentions of "shield" on the page. Is there a link to "shield (weapon)" here? No. Took me what, 15 seconds to find a missing link. I see that the word "weapon" also appears twice and yet there should be a link, "Weapons List" and there isn't. You can't be serious that those two hundred pages don't have problems.

−	Please understand, there's no point in editing unreviewed content. I'm painstakingly rewriting every page using chatGPT, which means chopping, cutting, pasting, getting chat to think of new content to add, changing pictures, re-adding links that were never there or ~~was~~ there with the original, formatting, etcetera, etcetera. Here, if you want extra work, I'll suggest this. If you go to [[Axe Beak\|axe beak]], you can see how I'm reformatting the "attack forms" and "damage" on the monster stats chart. I've done everything for the A's of the bestiary and I hope everything for the reviewed. Take the time, go through all the existing pages of the bestiary, reviewed or not, and change the formatting to match those that are already done. If I see a bestiary page that hasn't been already changed, I'll leave it alone until you touch it. Deal?	+	Please understand, there's no point in editing unreviewed content. I'm painstakingly rewriting every page using chatGPT, which means chopping, cutting, pasting, getting chat to think of new content to add, changing pictures, re-adding links that were never there or were there with the original, formatting, etcetera, etcetera. Here, if you want extra work, I'll suggest this. If you go to [[Axe Beak\|axe beak]], you can see how I'm reformatting the "attack forms" and "damage" on the monster stats chart. I've done everything for the A's of the bestiary and I hope everything for the reviewed. Take the time, go through all the existing pages of the bestiary, reviewed or not, and change the formatting to match those that are already done. If I see a bestiary page that hasn't been already changed, I'll leave it alone until you touch it. Deal?

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Speaking of the reviewed category: every link on this page is now purple for me. Some of those I might have visited a while back, before you gave them the review treatment, but I'm certainly close to done with a first pass on everything so far.
-[[User:Tao alexis|Tao alexis]] ([[User talk:Tao alexis|talk]]) 20:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Yesterday I found 11 sage abilities that I'd failed to include in the "category: sage abilities" at the end.  I miss things.  Everyone does.
+[[User:Tao alexis|Tao alexis]] ([[User talk:Tao alexis|talk]]) 20:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Yesterday I found 11 sage abilities that I'd failed to include in the "category: sage abilities" at the end.  I miss things.  Everyone does.  I see that you're fixing spelling errors, but are you making sure that everything that ought to have a link does?  At random I picked a file, "grey ooze," from the reviewed list.  Under advantages it reads, "the defender's shield is eaten ..."  There are three mentions of "shield" on the page.  Is there a link to "shield (weapon)" here?  No.  Took me what, 15 seconds to find a missing link.  I see that the word "weapon" also appears twice and yet there should be a link, "Weapons List" and there isn't.  You can't be serious that those two hundred pages don't have problems.
 Please understand, there's no point in editing unreviewed content.  I'm painstakingly rewriting every page using chatGPT, which means chopping, cutting, pasting, getting chat to think of new content to add, changing pictures, re-adding links that were never there or was there with the original, formatting, etcetera, etcetera.  Here, if you want extra work, I'll suggest this.  If you go to [[Axe Beak|axe beak]], you can see how I'm reformatting the "attack forms" and "damage" on the monster stats chart.  I've done everything for the A's of the bestiary and I hope everything for the reviewed.  Take the time, go through all the existing pages of the bestiary, reviewed or not, and change the formatting to match those that are already done.  If I see a bestiary page that hasn't been already changed, I'll leave it alone until you touch it.  Deal?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:02, 29 October 2023
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Speaking of the reviewed category: every link on this page is now purple for me. Some of those I might have visited a while back, before you gave them the review treatment, but I'm certainly close to done with a first pass on everything so far.		Speaking of the reviewed category: every link on this page is now purple for me. Some of those I might have visited a while back, before you gave them the review treatment, but I'm certainly close to done with a first pass on everything so far.

−	[[User:Tao alexis\|Tao alexis]] ([[User talk:Tao alexis\|talk]]) 19:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Yesterday I found 11 sage abilities that I'd failed to include in the "category: sage abilities" at the end. I miss things. Everyone does. I see that you're fixing spelling errors, but are you making sure that everything that ought to have a link does? At random I picked a file, "grey ooze," from the reviewed list. Under advantages it reads, "the defender's shield is eaten ..." There are three mentions of "shield" on the page. Is there a link to "shield (weapon)" here? No. Took me what, 15 seconds to find a missing link. I see that the word "weapon" also appears twice and yet there should be a link, "Weapons List" and there isn't. You can't be serious that those two hundred pages don't have problems.	+	[[User:Tao alexis\|Tao alexis]] ([[User talk:Tao alexis\|talk]]) 20:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Yesterday I found 11 sage abilities that I'd failed to include in the "category: sage abilities" at the end. I miss things. Everyone does.
		+	I see that you're fixing spelling errors, but are you making sure that everything that ought to have a link does? At random I picked a file, "grey ooze," from the reviewed list. Under advantages it reads, "the defender's shield is eaten ..." There are three mentions of "shield" on the page. Is there a link to "shield (weapon)" here? No. Took me what, 15 seconds to find a missing link. I see that the word "weapon" also appears twice and yet there should be a link, "Weapons List" and there isn't. You can't be serious that those two hundred pages don't have problems.
		+
		+	Please understand, there's no point in editing unreviewed content. I'm painstakingly rewriting every page using chatGPT, which means chopping, cutting, pasting, getting chat to think of new content to add, changing pictures, re-adding links that were never there or was there with the original, formatting, etcetera, etcetera. Here, if you want extra work, I'll suggest this. If you go to [[Axe Beak\|axe beak]], you can see how I'm reformatting the "attack forms" and "damage" on the monster stats chart. I've done everything for the A's of the bestiary and I hope everything for the reviewed. Take the time, go through all the existing pages of the bestiary, reviewed or not, and change the formatting to match those that are already done. If I see a bestiary page that hasn't been already changed, I'll leave it alone until you touch it. Deal?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:56, 29 October 2023
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Speaking of the reviewed category: every link on this page is now purple for me. Some of those I might have visited a while back, before you gave them the review treatment, but I'm certainly close to done with a first pass on everything so far.		Speaking of the reviewed category: every link on this page is now purple for me. Some of those I might have visited a while back, before you gave them the review treatment, but I'm certainly close to done with a first pass on everything so far.

−	[[User:Tao alexis\|Tao alexis]] ([[User talk:Tao alexis\|talk]]) 19:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Yesterday I found 11 sage abilities that I'd failed to include in the "category: sage abilities" at the end. I miss things. Everyone does.	+	[[User:Tao alexis\|Tao alexis]] ([[User talk:Tao alexis\|talk]]) 19:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Yesterday I found 11 sage abilities that I'd failed to include in the "category: sage abilities" at the end. I miss things. Everyone does. I see that you're fixing spelling errors, but are you making sure that everything that ought to have a link does? At random I picked a file, "grey ooze," from the reviewed list. Under advantages it reads, "the defender's shield is eaten ..." There are three mentions of "shield" on the page. Is there a link to "shield (weapon)" here? No. Took me what, 15 seconds to find a missing link. I see that the word "weapon" also appears twice and yet there should be a link, "Weapons List" and there isn't. You can't be serious that those two hundred pages don't have problems.
−	I see that you're fixing spelling errors, but are you making sure that everything that ought to have a link does? At random I picked a file, "grey ooze," from the reviewed list. Under advantages it reads, "the defender's shield is eaten ..." There are three mentions of "shield" on the page. Is there a link to "shield (weapon)" here? No. Took me what, 15 seconds to find a missing link. I see that the word "weapon" also appears twice and yet there should be a link, "Weapons List" and there isn't. You can't be serious that those two hundred pages don't have problems.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:55, 29 October 2023
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Speaking of the reviewed category: every link on this page is now purple for me. Some of those I might have visited a while back, before you gave them the review treatment, but I'm certainly close to done with a first pass on everything so far.		Speaking of the reviewed category: every link on this page is now purple for me. Some of those I might have visited a while back, before you gave them the review treatment, but I'm certainly close to done with a first pass on everything so far.
		+
		+	[[User:Tao alexis\|Tao alexis]] ([[User talk:Tao alexis\|talk]]) 19:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC) Yesterday I found 11 sage abilities that I'd failed to include in the "category: sage abilities" at the end. I miss things. Everyone does.
		+	I see that you're fixing spelling errors, but are you making sure that everything that ought to have a link does? At random I picked a file, "grey ooze," from the reviewed list. Under advantages it reads, "the defender's shield is eaten ..." There are three mentions of "shield" on the page. Is there a link to "shield (weapon)" here? No. Took me what, 15 seconds to find a missing link. I see that the word "weapon" also appears twice and yet there should be a link, "Weapons List" and there isn't. You can't be serious that those two hundred pages don't have problems.