User talk:Timrem

You know what to do! --Timrem (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2013 (CET)

Hi there. Thank you so much for helping clean up some of the pages! Much appreciated. Artsja (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2013 (CET)
Hi! Looks like you've been helping out a lot. Thanks! ZL123 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2013 (CET)

Crafting Grid[edit]

I notice that when I use 'float=1', if there's another Crafting Grid below that one, it produces a space in between the two. ZL123 (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2013 (CET) Haha. What does inherit do? ZL123 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2013 (CET)

Re: Signature[edit]

Discussion at User talk:Felinoel#Signature.


Sorry for adding the "Guides" section to Feed The Beast Ultimate Pack like I did here and here. I didn't know about Tutorial:Main at the time. Is there an easier way of talking to you than this? I'm not even sure that I'm doing this right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk · contribs)


The uu-matter page seems to be vandalized a lot. I was thinking we should protect it, since uu-matter doesn't seem to be changing much for the time being until the next IC2 version where they've reworked the whole system anyways. Unless we're cool with reverting it all the time *shrug* --Kahless61 (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2013 (CET)

I would agree with adding at least Semi-Protection (blocking anonymous editors), since this has been the only productive edit since September. I "do not have permission to change protection levels" being just a Contributor, so you might want to find an Admin. --timrem (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2013 (CET)

Modpack succession[edit]

Modpack succession?! Awesome addition! ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 01:58, 30 December 2013 (CET)


I am fine with you tc3 template but I disagree with the tc4 template. TC3 is gone and we need to move on with TC4, we shouldn't backdate articles to outdated information. I was only for not deleting those TC3 articles because people might still need them, but we don't need to clutter the TC4 articles like this. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 00:51, 7 January 2014 (CET)

I don't see any reason why this is a problem... why should we prefer Thaumcraft 4 over 3? Of course it is a newer version, but many packs still use older versions of Thaumcraft. It's not "gone". A single youmay is also not very much "clutter" IMO.
(little offtopic: having tons of recipes for different versions and mod cominations creates more clutter than a single youmay.) --dgelessus (talk · contribs) 10:52, 7 January 2014 (CET)
In my opinion, each major version should have it's own pages for differing items and it's own navigation. The older packs are still available and played by many people. RZR0 RZR0 (RZR0's Talk Page Talk | RZR0's Contributions Contributions) 19:55, 7 January 2014 (CET)
Felinoel, if someone playing in Thaumcraft 3 searches for Arcane Levitator, for example, they'll be taken directly to the page for the Thaumcraft 4 Arcane Levitator. How will they know we have the old one documented if we don't link to it? Would you rather send them to the Wikia to find info on TC3? --timrem (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2014 (CET)
We should prefer TC4 over TC3 because TC3 is discontinued, it is dead. I fought to keep the TC3 articles existing but we do not need to keep them linked to, people who use TC3 can find the articles on the Thaumcraft 3 page, otherwise it is unneeded. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 06:50, 8 January 2014 (CET)
It's discontinued as of Minecraft 1.6, but people still play on the old packs. Should we not have disambiguation ("youmay") links to RedPower or XyCraft items (as on this page) because it's not relevant to 1.6? It's the same story. Also: you didn't 'fight to keep the TC3 articles existing': everyone agreed that we should document both versions (with some discussion on how it would be best to do so). --timrem (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2014 (CET)
People still use Thaumcraft 2 and even 1, should we start writing articles for those? Then once those articles are written for every similar article should we link between them?
You'd be correct actually, because (I think) Thaumcraft 2 is in some Direwolf pack... TC1 isn't in any FTB pack though, and right now we document only those. --dgelessus (talk · contribs) 07:40, 8 January 2014 (CET)
You link to the most recent discussion of it, but it was talked about elsewhere and people were starting to erase the TC3 info by just putting the new TC4 info on the old TC3 pages. All of that plus archiving the pages was what I meant. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 07:16, 8 January 2014 (CET)
Thaumcraft 2 and 1 aren't in any FTB packs, so no. But if we did have pages for them: yes, I'd support interlinking the articles. It's no different from any other disambiguation. I created {{tc3}} and {{tc4}} as special cases of {{youmay}} because of the large number of items that need to be disambiguated in the same way. I'd be open to discussion on changing how we link between them, but firmly believe they should be linked in both directions. --timrem (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2014 (CET)
Seriously? Fine then, FTB was apparently originally a Skyblock modpack, why don't we have any articles about the Skyblock challenge?
I would be fine with TC3 articles being linked at the very bottom of the page, just not at the very top. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 07:49, 8 January 2014 (CET)
Perhaps we could rig up a new template to mention that a particular item has archived pages of it? Celestial Oblivion (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2014 (CET)
That would actually be nice! I second this. Youmay template is more fitting for items from different mods with similar names, items from 2 different versions of the same mod should get another template. How about something like {{previous}} for new versions and {{archived}} for old versions of the same article ? We'd also need to decide how to justify the need for making 2 pages, instead of having one with 2 recipes, but that's another story. -- OstPavel (talk • contributions) 19:27, 8 January 2014 (CET)
I was under the impression that we didn't have any Skyblock articles simply because we hadn't gotten around to them yet. I like to look at things from a user point of view. As a user of FTB, I come to this wiki to know how to play my modpack. I'm also curious about what the name "Feed The Beast" means, and maybe would even like to try out the original "Feed The Beast", and having at least one or two wiki articles to help me through that -- so it seems appropriate to have that kind of legacy stuff here. As for TC1, as a FTB player, it would only interest me to know that it existed and briefly what it was about - if we bothered to mention it at all - but as it's not a part of the FTB pack, I would not expect to see its internals documented here, and if I cared enough, I would go to the relevant TC wiki. --Kahless61 (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2014 (CET)
I think just a See Also would be appropriate enough. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 19:49, 9 January 2014 (CET)
@fel: The problem is that people who aren't familiar to how wikis are structured wouldn't find the link immediately, think that the article is wrong or that something is missing, and might insert TC3 information onto the TC4 page. We should really just do it like with any other same-name-different-mod case. Or we could put both TC3 and TC4 on the same page, but I think we already discussed that a while back and decided that it would be too much of a mess.
@ost: That sounds good... maybe call them {{older}} and {{newer}}? --dgelessus (talk · contribs) 22:23, 9 January 2014 (CET)
Except that TC4 is the new TC, TC3 stuff can be accessed by the TC3 article and that is really all that is needed, no use cluttering up current articles with outdated stuff. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 07:38, 10 January 2014 (CET)
As editors who know about this, it's obvious to us that TC3 articles can be accessed this way. For the random FTB Player using the Unleashed pack, who comes to this site looking for information about, for example, how to power the Thaumostatic Harness, they're going to search for "Thaumostatic Harness", be taken to the TC4 version of the page... and be completely at a loss if there's no prominent link to the TC3 version. At which point they'll try to add TC3 info to the TC4 page, try to replace the TC4 info with TC3 info, or most likely, just leave and look for the information on another site. None of these are ideal scenarios. --timrem (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2014 (CET)
Now you're just repeating yourself... ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 07:53, 10 January 2014 (CET)
I believe I'm reiterating what someone else said, actually. Do you have a counterargument regarding how the casual user accesses pages? I'd much prefer a small messagebox to aid in navigation rather than constant oversight, reverts, and lost users because of insufficient linking between easily-confounded articles. --timrem (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2014 (CET)
I believe a link to pages from older mod versions should be somewhere on the current version of the article, again I think a template would be ideal. Whether this belongs at the top or the bottom of the page is the real question, and I think it should be handled on a mod by mod basis. Personally I think Thaumcraft should have it at the top for now. I'm willing to bet there are still a substantial number of FTB Ultimate and 1.5 players who still haven't updated (some of the time I'm one of them lol). Later on it can probably be moved to the bottom of the page (ideally FTB would have some sort of mod pack usage statistics to base this on, but we might just have to guess what the user base of each pack is).Celestial Oblivion (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2014 (CET)
No counterargument, just a restating that it doesn't need to be at the top of the article, if anywhere it would be better on the bottom. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 08:18, 10 January 2014 (CET)
I don't quite understand yet why you insist on having it on the bottom of the page. Having a youmay-style box at the top doesn't clutter the page any more than any other regular youmay would. However, putting it at the bottom defies its purpose, that is to make the reader aware that there is another article with a similar name or from another mod/version. Then it wouldn't be much more useful than having no link at all, because only the wiki regulars and very few readers would notice it. We've already discussed the effects of that above. --dgelessus (talk · contribs) 11:49, 10 January 2014 (CET)
{{older}} and {{newer}} are fine! As is this outdent template :D The templates will definitely need to go to the top of the page, though. -- OstPavel (talk • contributions) 12:52, 10 January 2014 (CET)
Yes it doesn't clutter the page as much as a regular youmay, but regular youmays also clutter the page, the difference here though is that regular youmays serve an important purpose. Due to the high volume against my position though I am willing to stop voicing my opinion until all of the main FTB packs stop using TC3. At that point in time though my position will return to removing all links to TC3 articles from any TC4 article, except for the one on Thaumcraft 4 itself. From what I am seeing though, the only main FTB pack that still uses TC3 at the time is Direwolf's. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 19:55, 10 January 2014 (CET)
Older and newer... as like what modpacks use in their infoboxes? I can see that being useful in this instance for about a year, maybe less. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 20:01, 10 January 2014 (CET)
No, "older" and "newer" were intended to be templates like the current {{tc3}} and {{tc4}}, but not TC-specific. On second thought, "current" and "archived" might be better names after all, but I still don't really consider pages about older versions to be "archived", so I'm not quite sure how to name that one yet. "older" and "current"? "oldver" and "curver"?
btw, there is no current pack with TC3 anymore. Unleashed -> Monster, Magic World -> Magic World 2, Lite -> Lite 2, DW20-1.5 -> DW20-1.6. All the newer ones have TC4 as far as I know. TC3 probably doesn't even exist for 1.6. --dgelessus (talk · contribs) 23:38, 10 January 2014 (CET)
If there is no current pack with TC3, then why is this being such an issue not to include TC3 stuff on the header of TC4 articles? ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 00:15, 11 January 2014 (CET)
Because not everyone plays in current packs. Personally, I'm spending my time equally between a new Direwolf20 1.6 server and an established server running a private 1.5 pack. Many of the 1.6 packs are also still in beta, so have not "officially" replaced their older counterparts yet. --timrem (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2014 (CET)
Still in beta? Are you sure? 1.8 MC is coming out soon... ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 03:32, 11 January 2014 (CET)
FTB 1.6 packs with version n.0.x are in beta, while they make sure as many bugs can be ironed out as possible. For instance, Extra Bees is still known to cause server problems, so the Direwolf20 pack won't go to official release until that's ready for the modpack. It's discussed in the official forums. --timrem (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2014 (CET)

As per your request[edit]

Hi. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 09:39, 10 January 2014 (CET)

Hi felinoel! :) timrem (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2014 (CET)

No clue[edit]

No clue what is going on but just redirecting doesn't fix it, I tried to see if it was just a cache thing but am not sure if I did it right, thoughts? ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 19:02, 17 January 2014 (CET)

The pages are only displaying in the old category because of the mediawiki bug where categorization-via-template doesn't update until the page is saved. A blank edit (saving the page while making no changes) should update any page to the new category, since the categorization is coming from the nav template. The redirect is only there because of the easily-confused misspelling, I believe, not to forward actual page categorization. --timrem (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2014 (CET)
You sure? They still show cached in the old category? ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 20:07, 18 January 2014 (CET)
Whenever I use the nocache version with redirect=no it redirects me anyways, which brings me back to the original topic: Why the redirect? I deleted the redirect since it is just a category that isn't used. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 20:24, 18 January 2014 (CET)
I agree with that thinking. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 20:34, 18 January 2014 (CET)
@-@ ...oh ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 03:15, 19 January 2014 (CET)


I am not sure if you are the right person to ask, but how would someone go about making a tutorial guide for a mod. Chese61 ~ (Talk) 13:16, 3/4/14 (CST)

Thanks for the help and the signature tip :3 Chese61 (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2014 (CET)


Can you do something about this please, I rolled back the page and this guy's contrib. is only vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samgaud (talk · contribs)


Sorry mate, blocked you by accident >_< ~~ RZR0 (Talk | Contributions) 10:25, 30 October 2014 (CET)

No problem, it happens. --timrem (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2014 (CET)

I disagree (Click that for what I am disagreeing on)[edit]

The infobox should be at the top of the article, it just looks better, like it is cleaner. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 17:29, 11 November 2014 (CET)

Every other time I can recall seeing the stub and interwiki templates, they've been above the infobox. I reverted it for consistency; if you'd like to propose that a standard be formalized, I'm certainly open for that discussion. --timrem (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2014 (CET)
Every time I see anything above the infobox I have always moved it down to normalize it. Where else have you seen those above the infobox? ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 18:15, 11 November 2014 (CET)
Nine of the first ten transclusions listed here are above the infobox. --timrem (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2014 (CET) edit: Looks like someone else also thinks templates above the infobox is standard. --timrem (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2014 (CET)
I don't look at Vanilla articles too often, I only came across the Wither article because every now and then I open a TON of random articles just to be sure I have them all Watched. Any interwiki articles I would not have seen. ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 18:53, 11 November 2014 (CET)
Hai there ;) My two cents on this - although placing hatnotes above the infobox creates unused empty space on the sides, it actually looks cleaner to me like that. Especially templates like {{youmay}} and {{interwiki}} belong above the article so the reader is guaranteed to notice that kind of important information. Having the infobox, which is part of the actual article content, next to those templates doesn't seem quite right, there should be a clear line between meta-information and content. --dgelessus (talk · contribs)
Are you saying you Watch every article? ...why? Doesn't that just make your watchlist a copy of Special:RecentChanges? If we want to discuss the positions of templates, lets head to the forums instead of using my talk page :P --timrem (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2014 (CET)
Because whenever an edit is made on an article in my watchlist I get emailed about it.
Oh sorry I already had moved it to the forums. User Page. ƒelinoel_Contributions 20:16, 11 November 2014 (CET)

BR Templates[edit]

Ah, I didn't realize wikis use page/subpage. It makes a lot more sense now. I can't imagine what the page looked like spammed with the stub tag. Anyways now that I know the dead-end pages page will never be empty I'm just going to avoid dealing with any of it. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk · contribs) at 22:09, 12 December 2014‎

Infernal Infusion[edit]

lol nooooooooo.
When you changed that table that messed up the column I was working on and now can't save over your changes because your table is better. =b ƒelinoel ~ (Talk) 20:48, 8 January 2015 (CET)

Dream Weaver of Fleet Foot[edit]

While I have you, any idea how I could put the long-duration splash potions in this crafting recipe? User Page. ƒelinoel_Contributions 21:21, 8 January 2015 (CET)

Private Sniffer[edit]

Nice catch man, I was scratching my head for ages yesterday trying to figure out why it didn't show up in usage for the Blaze Receiver Dish. Never crossed my mind to check the output xD ~~ RZR0 (Talk | Contributions) 12:00, 31 January 2016 (CET)

Bot Privileges?[edit]

Any way my user can get bot privileges? --DeathCamel57 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2017 (CET)