A KoL Wiki talk:Established Standards/Item Pages

this page be hella busted, yo'

This page's examples are causing conflicts with links to the subsections. Namely, they are trumping them. This even happens to the page's very own table of contents. Is this fixable? Specifically the "Uses" section through the "Collection" section, inclusive, are being trumped by their own examples for linking. --Flargen 18:33, 1 February 2008 (CST)

As an aside, I figure one could just rename the sections themselves to get rid of the collisions, but I didn't want to go around making changes to standards pages all willy-nilly. But maybe the table of contents code itself should be changed? I ended up bringing this up again when I noticed that the Mr. Sun Is Not Your Friend page was still producing an off-target link, even though Bagatelle had fixed the template's link. That itself is probably some other issue regarding how the wiki generates pages, though. In any case, it seems kind of pertinent to make a standards page not have off-target links. Especially links to itself.--Flargen 18:49, 1 February 2008 (CST)

This is gonna be the death of me. So each "real" heading now has two anchors. Not an elegant solution, but it (1) works with the TOC; (2) doesn't seem to break the links I did yesterday. If you find any more errors, feel free to mention them so I can commit suicide by headdesk... --Bagatelle 20:58, 1 February 2008 (CST)

I noticed you make a fix to this just after I had decided to mention it amongst other things to Quietust (me and my jumping the gun, I guess). Alas, unless somehow I have a browser cache issue here, the fix doesn't fix it. The references link in to TOC is still going to the example; the others are still mislinking, too. --Flargen 21:01, 1 February 2008 (CST)

Refs is workin' for me (links right to "A reference is incomplete unless it..."), so... I dunno. Format your harddrive? --Bagatelle 21:08, 1 February 2008 (CST)

Okay, so in a flash of not-dumb, I checked the page using Internet Explorer. As you claim, the links worked fine. However, in Opera (the browser I normally use), the links are still broken. I cleaned out Opera's cache and even told it to check for page changes on every load, too. Still borked. --Flargen 21:13, 1 February 2008 (CST)

• I'm sorry, but using IE is not not-dumb. --Bagatelle 21:21, 1 February 2008 (CST)
  • I think you missed the part where I said I normally don't use it. But that it works in that browser. Yet not in my main browser. Anecdotal evidence in this case suggests it would be a supremely good idea to use IE, since then the wiki won't be all broke-headed baby on me. --Flargen 21:26, 1 February 2008 (CST)

I think a better solution might be found on the Established Standards: Effect Pages, which from outer apperances would seem like it should give me the same collision problem with the Established Standards: Effect Pages#Obtained From section link, yet it doesn't. That one hardcodes the resulting example using a div tag, rather than try to have the wiki use its special codes. That page also uses spans to assign anchors, and uses that set-up a custom table of contents. Although if my experience is any indicator, the special anchors may be unnecessary. --Flargen 21:48, 1 February 2008 (CST)

• At that point, it's probably better for you to fiddle around with the page yourself on behalf of Opera users everywhere, as it'd be hard for me to try and fix a problem observed on your browser without my actually standing over your shoulder. And another stalking charge would not look good on my rap sheet. --Bagatelle 22:18, 3 February 2008 (CST)

Found and Resolved (presumably?)

See Template talk:Head#Not Functioning/Explained Properly. And the edit history for this page, I suppose. --Flargen 00:14, 4 February 2008 (CST)

History Section

So, er, now that we have more than a few pages with History sections, we should figure out how to order it in the context of the other standard headings, to consistentise the look. I think directly after Notes makes sense--the two are kind of related, and any applicable historical references would then be explained in the Refs section, which would occur after the History bit. Anyone have any other preferences? --Bagatelle^T/_C 00:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• I kind of have a preference for it being after references and before collection. It's just auxiliary information that's not at all relevant to the item as it stands, much like the collection information. It's generally stuff that I think is worth noting on the page, but not actually worth cluttering up the Notes section with (which I prefer to only contain information relevant to the current moment whenever possible). But that does make it odd when you want to retain a reference to something that only appears in the history section. So I suppose to alleviate this technical difficult, we might as well stick it before the references and after the notes (subsection of the notes, maybe?). As opposed to just modifying any references to refer (link?) to the history section when relevant. --Flargen 01:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, since we seem to be the only two who care enough to comment, maybe a compromise? Any applicable references to history entries would be attached to the actual history entry itself. We can then stick it between Refs and See Also as you suggested. --Bagatelle^T/_C 18:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Just found out this is actually been discussed before without resolution. Holy Jick, we drag our feet around here. --Bagatelle^T/_C 02:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      • That we do. It's often because there's usually no more than 3 or 4 people chiming in, and not always because we're just lazy. --Flargen 02:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Self-containing history references is okay by me. But I think I'd like the History to be after See Also. I can't remember if I've made/edited a history section on a page that also had a See Also section. So maybe I've done it the other way around before. Otherwise, same concern of "put sections that are more likely to be sought after/immediately relevant first" as before. --Flargen 02:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

New Higher Level Food + Booze Qualities Above EPIC

It looks as if earlier this year new qualities higher than EPIC have been added called "super EPIC", "super ultra EPIC", "super ultra mega EPIC", "super ultra mega turbo EPIC". I've already updated Category:Food with them (alongside "drippy" and "???") but I'm not sure how the item template can be updated to allow these new qualities. Some example items that were updated with these new qualities are the Crimbosmopolitan which is now (super EPIC) in game, or the blood-soaked sponge cake which is now (super ultra mega turbo EPIC). --Tomjohn2424 (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Sidenote: I've also (regrettably) added new category pages for each of the Food qualities but stopped myself before creating the accompanying Booze pages as I screwed up the capitalization for them and found I can't delete the pages I create to try and fix this. So, sorry + thank you in advance to the admin that can tackle my request + silly mistake --Tomjohn2424 (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

• Right now, the quality values are specified as strings, and they're expected to be a single word. If Jick is applying excessively long labels like this, we might want to change them to numeric thresholds in our template. --Quietust (t|c) 14:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
  • There aren't many and its just another string. Imo the easiest change is just add another field for EPIC adjectives. call it qualityadjectives or something in case other qualities get it. Discordance (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
    • quality=EPIC|qualityadjectives=super|