Want a chance to win PDX web store discount vouchers, forum icons and avatars, or copies of Victoria 2 Complete, the HoI3 Collection, or Age of Wonders 3? Check out the wiki's contest.

User talk:SolSys

From Stellaris Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Tech Stylistics[edit]

We may want to clean up the stylistic differences between the Physics and Society on the Technology page. Admitedly, the Engineering section is not finished and given tomorrow is launch day, there will most likely be a huge influx of edits. But still, better now than during the storm. Below are the differences Ive noted; please take a look, Id like your opinion before making a call.

  • Effects
    • Unlocks - Physics always mentions the specific unlock type (modifier, component, etc.) with each item. Society mostly omits Modifier, and is missing several Army tags. Should we omit the Modifier tag and just list the benefit?
    • Numbers. (background and ordering in text) Physics: +5% Mod habitability.png Habitability, Society: Mod habitability.png +5% Habitability. I used that method for Physics becouse KaTiON used it in Engineering and also becouse it seems more appealing. Plus, it allows for easier 'iconify'.
    • Icon size. All icons are Mod ship hitpoints add.png 24px, except Minerals.png minerals, Energy Credits.pngenergy and Influence.png influence. Society also uses this (mostly? I didnt check meticulously). I used Mod country all tech research speed.png 18px at first but many icons were hard to read in such small size. The Mod country all tech research speed.png 24px are readable but are bigger than the surrounding text and cause gaps between lines, and cause the 18px resource icons to look small and sometimes look like a stylistic inconsistency. Not sure on which convention to settle. (Tech icons use 18px and work fine. Building icons use 24px and are mostly fine too)
  • Modifiers
    • Physics always says 'None' atleast, while Society leaves a blank spot. This also applies to Requisites. (Sidenote: I listed the Modifiers as they were presented in the original list, unlike in society where they are listed from biggest to smallest. I can fix this later)
  • Repeatables
    • Take a look at Assembly Algorithms (Phys) and Talent Acquisition (Soc). Im not sure if some of the differences are maybe caused by different information given in the original lists (looking at Base Weight and the lack of the 0.5x and 0.01x modifier types). As for the scaling costs, I can see the logic in having them be a hover tooltip over the base cost instead.

-- Sithril (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2016 (CEST)

I think the page can remain as it is for the week before the inevitable lunch update - I suspect some of the data was altered again after User:KaTiON prepared the lists. I wrote below the general points I used for the updated table format. If you'd to add/change something let me know.
  • Unlocks - This is to mark everything that wasn't already marked with something more concrete [module, component, etc.]. I could simply guess, but since release is a couple of days away decided to leave it as it was for future update. Generally, if it has an icon we can safely remove the distinguisher [if building are the only ones with icons maybe remove Building too].
    • I was thinking on applying the plainlist template here, but it's up for debate. From testing in EU4 it works nicely if there's something to replace the bulletin points [like icon or green] in addition to adding more cell "space". See examples here: User:SolSys
  • Modifiers - I'm mostly active in the EU4 wiki so I used the latest styling from there: [icon / value / Modifier]. That way, those who are familiar with the game can look at the icon+value and move on and the rest at value+modifier. When the icon in the middle [especially when you can't see it] it feels like a stop mark. I do agree that iconify makes it easier. I don't mind the value background so we can go either way.
  • Icons - Due to the icons' black background it makes them hard to see when they are small. Unless they can be updated to be easily identifiable it would be best to just change their default size in the template itself, otherwise said problems would simply continue to persist on other pages.
  • None - I removed those to make the table look less cluttered. The order is due to EU4, but I can go either way.
  • Repeatables - I suspect User:KaTiON did the lists one at a time and by the time one list was finished the others were altered. I'll go over the tech files after the game goes live to update the lists.
  • Weight modifiers - This should include only modifiers increasing/decreasing likelihood of appearance. Other info should appear in cost [for Repeatables] and prerequisites.

~ SolSys (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2016 (CEST)


you can just add it to a table, right after sortable, it's less hassle that way 10:57, 17 May 2016 (CEST)

If you'll excuse me, I think I'll go find a bridge... ~ SolSys (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2016 (CEST)

Developer Diaries[edit]

I see you've changed the numbering of the Developer_diaries entries in the table. These are actually numbered according to their chronological order in their official title, so I'll revert this change. Let me know if there is actually a logical reason to change it. --Spyhawk (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2016 (CEST)

Some simple reasons:
  1. While the numbering does help to keep track of things, there are many times when someone else ends up writing the DD and the numbering is forgotten [across all PDS games - not sure if it happened on ST though].
  2. The devs have a tendency to continue the old numbering even when they move on to a new "subject" [new expansion/patch etc].
  3. Due to the two above it's easier to use section numbering with accordance to date.
It's not a problem though if it remains as it is for now. ~ SolSys (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2016 (CEST)
I see. This would actually makes sense for future expansions, but as of now patches 1.1 and 1.2 are much needed fixes and entirely related to the base game imho.
Also, would it make sense to reverse the order in the tables, from more recent to older entries? This might help in accessing the DD in the order they were published. --Spyhawk (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2016 (CEST)
It's mainly for archiving, so there's no need for that. Besides, the last patch is always added at the top, so it's less of an issue. You can make it sortable if you prefer. ~ SolSys (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2016 (CEST)
Good idea! Tables are now sortable by release "number" and date. Btw, thanks for your awesome contribution on the wiki! --Spyhawk (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2016 (CEST)

Faulty Sversion Tags[edit]

For the 2nd time now I found sections of the Wiki that were marked with Sversion|1.5 but where the content had NOT been updated for 1.5 First one was genetic Enigneering where the numbers no longer matched. 2nd was Fallen Empires, where the FE have lost almost all Lance weapons with 1.5. Wich is a very serious change!

I can only asume somebody wanted to gather "points" for the Contest. And as a result has damaged the wiki's reliability. Those are not minor oversights. --The Founder (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2017 (CEST)

If you've found problems then reset the version tag too please. That way we'll know what needs to be updated. I would also remind you of Hanlon's razor "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". It makes this sort of problem less disturbing. Dauth (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2017 (CEST)
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. During contests we go over edits to try and make sure they are to wiki standards - with some leniency given due to "ongoing work"; if we find an edit which is misleading or not up to style it is usually reverted or given a chance to be corrected. Unfortunately, some low-key edits manage to slip through the cracks in times of increased activity [EU4/Stellaris expansions]. In any case, I've gone over the Fallen empires and Genetic modification articles and it would seem the changes in question were done by anon users and as such they are not eligible for participation in the contest [need to be a registered PDX user]. Thanks again for correcting the problematic sections. Edit: And as already pointed out, there's also the stupidity ["ignorance" would probably work better here] reason. ~ SolSys (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2017 (CEST)
I know the old addage. But I learned of it from the worst possible scenario - one were it did not apply: https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2002-10-06
There was a chance that they made it annon to have it later atributed to them. But it looks like it was only stupidity after all. --The Founder (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2017 (CEST)

So where do we put the AI rebellion?[edit]

As you know the AI rebellion crisis was replaced by the Contingency and the AI rebellion was turned into a Synthetic Dawn story pack event renamed Machine Uprising. So where do we put that? It's not a crisis so it can happen regardless of any crisis though it requires Synthetic Dawn. And while handling it after it breaks out is more streamlined due to the removal of what the community called "spaceport destruction simulator" the part where you can side with the uprising and swap your old empire for a new machine empire makes everything too serious and game changing to just put it in the event pages.

--Kami-sama, 22 September 2017

We could make a extra article. Just reference it in the appropirate places (Pops, Technology and Crisis I would guess). I thought about moving the Shroud off the Tradition page as well. It simply becomes to complex to properly design the page when we are already 3 organsiation layers deep by the time you even mention it. Same for War in heaven. At some point the limits of the Wikidesing force a new article. --The Founder (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2017 (CEST)
I'd vote to keep it in the Crisis page with the Synthetic Dawn requirement warning. KaTiON (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2017 (CEST)
I was thinking of splitting the ascension part to another page for some time now -- at the very least the ascension paths which for some reason turned into a strategy-section/un-proper event page. ~ SolSys (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2017 (CEST)
Hard to answer as you ask about one thing in the context of another. Event pages will be regardless of severity/seriousness since they have a specific purpose -- to list triggers/effects/text in a uniform layout. It is important to note that the current stage of most of Stellaris' event pages is lacking as they are not up to format/style [examples of proper / not proper ] so the confusion is understandable. Depending on the size of the content you were thinking on the answer may vary -- for now I'd say to put it in the crises article. If you can/know how to make a proper event page then go for it -- you can use the template or existing articles as reference. BTW, you can sign your name with ~~~~ [also adds date/time]. ~ SolSys (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2017 (CEST)
I'd say it belongs on the Crisis page, it's not a big C Crisis like the other 3, but it is a crisis and it does function similarly to the Crises, just smaller. Giving it an entire page all of its own seems a little excessive and it doesn't really fit any other page better. Neruz (talk) 2:03, 12 October 2017 (CEST)

What I mean by "confirmed"[edit]

Okay since I discovered this led to some of my edits being reverted I should explain what I mean by "confirmed for [current version]" and how I come to the conclusion. Confirmed means that there is no difference between the previous version and the new one, that they didn't add or change anything so all I'm left to update is the version number because that's the only thing. As for how I come to this conclusion, I do a keyword search through every changelog from the mentioned version till the current one. Just like I did earlier for "trait" to find every change I should update on the traits page and most values have been updated by someone already. Kami-sama (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2017 (CEST)

That would seem to be the issue then. Not every change is mentioned in the patch notes or if they do then in general terms -- which led to the errors in the now reversed edits. A better solution would involve a diff-check between the article version to the current version. For example, the traits folder have several new smaller files instead of a couple of big ones which may contain new traits [requires inspection]. ~ SolSys (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2017 (CEST)
I inspected each file, there are no new traits except those I added. But I only checked the species traits files, I'll take a look at the leader traits when I'll work on that page. For now I want to see what I can do for the pop modification page. By the way please update the name on the main page, it's still called gene modification there. Kami-sama (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2017 (CEST)

Diplomacy page icons[edit]

There are two diplomacy actions icons that are missing and hoped to ask for help with that. As you know I usually leave a mention in the edit summary but since I edited the page multiple times as I was playing to test everything I thought to mention it here. Kami-sama (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2017 (CET)

Please refrain from deleting comments/discussions from other user's talkpages. ~ SolSys (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2017 (CET)
Sorry, I was the one who started the discussion I deleted, the said discussion was over after you clarified what I should do and nobody but us replied to it so I thought it was safe. I just don't like cluttering other people's pages. Anyway for convenience I'll take a break until someone uploads the missing icons. I'd do it myself but while I'm determined to help the wiki I get the feeling that my executions leave a lot to be desired from the moderators so I'm gonna play it safe. Kami-sama (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2017 (CET)
Since is seems you're too busy (no sarcasm) I'll ask for myself, am I allowed to edit the icon template page too to add new ones? Kami-sama (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2017 (CET)
Sorry, I try to focus on one wiki at a time, so things may slip by. Which icons do you require? Generally, if it will be used only a couple of times I advise to refer to the icon directly. ~ SolSys (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2017 (CET)
The icons for non-aggression pacts and supporting independence, check the Diplomacy page - Diplomatic Actions. I can add images but I don't know how to turn icon images into actual wiki icons. I thought it's related to the Template:Icon/doc page but I saw I was wrong. Kami-sama (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2017 (CET)

(Unindent) If you can give me links to the images I'll add them to the icon template. Dauth (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2017 (CET)

I just tried it but there's a bit of a problem. After converting the two game icons from dds to png to match the ones you already have I saw they lacked the black circle background. I got them from gfx/interface/icons/diplomacy, maybe the ones already uploaded were taken from somewhere else. Kami-sama (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2017 (CET)
Done -- not in template, but directly. I also applied a basic table on the section [less scrolling], but it still needs copy-editing and perhaps a requirements column [haven't checked the files so can't say for certain]. ~ SolSys (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2017 (CET)
Thanks for the help, I'll take care of the rest of the page. Also a requirements column isn't really necessary, the only requirements is the tradition for diplomacy, awakened empires for the last option and a neutral or better attitude. And also that the options are more limited if you have the inwards perfection civic. I was planning to mention the latter two anyway. Kami-sama (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2017 (CET)

Deleting the Precursor events 2 page[edit]

Paradox merged the two precursor event files so I copied everything from the second page to the first one, which was renamed as you can see in the move log. But I can't delete pages so I'm asking the staff. Kami-sama (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2017 (CET)

PDX did not merge it, because it was never split to begin with. The split was done on the wiki to ease maintenance and updating. Edit: Just to clarify, it is done on big event pages to make them more readable [no more than 100 events]. Similarly, small event pages [few events in each] get merged. ~ SolSys (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2017 (CET)


Why did you undo the changes on the pages where I set things to the default 24px? If the values are all over the place, it looks inconsistent and untidy. ShiroSWR (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2018 (CET)

Sorry about the delay, I was about to notify you of the recent actions when got held. While they may seem inconsistent they are actually set to their respective size on purpose -- if you'll look closely, you'll notice icons are consistent row-over-row. Although it may seem as if bigger is better, you'll find that the icons tend to "interfere" with each other across multiple lines. ~ SolSys (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2018 (CET)
Yeah, Dauth just now told me. I will keep it in mind. Though even then, 18px icons should be 21px, yes? ShiroSWR (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2018 (CET)
If you mean the {{bonus table}} template, the 18px size was picked originally to keep the tables somewhat "small" -- unfortunately, they have a tendency to look kinda big and empty at the same time. It was basically a stylistic choice than anything else, so I won't be too averse changing it to 21px if it seems more practical. ~ SolSys (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2018 (CET)

What should I do with ascension paths?[edit]

I saw how you wanted the ascension paths section to look from your Etude page and I tried to make it like that but aside from describing some things more clearly it's not much of an improvement. Maybe it needs a better structure but I don't have any idea. If you have any I'm all ears. Kami-sama (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2018 (CET)

In short: "less is more". The problem lies in trying to retain what is already present on the page and adding onto it. The information is already described in other [linked] locations, so no need to repeat it. When writing about a path focus on: general description/purpose, what is required, and form of expected outcome. No need to go into details about numbers. Most importantly, when using icons do it in a conservative manner to ensure the section remains pleasant to read. ~ SolSys (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2018 (CET)
I thought about not repeating info from linked sections but that was already added and I feared the staff would disagree if I'd remove it. I'll trim what's already linked. Kami-sama (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2018 (CET)
On the contrary. That is why we use the {{see also}} tags, transclusions, and other tools for. The alternative is double the work when/if something is updated :/. You just need to hit the balance between informative and over-informative. I find the summary techniques from school to still be helpful with these stuff. ~ SolSys (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2018 (CET)
I removed what I could. I think I'll give up here. But I thought of an alternative. How about we remove the section and instead list every effect of the ascension path perks in the ascension perk table under a collapsed list like you did with the special civics? I thought of this after remembering that those are half of the ascension perks that are advanced enough to remain Utopia-only following the 2.0 update. I have the edited table with everything in my sandbox page so I'll let you decide. Kami-sama (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2018 (CET)
Sorry for the delay. I'll look into it. ~ SolSys (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2018 (CET)

Now what should I do with the crisis page?[edit]

I've always thought the crisis page could be improved but as you might've noticed I rarely worked on it because I didn't know how should I improve it. You put a notice to copy edit the crisis page for Restructure and rewrite the article away from its current pseudo-event basis. I did that last week with the triggers section but how should I restructure each crisis' section? For example the Prethoryn section. The mechanics section uses a numbered list but I don't know how to improve or rewrite it. Meanwhile the countering section is a wall of text and I couldn't find anything unnecessary to remove from it. I took a look at the Crusader Kings II wiki, the only other Paradox game that I played, but it didn't give me ideas. Kami-sama (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2018 (CET)

First of all -- with big projects like this always opt for experimenting on your sandbox rather than on the actual article. This will allow you the freedom to re-design the page entirely without interfering with other users. To be frank, that whole page could be scraped as is. It is not written as an article, but simply repeats what the event files describe [pseudo-event structure]. For example, the crisis section could be summarized into 4-5 short lines instead of what it is now. Try using different content delivery methods where it makes sense -- tables, images, and etc. For example, this can be displayed as this. Hope this helps. If you have further questions ask away. ~ SolSys (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2018 (CET)
I did that now, to be honest I've wanted to ever since I saw the table on the Fallen Empires page but I thought designing the table would be hard, turned out it wasn't. I've also started making such tables on the wiki but only for entities that use multiple different designs and whose components can be researched one way or another since otherwise the table wouldn't say much. I'll see what I can do about summarizing each crisis but I doubt I'll be able to do much, I just don't see what I could cut or shorten. In the meantime I have do have another request. Can you add on the main page a link to the species rights page? It's an important page and I always forget to update it that way. You can use the consumer goods icon. The citizenship one would fit better but nobody added it, or at least not on the icon templates page. Kami-sama (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2018 (CET)
I am finally done with the Scourge. There is nothing I can improve further so I'll move on to the extradimensionals. So how about the Species Rights request? Kami-sama (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2018 (CET)
Sorry for the delay. I'll look into it in the next update. ~ SolSys (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2018 (CET)
I am done with the page, take a look and decide if the editing tags are needed anymore. I think they aren't. Kami-sama (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2018 (CET)

Merging Land Warfare and Orbital Bombardment[edit]

Orbital bombardment is a rather obscure page, and also a very small one if you consider the table is taking most of the page. Due to its effect on ground combat wouldn't it be better to have it as a section on Land Warfare? I admit that I mostly request it because of the 2.0 update which removes the fortification mechanic and makes orbital bombardment into an anti-army mechanic. Kami-sama (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2018 (CET)

Finishing the sandbox[edit]

I am done with my sandbox unless you can help me beyond the dev diaries or with anything I might have missed. I am only missing the following things (Starbase tables not counting):

  • How much Starbase Capacity you get for every Pop and owned system
  • The stats of the hyperdrives
  • More details about each type of Casus Belli and Wargoal
  • Which ship class can use which combat computers
  • What raises the command limit beyond the two things I mentioned in the sandbox
  • Some Titan stats
  • Details about the first three doctrines
  • What buildings produce how many defense armies
  • Collateral Damage for each army
  • The exact effects of the new Armageddon bombardment stance

Anyway feel free to look at my sandbox page and give criticism. Because the following pages will be rewrote completely: Starbase, FTL, Warfare, Space Warfare, Land Warfare. The rest of the sandbox are new sections I'll add or tables I'll update. Since you're handling the Starbase tables already if you want you can take all the work I did for the upcoming page except the tables and add it to your test page, I think that would be for the best. Also, shall I take over the Traditions page from you? Kami-sama (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2018 (CET)

You didn't reply in two days so I'll take silence as a "yes". Actually I'm taking silence as an "I'm busy", meaning it would be best to take it off your hands. I have integrated the ascension path section into the ascension perks table under collapsed lists, like I did weeks ago on the traditions page. If you will return to continue working on the upcoming traditions page in the meantime please take the collapsed list for each ascension path perk from the ascension perks table from my sandbox. I would've just added them to yours but I doubt you would appreciate me editing your personal pages. Kami-sama (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2018 (CET)
Sorry, I get flooded with work lately :/ . I'll deal with the pages according to my priority list during the weekend [uploads, tech, starbase, tradition, UI, etc.]. I doubt I'll have time for all of them, but I'll try to finish at least 2. ~ SolSys (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2018 (CET)
I have plenty of time but unlike you I'm limited to the info from the dev diaries and their videos. When the game is updated I'll put everything on the wiki. But I'll try to finish everything once the update is released. Kami-sama (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2018 (CET)
I don't have any special access -- I'm just used to extrapolating data from numbers [BTW, it is as fun as it sounds]. ~ SolSys (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2018 (CET)
Then how did you get the new formula for tradition cost before the game was updated? Kami-sama (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2018 (CET)
I have updated the Traditions wiki page, if you want to do something on it please use that one, it's already updated with your latest work. Also, do you mind giving me access to the icon template page? Aside from the obvious changes they also renamed the "built to last" civic and I want to fix the unrecognized sting line errors. Kami-sama (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2018 (CET)
Those edits weren't final and as such are misleading to an extent. Changes should be applied after being verified with the final patch revision. I just got off, so I'll look into it later, but do refrain from this in the future. You should have access to the icon template [only the main page is protected]. ~ SolSys (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2018 (CET)

New Icons[edit]

I would've asked ShiroSWR this but she hasn't been online recently so I'll ask you. There's a number of missing icons that I can't add myself either because I can't find them or because I can't edit them like you. I'll limit myself to the most important ones currently, the Stronghold and Fortress icons. Do you mind uploading them? I'll handle the rest myself afterwards. Kami-sama (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2018 (CET)

Thanks, I handled the templates. There are a few other icons lacking but nothing major so it's at the bottom of my list, once I get there I'll only ask for help with what I can't find. Kami-sama (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2018 (CET)


I'd like to update the bonus tables, like the ones from the economy page. But how you know the effect of every modifier in the game? I mean your tables are so complete, do you have a trick or you're just searching through every file in the game? Kami-sama (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2018 (CET)

I simply scour the files. The only trick I can think of is knowing what folders may contain them and what not -- requires being more familiar with the common folders. For example. you might need to look in the traits folder, but not in the weapons folder, ant etc. ~ SolSys (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2018 (CET)

Traits page[edit]

Care to enlighten me why you reverted the changes? Because now the page is listing incorrect info again... Echo 418 (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2018 (CET)

Sure -- it was late on my end so I didn't have the time. You need to pay special attention when making edits on the wiki as you might affect other articles as well. For example, by removing the ascendancy traits section you also removed it from the leaders article as it was the origin of the table there. The wiki uses transclusion where possible in order to avoid duplication of data and maintenance overhead -- it allows updating information in a single location and have it "trickle" to the rest of the wiki. Additionally, that specific table was/is planned to be used on the ascension paths section on the traditions article. ~ SolSys (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2018 (CET)
Ah, I didn't know that, I thought it was still duplicated elsewhere. Sorry about that.
So a solution would be to move the table to the leader page for now? The reasons I want to remove it from the traits page are:
  • It doesn't allow the civic requirement for Driven Assimilators for the Cybernetic trait to be listed
  • It duplicates the Synthetic trait (also listed under the Robots section)
  • It doesn't allow for the description of the traits to be added.
  • It is the only table on the page that lists leader traits (which seem to belong on the leader page)
The Cybernetic, Latent Psionic and Psionic traits would then be added to Special traits section
Echo 418 (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2018 (CET)
I'll look into it. ~ SolSys (talk) 13:27, 16 March 2018 (CET)

Last missing icons[edit]

Do you mind uploading the following icons? I'm not good with gfx work so I can't add the backgrounds like you did.

  • diplomacy_integrating - needed for the independence Wargoal

And optionally

  • colonizability_icons - needed for the Celestial body page

I can handle the rest on my own.

Also, I'm going to add the trade icons for the Trade page myself and I wanted to ask how do I make an image category for them. Will it appear on its own after I just add [[Category:Trade images] for the first time? Kami-sama (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2018 (CET)

Purging types table[edit]

Hey, I think you kept the wrong table in the Population article. The current table transcluded from the citizens right article is outdated (e.g.: happiness modifiers for Pops under Exterminations add -1000% Mod pop happiness.png happiness, not 100%). If you wanted to transclude, you should have transcluded the new table. I was going to do it myself, I just wanted someone to confirm the purging times (I wrote it on the 'talk' section of the same article). Anyway, I've copied the table on the draft version of my profile. Once I get confirmation for the purging times I'll update it and transclude it on both articles. --Naschnasch (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2018 (CEST)

Just confirmed with game data that purging times are as follows as of 2.0.5:
Per-pop extermination: 1 year 9 months
Species extermination: 1 year 9 months
Displacement: varies upon other empires refugee (maximum 12 years 6 months)
Neutering: 75% of life
Forced labour: 25 years
Processing: 10 years
Chemical processing: 16 years 9 months
I'll therefore proceed to update the data. --Naschnasch (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2018 (CEST)

I think I need some help with the Forum[edit]

I had some issues with posting on the Forum, wich might have resulted in me triggering the Spam Bot detection or something. I am currently banned from the Forum.

I am so banned, I can not even see the Forum message why I was banned or any part of my own Profile. I did not even get a copy of the Forum message send to me per mail right now. While the Wiki and Store accounts still seem to work, you are the only one I could think of contacting to maybe get this sorted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Founder (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2018‎ (CEST)

Oh, I am so banned, I literally can not log out. I get a "you are banned" Error even trying to get to the logout page. So in order to even get read access to the Forum again, I need to delete the login cookie. Maybe I can find another contact with that, but still any relay to the Forum adminsitrators would be appreciated. --The Founder (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2018 (CEST)
It seems you may have some restrictions on your user-profile. As wiki and forum moderators do not operate on the same level I can only alert a forum moderator to have a look at the post. ~ SolSys (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2018 (CEST)
You'll be able to log back in soon(tm)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Had a dad (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2018‎ (CEST)


Ip is dynamic, but thanks anyway. 17:33, 25 August 2018 (CEST)

Icon backgrounds[edit]

What background image did you use for File:Amenities.png and the like? It shouldn't be too hard to mass-apply it to the job icons. Hairy Dude (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2018 (CET)

CAPTCHA and anon edits[edit]

I get "Incorrect or missing CAPTCHA" repeatedly on Spaceborne aliens page in the last days. Is there some new softban thing on my IP range? I mean, how it is possible to fail to enter two letters, repeatedly, for several days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2018 (CET)

There are some unobvious problems with anonymous edits in recent months. It always says that CAPTCHA is missing or wrong, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not misspelling two letters again and again for weeks. Is there some timeout, abuse filter thing or proxy-filter in action? I'm deeply confused, since switching IPs or browsers does not work reliably either. 18:15, 25 December 2018 (CET)

There is a time-out which comes into effect if a long time has past since editing has started -- though I can't say for sure on what it is set to. Recently the wikis underwent a maintenance and framework update which may have had a part in this as well -- though, again, I can't say for sure. If you can leave me a note with details [browser, IP, editing type/length] next time it happens I'll pass it along to our dev-ops. Thanks. ~ SolSys (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2018 (CET)
Was getting it again, on my previous edit (can't link because of AbuseFilter), couldn't edit sections either, or post here, switching from FF to chromium helped this time. Had no problem on this IP before. 01:16, 9 January 2019 (CET)

@ Please do not add outdated information to an up to date page. You can still find information about Warp on an older version of the FTL page. – Lillebror (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2019 (CET)
Eeeeh? What's the problem there exactly? I don't even remember how old FTL worked, nor have any interest in it. I was doing empire switching with console and noticed that current wormholes have to be opened by each empire "manually", unlike gates, which become open for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2019‎ (CET)
Sorry, that was a mistake on my part. Please forget it. – Lillebror (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2019 (CET)


Hello. This wiki is definitely not "welcoming" enough. You need a welcoming template, as many other wikis, including Wikipedia has to welcome new users so that they feel welcome. GalaxyGirl (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2019 (CET)

That is a sound advice, thank you for the input. We'll look into it and see if we can come up with something useful soon. ~ SolSys (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2019 (CET)
It would be at least the most appropriate discission, as we would like to have warm welcoming friendly community. Do you agree? GalaxyGirl (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2019 (CET)