User talk:Sammm鯊/Archive1

Interlanguage
Hi, xx. Yeah, I'm not currently active much on here, so I'm not really the best person to ask this sort of question here. I think either Cubs Fan 2007 or Seth Cooper would be a better bet. ProfessorTofty (talk) 04:27, October 27, 2016 (UTC)

RE:Is there any requirement for interlanguage wikis?
Sorry for not responding straightaway, with too many things happening at once lately, I must've skipped your message.

To be honest, I had never given much thought to interlanguage links, and I don't think anything of the sort has ever been discussed (that I know of; I could be wrong). So, I don't believe there are any criteria interlanguage wikis must meet to include interwiki links. Users from other wikis just pop up every now and then and add interlanguage links to articles -- that's how it works around here, at least.

There aren't specific Admins to handle image files issues. What kind of new categorisation do you have in mind? -- normally, I'd tell you to be bold, but you seem to have in mind a significant change, so perhaps that's worth discussing beforehand.

Cheers --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 01:59, November 3, 2016 (UTC)

RE:Image categories
Hello! You think you procrastinate, but I was the one who managed to reply only after a year and a half! There are no worries, you can create categories like those all you want; if there's anything wrong, someone'll let you know, it's an easy fix. Cheers! --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 16:47, March 30, 2018 (UTC)

RE:Potter's kids' page name consistency?
Hello, hello! Again, I must apologise for taking way too much time to reply. I read your message and never got round to reply, and then I just plain forgot about it. Sorry!

First, I should note I never took part in the discussion about the titles of the articles of both Lilys, back in 2016. I think (though I might be wholly incorrect) that the fundamental difference between the case of the Lilys and that of the Jameses is that both Jameses were born "James Potter" (hence the I and II) whereas the Lilys weren't born with the same name (one was born "Lily Evans", the other "Lily Potter"; having them as "Lily Potter I" and "Lily Potter II" would imply, I think, that the first had been born a Potter -- of course, this raises issues, i.e., how to explain Molly Weasley II?).

I must say that I am not very passionate about the subject, however, I too tend to dislike the current solution. These kinds things are not up for a single user to decide, and are always open for community discussion. If you're interested, I would suggest creating a new discussion over at The Wizengamot so that everyone can add their two cents. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:57, April 26, 2018 (UTC)

Energy
Hey. I wanted to clarify a couple of things about the energy info that you changed. I went through every clue using online walkthrough guides made by other players. They saw the same thing I saw - when there are no oranges in the picture, it's a tree trunk (or even a branch according to a couple of players) with green leaves coming out the side of it with white flowers in the middle of it. When you click on the picture, three oranges appear. In the future, rather than changing the info and putting your thoughts in the <-- parameter, it's best to put your confusion on the talk page and receive feedback on your findings from other users otherwise we might confuse readers! - Kates39 (talk) 15:28, April 28, 2018 (UTC)


 * I know it's such a minor thing and people will probably find the picture anyway but why else do we edit if not for the little details! I have screenshot the image before and after clicking on it and I really do think it looks like a tree stump with white flowers and green leaves. When the oranges are placed in it, the only thing which moved were the white flowers which bounced. The actual "tree" never changed shape. The oranges are being placed in something which makes the flowers bounce. If they were on a flat surface, they couldn't bounce. Perhaps we could go with what the majority observed in the walkthrough guides and put in the <-- parameter or a reference that there was an interpretation that the picture may be what you have observed? - Kates39 (talk) 17:44, April 28, 2018 (UTC)


 * That's okay! It's not the best picture in the world and it's probably best to talk it out. And don't worry, I never found our conversation uncomfortable or heated! It was nice to have a pleasant chat about our different interpretations. It's not often we receive a lot of new continuous information from our favourite series so everyone tends to get a bit a carried away! You should have saw me when Pottermore put new info about Ilvermorny on their website ;) - Kates39 (talk) 17:12, April 29, 2018 (UTC)

Chapter 2
Hey! Do you remember the name of Chapter 2 in Year 2? I have completely forgotten and found no luck searching for it online. Also, did McGongall offer to teach you special Transifguration lessons when you completed the Reparifarge spell? - Kates39 (talk) 19:29, May 2, 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I don't know whether the special lessons for Transfiguration option will only be offered to students who complete the spell well, rather than be told it "needs work". She praises their work and then let's them decide what to do. But there's chance she offers to help them anyway to help them improve their spell work? I don't know.


 * I was worried about that. It's tough to know what to put because I don't know what happens anyway or what changes are made to the story depending on player choices. I thought sneaking into the Gryffindor Common Room would be the same for every player because they are searching for clues on Ben, who will be in that House for every player anyway (I think). I thought about cutting down how much I write for each chapter because Chapter 1 for Year 2 became very long, but I don't want to begin deleting info other people might want to read.


 * I think the best way to find out what changes for every player will be if you go through what I write and then add editor only comments telling me what changed for you. I don't know how to keep it neutral because even then, me and you might realise things weren't the same for us. - Kates39 (talk) 20:03, May 2, 2018 (UTC)


 * I thought it was a reasonable deduction. The player and Rowan are searching for an object left for Ben. Ben's in Gryffindor and my game wanted me to sneak into the Gryffindor Common Room to find it (I'm in Ravenclaw). It made sense story wise. But now you have said it changed for you, the game probably randomised it so everyone could go in another House's room. Do you know who "R" turns out to be and what House they are in yet in your version of the game? Time will tell.


 * Are you in Hufflepuff? Perhaps the location of the object changes for each House (could be Gryffindor to Ravenclaw, Slytherin to Huffelpuff)? I thought it was reasonable that everyone would look in the same room for the same object, because choices don't define where the object will be hidden. I will amend the section of the chapter to the correct info. - Kates39 (talk) 20:53, May 2, 2018 (UTC)


 * Hey Samm. That’s okay, I tend to do the same and suddenly become inactive when life takes over! I kind of feel I might have went overboard with my writing up of the game. There are seven years to go through and given how much detail I have wrote, the page will be very long. I wish I had wrote a brief summary now.


 * When I added the Side Quests section to the Chapter section, I wondered at the time whether I should have done that. The aim was to have the Side Quests in the same section of the Chapter they took place in. But it looks out of place and kind of a mess and I agree it should have it’s own section, or even delete the mini heading and have the writing be merged with the main story.


 * I thought up until that point, the Side Quests were simply part of the main story and should be written alongside the main story under the Chapter heading. I never realised it was a separate thing in the same way the classes were. Then I realised they were a sub-plot.


 * Unfortunately I wrote up a lot of the Side Quests in the same paragraphs of the main story under every Chapter. There are only two where I gave the Side Quests their own section heading. I will have to go through every chapter I have written up and work out what belongs where.


 * Hope that made sense! Kind of feel I need to take a break too from writing it up and make notes in a document. Then come back in a few days with a fresh mind and sort it out. Good luck for finals week! - Kates39 (talk) 19:19, May 4, 2018 (UTC)

Sup!
Hey! The idea of the table was to break up the info a bit, and make it possible for people to add more writing on what role the character actually played instead of having *, ** and ^, and repeating info. If they appear in a trivia, we could add what the trivia actually was. I was worried we will end up with one, cluttered long list, which will appear to be one long, chunky paragraph on a very long page of nothing but plain writing.

The page will become very, very long, and I am worried the layout of it will begin to look tiring to scroll through. It annoys my OCD too - I want it to look simple and professional! The other wikia's I edit on implement the "expand" button on every section for long pages, but the Harry Potter wikia never put it on pages.

I apologise if the info I put was wrong for a couple of characters. I based the info on the *, ** and ^ signs and what they meant. I remember a lot of the mentions which was why I was certain of them. The * sign was next to Myron's name before I made the table, I assumed you added it. The * sign means "mentioned as a selectable answer". Please feel free to go over those characters you think are wrong, and add a more specific explanation of the selectable answer etc. they appeared in.

I had no idea the table looked broken on Mac computers. On my computer, iPad and even phone it looks fine. And other people have edited the table since I made it and appear to have found no problems. Would you mind taking a screenshot of the problem ? I based the table wikitext from another table on the wikia. I know when editing in the source editor, it can look daunting, but there are ways to make it only show the section you want to edit. - Kates39 (talk) 10:40, May 20, 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I forgot to mention. I was thinking of putting the characters who are only ever mentioned and never appear, in their own section. And then rather than having to put "mentioned" over and over again, table or no table, you only have to put the manner in which they were mentioned. Do you have any thoughts about the idea? I am basically trying to condense and simplify the page and break it up a bit. - Kates39 (talk) 10:42, May 20, 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we need to reach a compromise here, instead of worrying too much about it! I think we're both a bit confused. I have an idea. I'm not a big fan of having symbols next to character names. The table format appears to look odd on certain programmes. Do we really need an explanation of who the characters are, when people can click on their names anyway and find out who they are, and what role they played? We could use the table format you made for classes, to shorten the section and put character names. I think we're trying to go a bit overboard with the info we feel we have to write up and over-complicating the entire thing.


 * We could place mentioned characters in their own section, and we could enact your idea of having a page for trivia questions etc., and place a link to that main article under the "mentioned" header on the Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery page. Then we can have a page similar to the Pottermore Patronus one? Let's clean everything up a bit and simplify the section. - Kates39 (talk) 10:53, May 21, 2018 (UTC)

Order of Merlin
Thank you! I have wrote my response on the Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery talkpage. I hope my compromise will bring about an end for the character section / question debate. I think eventually these things need to be solved before we drag it out. My compromise was basically - short character descriptions for new characters, and perhaps a trivia page focusing more on the new feature friendship building from the new update which includes important trivia, and perhaps a section for the unimportant questions. I hope you enjoy your break before your next semester, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the compromise! - Kates39 (talk) 11:08, May 31, 2018 (UTC)


 * I have amended the character section and included very short, simple descriptions for new characters only. I don't think anything else needs to be added, when any other info will be found by clicking on the names. I wanted to add - I don't think the mentioned section should be changed.


 * If we create a page for trivia, then I think we should include the main article link under the mentioned heading, for a page named Harry Potter: Hogwarts Mystery trivia. Perhaps we could go into further detail about who was mentioned in a trivia question and who was mentioned in other ways, on that page? Let me know your thoughts, because I know you would find such a page helpful, even if I don't. - Kates39 (talk) 11:28, May 31, 2018 (UTC)


 * No problem! The wiki should be a collaboration between editors, and I'm glad we could do that :) Good luck in your final semester, I remember counting down the days until it was over! And creating proper sources for info sounds like a good idea. Many pages could do with them. It kind of bothers me too when I can't work out where the info came from, and whether it's even true. Anyway, let's see where the game takes us, make notes and see how everything looks at the end! - Kates39 (talk) 23:42, June 1, 2018 (UTC)

Re:For future references
No, no hurt feelings. :-)

I admit I reacted a bit rashly in removing it, but by second thought, I do not have an issue wth the "candidate for deletion" thing. I just have to prove you wrong in reasoned discussion. :P

I wasn't the placement of my article as a candidate I had a problem with, nor you correction of my misguided removal of the tag from the article, it was the use of Caps Lock in the comment that gave the impression you were angry and shouting at me. ^^' Maester Martin (talk) 10:35, June 9, 2018 (UTC)

Hey, relax mate, I'm not angry or really even that upset. I mean - sure, I was taken a bit by surprise by the caps lock thing, but you know, communication can be difficult at the best of times, and especially on the internet. Now I'm sorry for stressing you out, bud. I just meant it as a headsup to the implications of caps lock, it's not the end of the world. We're cool. ^^' Maester Martin (talk) 09:14, June 10, 2018 (UTC)

Researching in gaming?
Hello, I am currently looking at some of the playthroughs on YouTube to try and garner more information about the Artefact Room to add to the article. Also, hopefully, a half decent image of it with not too much game icons on it. Like - from a cutscene screenshoted just before the dialouge or something. If you're not too busy, care to help me out? June 15, 2018 (UTC)Maester Martin (talk) 09:58, June 15, 2018 (UTC)

If you can help me find the necessary clips, I'll do the writing part. ^^ Maester Martin (talk) 21:43, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

HM
No problem, I'll try to remember next time.--Rodolphus (talk) 15:53, June 18, 2018 (UTC)

For future reference...
And someone should be mindful of the manner in which they choose to phrase constructive criticism in order not to accidentially and, presumably unintentionally, come across as condescending in the future... Maester Martin (talk) 23:18, June 18, 2018 (UTC)

Though it isn't my strong suite...
Do you think my math was sound in regard to Jacob's age? (Fun fact: If he was born in 1964, he'd be a classmate of Gilderoy Lockhart. Poor Jacob. :P). Maester Martin (talk) 00:10, June 22, 2018 (UTC)

Re:replies
No need to apologize. :-D How far are you in the game?

The first "cryptic message", as you called it, concerns my initial reaction to when you made an edit to the article Patricia Rakepick, where your comment was; "someone needs to learn not to add so many useless and wrongly put code. and no, I have not checked who added them, so it's nothing personal. also removing same links that were already used." I merely pointed out that phrasing your reasoning in such a blunt manner can be percieved by whoever it concerns as you talking down to them. Very inadvertently on your part, I am sure, but I know I wouldn't like to have a response to me worded like that, so I kind of figured I'd give you my five cents on it just in case you one day put your "thoughts to paper" in a way someone might percieve to be hurtful, without even knowing about it. I have done this in the past, so figured that we all can benefit from a reminder just to be on the safe side.

I have an attention to detail thingy going on. Hence the math. :P

Sorry, never mind. I was planning on sending this message to another guy, and since it's late, I am tired and a bit absent-minded, I kept writing on your talk page even after I was supposed to be done. Sorry. :P Maester Martin (talk) 02:03, June 22, 2018 (UTC)

About Rakepick:
You asked; "according to Rakepick, when? where? Please actual source". I don't need one, because its self-evident and self-explainatory. You don't graduate from Hogwarts and become Head of Magical Law Enforcement the next day, and you don't join Gringotts and immediately becomes Head Curse-Breaker, because you would have the academical qualification, but lack the experience needed in the field to do an even remotely worthwhile job. "Burnishing herself in ability and status" is not synonymous/paraphrasing how 'apparently good she is', it is paraphrasing the fact that she spent time working as a Curse-Breaker and gradually obtained the skills and experience that convinced her employers that she was worthy of being Head Curse-Breaker. And she would have had to be a good Curse-Breaker, or she wouldn't be considered for the task of being in charge of her colleagues. One mgiht call it a circle of logic. Maester Martin (talk) 00:26, June 25, 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure where you want my reply since you didn't respond with a corresponding headtitle, but...


 * Woah! Quite a long reply there, mate. Let's see...
 * I agree. She said this while teaching the MC the Shield Charm. Year 4, Chapter 1.
 * Unless you disagree that actually working in a field is a recquirement for a position of leadership in it, I fail to see the problem. But by all means, if you believe there is a better way of phrasing it, be my guest.
 * How am I messing up the article? People don't see it in edit mode, they see it in visual mode. And in visual mode, it looks just fine. Maester Martin (talk) 01:39, June 25, 2018 (UTC)

Hello! :-D

Not to nag, but if you could either make a little heading before a response or somehow separate responses when you write them, it would be so much easier to find them. All your replies have gotten kind of jumbled up in one place, it is kind of difficult to see where one end and another start. ^^'
 * 1) I agree. It was short-sighted of me to revert your edit rather than to re-add the text. I apologise.
 * 2) Sorry if you found the word 'enlighten me' somehow condescending or disrespectful, I didn't mean for it to be. In what other way would you say I could phrase it that doesn't come across as unintentionally offensive?
 * 3) "Back to the point, why the removal? "Quickly"a and "soon"b? And we know this, how? Oh, because, she eventually got the Head position, she must be excellent at everything, and just being excellent isn't awesome enough, she must have achieved those in record time, right? I am talking utter dragon dung."

First of - love the usage of Potteresque metaphor/expression at the end! :-D Second, no you're not.

Third: You haven't watched many of the gameplays on youtube, have you? At the end of year 3, when Dumbledore talks to the Main Character, he described her as an exceptional student of his back when his beard was a little shorter. And that is significant, my friend, because it's Dumbledore saying it. And this isn't a case of Dumbledore being courteous like when he in the fifth book told Dawlish how he was "sure you are an excellent Auror" to his face. (Not that Dawlish wasn't, he was guarding Fudge after all, but that's beside the point), because he was talking to her and was speaking of her, and there is a difference. And when arguably the most powerful, intelligent and skilled wizard alive describe someone as such, it says quite a bit about their abilities.

Jacob's sibling goes around asking teachers about Rakepick, and Hagrid says that "even as a student, she (Rakepick) was gone from the castle for days at a time", and "she was always in trouble,  but always top of her class. " That means that she was always the most outstanding student in every class she took in every subject. Kind of like Hermione. She skipped whole lessons, yet still showed herself capable of visibly outshine every other student in her class in both theory and practice. Nowhere near equal to Dumbledore's abilities, but still. ​​​​ I never said that she "because she eventually got the Head position, she must be excellent at everything", I say that she was excelled at everything she was determined to excel at because that was what those who knew her and had known her from her early years stated to be the case. And curse-breaking was something she was very passionate about, so of course she'd excel in that field in particular. I am sorry if my chose of words gave you that impression, but if you look at the abilities and skills section, every in-game indicator to the extent of her skill, which in turn makes the switness with which her competence would have been competent noticable quite self-evident, can be found there. I feel you put too much stock on the word 'speculation', mate. It's
 * 1) Good. I don't like to assume things either.
 * 2) I don't think she's "epic beyond proportion". I find her a midly interesting but immoral figure. I simply watch the gameplay and document what can be seen and learned about her.
 * 3) "Why must some adverbs with no backings need to be thrown in?" They musn't. That's why I only add adverbs with some sort of substance behind them.
 * 4) "There's also "glaringly obvious"c; it is biased, because, to whom? To you? To other people? To me? Who is it that thinks it's glaringly obvious?" She has a bunch of articles in the newspapers and a biography dedicated to her competence. Dumbledore, as well as every other character in the game who know her by reputation and have an opinion on her ability, concur that she was the most skilled Curse-Breaker in the world. Isn't that proof enough?
 * 5) "Apparently someone thinks that-" and similar choices of wording does come off as a bit condescending, even if I am certain it was perfectly unintentional on your part. A better way of putting it, might be... "I think that -" or something more casual. Not trying to dictate the way you write, man, but that phrasing is - shall we say, less open for interpetation.
 * 6) People have different meanings for different people. To me, for example, apparently, in this context, sounds very much like it just looks like she is good, without that being directly confirmed by her renown and position. Evidently, on the other hand, sounds a lot more firm and accurate to me, because it is implies that there is evidence to suggest she is good at her job, which there is. Like, again, her renown and position. I apologise if I have in any way stepped on your toes. I didn't mean to. I just tried to change the wording to something I felt fit the context better, I did not try to be cross with you... :-(
 * 7) You are right. We know little about Curse-Breakers. We know that they could be seriously injured or even killed by an old curse, but nowhere was it ever said that they had to deal with Manticores and Sphinxes guarding ancient tombs. Which, to me at least, makes sense. Nowhere in canon is it said those creatures lives for centuries upon centuries, so you know - I figured it was equally possible that one creature, they might have happened to stumble across exploring or securing a cursed area, another maybe had escaped from some sort of native Egyptian magical creature sanctuary of sorts, and when that popped up from nowhere, Rakepick charged in defense of her co-workers. I don't know, it could be either or the other. I figured it was best to treat them as separate things to be on the safe side, hence why I empashized her skill at curse-breaking.
 * 8) As I stated above: By all means, if you believe there is a better way of phrasing it, be my guest. As long as you don't start remove things without giving a reason, I am happy, because I sincerely believe what I added is valid. And if you disagree, it is in everyone's best interest for me to know why so that we avoid discord. ^^' Maester Martin (talk) 14:18, June 25, 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) You're welcome. :-)
 * 2) Yeah - I could also have worded myself a little better. Sorry about that. ^^'
 * 3) Gameplays display the snippets of information about people, places, objects and the overal plot when you have to click on things to collect stars, so that's what's relevant about them. You can see something interesting in the game and move on, but with gameplays, you can pause the video and systematically gather information for the wikia. Also, my "third" argument was about my reasoning for using "glaringly obvious" in the first place. That being said;
 * 4) Don't know how to reply to your points from 4-6, so I'll reply to number seven here: Thanks, I weren't unhappy with my last revision either. ^^
 * 5) On 11, I simply meant that if you feel something I write is incorrect or overdone, if you would notify me of your thought process, it'd benefit me very much. When I make edits, I have usually spent a great deal of thinking beforehand, so when someone remvoes something I did without explaining to me where they're coming from, because my logic seems sound to me when I add it, and I wouild rather have a second opinion prior to an edit than an edit of my added content I don't understand. If that makes sense? Maester Martin (talk) 21:49, June 30, 2018 (UTC)

RE:Gringotts Head Goblin (title)
Thanks for the heads-up! Yes, I quite agree with you; I've made the appropriate edits on Head Goblin (title). Cheers! --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:24, July 4, 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, oops, just noticed you'd left me another message earlier! This image is just an in-game screenshot I believe I nicked from a Youtube playthrough (I still haven't gotten round to play Hogwarts Mystery, I'm afraid!). Personally, I'd rather keep the image instead of uploading a cropped version of this because the crop would probably end up being too tight. This wouldn't stop us, however, from uploading another in-game screenshot in which all the characters' eyes were open, of course (though, to be honest, at the size the image is displayed in most articles, I don't think that's something that takes that much away from the picture to begin with). --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 21:39, July 4, 2018 (UTC)


 * The "(title)" bit was to disambiguate from Gringotts Head Goblin, a character that doesn't go by any other name.
 * About your blog post, I promise I'll pay closer attention to it when I have more time -- I've skimmed through it, and you raise attention to some valid issues. Cheers! --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 22:12, July 4, 2018 (UTC)

Oh, right! I completely forgot about the letter from Dumbledore. Turns out you guys were in the right, and I was in the wrong, then. I'd still argue that Bogrod was retconned as Head Goblin, though. Or maybe a recast and greatly altered version of the goblin form the first movie after all. Maybe Davis figured it'd look too obvious playing two different characters or something, and rather than trying to make the goblin look or sound similar, they just headed the opposite route. Kind of like how Professor Flitwick in the third movie and onward looked about forty to fifty years younger than he did in Harry's second year. Maester Martin (talk) 00:32, July 5, 2018 (UTC)

Your blog
Hiya! Just popping up to say I've taken care of some of the very valid issues you raise in User blog:Sammm鯊/Questions anticipating answers (Admins, really need your pointers!) -- left you further explanations on the blog post. Thanks for bringing those to our attention! Cheers, --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:45, August 22, 2018 (UTC)

On second thought...
Can the two of us come to some sort of arrangement? Maester Martin (talk) 14:32, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have no idea just happened. I edited my comment here literally seconds after I posted it, and I know I posted the edit. Here's the thing: I have gone through x amounts of gameplays, often watched three to four different walkthroughs to make sure I catch every single mention of and action done and every line said by Patricia Rakepick. I just overcame a writer's block working on this thing. So the "arrangement" referred to is one where you look at gameplays to find references and add them, and I will provide you with whatever I remember by memory too, and I stick to the whole recording biography thing. It's what I'm good at, and I just don't have the energy to keep re-watching everything I had to watch just to get this far just because you aren't happy with the number of references. Oh, also, I've emailed one of the people working at JamCity whom I discussed issues I had playing the game with. I asked if a "screenplay" of Year 4 was obtainable, and if they agree to send one, that should make it much easier. Maester Martin (talk) 15:53, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________

The "Please don't remove biographical info I record from the game in chronological order without proper justification"; wasn't aimed at you at all.. Another editor butchered my paragraphs by cutting them in half, keeping the info about where Rakepick was at a given time in the story but largely removed everything regarding what she said and did. "you still have the auto-undo reflex". Yes - I have. You or someone else tampered with the sizes of the images, it messed up the setup of my paragraphs in the biography section. Unfortunately, undoing your edit just so happened to be the easiest solution to that problem. The article, like the game itself, is still in development. We don't even have any gurantee there will be no changes to Year 4 whatsoever by the time the game is done, so we needn't be so hasty.

What consequences does this "junk to the page" get as a whole? In what way is it disadvantageous or even visible outside of source mode?

Strictly speaking, we could simply have a repeat of a single reference denoting the material as having the game as a source, and it wouldn't be incorrect. Maester Martin (talk) 16:03, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

RE:Helpful editor insisting on removing "citation needed" template
You are quite right. is indeed not only being properly used, and increasingly necessary as the article is expanded. Though this issue seems to stem from a lack of communication I am leaving Maester Martin a note on his talk page. Cheers! --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:48, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

Formatting issues
First of all, thank you very much for your condolences, it's appreciated

Secondly, so - just to be clear - in the simplest possible terms. references are supposed to be like this.[1] and not this[1]. , and plurals, if you go wands, the whole word is included in the link? Because I have seen, if we pretend bold is a link, that they can look like; wands, and that's why I try to correct it, it looks sloppy. Maester Martin (talk) 02:17, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

There has been several instances in various "magical abilities and skills" sections where it has been for example Potion]']s, so I do the reformatting thing on instict. Are you saying that [[Potions]s will look like [[Potions' when published? Maester Martin (talk) 02:42, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

What I want, my friend, is that when the word Potions is linked to the "Potion" article, for example, I don't want to see the six first letters linking to the article and the last 's' being normal text. And I've seen stuff like that several places. Maester Martin (talk) 11:09, September 4, 2018 (UTC)

Red cloak figure in Year 5 Ch 1.
The red cloaked figure who attacked Jacob's sibling twice in Year 4 as revealed to be Ben Copper. In Year 5 chapter 1, both Jacob's sibling and Ben Copper were attacked by a red cloaked figure at the same time. This is a different individual altogether. The cutscene clearly shows this.StargateFanBB (talk) 23:03, September 6, 2018 (UTC) No worries. You're right. I didn't actually put a citation in when I made the page for the character. I haven't actually learned how to properly do that yet.StargateFanBB (talk) 01:35, September 9, 2018 (UTC)

"I can be condescending too"...
First off, I fail to see why being condescending in any shape or form should be a goal - secondly, Ismelda did not appear in the sorting ceremony in year 1 either. I daresay several characters in our year appear throughout the game without being seen or mentioned until we meet them for plot-reasons, the NPCs in class that are actually named notwithstanding. Maester Martin (talk) 18:34, September 8, 2018 (UTC)

Citation or nay, your argument that Diego Caplan cannot be a fifth year because you were in the same house and didn't see him at the sorting is still invalidated by the existence of Ismelda Murk. That being said, I seem to remember the houses of friends, even potential friends you have yet to meet in the game, has their house and year listed on the firends' list. Maybe that was why they thought it wasn't necessary? Have you asked him/her about it? Maester Martin (talk) 19:42, September 8, 2018 (UTC)

When you say; "this article lacks proper citation", and then go on to say; "I am in the same house, and he wasn't at the ceremony", I, for one, would say that the two does very much look like two separate issues. And I rejected the latter statement, because your choice of words implied that msking an appearance at the sorting ceremony was a recquirement for them to be in the same year. Which I rejected because, in the context of the game, it isn't. If did not say your statement was false, I pointed out that it was incorrect, which are two different things.

That being said, it would appear Rodolphus broguht you the context already. Maester Martin (talk) 20:18, September 8, 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you really like hammering down stuff, don't you? :P FIne, case closed. Maester Martin (talk) 22:37, September 8, 2018 (UTC)

Could you lend me a hand? ^^'
Hello there, Sammm. So - Seth posted on my talk page an instruction for the proper inclusion of images to articles, giving me some kind of template. I tried to ask him if he could explain it a little better, but it seems like real life have caught up wth him a little. Could you look it over for me, please, and help me understand how it's done? Maester Martin (talk) 06:22, September 11, 2018 (UTC)

I am not at all familiar with it to be honest. :P

Thanks, I'll look at it. If you look at my replies at Seth's page, you might understand my confusion a little better. 07:12, September 11, 2018 (UTC)Maester Martin (talk)

The problem is that I viewed Rakepick's article in source mode and could not find the template in question among the codes. Maester Martin (talk) 14:42, September 11, 2018 (UTC)

Understandable. I won't hold a grudge for having to wait a little between responses. ;-)

''Well, Sammm, in source mode, you can see the infobox template, among other things. I figured that if you can see that, you would be able to see the desired image template. Also - the image we discussed was one I added to it, if Seth added an image template to picture I uploaded, it seemed logical that it would be there.'' ''That I did. On that page, it said "image appearing in "Patricia Rakepick" - so I ventured there to see whatever alterations Seth had done to the code of the image I added to the page in regard to this "template" he wanted, And - I found none.'' Oh, I see, so all images are designated their own pages, just like the character(s) are deleagated articles? No wonder I didn't find anything on Rakepick's page. I mistook the edit of my image/the template he made as a sort of visual byporiduct of changes done to the coding/in source mode to the file I uploaded. Sort of like an added template that wasn't visible in the article itself, but popped up when when you clicked on it. 23:59, September 11, 2018 (UTC)Maester Martin (talk)
 * 1) Why were you viewing Rakepick's article in source mode?
 * 1) Did you look at the link I very specifically give you to look over?
 * 1) To clarify things, you shouldn't be looking at any ARTICLE's source mode, but an IMAGE PAGE's source mode.

RE:Class icons from Hogwarts Mystery
'''Hi Sam! Nice to meet you!'''

First of all, thanks for ask me about my image. I know how it feels that other people do that. I must say that we do that in the spanish wiki in order to hace a more completely web page, but don't worry, I currently add the source of the image of where it has been taken an the author of the image.

Secondly, if you have the game on your phone, you can look for it in your phone's files. When I do that, I have to go to: My files / My device / Android / Data / then I go till the last files and push the one called "com.tinyco.potter" / files / and finally you look for all the icons that you want. If you have any problem, or you need help, don't hesitate about ask me.

Have a nice day!

LeFences (Leandro) (talk) 01:17, September 22, 2018 (UTC)

''Pd: I've already replaced the image. ;)''