Talk:Check Mirror

Slicked back do hairstyle provides serious resistance against all elements.--Noskilz (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Slicked Back Do bug?

Why was there a bug label for that? The wiki can handle disambiguated effect names perfectly fine.-Toffile (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• That's not the point. The point is that the last time this happened (I can't remember what it was, I think it was around Crimbo?), I split the pages and 2 days later one was changed. I submitted a bug report for this about a month ago, 2/3 days later Gem responded that it's "in the stack", and I have not received any response since. Both are still named Slicked-Back Do. The point is, working around KoL bugs is bad. When the snow belt came out, no one made the page until the snow belly was renamed, as everyone knew it would be changed. Another example, the Palindome. Sometime within the past few days the adventuring zone was renamed to "Inside the Palindome". Now, we can move the zone to that page and keep the current Palindome page as the container page, as it should be. By the way, going against a wiki admin's wishes/requests/whatever you want to call it is not the best idea. — Cool12309 (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The last time it happened it was the snow belt and snow belly, which exist in the item space. There are a lot more chat commands that are keyed to the name of items, which were broken by having duplicates. In the effect space, the only chat command is shrug/uneffect, which doesn't cause a conflict because one of the effects is an intrinsic and the other is removable. I was wondering why it was listed as a bug, since none of my clannies were aware of it, nor could I find any trace of it being an issue on the forums. I filed a bug report to get some clarification as I was making the changes, and Gem got back to me with "One is an intrinsic, and the other is a normal effect, but the point is taken. I'll see if the admins want to tweak one of 'em.".-Toffile (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, it was marked "Needs Content", but it seemed more like a bug thing than a lack of content thing, and people had called it a bug and submitted bug reports, so I changed it to "Bug". --Vorzer (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    • The point of "one is an effect one is an intrinsic" means absolutely nothing. Both are technically effects. I don't know how they're marked in the code, but it's probably just a flag saying "this effect is an intrinsic". The point is that having duplicate named effects/items/other common things is generally a bad habit that they avoid and usually try to fix quickly. If they say they will not fix this then we can create a proper disambig. — Cool12309 (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
      • How long would we have to wait to assume that the admins are never going to fix this? I mean it's been over a month since your initial report, and generally they don't publicly respond to this sort of thing by system announcement or trivial update? I'm just trying to qualify what constitutes a resolution because I don't want to start moving on moving Slicked-Back Do to a different name, changing the redirect to a proper disambiguation page, and then making the needed page updates to resolve redirects/bad links without first getting an admin's input.-Toffile (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I'd say we will wait for a response from Gemelli to anyone who has submitted a bug report on this. How about until the end of March? By then I think it'd be safe to move the pages and perhaps just throw in one more report to be sure. — Cool12309 (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
          • And since Jick said that he is not fixing this, moving and doing the usual disambig stuffs. — Cool12309 (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)