User talk:Xbony2

Thanks!
Thank you for the welcome here, it means a lot. :)

Trying to get the hang of NavBox's- they seem really tough.

TheNathanG (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - feel free to poke me if you need help ^_^ (and this reminds me to archive this talk page) -Xbony2 (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Block
Recently you blocked an IP address for advertising. Over here on the diep.io wiki we've had similar issues. Except we've had several bots like all the ones beginning with 23. are advertising bots from America. Do you think they are related?  LordofEditing =( Talk )= ''' 00:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - I'm not really an expert on IP addresses, but yeah, there probably is a connection. I wouldn't recommend distrusting any IPs on the clause that they start with 23, though. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that's hard to say. Considering that every single one of them comes from America and vandalises (not saying where) with random travel spam. Just sayin', ya know.  LordofEditing =( Talk )= ''' 01:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - well, I'd hate to accidentally ban one unlucky guy who was legit because their IP ended with a 23. If I had to guess it's all because it's from one area. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There'ye all coming from one area, and they create rather interesting pages. But it is frustrating because they think our wiki is a place to put everday magazine gossip.  LordofEditing =( Talk )= ''' 02:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You should use AbuseFilter instead of restricting anons from editing based on arbitrary digits in their IP addresses. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 06:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's mostly just bots, so being frustrated at them is a bit silly. Also what Santa said if that is possible. -Xbony2 (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

GT5 stuff
Since you also work on GT5 now, I would like to know your opinion on the structure of the navbox. I am still disambiguating stuff, so I haven't written a single article on my workspace yet, and you seem to be far ahead already :D Both existing navboxes on the wikis don't cover the variety of stuff GT5 adds. Are you going to change your own, and if so, how? P.S. I am not stealing ideas or whatever, just want to discuss some questions with one of a few people who can understand. P.P.S. Before you ask, I am not moving to this wiki and not going to compete with you in terms of GT5 documentation or anything else. --Antillar (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - On the unofficial wiki I assume? Anyway, I don't really work on GT5, although I'm currently doing maintenance stuff related to it (separating GregTech 5 and GregTech 6). is the official guy to talk to about GregTech, although he's been focusing on GT6 (although quite frankly he has not been doing a very good job at that). Anyway, this wiki has been the official wiki and most complete wiki for GregTech for a long time, so we're a lot more than ahead :P As for changes for here, feel free to point out anything that's missing, there's nothing immediately planned by me. I think I'll go back to GregTech 5 to finish it up some day, as I have been doing with GregTech 4 at random intervals, usually on vacation where my laptop cannot run modern mods. But not any time soon, I'm way too busy with 1.10/1.11 mods that have a shitton of demand. Don't feel bad for "stealing ideas", there's nothing wrong with it (cough cough). And on to your navbox... to me, it seems like a mess. Having one page for each voltage of machine seems simply redundant, and it certainly does not make the navbox any more readable or easy to navigate. Same with wires. Also, maybe a bit more of a pet peeve, using "Multi-block" instead of "Multiblock" is eh. Btw, how do you pronounce your name? It has the look of a Spanish verb and I keep pronouncing it as such, although I imagine it is not Spanish at all. -Xbony2 (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So, to start with. I am the one from unofficial FTB Wiki, and probably the only one still active there (the need of countless poking of the owner for textures does not make him active).
 * The problem I have encountered is that there was not only lack of disambiguation between GT4 and GT5 and GT6, but also lack of disambiguation between most of metals in many forms (Copper Ingot used to be one page, now 14), and I am still in this stuff, not simply writing articles, the thing I consider to be the easiest and not worthy even discussing. So that's why I am discussing the stuff with you and not with.
 * To my navbox. The current version is for me and only for me. That is why I was so surprised when you found one typo in over 90k symbols. The thing about it is that it is over 2MB of include size now, and will possibly be more than 4MB. Obviously, I am not letting it in every article. What I am about to do is to make a much smaller navbox (15-20k instead of over100k) with links to basic forms of all stuff from GT5, and this would be the one I want to discuss? not the big one. And I will use articles with (or whatever it is called here) linking to other articles of this type. I follow a quite strange yet simple rule: one object - one article. This allows to move most of the technical info in infoboxes (well you know how it is done on my wiki, don't you). And the big navbox only serves for me so that I am sure I have written all articles in a certain category.
 * To your navbox. Firstly, BloodAsp has made a machines for voltages after IV some time ago. So, LuV, ZPM, UV and MAX also have machines now. So does ULV for some machines. Your 5-template for LV, MV, HV, EV and IV simply won't fit. What is worse is the custom names he has given to the half of the top-tier machines. User-search has to include those via redirects or anything else. Same goes to the components the machines are made of. Another point is the ore processing system and chemical part of the mod which is completely cut out from the navbox on this wiki. There are over 150 ores in GT which generate by default, and each should be processed in unique way, which includes up to 8 stages and produces different amount of stuff in the end (and BloodAsp is changing this like every update). IMHO this is smth the reader should know. The last thing I feel the Wiki should tell the reader is how to do stuff, not just what the certain thing is. GT is one of the mods where the pages about a group of items in common are very useful, as for the unexperienced reader it may seem like stuff is enclosed in infinite loop where thing A is required for thing B and in order to make thing A, the player already needs B. This is what I would also add to the documentation and to navbox itself. Anyway it is always up to you and whoever else is working on this mod here.
 * Finally, about my nickname. I have stolen it from German company "Schleich" which sells high quality plastic toys (was a name of black dragon they made in 2008). So I suppose that it has to sound close to the written form. Myself I make the emphasis on the last syllable, don't know if this was meant to be so though. Just realized I've totally messed wiki formatting so changing all BRs to ::, hope you don't mind. --Antillar (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - Yes, I recognize you of course. Here, I too am the most active editor. I bug the other editors about their inactivity, but in reality we're all pretty good around here :)
 * I found your mistake by a rather simple method- if you click on preview, there's a warning at the top of the page if there is more than value for a specific parameter (in this case, list9). I was mostly just testing the speed of the template out of curiosity. Here we have About which is kind of like . I don't really understand the one object one article rule on the unofficial wiki- it breaks apart many things almost pointlessly. I get that it's needed for some of the technical stuff you have there, but the database-like format really isn't very likable. And for a mod like GregTech, there are many pages which simply make more sense together, which is why here we have material pages and material form pages, rather than having one page for each item. If we had one article for each component like a Bronze Plate, we'd probably have 25k articles by now (no joke), which is just over the top. Anyway...
 * Thanks for pointing all those out :) putting redirects for all of the machines has actually been on the invisible TODO list for a long time. As for materials, I also do feel like they should be listed on the GT navbox, and not just Navbox Materials. Getting Started (GregTech) is a thing, but it's rather primitive and basic. It would be great if we could find someone to make it better (only if time was infinite, am I right?).
 * Btw, feel free to hang on if you're an IRC person (everyone around here is). We won't pinch you too much ;) -Xbony2 (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, thanks for letting me know about how to find the mistakes in templates, this will probably be useful later, when I will eat smaller mods just like I have eaten 30+ Thaumcraft 4 addons (well I can surely say that your version of Thaumcraft 4 is far behind mine, but this is the subject of another story). I have started GregTech because this is probably the only mod that can test my skills yet and help me improve, aspecially with all of the mess of GT3+GT4 in one version of "just GT" with traces of GT5 and GT6 in there. Your wiki is by far better organized in terms of the disambiguation stuff, redirects etc. Before I only have splitted thaumcraft in 3 and 4 versions, that was a tip of iceberg as I now see.
 * What is probably one of the most useful parts I am going to implement is ore dictionary recipes. You know that f.e. you have copper ingots from ic2, tf, forestry, metallurgy, gt5 etc. They are all interchangable. And then there is rp2 copper for 1.4.7 which is not. It's great to have just "copper ingot" and use it for all recipes (I disambiguated 400+) but this messes textures. Breaking all apart into separate pages is also not very good because most are equivalent. So before even touching the articles themselves I want to solve this problem. Would like to hear your opinion on this.
 * So, about the article plan: you said it will be like a database. And it will. As mentioned earlier, I am planning to create own page for every item or block but I also want to create pages about groups of items, and then just use mediawiki functions to bring a certain list or create a production chain just by linking these pages with database functions. They will not even be in the final navbox. So, for example, I want to find out the best metal of lv4 to make a huge turbine rotor from, so it does not require blast furnace with heat of more than 4000K. Bam! and here it is. And the result of this is what probably the most readers will see. I do not mind of having 25k, 30k or 50k articles, I just want to do 2 things: reader can find EVERY item from the NEI in the wiki and read a full article about it AND I want the reader who wants to figure out a certain mechanic, the setup of a certain factory or processing chain also find it and gather all information, and then follow the links to the parts of this group. Well, you can see whether I will succeed in doing this or not. Maybe you can do something better on your side.
 * It would be indeed nice to find someone who knows the mod, but it would be even better to learn the mod yourself and document it exactly as you have it in mind. F.e. I have this video in mind where I have spent 5 hours to learn a giant multiblock and properly document it from zero (and then I blew it up). Well, it happened that I could just contact the dev and sort out the stuff (what I did later asking to check for mistakes) but I doubt that he would do the article anywhere close to what I dit. And the word "Inventarium" became a local meme on my livestreams since then XD (somewhere close to Kappa or the adjective to discribe smth infamous)
 * Finally about IRC channel. I do not chat in browser. I simply hate it. So, for the people like me there is an EiraIRC mod for MC. So I use MC's chat as IRC. Currently I am on PlayTPPI but there is total silence all the time unless I start a conversation with void and then others join in. No problem of hitting one button and typing one word while I am waiting for another stack of stainless or kanthal in my LP world. I am not playing MC 24/7, but I will join when I can. Thanks for invitation.
 * Just wondered how this huge pile of text would look for an average wiki reader XD --Antillar (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the ore dictionary, one of the cool things our wiki has is an ore dictionary extension, so you can just specify  and it'll automatically display all the copper ingots, cycling through them randomly. On the Copper page you can see all the copper ingots from the various mods and on Ingots you can see how ingots are created in the various mods.
 * IRC is not limited to the browser or MC. There are a variety of IRC clients you can download.
 * 01:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * -One of a few things the way of making articles for many items or blocks is the properties of every item which are missed this way. For me, this includes ID, Metadata, hardness and blast resistance for blocks, luminance, whether it is affected by gravity and so on. F.e. Silver Ore from Thermal Foundation emits light level of 5 while all other silver ores don't. But I do understand that each method has its own pros and cons which have to be dealt with somehow, and there most likely is no perfect method. Speaking of ore dictionary, I have searched through unofficial wiki and I have found many attempts to implement it by different contributors, noone succeeded in finishing though. This means I have to do this myself. I don't think that I will do it exactly or even close to what you have done, I have other ideas, but they are not worthy to speak about yet because I have doubts that it is possible to implement them with mediawiki.
 * Also, as you are the one who deals with GT stuff, I suggest reading through previous discussion (if you have not done this yet), as several changes and mistakes have been pointed out there. --Antillar (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was working on Thaumcraft 4 here, but I sort of lost interest when Thaumcraft 5 came out (and then lost interest again when that was discontinued). has interest in documenting it, although he's been a bit busy with real life and playing games :P And yeah, documenting GregTech is a lot of work. The documentation of GregTech here is largely what caused the optimization of many of our templates, extensions and systems.
 * Here we have material and material form pages like pointed out previously. Having cross-version stuff be interchangeable here is a bit messy, although nowadays there are mods that allow old versions of mods to be played in new versions :P
 * I personally think redirects are much more efficient for say, something like the Bronze Ingot. We're missing a lot of redirects here (it should be easy to modify my bot to generate them, though). I do agree everything should be searchable, although I disagree with needing an article. It's going to be much harder to create, maintain and navigate if you do it like that.
 * I love exploring and learning mods (that's part of the reason I am a wiki editor). I'd love to document GregTech 5, but I already have so much to do.
 * Feel free to hang around here any time ^_^ even if it is "official territory", you're welcome whenever :) -Xbony2 (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For me, each mod has to be fully documented and then maintained by just one editor. While I was working on Thaumcraft 4, I have found lots of duplicate pages, many pages differed in code style depending on who has written them, redirect system was totally messed and so on. There even were 4 different navboxes for this mod! This is a result of the mod not being properly documented by anyone in about 3 years before I came to the Wiki. Such mods are much harder to contribute to, this is why I understand your situation with Thaumcraft.
 * Another unsloved question I argue most with the owner of the unofficial wiki is whether to separate a version of the mod or to merge different versions in one, adding old and deprecated signs. I do understand that merging is what has to be done in such mods as Forestry because it smoothly changes from time to time, but in terms of GregTech I am still not quite sure. First few versions did not change much, but 4 and 5 have almost nothing in common, and then there is 6 which is almost a full copy of 5. I have seen you have a disambiguation page for GregTech, and I want to do this too, but the more I dig into the differences, the more doubts I have.
 * Concerning redirects, I have found myself not really keen on using them. From some point of view, this is a slight disrespect to reader, if the reader wants to read an article of one thing and the wiki forces him/her to read different article which is somehow related to the first one. Another problem is how to organize such articles, to which lots of others point to. One example we have is this which is totally awful, but I can't say I am satisfied with your versions either. I still don't have the complete idea how to do this in mind so it suits my needs, but I am sure I will eventually figure this out. Probably. Sometimes.
 * When working with Thaumcraft, one special feature I wanted to implement is the system of research aspects in any item, block or even mob that has them, either displayed on the page if it is related to the mod, or hidden in code, if it is just cross-mod compatibility. And then a page which allows reader to see what to scan to get certain aspects with their amount. After several hours of hard work we have finally implemented this. This is probably the only example of this kind related to magic mods, but in terms of tech mods there are lots of similar things to do, and GT likely has the use of most of them, so after I will finish GT (which is my only goal for full 2017, lot humble than all the mods from Infinity modpack XD), the wiki will likely change a lot from the technical side. --Antillar (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Different styles can be messy. Well, dealing with outdated styles is more of the issue around here.
 * Differentiating different versions has also always been a bit of a struggle here. Although, if you think GregTech 6 is a copy of GregTech 5, then I don't think you know much about GregTech 6 :P it's got a lot of the same foods and components, but the tech tree and machines and stuff are completely different (but I can't say much about it because *cough cough* Retep998 *cough* hasn't been documenting it as much as he should be).
 * Our material pages are kind of messy right now for sure, although that's more because they're older and don't all follow a consistent style. I think the concept in itself is pretty good, though.
 * The Aspects thing is cool, although in reality I'm not sure how useful it is. It's a lot of work for something that can be easily found in-game, know what I mean? Anyway, I probably shouldn't be telling you how to run your wiki :P My goal to document all of Infinity is a bit unrealistic, but I think that maybe, just maybe, it is possible with enough hard work. We'll see how it pans out. -Xbony2 (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have last looked into GT6 when Greg mass imported about 6k of components. Later the guy who uploads textures for us uploaded lots of GT6 textures instead of GT5 ones by mistake and they are almost the same. I agree that I don't have any ideas of the tech tree, judging from previous versions the biggest difference could be some balance tweaks and the addition of several more steps which GT is infamous for. One big rule I have learnt: never document mods in high developement stage. I currently only work with 1.7.10 because everything there is pretty much in final form with all bugs fixed, and the mod documented once will hardly ever need edits later.
 * Don't worry about telling me how to run the wiki which is not technically mine but mine in fact. I wouldn't come here is I didn't want to hear your opinion. Concerning aspects: I have played with Thaumcraft since it came out in Beta 1.8.1 and I have always had problems when I missed a certain aspect and I was aimlessly scanning stuff around me in order to find at least one thing which has it. Aspecially when I have played with Thaumcraft 3 where the player has to gather lots of items with particular aspect, and they are very hard to come by. F.e. the aspect "rain" found only in rain water bottles (added by Thaumic Tinkerer 1) made me scan almost all the content of the mod and then thousands of items from FTB Unleashed. I have found it in cloud blocks later and this was awesome. Now I can see what to scan in just one place. Many things I have implemented and am planning to implement may seem useless in most of cases, but in some cases they are very useful and this is the reason I have them for.
 * When all technical stuff is done, documenting mods is very easy. So, if you think that you don't need to deeply modify the wiki engine in order to document smth like Chisel and Bits, I believe that you will have more than enough time to complete your goal. --Antillar (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The machines are completely different from what I understand. I have heard there are no GUIs :o Retep can probably say more about it then me though. I like to work with stuff that's somewhat stable, but still in development. GregTech 5 is losing popularity to GregTech 6 and other mods; documenting it now won't do much to help people in my view. GT5 used to be the most popular article on this wiki (besides from the main page of course), but now it's not even in the top ten :/ (I don't know where it is, the view statistics have currently been revoked by Gamepedia because it's kind of a broken mess).
 * It is cool, tho. it would make more sense as a mod (if there isn't already a mod, I suspect there is).
 * That's easier said than done :P we don't really need to modify any infrastructure for any of the mods in FTB Infinity Lite I think, just make navboxes plus tilesheets plus disambiguation (which newcomers have issues with, but not me) and then we just need to document the thousands of blocks and items across various mods. I don't think we'll really do it but we're sure gonna try. -Xbony2 (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was very surprised when I found out that people still play the packs like TPPI1 and some of them never used AE1 in this pack. And I am not even speaking of 1.7.10 which in my opinion over a half of modded MC players are on. There are over 1100 mods for 1.7 and new ones are still being written. Obviously, only a tiny part of these 1100 mods are properly documented, including even some of the most popular. I have no idea how it is on your wiki, but I doubt that you have all the 1.7 mods from at least official FTB modpacks properly documented. Of course, the 1.7 mods are loosing popularity, but this doesn't mean they are not worthy to be documented, for me at least.
 * On our wiki we have a special mod for administrators which allows to create an article stub just by pressing one key and then Ctrl+V can be pressed in a blank page, which brings all the recipes, infobox and a short intro. What is rest has to be filled by hand, but this makes documenting much easier, aspecially when you don't have to fill hundreds of templates by hand. With the help of this mod I was able to document 30 mods with roughly 2000 pages in total(average size of each is 1.5k) in less than a month. I have no idea whether you have smth similar, but in case you don't you can easily make one. --Antillar (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of older packs and mods get attention still, but not as much as the newer ones. Obviously we don't have all the 1.7 FTB mods documented :P or even most of them to be honest. They are certainly worthy of being documented, but I don't think they're as high of a priority as 1.10 which have much more demand (and will have more and more demand as time goes on).
 * I most just copy-paste and then change stuff. There was a mod made like that for here, although it's an outdated mess. I have, actually, been sort of planning on making my own version. It would help a fair amount. -Xbony2 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You say that you have much more demand to work on 1.10 ones than on 1.7 and then continue disambiguating 1.7's GT XD --Antillar (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's "misc maintenance" work. It shouldn't take too long to complete (although the distractions don't help :P). But for new documentation, the chance of me starting to document a 1.7 mod is slim. GregTech 6 maybe, though -Xbony2 (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

How's this navbox?
Hi, I created a navbox for this mod I'm attempting to document, and I was wondering if you could take a look at it and let me know how it stands up to standards? Anything that can be improved upon? The navbox is for Ex Nihilo Adscensio and I copied the structure and syntax from Ex Nihilo. Newbie contributor, Crazierinzane (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * - It's terrible! Nah, just kidding. Looks swell ^_^ -Xbony2 (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Normally we don't wrap NIs in brackets though like the Minecraft wiki does, seem the Ex Nihilo one is different like that too.  Chocohead Nag • Edits • Staff 02:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean s? Yeah, although I kind of like it myself. The Botania navbox did until it was converted to lua. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO it looks stupid, the icons would have to be a few pixels lower to look sensible at the very least, right now the offset makes the brackets look out of place.  Chocohead Nag • Edits • Staff 02:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I like them because I got to organize similar items in a non-alphabetical order within one list. It's already easy to see that the text isn't centered with the icons so it doesn't feel like the brackets reveal anything new. Crazierinzane (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Choco here. If you need to group stuff more just use another Navbox subgroup. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 05:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at a few other navboxes and none of them had the code inside the edit area. A few them had some text saying "this mod uses lazy loading, actual content is here...". Can you explain to me what the lazy loading is how these navboxes are being made? Crazierinzane (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Lazy loading and lua are two independent things. A navbox can use just one, both, or neither. Lazy loading is when the navbox at Template:Navbox Whatever is just a stub, but when you click on "show" it loads the actual navbox contents dynamically using javascript from Template:Navbox Whatever/content. Lua is when the navbox is actually defined in a lua module such as Module:Navbox/Whatever and Template:Navbox Whatever just invokes the lua function to display that navbox. 03:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. That all sounds very confusing, unfortunately. I guess I don't know enough about wiki things yet. I hope I'm not wasting a lot of time by doing the navbox the way I did instead of lazy loading. Crazierinzane (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah ^_^ it's a tiny navbox. Now Navbox The Mists of RioV, that's another story. -Xbony2 (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Lazy loading is really simple to implement on an existing navbox, and is only needed when the navbox adds over 2 seconds to the page load time. Lua navboxes are intended for those masochistic editors out there that want to make working with that navbox harder for everyone. Lua navboxes do load faster than standard navboxes, but come at the expense of being totally different from normal wiki markup, and not being able to preview your changes, or even see them at all until an admin marks it up for translation due to the shitty way lua interacts with the translation extension. 04:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Lua navboxes are far superior and will replace normal navboxes entirely when the issues regarding it are fixed. Translation issues can be solved with T3, and difficulty issues can be solved with a WYSIWYG navbox creator/editor. -Xbony2 (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That could still be years away, T3 and a magic navbox maker only exist as concepts, the latter of which hasn't even been mentioned before as something we need to actually make.
 * The Lua navboxes remain substantially more inflexible than what the template based ones can do, especially as expanding the functions they can take means increasing the number of given parameters for the function, which is already silly as it is. The funky nesting things you can do with subgroups with templates just can't happen with Lua ones either, it's fixed into only expecting subgroups if the first element is another list rather than being able to take them anywhere.  Chocohead Nag • Edits • Staff 14:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It certainly will be a long time with an attitude like that :P we continue to innovate all the time, how long it might take is pure speculation. And yeah, I did bring up the navbox creator before on IRC. -Xbony2 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't really innovate, think how long it took just to change the group system from when that was first suggested. Anyway, T3 has been sitting around as an idea for months, there's been plenty of opportunity for it to start being developed. Even if it was just early basis, it would still be more than we've got now, and it would allow faster refining of the idea if there was actually something to base improvements on rather than just your own interpretation of the list of things it should do.  Chocohead Nag • Edits • Staff 16:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wanted to start on it sooner, but I've been waiting until I had access to the MediaWiki namespace and for other proposals/projects to get out of the way. I agree it's been a bit too long, and I would like to start it soon (and no, not just because of you, it's been in the back of my head for a while. also exams don't help). -Xbony2 (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Specifying "offhand"
I think it might be better to not specify "or the offhand slot" every time we mention the player's hand. I think instead we should use "player's hand" to imply main or off hand slot, and when the thing is not hand-agnostic, then we specify it. What do you think? --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 03:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should only specify the offhand when there's some sort of special behavior with the offhand. 03:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose, but not all mods support the offhand. -Xbony2 (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The things that don't support the offhand would be specifically stated as such. "Thing does a thing when in the player's main hand". --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 19:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me reword- most mods don't support the offhand. Because of that I don't think we should have to awkwardly refer to the "main hand" as such. -Xbony2 (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh really? That sucks. --  Satanic Santa 🎅F T B Wiki Admin 19:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)