Terraria Wiki:Community noticeboard

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Good
I lost all my dater from a cllould save world does any on know how to get it back
 * You should ask at the mobile tech support section of the forum. I don't think anyone here would be able to help with this.  Equazcion ( talk ) 18:32, 7 Dec 2014 (UTC)

Neater glitches/anomalies and verification system
I hate to say it, but the bugs and anomalies layout on the wiki seems too messy. It feels like we should add a drop-down system to stop it from looking overwhelming. Also, a lot of the bugs seem too ludicrous to be real. I mean, the Eye of Chutulu connecting to The Twins? I think we should add a system that forces a bug reporter to add a source, whether it be a video or a photo, and have someone moderating them. I'm not sure if it would be worth the hassle though, so feel free to tweak. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Aside from the most well-known bugs, bugs are generally pretty much unverifiable, and tend to remain on articles permanently. Whether or not they're fixed is usually also unverifiable. If you required a photo or video no one would really post them, and/or people would still fake them with software. I wouldn't mind prohibiting the whole bug posting thing here altogether, it just seems like a big move.  Equazcion ( talk ) 20:36, 6 Dec 2014 (UTC)

Bug clearing
I think bug reporting on this wiki has gotten kind of ridiculous. Prompted by User:MinecraftPhotos4U above, I'd like to consider some solutions. Bugs are generally unverifiable and tend to remain on articles forever -- we can't verify that they were ever there, so we certainly can't verify whether they were "fixed", at least in the vast majority of cases. As a result, some older articles have ridiculously long bug lists.

I'd like to do one of two things:
 * Option 1 is to systematically clear out all bugs from every article and start over. People will probably re-post the ones they still experience during gameplay.
 * Option 2 is to remove the bug template and prohibit the posting of bugs in articles, perhaps limiting them to the dedicated list of bugs pages.

Since posting bugs on this wiki basically doesn't accomplish anything, the second choice is somewhat logical -- however people like to post bugs they notice, and I don't want to get too draconian with reverting everyone who does that.

I'm basically planning to carry out option 1 already at the very least (not doing it yet though, will wait for input in case there are well-reasoned objections). Option 2 is a maybe, based hopefully on some discussion. If anyone has any input please do post it here.  Equazcion ( talk ) 13:55, 7 Dec 2014 (UTC)


 * personally I find Option 2 way too harsh and should probably be used as a last resort. Over on the Minecraft Wiki, bugs are not actually posted on the wiki itself but rather on the Mojang Bug Tracker site, which each page links to. I'm not sure if Re-Logic could do something similar, although it would definitely be a change for the better. Duplicates would be a considerable problem, though.


 * Alternatively, a page called Unverified Bugs and Anomalies could be created. Bugs would be reported here (with the appropiate environment e.g. iOS 7, iPad 2, 1.2 update, )and the bug must be able to be recreated. If the bug test proves successful, the bugs would go on a subpage of an article (for example: Gems/Bugs) which would be protected to admin levels (or possibly a new bug verifier user class?) to block the intake of unverified bugs. Although this also sounds complex, it may just be slightly easier than the other solution I have stated above.


 * Thank you for your time -MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to note, Minecraft wiki essentially uses option 2 -- that is, it prohibits bug posting in wiki articles, and instead directs everyone to an off-site listing. We could do the same here, directing people to the bug reporting sections at the forum (re-logic doesn't have an actual bug tracker yet). Also note the list of bugs pages already function as our list of unverified bugs. I don't think it would be feasible to have a system where people submit bugs for verification though. We just wouldn't have the resources for that.  Equazcion ( talk ) 17:26, 7 Dec 2014 (UTC)


 * We could possibly do it manually, it would be fairly complex but basically: make a new section, describe the bug, show steps to recreate it, optional image/video, signature. Then, in that section other players describe what happened when they tried it. When x amount of positives is reached, it gets added onto the page like Ores/bugs. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think mangling the wiki into a makeshift bug tracker is really the way to go. It would be a little too complicated and I don't think we have the participation or admins to make it work. Bug tracking should really be administered by the developer anyway. They've chosen to do it through the forum and I think if we end up directing people anywhere, that would have to be it.  Equazcion ( talk ) 17:42, 7 Dec 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems like the way to go then. Should we put a link to the forum on every page though? - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking of maybe an interface message telling people where to go to post bugs when they edit an article. Gonna wait a bit for other responses here though.  Equazcion ( talk ) 17:50, 7 Dec 2014 (UTC)


 * Equazcion has a point about verifiability but I feel we should still allow bugs to be brought up here. A lot of times (and this goes for any game), something strange will happen and I will look online to see whether it's supposed to happen and if anyone else has seen it happen. If it only happens to me, I assume it's either a new bug or I'm misinterpreting what is going on. If it's happened to someone else, then I could theoretically verify it for them, just as they have for me. Maybe that's the trick to verification? Each bug that comes up goes up for vote. Bugs that are real get voted up; false or resolved bugs get no votes; bugs never get voted down, but bugs that do not get votes for a certain period of time are marked as resolved. Since each user can only vote once, no one could manage to keep a bug alive unless it truly is still in the game, unless of course they make multiple accounts (which would violate policy and typical internet etiquette anyway).
 * Feel free to mercilessly tear my idea apart. This is a wiki after all.--Macks2008 (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be ideal; the problem is that we don't really have any feasible way of making it work here (see the discussion above). What you're describing is a bug tracker. This game doesn't currently have one, and the wiki isn't equipped for something like this (a voting system etc). Re-Logic currently uses the forum for bug reports -- people reply to threads there to chime in on whether they've experienced a reported bug. It would be nice to be able to make "popular" bugs visible on pages, but we don't have any way of doing that. Our choices are pretty much limited, I think, to either the free-for-all bug posting we've been allowing until now, or prohibiting them altogether.  Equazcion ( talk ) 18:27, 7 Dec 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm personally tempted to back option 2 on the pretense that bugs should be reported and fixed quickly and don't need to be catalogued, but if that were implemented just after 1.2.4.1's release then the known bugs in the current version would've gone unrecorded here for almost half a year. On the other hand, most of the ones in the List of bugs are unverifiable and anecdotal, and encouraging people to submit bugs here isn't constructive for anyone involved. Maybe bugs should be treated like references currently are- only those verified in some sense by the devs and not expected to be fixed quickly, like fluid reproduction, should be noted. On the whole, though, I think we'd do better to get rid of the template and redirect editors with bugs to the report forum, because the current bug template lends too much authority to potentially spurious claims without being comprehensive enough to actually do anything about the reports. Gearzein (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally I would prefer option 2 as well. In the case that the bug template is used to warn the user (e.g. game crash bugs) we could replace them with important and other useful bugs (e.g. item/liquid duplication) could be replaced with a note. (Maybe we also want to remove hint while we are at it.) --0icke0 (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The bug reporting in the mainspace has definitely gotten out of hand, but I think the main reason for that is as Equazcion stated, many of the bugs are outdated and just never removed. Option 1 definitely needs to happen in my opinion. Initially, I didn't like the idea of removing the Bug template completely, as I do like to see the existing bugs for any given item on its page, but lately I have been seeing the same bugs being added over and over, as well as some that can't be proven, and some that are downright outlandish. I'm still not sure if I would like to see the template removed, but wiping the bugs on existing pages would be a good start for sure. I also agree with the idea that bugs should be reported rather than just listed on the wiki, so that there is a chance of it getting fixed in the future. Chrisf1020 (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on the above, I've begun making the necessary changes to implement option 2. I'm going to hopefully remove all the bug template code from pages via bot, but in the meantime I've cleared the bug template itself, which will hopefully cause bugs to stop displaying in articles for the time being. Thank you to everyone who posted! This really helped.  Equazcion ( talk ) 20:08, 7 Dec 2014 (UTC)

The removal seems to be going well. It seems some "notes" sections that only contained bugs are now empty notes sections that may need to be removed manually, but this doesn't seem like a big deal. Feel free to remove them when you come across them.  Equazcion ( talk ) 20:45, 7 Dec 2014 (UTC)


 * Removing them manually... That sounds like a job for me, since I know nobody else will do it. Chrisf1020 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) It's no big deal if a stray Notes section exists in an article for a while, but if you're willing to do it that would be cool :)  Equazcion ( talk ) 22:24, 7 Dec 2014 (UTC)

Mobile update
We need to add information about the new 1.2.6667 iOS and Android update, such as changing some item information to include this platform or giving some information about the update.

I've tried everything.

All kinds of soul farming, meteor head farming, spreading the corruption (which was a bad idea), water candles, battle potions, etc.

Now according to the wiki SON (Souls of night) are obtained by killing underground Crimson creatures such as ichor stickers, with a 20% chance. However, as I said before, of tried LITERALLY every way to get souls and still haven't gotten any. Oh and let's mention so far I've only found THREE souls of light in 6+ hours of hardmode gameplay. Furthermore, the enemy spawn rate is TERRIBLE, which greatly reduces the chances of finding these.

What do I do? Is this a bug? Are SONs just THAT rare in mobile? How else am I supposed to summon the destroyer?

Have any of you found SONs or summoned the destroyer?

PLEASE, help me, I really need the steampunker to buy the clentaminator because the Crimson spread is going out of control

excuse my terrible english


 * I've heard some complaints about spawn rates in mobile 1.2, but not sure about souls or the destroyer. You'll probably have better luck searching/asking in the forum.  Equazcion ( talk ) 02:05, 11 Dec 2014 (UTC)

How to get back a world if you accedently deleted it?
Please help me get back my first world I accedently deleted it please help me to get it back.
 * You're better off searching or asking this question at the support sections of the forum: PC, Console, Mobile.  Equazcion ( talk ) 21:05, 11 Dec 2014 (UTC)

PC version:Linux
When come Terraria from Linux ? The last french information was publied the 13 september.I'm worried.( Equazcion ( talk ) 16:34, 12 Dec 2014 (UTC)

I have searched in jungle for the nest and i didnt found it, i play on IOS but this is the same can some one help me?

Which nest are you talking about? And the official community forums are a better place to ask for help.  Chrisf1020  (talk)  19:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of unnecessary information from page intros
I have noticed that a ridiculous amount of pages (mainly blocks and walls) give redundant or obvious information at the start of the page, including crafting info, traits shared with most other similar blocks, and appearence info (this has some exceptions, like with Flesh Block). I have been considering editing these out of pages. Also, it seems necessary to clear out unnecessary bold (usually linking to the same page). Any opinions? - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd have to see an example of what you're referring to. I have noticed that some things you consider obvious are not exactly going to be obvious to readers. We do need to assume people reading aren't necessarily adept Terraria players. If you can point to an example page and let us know what sort of information you think should be removed, that might help.  Equazcion ( talk ) 21:26, 12 Dec 2014 (UTC)


 * Hellstone Bar: "Hellstone Bars are crafted from Hellstone and Obsidian at a Hellforge and are used to make Hellstone Tier items."
 * the crafting info is mentioned pointlessly in the intro despite it being displayed farther down the page. Being used to create the hellstone tier is also very redundant and obvious- MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say the second paragraph (the one appearing after the piece you quoted) is much more useless. It lists all the crafted items explicitly, a list which is going to be in the crafting section regardless. The first paragraph sums up the bar's crafting use in general terms, which I think is fine. It might seem redundant to us to say Hellstone bars craft Hellstone-tier equipment, but a reader might not necessarily realize there is any Hellstone tier of equipment.  Equazcion ( talk ) 13:31, 13 Dec 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I know all bars are used in similar equipment. So should such info be removed? - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're asking. Is this a different question than your first one? I would say the intro can (should) include a general summation of what the item crafts, but generally without a long explicit list of all craftable items. <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 19:05, 13 Dec 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous creation of non-talk pages disabled
I've disabled page creation by anonymous IP editors. This only applies to non-talk pages (talk pages can still be created by anyone). This was in response to the growing number of anonymous vandalism article creations we've been seeing, along with the fact that a very miniscule number of valid new pages are being created by these anonymous users. Newly registered accounts shouldn't be affected, so upon registering, anyone should be able to create articles immediately.

I did this through a combination of an abuse filter and javascript. The abuse filter is to prohibit the page creations on a technical level. I added javascript because the abuse filter only kicks in after the user would attempt to save the page; so to prevent any frustration, the javascript messages should catch users before they even begin writing a new page.

Limiting the abilities of anonymous IP users has always been a controversial subject on wikis, so I'm announcing this in case anyone has arguments against it.

Also: I've tested my javascript/filter code myself, but if anyone wants to help out a little, it would be good to have other people test. Simply log out and attempt to create an article. You should see a popup message with a link to register, and you should be able to dismiss the message by clicking outside the message box. If you do test this and experience something different, please let me know. Thanks! <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 12:52, 22 Dec 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems to work just fine. 98.196.175.207 16:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks! <font face="Century Gothic"> Equazcion ( talk ) 18:42, 22 Dec 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think anyone will be opposed to this. <font face="Tw Cen Mt"> Chrisf1020  (talk)  20:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)