User talk:Andmcadams

From Old School RuneScape Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Wiki.png
Hello, Andmcadams, and welcome to the Old School RuneScape Wiki! We're happy to see new editors making contributions. Here are some links you may find helpful:
Please remember to log in every time you edit and sign any messages you leave by typing four tildes (~~~~); this automatically inserts your username and the date. If you have any issues, feel free to ask on the user help page, or join us on Discord, where many of our editors hang out.

We hope you like it here and decide to stay!

-- JaydenKieran 15:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Twisted crate[edit source]

Hi Andmcadams, I feel like it's pretty clear that the twisted crate is intended to be a reference to the tbow glitch. The name and the examine point clearly to the tbow (in my opinion). I don't think it's too far of a stretch to link the crate and the tbow glitch in my opinion, but I could be wrong. I can add it to the twisted crate discussion page for further opinions on the topic.

Thanks, YuugeJohnson (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I think it's a bit difficult to say whether or not it refers to the Twisted Bow (or the glitch) specifically, without knowing more. I think you could be right that it is a reference to the glitch, but we don't really know yet. It could be a reference to several other "Twisted" things, like the league, ancestral kits, or even the buckler. It could even be referring to something we don't know about yet. Imo, it seems a bit odd for them to refer to the glitch again with the crate when they have the much more obvious reference with the Twisted bush. We have been discussing it in the wiki discord if you want to discuss it in there. Andmcadams (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Andmcadams, thanks for the update, I added a discussion page to both the Ferox Enclave and the Twisted Crate. Can't join the discord, but happy to hear it's being discussed. I also tagged a JMod on reddit to see what they have to say. -- YuugeJohnson (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
No problem. Yeah, if a jmod confirms it then we can definitely add it back or update it as needed. Good idea to document it on the talk pages though in the meantime. Andmcadams (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Total levels oddity[edit source]

Hi. A number of pages, such as previous revisions of Free-to-play and Total level also list the total level for F2P as 8 more than what you'd think it would be (15*99). I can't say I'm sure what is the correct number here, but this isn't something I came up with. Maybe someone else can shed some light on where that +8 comes from? Maybe even correct those pages if it turns out it's wrong. --The scribe Eek, a goblin! 18:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Did some more checking. On the page Skill mastery is lists a player called 'Pawz' that I guess was the first to reach max total level on F2P. It says 1493 there too. I checked it with the Runescape Highscores page and it says the same number. --The scribe Eek, a goblin! 19:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I didn't realize that there were other instances of that being the max F2P total level on the wiki. I could understand it in the past since previously the "Free Total Level" did not appear on hover when looking at your stats in game as a F2P player. Now that this is in game and does not count member's stats at level 1 or otherwise, I would say that the 15*99 + 8*1 figure is wrong. Personally, I think this would have been an incorrect way of displaying it in the past anyway since you could go from members to free to play, and the shown total level in-game would still include any levels gained as a member. The term is a little ambiguous since it could mean (1) max total level obtained without ever being a member, (2) max total level of only F2P skills, or (3) the max total level that any free player, including previous members, could have. All of which would imply different values. The +8 makes sense with definition (2), but considering F2P total level worlds use definition (1), I question the usefulness of the +8. It makes sense on the skill mastery page imo, as that would be the visible total level and implies all of their F2P stats are 99 with only 1 for each member's stat (vs. having levels in various members stats as well). I can ask around too and see if there's some other historical reason for it or if it should be updated though. Andmcadams (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

About that Toy Cat thing[edit source]

(Btw apologies in advance if this isn't how I'm supposed to contact you lol, I'm new to using wikis)

So I wanted to ask, why would the Wooden Cat's head icon be more relevant for the Toy Cat? The wooden cat & toy cat are separate items, and the image update I did was to bring the head icon in line with an actual popup related to the Toy Cat NPC. As far as I'm aware, the wooden cat head isn't used for the Toy Cat in any cases? Or is there something I'm missing? Zechie (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

No worries, this is a good way of contacting me! The image you uploaded isn't a chathead, it's just the item in the chat interface. If you try to do go underwater with a cat in your inventory, you'll see that it's not the cat chathead that pops up but the cat item. I'm not sure if the toy cat chathead is actually used in game anywhere, we usually get those images from the cache. There are some oddities in there, that while they are technically the correct chathead, don't match up with what would be expected. I can't say for sure if the toy cat chathead is actually used in game anywhere or if it's just stripped from the cache. I seem to remember it being used in a quest, but that might just be wooden cats. If you'd like, you can always join the wiki Discord by clicking the button on the sidebar. There are plenty of people in there who would be happy to help explain this a bit better than I can. Andmcadams (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I think I see now, so the image I got is more like a high res inventory icon, rather than a proper chathead? If I'm remembering right, the Wooden Cat chathead is used in a dialogue box of The Great Brain Robbery... Maybe for the one cutscene where the doctor is hiding in the crate of wood cats? Idk it was a while ago lol. Well anyways, thank you for clarifying this for me! Zechie (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that's right! And it does look like the Wooden cat chathead is from Great Brain Robbery. After looking through some dialogue, I see no instances of "Toy cat" or "Toy Cat" so it's probably never used and was just pulled from the cache. It might not make sense to use the current chathead on that page since we don't include these "incorrect" chatheads on other pages that have them as far as I know (water wizard is an example of one missing an "incorrect" chathead). I'll talk to some other people and see what their opinions are on potentially getting rid of it since it is a bit misleading. Glad that cleared it up, and thanks for bringing this up. Feel free to ask anything if you have more questions. Andmcadams (talk) 14:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you want a free wiki t-shirt?[edit source]

Hi Andmcadams!

To celebrate the two-year anniversary of the new site, we're giving away RuneScape Wiki t-shirts to a bunch of wiki editors. Because of your contributions to the community over the last year, we'd like to send you one! If you're interested, go fill out this form, and we'll get those shipped out before the end of the month.

If you have any questions, shoot me a talk page message or a DM on Discord (Cook#2222). Thanks!

ʞooɔ 21:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

My first edit[edit source]

Ugh, I make an edit, a tiny edit, for the first time ever and it turns out to be a mistake and immediately fixed by you. Thank you for initiating me into the Wiki and forcing me to be more careful in the future when making even the smallest edit! TipJar (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This is Not an Email[edit source]

Hello, friend McAdams,

I do so appreciate your loving comments. I am newly old to the OSRS-WIKI and I am excited to learn more!

Love always and good things, Therealazliq7 (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC) :)

You're blue[edit source]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgztfRBc2jM -Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 02:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm bored[edit source]

doing things and editing things and doing things. ~that's the wiki~ Christine 03:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Talkback[edit source]

Hello, you have messages you may be interested in at Template talk:Similar Vars#Categorizing "content" is hard with Infobox Var. I have no solution for this. 84.250.12.111 17:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Your main?[edit source]

this is your main? -Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 17:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Replying[edit source]

Did I do it right? 23:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

No. No I didn't. Lenny (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
shilling job, lenny ! Riblet15 (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Yen job, Lenny! --Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 23:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

nightmare zone strategy question[edit source]

Disabling a boss also disables every boss from that quest, e.g. disabling Damis also disables Dessous, Fareed, Kamil. Dream Mentor, Recipe for Disaster, and Desert Treasure should always be enabled when trying to maximise points per hour.

the part that says "should always be enabled" is confusing. Should all of the bosses mentioned in .e.g be disabled and have desert treasure enabled?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 118.201.9.82 (talk) on 05:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC).

These are two separate but related statements. The four bosses mentioned are all four bosses in the Desert Treasure quest. Disabling one of them will disable the other three. Because of this mechanic, none of the bosses from dream mentor, rfd or desert treasure should be disabled - another way of saying this is "DM, RFD, and DT bosses should always be enabled for points"
I can reword it some, but I hope that explains it thoroughly. Choppetalk 05:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Re:Quest guides[edit source]

...attempt three...

Hey. Good point; I'll reply properly once our Internet stops being rebellious. -Fussy 16:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

All righty, looks as though them dwarves are back on their treadmills. First of all, cheers for the appreciation; I'm glad to help. :) Now then, prepare for something long and incoherent!
I should probably say at this point that I didn't bother to check whether any of the writing policies etc. were different on this wiki when I switched from RS3 to OS (and, in particular, their wikis). So if I'm doing something undesired consistently, I apologise; it's not my intention. Now, I recently started rewriting/reworking the guides of some quests I've been doing in-game because they... bothered me. The crux herein lies in my definition of a quest guide - and please do tell me whether this is something on which most people agree or whether I am an oddball. To me, a quest guide should provide a full description of the events of a quest, insofar as they are relevant to the overall plot (as opposed to, for example, 'local' developments in a particular area that are secondary to the main events, or NPCs' personal stories when not directly pertinent), as well as advising players on how best to play through the quest.
Examples of the latter include advising people to gather items in advance (that is, before they are told in-game that they need these items) in order to save time or to prepare for an upcoming boss fight even if there are no indications of an imminent battle in-game. In my experience, guides do this fairly well, although the actual writing itself sometimes requires work and it is often not made clear in the guide that such a step is not 'logical' from an in-game point of view. In other words, I am of the opinion that it should be clearly marked that the suggested course of action deviates from what someone using purely in-game information would do, e.g. 'To save time, you may mine some coal before heading into the dungeon, as you will need it later' rather than 'Mine some coal, then enter the dungeon.'
The former point, explicit and complete descriptions of the primary events and plot of the quest, is something that I often find lacking. Constructions such as 'Talk to X. Make sure to go through the entire dialogue, then talk to Y.' are appropriate for a quick guide, but not a regular guide, especially if e.g. the reason to talk to Y or the identity of Y are revealed precisely when talking to X. Quite a few years back, I started a discussion on the (back then only) wiki to solidify this in the quest guide policy and there was support for featuring somewhat detailed descriptions of dialogue, cutscenes, etc. in the main body of the quest guide. I should stress, of course, that the guide should not become a transcript (neither literal nor paraphrased) and I do not aim to turn it into one. While doing low- and medium-levelled quests in OS, I started browsing their wiki guides to see whether images were lacking and I might get some. Despite trying to avoid reading the text to avoid spoilers (I will not have played these quests for at least a decade and therefore have forgotten the details and exact steps), I noticed that the guides are rather lacking in this respect (in my opinion no less important than is the 'giving players helpful out-of-game tips' bit).
Of course, my work is not perfect, although I like to think it's more helpful than, err, not. It's entirely possible that I do add too much description of the dialogue that is, in fact, not directly relevant to the plot as a whole when editing (which I do in tandem with my playing through the quest), which leans too much on the side of making a transcript. If I do this too much: I'm quite sorry, but let me explain. As I said, for most of these quests, the last time I played them will have been over ten years ago, so I cannot know which details of the dialogue are actually important and come back later and which are not (and would be more suited to, say, the appropriate NPC page[1]). The obvious thing to do would be to just play the full quest in-game and then work on the guide using a transcript or something. But I'm not the editor I was ten years ago. :P As of 1 September, I have a fulltime job (doing a promotion in maths, in case you are interested) so I'm in office most of the day and use the weekend to play some RS and tinker on the wiki (amongst other things). For example, I've been rereading postbags (because that's something you should do every few years!) and adding missing information simultaneously, or, indeed, playing quests and working on their guides. It's most convenient for me to combine the playing and the wikiing, even though this method, perhaps, results in, shall we say, some unnecessary additions. (I've been quite active with desert-related articles recently, but that's a result of my having time during the summer holidays and being excited by the new quest announcement. So my wiki activity might have been a bit queer and unusual in terms of frequency, but I am definitely busy from this point onwards, haha.) It's... not ideal but I hope my edits are still 99% good nonetheless!
Anyway, back to quest guides. I would say their goal is twofold. First of all, to help players doing the quest in-game progress through the quest. But secondly, to provide a comprehensive, compact but complete description of the plot and relevant backstory/lore. That is, a reader who is playing the quest at the same time should be optimally helped through the quest's steps; but a reader who just reads the page out of interest (back in the day, when I was low-levelled and couldn't wait to play all those high-level quests, I would've very much desired to have detailed descriptions of the plot of quests like MM or WGS) should also be able to get a proper A to Z 'walkthrough' of the narrative. In my opinion, the guide should do both of these things. If I interpret your proposal correctly, you would split these functions and introduce a kind of synopsis section/subpage akin to a summary of a novel; is that correct? The guide would then mainly focus on the advice giving aspect but not describe the plot in so much detail (although, I hope, in more detail than 'Talk to X, go through all dialogue, then talk to Y.').
That's an interesting idea (and something to be discussed by everyone, not just us two), but it would mean loads of work... All quests would have to have their guides 'filtered' to migrate the narrative bits to this separate synopsis section/subpage. I'm certainly not opposed to the idea (it would probably be great, actually; the readers needing practical help with the quest and the reader curious about its narrative would both be served with more focussed, to-the-point sections), but I do stress that it would take quite some labour to accomplish. Should this become an actual project, I'd be glad to help out. But with my available free time in mind, I dunno how much help I'd be. Another thing I noticed whilst working on the desert-related pages is that I ended up describing the same events many times from slightly different perspectives. For example, Osman and the High Priest of Icthlarin pretty much have the same descriptions of the Contact! quest but, being different people as they are, not so much so that they could just be copy-pasted. And then both of those descriptions are more detailed versions of the plot descriptions in the quest guide itself. A suggestion such as yours might be a step towards more or less consolidating all that narrative information in a single place, if you know what I mean.
I warned you it'd be long and incoherent! :P I hope I've made my stance on quest guides clear, though, and explained my personal situation. Your proposal has much merit in my opinion, but I fear there's too much work involved and too few passionate editors with (importantly) too much time on their hands for it to be executed to your/our liking. It's a good discussion to have, though, and I'm looking forward to your reply! :) Fswe1 (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
[1]: I've not done this for e.g. Waydar and Caranock because I'm avoiding their pages due to potential MM2 spoilers!
As for your second message, yeah, that's a good idea, although it only covers quest series (and not standalone quests) and quests' descriptions on such collective series pages would probably benefit from somewhat shorter summaries than the synopsis subpage/section you suggested. But that isn't too important. Fswe1 (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
See Redwood. :) Fswe1 (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
On the same subject by the way; some IP has reverted all recent edits to MM thinking the story bits are fanfic and disregarding all other fixes made (which were rather copious, contrary to his edit summary). This reinstated poorly phrased sentences, red links, misinformation, and so on that I'd fixed. I've reverted once but that didn't do much and I'd rather not engage in a revert war. :P Would you mind taking a looksie? :/ Fswe1 (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
On second thought, mentioned this on the thread since Choppe said something relevant. Sorry for the spam. Fswe1 (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

re: your a dumb bitch[edit source]

i think it's a bit sad that you and your band of merry folk know off by heart that a 2013 facebook post has no transparency, so who is really the your dumb bitch in this scenario situation, huh bud?

don't you DARE add the warn3 template to my talkpage again, or i will add transparency to ur freakin life bro

Chhm9zw.png

 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KelseW (talk) on 01:14 13 September 2021 (UTC).