- Welcome to the Kancolle Wiki!
- If you have any questions regarding site content, account registration, etc., please visit the KanColle Wiki Discord
Difference between revisions of "Talk:World 6"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Yeah, I noticed that in the edits this morning. I've learned from my professional life that mass find & replace is usually a bad idea :) As for your comment on the collapsing & opening encounter tables, I'll inquire into that. I never noticed it prior to now. [[User:Ravien|<span style="color:#50c878"><font face="Blackadder ITC" size="5"> Ravien</font> </span>]] <font size="2">([[User talk:Ravien|talk]])</font> 14:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC) | :Yeah, I noticed that in the edits this morning. I've learned from my professional life that mass find & replace is usually a bad idea :) As for your comment on the collapsing & opening encounter tables, I'll inquire into that. I never noticed it prior to now. [[User:Ravien|<span style="color:#50c878"><font face="Blackadder ITC" size="5"> Ravien</font> </span>]] <font size="2">([[User talk:Ravien|talk]])</font> 14:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC) | ||
:And now I can't replicate the issue. I think it might be a caching issue with the browser itself? Let me know if you can find a definite way to replicate the issue. [[User:Ravien|<span style="color:#50c878"><font face="Blackadder ITC" size="5"> Ravien</font> </span>]] <font size="2">([[User talk:Ravien|talk]])</font> 14:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC) | :And now I can't replicate the issue. I think it might be a caching issue with the browser itself? Let me know if you can find a definite way to replicate the issue. [[User:Ravien|<span style="color:#50c878"><font face="Blackadder ITC" size="5"> Ravien</font> </span>]] <font size="2">([[User talk:Ravien|talk]])</font> 14:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC) | ||
+ | Actually it went away because some of the info on 6-2's LOS requirements were hidden in comment tags, and simply moving them out of comment tags fixed everything. In other news, we need proper sources for 6-2, there's not much on jpwiki about 6-2 LOS. - [[User:EchIII|EchIII]] ([[User talk:EchIII|talk]]) 14:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC) | ||
+ | :Ah, I just happened to catch it at the wrong time. I'm thinking that the LoS requirements being commented was due to lack of sources. Doing some further looking around, it looks like the LoS values are variable by Adm. HQ level. I'm wondering if we should err on the side of caution and comment out the specific values until we have proper sources. [[User:Ravien|<span style="color:#50c878"><font face="Blackadder ITC" size="5"> Ravien</font> </span>]] <font size="2">([[User talk:Ravien|talk]])</font> 14:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC) | ||
+ | ::LOS requirements don't change, it's the fleet's LOS that does. HQ level is one variable in the LOS formula, put simply, the higher one's HQ level, the lower fleet LOS. - [[User:EchIII|EchIII]] ([[User talk:EchIII|talk]]) 15:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 15:20, 19 July 2016
Fixed the pages, replacing all -> markers with proper ASCII → arrows borked the page. Beware of find and replace - EchIII (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed that in the edits this morning. I've learned from my professional life that mass find & replace is usually a bad idea :) As for your comment on the collapsing & opening encounter tables, I'll inquire into that. I never noticed it prior to now. Ravien (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- And now I can't replicate the issue. I think it might be a caching issue with the browser itself? Let me know if you can find a definite way to replicate the issue. Ravien (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually it went away because some of the info on 6-2's LOS requirements were hidden in comment tags, and simply moving them out of comment tags fixed everything. In other news, we need proper sources for 6-2, there's not much on jpwiki about 6-2 LOS. - EchIII (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, I just happened to catch it at the wrong time. I'm thinking that the LoS requirements being commented was due to lack of sources. Doing some further looking around, it looks like the LoS values are variable by Adm. HQ level. I'm wondering if we should err on the side of caution and comment out the specific values until we have proper sources. Ravien (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)