Terraria Wiki:Community noticeboard

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Golem Strategies Page
It has come to my attention that the Golem strategies page has become a bit, messy, so to speak. People are; firstly, trying to advertise themselves by saying, for example if I were to do it; Cooly9's Amazing Melee Tactic. Then with half the strategies it is the same one being repeated over and over again. The people who write most of them don't even know when capitol letters are used! What is your opinion on this? Cooly9 (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was looking at the page, did a few edits to the general info and then looked at the rest. I also think that the strategies are all about the same, too detailed and most could be shortened to one sentence. I would gladly help you to rewrite the page, but I feel bad about removing other people's contributions. Did you talk to anyone about the guide? Is it okay to do a revision like that?
 * The guide project is being started over, because all the guides are like that. These personal advertisements are entirely unnecessary. At some point Curse is going to be making some kind of video guide for them, but in the interim, please feel free to do whatever is necessary to clean them up. Gearzein (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

There could be multiple templates that includes the different versions with verified or unverified options. ThePyromancer13 19:47, 11 Jan 2015 (AEDT)
 * The template and all associated bugs have already been removed. Adding new templates to differentiate between known and speculative bugs would run counter to the idea of keeping unverifiable information to a minimum. Gearzein (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2015 (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)

posting forums
how do i post messages on terraria official forum page. i have an acount
 * This is a wiki for the game, not the forums. You'll have to direct your question to the support staff there. Gearzein (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Go to http://forums.terraria.org/index.php?forums/, click on one of the discussion categories (such as general cross-platform discussions), then click the "post new thread" button at the top-right. Or click a thread and type a reply in the box at the bottom of the thread, and hit "post reply". Equazcion  ( talk ) 02:09, 5 Jan 2015 (UTC)

"Direct Upgrade"
This phrase has been thrown around a lot on weapon and armor pages, suggesting that some weapons are intended to directly replace certain others. While some are understandable and have some basis in logic (obviously True Excalibur is a better version of Excalibur), a lot of these claims are stretches based entirely on personal interpretation. I'm looking for some community feedback before I go through and basically remove them all, in case someone objects or there's some logic for their inclusion. Gearzein (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me. That phrase is used in some inappropriate places, and removing most or all of them might be the best solution. Equazcion  ( talk ) 07:34, 8 Jan 2015 (UTC)

'Names of Town NPCs' page
I propose that there is a page which has all the names of all the town NPCs and which type they are so that the players that don't know which type of NPC is wanting to settle down so they can get all the requirements etc. I myself have found myself in that situation and I think that many other Terrarians will find themselves in this sitaution. Anybody who backs this please reply. Cooly9 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The requirements of all NPCs that are already spawned would be the same: a house. Unless I'm misunderstanding this? Equazcion  ( talk ) 19:25, 8 Jan 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally being a mobile gamer on Terraria even if you don't have all the neccesary requirements (other than a house) it will still say <NPCNAME> would like to settle down. Also would be good for reference. Cooly9 (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah I see. I didn't realize the mobile version had that feature -- the PC version doesn't do that. Such a page would probably be useful then. Equazcion  ( talk ) 20:17, 8 Jan 2015 (UTC)
 * Just asking if this page was a go-ahead, could a bot do it or would it have to be manually made? Cooly9 (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done: NPC names :) Equazcion  ( talk ) 20:30, 8 Jan 2015 (UTC)
 * Great job on the page, make sure that everyone knows this page exists and don't let it get dusty. Cooly9 (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The page gets the names from the individual NPC pages, so it'll be updated automatically whenever the names change on their respective pages. I'm not sure where to link it from yet, but might put it on the main page and/or the game mechanics template soon. Equazcion  ( talk ) 20:45, 8 Jan 2015 (UTC)

==

Crafting Recipe Protection
Crafting recipe pages are some of the most commonly debated and vandalized parts of pages, which is nonsense because they nearly never change. I'm considering emulating the way NPCs handle names and moving crafting recipes to their own protected subpages. Is anyone aware of any reasons why this is a bad idea, or does anyone have any objections or alternate solutions? If not, I'll begin implementing it in a few days, as well as looking into its viability for other contested but nonvolatile page elements such as weapon and armor stats. It's probably not worth doing for every infobox on the wiki but I'm at least considering doing it for high-traffic weapons and items. Gearzein (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've implemented this for the Terra Blade. I checked it on my phone to be sure it displayed properly on mobile devices, but if anyone has any problems with the page displaying poorly or being too slow or anything, let me know. Gearzein (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The crafting recipe protection works :). Just comes up with {{/crafting} }.Cooly9 (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure whether this is anything to do with you, but on my mobile device the Honey Comb page is being wierd. I noticed the crafting recipe is in a new, better, format but then I noticed that the collapsable sections are just plain text, and I cannot edit the page.  What is going on? Cooly9 (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The above method is it working as intended. Honey Comb appears to be an anomaly in several ways- apparently it's using the old Template:Crafts template rather than the Template:Crafting recipe that every other page uses. It's just a barebones table on PC though and doesn't include any collapsible areas. Checking on my phone, it does appear to be locked- I'll take a look at the protection settings and see what's up. Gearzein (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Odd. It appears that many pages are unable to be edited from mobile devices, at least while not logged in. Some became editable after expanding all sections and scrolling to the bottom, but attempting to edit only provides a login prompt. The page isn't protected or anything- it's either something with the Abuse Filter (unlikely), something weird with mediawiki (highly likely), or something going on over at Curse. I don't use the mobile version of the wiki and couldn't say what's going on off the top of my head, but I'll be looking into it. Gearzein (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How to Help guide updating?
I'm new to this wiki in terms of being a member and helping out, so I'm not the best at coding for the time being. My question is: can someone update the "How to Help" guide a bit to I Claude a more detailed description on how to add images? The paragraph there nor the page that is referred to there helps me with any problems or step by step how to input an image and it actually works so it displays. I tried to do "The Blade of Grass" page and add a demon altar jpeg image there but it doesn't acually display the image. Can someone help? Glowbomb12 22:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Honey Comb damage
Does anyone know the base damage of a bee released by the Honey Comb and how many bees are released (between x and y)? Also, there is some confusion in the article. The first paragraph mentions it releases "several bees" but in the Notes it says that "Only one bee will appear (...)".

Note about "best modifiers"
Articles on modifiable items tend to contain a short intro note about which modifier is the "best" obtainable for that item. This information was added to let people know the highest-value modifier than can possibly be applied to the item. Some people see these passages as strategic recommendations, but they are not. They are solely intended to communicate the technical limit on how valuable a modifier the item can obtain, which can be helpful info during reforging (avoid continuing to hit "reforge" in the hopes of obtaining a more valuable modifier that is impossible to apply to the particular item). For some clarity, see Modifier, which describes where these limitations apply.

Articles (main wiki articles outside of Guide: pages, at least) shouldn't generally contain strategic tips on which modifiers to apply for given scenarios, except perhaps in special cases, and then only under the Tips header.

An exception is Minion-summoning items, where the benefits of the most valuable obtainable magic modifier (Mythical) are mostly lost due to the fact that minions themselves are not magic weapons, and there are no actual summon modifiers yet (though these are apparently coming in 1.3) -- so in those cases we do make the judgment call of saying Ruthless is the "most valuable".

I hope I've explained this at least somewhat clearly. In short, for most articles, the "best modifier" statement is intended to be a cold reading of the technical upper modifier limit, value-wise (ie. coins), as described at Modifier. If anyone has tips on better modifiers strategically, they should go under Tips, and only in exceptional cases. Equazcion ( talk ) 23:05, 27 Mar 2015 (UTC)

Armor set bonuses
I've noticed the armor pages are often unclear about the distinction between set bonuses and the combined bonuses from individual parts. I'd like to put this in a more consistent format with a clearly labeled "Set Bonus" on everything. I know this can get complicated with the hardmode armors where the helmet changes the set bonus, but I still think we can do better than what we have now. Any thoughts, objections? --BlueMana (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection here. The main Armor page could benefit from splitting up that info. It might be difficult to squeeze another column into that table, but if it can be done in a space-efficient way then maybe; or we can just add separate bullet points to each armor set where the set bonuses are split off. It might take some experimenting to see how the info would best fall into place. Equazcion  ( talk ) 17:54, 3 Apr 2015 (UTC)