User talk:Asara

Hi Asara! Signitures and indentions are pretty easy. For The regular signature, just do ~~~~. There's a name-only option that uses three, and a time only option that uses 5. I think 4's the best, though! As for indentions, simply use :s. One for one indention, two for two, and so on! Valeo 19:53, 4 Jul 2005 (GMT)

Mysterion's date of stepping down

Agrias told me that she stepped down the same year he did, so I edited the ???'s from Mysterion's year. Just curious why that was removed? ~Soludra 18:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Why what was removed? Asara 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to say which page, oops. this history, your edit. It removed the date I filled in for Mysterion's date of stepping down. ~Soludra 22:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, what the heck? I don't remember touching that at all, as I was just going in to edit the double link and wrote such in the summary box...????? In any case, that shouldn't have happened. Thanks for putting it back in! Asara 12:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Discontinued artefacts

Isn't there some merit in categorizing the artefacts under Miscellaneous Artefacts (if they were misc before discontinuation)? The artefacts certainly still exist, with the same properties from before. (Also, on a subjective note, I like to have category links in pages even if the page is already categorized as such, since it gives context in-line and can also help with dead-end pages. But that's really just me) ~Soludra 22:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the misc artefact categorization, it seems a bit redundant to me. Regarding the category links in the body of the article, it's one of our wiki rules not to include the link twice, as this is also redundant. Asara 00:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no guarentee that all discontinued artefacts will be miscellaneous, so far as I know. You did mention on the category's talk page that some kind of armour was discontinued, correct? And for the redundant links, I agree for the most part. I kind of want to keep them where there's ambiguity though - say, the inline link in the pipes/vials pages, because not all pipes or vials are discontinued: it gives clarity rather than redundancy. ~Soludra 00:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. All discontinued artefacts, miscellaneous or not, will be placed in the discontinued category. All artefacts that are both discontinued and still sold because of aesthetic variety will be placed in both the miscellaneous (or offensive, defensive, etc.) and discontinued categories. If the artefact is discontinued and is not still being sold, it should not be in both categories. Asara 00:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why misc artefacts that still exist physically but are no longer sold shouldn't be in misc? *scratch* I don't really think it's redundant at all - it's providing two sets of information on an artefact that are not mutally exclusive. If you'd want we can talk in-game, so I don't clutter your talk page. :\ ~Soludra 02:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's no problem - I'll try to catch you in-game. Asara 02:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on our talk in-game, I'll refrain from categorizing the discontinued artefacts with a type until after we reach a consensus. Hopefully we resolve this soon! ~Soludra 23:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)