FANDOM



Welcome

Feel free to discuss things among admins. Ask things to admins, propose new ideas etc. Reporting a vandal can also be perfectly done here, but is not really the intention of this page. Also note that this page doesn't have the same function as TibiaWiki talk:Community Portal.



History section on content pages

Hey guys. I'd like your opinion on adding a history section to pages. Currently we link to history subpages. Under the new system the subpages would stay for ease of editing but they would be included on the pages. The format of these history pages would be very different. We would need a standard for formatting them.

I have a working example of what I'd like to see: A Sweaty Cyclops. Notable changes:

  • History template gone.
  • Formatting: bullet points for core changes and indenting for elaboration.
  • Headings: no more "Origin", "Ice protection" etc. headings; the headings currently describe the changes (what), but they should describe the version (when). If Pair of Earmuffs receives another ice protection adjustment where would that go? Versions that introduce changes to an item should have a unique header.

Of course this would be a long-term change. All history pages would need to be adjusted. The sooner we agree on a format the sooner we can get it done. -- Sixorish (talk) 13:49, May 27, 2015 (UTC)


I think we can all agree the history pages didn't work out what was intended when the format was created in the first page. The idea to have an origin for every history page wasn't really usable, either "introduced in update xx" (but we have implemented for this). Only a few pages have interesting origin stories.

So I agree a change is needed. Moving the content to the main articles seems reasonable, given that most history pages are very short right now, it saves a click if you don't have to navigate to them. I would suggest just completely moving their content instead of including (this would increase speed? or it doesn't matter after it's cached?).

It's a big project indeed, if every edit would be needed to be done manually. But I agree it's needed. I agree with your format, although I can imagine the bullet point list looks a little technical to most people. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 14:00, May 27, 2015 (UTC)


We should always think on what is the best for our visitors to read and to edit. Thus, moving the history to the content page seems the best option.
Thanks Six for putting time and energy on this!

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 02:22, May 28, 2015 (UTC)


Just to follow up on this old discussion, currently I'm working on history pages. What would you think is better:

  1. History section is always shown, if no history is available this is displayed in italic text;
  2. History section is hidden by default, but is displayed if parameter exists.

The advantage of the first option is editors know they can add history on pages which don't have it, but visitors might be annoyed by the message there is no history on 90% of our pages. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 11:13, August 24, 2016 (UTC)


I'd go for the second option because of exactly what you said.

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 22:15, September 12, 2016 (UTC)


Ok, this has been implemented in all relevant infobox templates. Only some item history subpages need to be merged with their main item page. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 08:00, September 27, 2016 (UTC)


All remaining pages using Template:History have been merged. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 15:08, October 14, 2016 (UTC)


New item parameters

Hey guys,

I am working on the Updates/10.94 weapons. This is a huge project, there are 120 wiki pages needed, from which only one third are created up till now. There is something else as well, I wanted to add six new parameters to Template:Infobox Item:

  • crithit_ch
  • critextra_dmg
  • manaleech_ch
  • manaleech_am
  • hpleech_ch
  • hpleech_am

This will have the advantage to query for these properties with DPL, to have them in separate table columns and not everything grouped in the attributes column. Like previously discussed, this should also be done with all the damage modifies like "axe fighting + 1". Any objections or thoughts? -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 09:19, August 24, 2016 (UTC)


Yes, go for it! As I stated last year, I believe skill and speed modifiers should also have their own individual parameters.
Let me know if there's anything I can do to help.

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 22:24, September 12, 2016 (UTC)


Ok, I implemented the six new parameters and made separate DPL templates to list them. I will start adding new parameters soon and include skill and speed modifiers as well. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 08:01, September 27, 2016 (UTC)


Node-count limit

Does anyone know how to extend the node-count limit or how to circumvent it?

Affected pages:

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 22:47, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

It's called preprocessor node count. Kirkburn said this is not something we are likely to be able to raise (at least in the short term) and suggested us to look into ways to reduce the complexity of the page - perhaps by splitting it into more pages, or reducing the number of template calls it makes.
How can we reduce the number of template calls? Should we remove Loot and Dropped By columns from those pages (and all similar pages in order to keep the standards)?
Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 16:01, September 17, 2016 (UTC)
Seems to work, tested on Physical Damage/Neutral. I don't know what columns are most important to keep.

-- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 17:49, September 17, 2016 (UTC)


Two more pages added to the list. By the way, shouldn't there be a Loot namespace for such pages?

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 09:14, September 28, 2016 (UTC)


Re: namespace - No way. We're limited in the number of custom namespaces we can have (2 I think). Besides, these Loot pages are outdated and should probably be removed completely since they create huge maintenance jobs (if a creature's loot table is modified, all loot pages with that creature have to be updated) and they're seldom used (probably because they aren't up to date?). -- Sixorish (talk) 16:20, November 19, 2016 (UTC)


Just tuning in to say that I agree with Six regarding the pointlessness of those loot pages. -- Wouterboy (talk) 17:04, November 19, 2016 (UTC)

Renaming category for NPCs

Hey all, I plan to rename the category: Category:NPCs in Tibia to Category:NPCs, which is more logical. Are there any objections to abstain from doing so? -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 12:08, November 27, 2016 (UTC)


I believe Category:NPCs in Tibia is meant to be applied only to individual NPCs and Category:NPCs is meant to apply only to groups of them. However, the latter is barely used for its intended purpose, as you can see from the low amount of pages that are listed under it. The question you should ask yourself is whether this special group-sorting category is even necessary, especially given the fact that categories such as Category:NPC Locations and Category: NPC Occupations have taken over this role for a large part. Based on the outcome of those ponderings you can then decide either to carry out the move or to abandon it. -- Wouterboy (talk) 16:21, November 27, 2016 (UTC)


Ok, I think I made all necessary arrangements to do the change. Soon I will let my bot crawl over all wiki pages to do this search-and-replace. Hopefully this will catch them all and break nothing. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 17:19, November 27, 2016 (UTC)


Template:Infobox Item and Imbuing

I'd like to propose the removal of the parameter imbuable from the item template. Items are bound by the functional dependency imbuement → imbuable; an item is imbuable if and only if imbuement > 0. This parameter is not declared on non-imbuable items. Thus, we're storing the same information (imbuable) twice. While at it, I would also like to propose the imbuement parameter be renamed to imbueslots (preferred) or imbuements (plural).

Any objections to this? (Bennie, if you have time, I could use the service of your bot for this)

-- Sixorish (talk) 15:27, December 16, 2016 (UTC)


I agree with the removal of the imbuable parameter and rename imbuent to imbueslots. I'll set up my bot to do this soon. On a sidenote, how did you obtain the imbuements information? I couldn't find a list on the test server forum, but they also changed the items a bit since then. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 17:15, December 16, 2016 (UTC)


I had 94ish items and then I realized they added the number of slots to the market. -- Sixorish (talk) 03:35, December 17, 2016 (UTC)


The market is a good source of info, didn't realise that as well. My bot is currently editing the 200 pages. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 10:17, December 17, 2016 (UTC)


Tibia's 20th Anniversary

There's not a word about Tibia's 20th Anniversary on the front page of the tibia wiki. Even the events section says "This month, January, there are 2 events: New Year Time and Bewitched." Surely, Tibia's 20th anniversary is worth at least mentioning as an event.

Pattre Kempe (talk) 07:19, January 11, 2017 (UTC)

CreatureDroppedBy Bot Proposal

Hey guys,

I wrote a bot proposal. My idea was to write this bot in Java, since I learned it recently and use it daily on my job now. Anyways, a lot of programming languagues already have API access libraries. Then I can just run the bot ~weekly and maybe more during updates. If you have any feedback on this idea I'd like to hear them. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 09:50, February 18, 2017 (UTC)


i think this is a great idea, the only note i can think of right now is to eliminate certain special loot (silver raid tokens, party wall snake,party wall tinsel, party lampions - or during events like anniversary old rugs)

Vapaus (talk)


I think it would be good but there are two scenarios that this will cause issues:

There are of course workarounds to this:

  • Have all edits marked as pending review; post the list of changes to be made and allow editors to review these before they go live. They can edit the page to remove that item (hopefully making it impossible for your bot to find this issue next run).
  • Post all changes made to an article for review in post.

-- Sixorish (talk) 14:47, February 18, 2017 (UTC)


Thanks Vapaus, that's a good point. I think there is a list of filtered items in the loot parser which I can use and also add stuff like Gold Coin which we don't list a droppedby list of.

Sixorish, that's a good point but will only be an issue if I'd let the bot run without any double-checking. I'll have to look for false positives in the beginning and think of ways to filter them later.

I (almost) have a first working version. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 13:32, February 19, 2017 (UTC)


I thought the plan was to run it as a weekly cron job, fully unmanned; if you're checking the changes yourself, that shouldn't be an issue. Are you looking for help on the coding side of things? -- Sixorish (talk) 14:21, February 22, 2017 (UTC)


Well, a fully unmanned situation would be ideal, but requires some extra measures to prevent situations to happen, like you described.

I marked you as a collaborator so you can help if you want. But first I'm going to make the code a little cleaner, up until now I was just trying to get something to work, but I can do better than this (I'm currently reading "Clean Code" by Robert Martin which has some really nice insights, I can recommend it). -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 19:12, February 22, 2017 (UTC)


Reachable / Unreachable - Debug Tiles?

With the recent updates to the tibia-maps project, a few reachable/unreachable tiles were uncovered by Svargrond arena. I am guessing these tiles are related by some functional purpose, but what is it? Can they be reached or were they just temporary teleportation tiles while the debugging process was active; and if they cannot be reached, do they still exist? (If so, why?)

If they are related for some reason and still exist today, then surely other related game functions (seems to be time-based events?) have their own as well.

Here are some other boss rooms that have candidate tiles (or maybe not):

-- Sixorish (talk) 12:14, May 23, 2017 (UTC)


I've noticed similar tiles on PvP and PvE arenas, like here, here, here, here and here.

The tiles you mentioned in Svargrond arena have always been there and Cip never tried to hide them on the maps published to promoted/supported fansites (check the early versions of File:Minimap Floor 7.png).

Here's a "screenshot" of Svargrond arena's secret tiles:
Svargrond arena secret tiles

I believe characters are either teleported there in order to trigger the arena/boss event (making monster spawn, starting timers) or when the time is over (before being teleported somewhere else).

Other places:

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 14:59, May 23, 2017 (UTC)


Yes, they are used to trigger the spawning of certain creatures or to effectuate changes to the environment. I remember a post on the forums some time ago by someone who had figured out that the separate stages of the orcish raid on Zzaion are triggered by rats spawning on top of such switchplates. -- Wouterboy (talk) 02:21, May 24, 2017 (UTC)

BattlEye integration

Should we change Template:Infobox World to add a boolean field to represent whether or not servers are protected by BattlEye? -- Sixorish (talk) 05:22, May 26, 2017 (UTC)


Well, it depends. Won't all worlds get BE protection in a few months? Your suggestion would only make sense if for an extended period of time only a part of the servers are BE protected. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 08:34, May 26, 2017 (UTC)


Seeing how CIpsoft makes those changes, I think it's a good idea to have BattlEye column, if they keep activating it on few by few worlds, people will get lost eventualy, so even if it has to be reversed in near(half a year, year?) future, it could be pretty useful for now. Cauli92 (talk) 09:39, May 26, 2017 (UTC)


I had the same idea some days ago when I was editing a few game world pages. Go ahead, Six! :)

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 12:53, May 26, 2017 (UTC)


For the moment, CipSoft is experimenting with the cost-effectiveness of rolling out BattlEye. This means that any number of game worlds could have BattlEye enabled or disabled throughout the next few months. As such, I've added support for a parameter 'battleye' which can be removed if BattlEye becomes global. -- Sixorish (talk) 09:49, June 8, 2017 (UTC)


Yes, looks good! -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 17:39, June 8, 2017 (UTC)


Good job, Six!

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 17:48, June 8, 2017 (UTC)

Double Loot

Should we revert all Loot Statistics uploaded during the double loot weekend?

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 19:29, June 1, 2017 (UTC)


Or maybe just replace the page with an explaining text during that week? -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 19:41, June 1, 2017 (UTC)


One problem is that people may record loot statistics for weeks and only upload them when they have a lot. To minimise this we should, in addition to one of the other solutions, issue a notice to avoid the collection of loot until the period ends. -- Sixorish (talk) 06:13, June 2, 2017 (UTC)


Agreed. Can any of you (or someone else) do those things? I'm just too busy now. Thanks.

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 14:14, June 2, 2017 (UTC)


maybe we are going about this the wrong way, maybe we should double the amount of kills uploaded during double loot?
Vapaus (talk) 16:21, November 16, 2017 (UTC)


We can't just double the amount of kills. We would need to do something with the maximum amount of each dropped item which would be increase after the upload. Also, it would decrease the no loot rate.

I have some news! After the Winter Update, loot messages during double loot events should be similar to the ones when a double loot prey bonus is active. It means we will be able to filter them out automatically.

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 21:21, November 16, 2017 (UTC)

JSON API

I've been working on a nice little project I'd like to share with you. The goal is to expose this wikis content in a JSON API, which other people or fansites can use (besides my wikiBot which can use this to read wiki articles, change things and write them back). I first wrote my code in Java, but to host the API on this wiki itself I thought it should run on the wiki. So I ported (part of) my code to lua. You can see a demo here. If you edit the page, you can change the word "Bear" to another creature you like and click on preview to see the result. Right now I only support Creatures, but ultimately all types will be supported.

Next thing to look into is how to use query parameters to call the lua module, so you can get the JSON of a specific article by going to an url like: http://tibia.wikia.com/wiki/User:Bennie/Test?article_name=bear

-- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 20:58, June 3, 2017 (UTC)


Holy crap, this looks so amazing. I didn't know we could have such things due to security issues.

However, does your lua script perform the parsing itself? There will be a ton of issues when dealing with "edge cases" if you parse it yourself. Like this:

{{ Infobox Creature (space has no meaning here)

or this:

{{{{{1|Infobox Creature}}} (don't think we use this, but it's possible).

If there's a library script that actually invokes the preprocessor to generate a parse tree, this would be perfect. -- Sixorish (talk) 07:37, June 4, 2017 (UTC)


Yeah, it is pretty cool. I found out the MediaWiki API can also give back parsed pages, so you could perform a GET on this page.

Sixorish, how did you make your API, you didn't use the MediaWiki API, did you? It would be useful if one could access a certain wiki page and only get json in return, to really have a REST endpoint.

The lua script does perform the parsing, indeed. Those edge cases will break it, it's not very robust unfortunately. I have no idea what you mean with preprocessor and parse tree, can you explain? I thought it is most logical to base the json on the raw wikitext. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 10:31, June 4, 2017 (UTC)


I mean to say that it would be so much better to have the MediaWiki engine process a page and give you a structured representation of the data. It's a bit silly to rewrite the MediaWiki parser to interpret wikitext correctly.

My "API" was based on the MediaWiki API. You can generate page contents from the API in batches of 400-500(?), which is super useful for bots. I'm guessing the lua is based on the API as well.

-- Sixorish (talk) 12:36, June 4, 2017 (UTC)

Clickable Images Triggering Creature Ranks

I just made a test with clickable images in DPL lists on List of Creatures by Experience to Hit Points Ratio. Unfortunately, Creature Ranks are triggered by clickable images. Does anyone know a way to circumvent this?

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 03:09, August 5, 2017 (UTC)


Just that I understand you, you want to keep the golden star left of the word Abyssador, but not have a golden star appear left of the clickable image of Abyssador? You'll have to add a new CSS rule to MediaWiki:Custom_Scripts/Creature_Ranks/Creature_Ranks.css where you exclude the behaviour when there is an img tag inside an hyperlink tag, when direct child.

Let me know if you need help with that! -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 08:29, September 16, 2017 (UTC)


Actually, it seems you need a parent selector for this, which is not supported by CSS yet. For now the only solution would be to use javascript. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 11:13, September 17, 2017 (UTC)


Yes Check Sorted. I don't know if we need to have that peer reviewed? @Bennie we get around this by exploiting the fact that those images have classes that links don't (.image.image-thumbnail) in order to reset the :before attributes.

-- Sixorish (talk) 14:42, September 17, 2017 (UTC)


Smart. Stupid of me to oversee this simple solution. I don't see a review button which javascript pages like MediaWiki:Common.js have. It doesn't load for me yet, but this may be a caching issue. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 15:01, September 17, 2017 (UTC)


Nice job, Six!

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 18:48, September 18, 2017 (UTC)


Is it working? I tested this in the console and it seems to work, but the server isn't updating its CSS. Maybe the CSS doesn't get regenerated until some code review is passed? -- Sixorish (talk) 13:40, September 20, 2017 (UTC)


It is not working yet. Shouldn't TibiaWiki:Styles/Creature Ranks.css be edited too?

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 19:36, September 22, 2017 (UTC)


I thought the TibiaWiki css page was replaced with the MediaWiki css page, since Wikia wants custom js and css inclusions only from "trusted" places. But I don't know how the inclusion system actually works. It's not as if there is an import statement in MediaWiki:Common.css. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 20:28, September 22, 2017 (UTC)


@Hunter: You're right, the MediaWiki: CSS page isn't actually being used, the TibiaWiki:Styles/... page needed to be updated. Cheers, -- Sixorish (talk) 08:59, September 26, 2017 (UTC)


If you are sure, can you delete the unused one? -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 18:36, September 26, 2017 (UTC)



Items/Objects sold on the Store and their price

I noticed that there's a general lack of information on item's articles regarding to Store availability. For example, if you go on Mana Potion there's no mention that you can buy them on the Store, this information is only available on the Store's page. Same thing applies to Runes, some House Equipment, etc.

There's also a problem when it comes to the TC prices. For example, the Brocade Tapestry says Bought for 50 Tibia Coins gp. Some types such as objects (e.g. Mana Cask) and outfits also don't have a price parameter, which means it's not possible to add this information to their articles using a parameter. On the other hand, Template:Infobox Mount has a price parameter that works very well.

Finally there's the issue of having bundles of items available with different amounts and price, like 125x Mana Potions for 5 TC and 300x Mana Potions for 10 TC. Considering all this I had an idea which I'm not sure could be implemented:

A storeprices parameter would be added to the templates of types that include store products (Item, Outfit, Object, ?). This could be just a value for 1x items, but it wouldn't work for bundles, so perhaps new templates would be useful as its value. Something like:

{{Store Price
 |{{Store Bundle|amount|price}}
 |{{Store Bundle|amount|price}}
}}

For example:

{{Store Price
 |{{Store Bundle|125|5}}
 |{{Store Bundle|300|10}}
}}

This should translate into something like this:

http://i.imgur.com/eDKp5Ql.png

What do you guys think? I'm sorry if it has been discussed before but I didn't see any mention on the archives. If you want I can offer to try creating the templates (I'd just need to read how to do it and where to test it), and of course update the pages after implementation.

Molx (talk) 14:19, August 9, 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for pointing it out! I added parameters related to Store prices to Template:Infobox Outfit. I also added a parameter for achievement.

Someone still has to add Store prices parameters to Template:Infobox Item.

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 22:23, August 24, 2017 (UTC)


Problem is, the Store-bought potions might need their very own pages. They don't stack with the regular shop-bought potions and have a flavourtext (as opposed to their shop-bought counterparts). However (to make things more complicated), putting either type of potion under a hotkey will make that hotkey work for both types... -- Wouterboy (talk) 14:22, August 25, 2017 (UTC)


Thanks Hunter, I see that you also updated all pages already, nice!

The Store potions and runes thing is indeed problematic. But I have the impression they are the same item (.dat wise), with maybe one attribute that gives items from the Store specific properties. Molx (talk) 18:29, August 25, 2017 (UTC)

Update Minimap Floor Files

The Minimap files are protected pages, I assume because they were used by the mapper and hence very sensitive. Now they are used just in the miniature map on NPC pages. They haven't been updated in a while, which leads to NPCs being displayed on the ocean, e.g. Valindara. Could someone please unprotect these files or update the images? Files are:

File:Minimap Floor 0.png, File:Minimap Floor 1.png, File:Minimap Floor 2.png, File:Minimap Floor 3.png, File:Minimap Floor 4.png, File:Minimap Floor 5.png, File:Minimap Floor 6.png, File:Minimap Floor 7.png, File:Minimap Floor 8.png, File:Minimap Floor 9.png, File:Minimap Floor 10.png, File:Minimap Floor 11.png, File:Minimap Floor 12.png, File:Minimap Floor 13.png, File:Minimap Floor 14.png, File:Minimap Floor 15.png

The optimal solution would be making Template:Minimap work with the tibiamaps files, but that doesn't seem to be an easy thing to do.

Molx (talk) 18:07, September 4, 2017 (UTC)


I sent an email to Mathias last night asking him to update our Mapper files, but I don't know when he will have time for this.

If you can, Molx, you can use the TibiaMaps PNG files found here to create the new versions of the files you mentioned. Please, follow the same standards (centering and dimensions / water margins). Oh, and don't forget File:Minimap Floor 7h.png. :-)

Once you have the files, I will unprotect them, then you can upload the new versions and I will protect them again.

Edit: Mathias told me he is going to do it over the weekend.

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 22:44, September 13, 2017 (UTC)


I didn't read the edit until it was too late, haha. If you want I can upload them. There is an excessive empty space on the bottom of these images, not sure why. Nevertheless, I kept the same sizes, as requested. If it works as expected you can tell Mathias not to worry about it. :) Molx (talk) 20:23, September 14, 2017 (UTC)


Done, all users are allowed to upload new versions of those files for now.

Edit: The reason for the excessive empty space can be explained by checking Template:Minimap. After exploring new areas from a certain update, there was at least one 1##129##.map file i.e Y = 129 (not on the ground floor, as you can see), that's why we needed to change the Mapper files dimensions.

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 21:14, September 14, 2017 (UTC)


Done, thanks! - Molx (talk) 02:16, September 15, 2017 (UTC)

Social engagement

It looks like Facebook has failed as a platform for social engagement. I would propose three reasons for this:

  • TibiaWiki is a collaborative community. It's not a social network.
  • It's too formal to send a message to the TibiaWiki administrators via Facebook.
  • We don't regularly create content that is worthy of publishing to Facebook.

What we need, I think, is something less formal and more communal than Facebook pages offer. Discord is probably the best bet, because it's a platform for gamers to chat amongst each other. What I was thinking is that we could have channels to discuss different issues, e.g. some where players can discuss the issues they have with TibiaWiki, as well as suggest and collaboratively discuss how the wiki can be improved. The important distinction is that it must be casual, otherwise nobody will use it and it will fail just as our Facebook page has.

I've wanted to post this for a while, because I think it's really important that something is done. The community's #1 priority must be to foster its continued growth, but my experience (of lurking the recent changes) is showing that the community is stagnating. I see the same people editing articles, and this is not sustainable.

-- Sixorish (talk) 15:09, November 16, 2017 (UTC)


i support this.
Vapaus (talk) 15:53, November 16, 2017 (UTC)


As an user who started contributing more actively just recently I think this is a good idea. It would be very good for Wiki if a new way to engage with the community was found. I'm not an avid Discord user but I would at least give it a try. Molx (talk) 16:00, November 16, 2017 (UTC)


Yes, I agree we should do something. Let's give Discord a try. Wikia tried to make a casual communication feature - Special:Chat - which failed because players need to have a Wikia account for that. We can also create threads in Reddit every now and then.

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 21:13, November 16, 2017 (UTC)


Alright. I've created a server.

Here's a link: https://discord.gg/Mqgz9Mz

Anyone can join, admins will be granted a special role so that they can be identified. Admins will have a public and private chat. -- Sixorish (talk) 07:39, February 2, 2018 (UTC)


I have created TibiaWiki:Discord, mainly to link it in the navigation bar, but also to provide a simple description of the server (please edit it if you want to expand or change something). If we want this to work we must do some sort of "advertising" or at least put it out there I guess. -- Molx (talk) 14:26, March 1, 2018 (UTC)

Status

I am planning to edit all our infobox templates which use the "status" parameter, to let them display the corresponding template at the top of the page, depending on the value of this parameter. So if you put e.g. "status = deprecated" on an item page, it will automatically put the Template:Deprecated at the top of the page.

Afterwards I will let my bot check all wiki pages and remove status-related templates from the top of the page and add the status parameter instead.

There might be some time when you see two templates at the top of the page, one added manually and one by the template, but hopefully this will be only the case for a short timespan. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 17:44, November 21, 2017 (UTC)


Go ahead, Bennie! It is good that you found some time to do this! :)

As stated in my talk page, I believe there should be a distinction among

  1. Content overwritten or removed from the game; and
  2. Content made unobtainable (e.g items that expired).

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 18:08, November 21, 2017 (UTC)


I searched for "status" on your talk page but didn't exactly find what you mean. Can you elaborate? Anyways, if you want to add more statuses, you can simple add them in Template:Status Messagebox, the code is easy to understand (I think).

So I just went over all templates listed on this page, added support everywhere except not on the following templates:

Furthermore, note that for Template:Infobox World, "ingamestatus" is used, which is empty or has the value deprecated.

I will now start up the bot. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 18:42, November 21, 2017 (UTC)


I meant this (quoting myself from User talk:Hunter of Dragoes#Enchanted and Charged weapons):

There is a difference between items that Cip decided to expire like Lottery Ticket (Blank), Trashed Draken Boots and the weapons in question, and items that were overwritten by different items like Amulet of Life and the Old Wands and Rods. In my opinion, there should be different categories and message boxes for them.

A message box for unobtainable content should be created and added to Template:Status Messagebox‎.

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 19:11, November 21, 2017 (UTC)


Ok, no problem. Maybe somebody should review the exact message on Template:Unobtainable. It could be reworded to make it more clear. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 19:22, November 21, 2017 (UTC)


Re: wording -- Deprecated means "removed from the game". If we adopt another status, it should be as generic as possible, e.g. status=obsolete would imply that the entity in question is in the game files but not used. As it stands, all objects (as opposed to items) would be considered as unobtainable, hence the classification does not make any sense.

Re: task -- good job, this needed to be done. IMO the only things that should ever be on an item page is a template and a note at the top of the page for any disambiguation (I wouldn't be against putting that in the templates too). This makes it more consistent, readable and writable because our editors won't have to concern themselves with how to mark a page as deprecated (without, you know, breaking every single page that transcludes it). -- Sixorish (talk) 03:08, November 22, 2017 (UTC)


Good job, Bennie! It seems you missed some items with {{deprecated}} such as Old Wands and Rods.

I agree with Sixorish that unobtainable is not the most suited word. Obsolete, however, sounds like the page info might not be accurate even though we can keep it accurate if the obsolete item in question can be found in the Market. But I believe this would be an exception worth of reporting to Cip.

What about TS-only entities that became obsolete vs. TS-only entities that became deprecated? Should we classify both of them as TS-only even when there is a clear difference between them?

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 10:35, November 22, 2017 (UTC)

Welcome, Molx!

I knew this had to happen some day. Welcome! -- Wouterboy (talk) 15:55, November 22, 2017 (UTC)


Welcome, Lee! :)

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 16:03, November 22, 2017 (UTC)


Thank you guys! I always liked giving back to the fansites that help us so much, and when I came back to Tibia this year I started to learn a little bit more about how TibiaWiki works and started to admire even more the great work so many people have done here (I mean, reading and writing the Wikia templates and DPL markup/code is harder than any programming language, haha).

I'm looking forward to fix my own wrongly named pages! :P

Molx (talk) 16:51, November 22, 2017 (UTC)


Welcome Molx! We don't have an article on how to be an admin, but feel free to play around with all the new buttons and functionality you can now access. Most things can be undone :) On Special:Specialpages you'll see more pages you can access and this project lists some things you can do. And obviously, feel free to ask any questions! -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 17:13, November 22, 2017 (UTC)


Thank you Bennie. I was actually thinking if such article existed, and I'll play around with the new buttons and special pages. :)

Molx (talk) 16:21, November 23, 2017 (UTC)

Our Taxonomy

1. I have recently finalised my reworking of our taxonomic system. This needed to be done for the following reasons:

1.1 Forced distinctions: The current system includes several distinctions which are not really there. If B is a subspecies of A, it makes no sense to pretend this is not the case and give both A and B their own pages and taxonomic categories (see e.g. Undead Humanoids erroneously excluding Vampires).

1.2 Muddled definitions: Taxonomies with double entries are not taxonomies. However, some of the categories we use have been so badly defined that boundaries fade away and overlaps start occurring, something which in turn leads to double entries. The Thornfire Wolf, for example, is classified both in Canines and in Pyro-Elementals; however, elementals are 'freaks' of nature even in Tibia and can in no way also be classified as anything that actually exists as a fully natural part of the Tibian universe.

1.3 Superstrate categories: Superstrate categories have no place in taxonomies because they operate on one level higher and simply select for a random trait (rather than race) that could occur across several taxonomic categories. This is why I removed categories such as Bosses from our taxonomy; it's obviously a very important page to have on the wiki, but it can only exist outside of our official taxonomy.

2. Some notes on my reworking:

2.1 Single entries: Every single creature can only be part of one category.

2.1.1 This isn't always as straightforward, as certain names and appearances can give off ambiguous signals. This is why we need clear defintions that lead to well-defined boundaries. The name and appearance of a creature such as Demon Skeleton, for example, could be interpreted as hinting towards two different categories. Clearly establishing that The Undead can only ever be animated by necromantic spirit and Demons only ever by demonic spirit, however, will remove all ambiguity and lead to one clear answer.

2.1.2 It's not just about definitions and boundaries, though. Something that is also important is that we view every individual creature holistically and base our decision on all available information regarding that creature. A name such as Demon Parrot might indicate that this creature is, just like the Demon Skeleton, animated by demonic spirit. However, looking into the context we have available will reveal that all Isle of Evil creatures were genetically altered by Doctor Perhaps to serve his evil purposes; Demon Parrots are therefore nothing but evil birds with a menacing name.

2.1.3 The only exceptions to this rule would currently be the Lord of the Elements and Mutated Zalamon, but that's because they're literally multiple creatures in one. (I don't feel that the other Shapeshifters fit the bill because they don't throw away their entire 'identity' every time they shapeshift. This is hard to explain and a lot more subjective than I'd like it to be, but we can work out those specifics together.)

2.2 Balance broad–narrow: Some categories had to be broadened a bit because they didn't taxonomically include all creatures listed on their pages. Narrowing a category, on the other hand, felt appropriate when dealing with taxa containing a great diversity of creatures, especially if those creatures are also very salient (both in users' real-life experience and in-game experience). How salient a creature is in someone's experience can influence their perception of diversity to a great extent. Lumping all molluscs in the same category wouldn't nonplus users as much as lumping all chordates in the same category, for example, even though both Mollusca and Chordata are phyla and therefore on the same taxonomic level; there's simply more perceived diversity within Chordata because those are the most salient animals in people's lives.

2.3 Nomenclature: The nomenclature used for the lower-tier categories is as exact and taxonomically valid as possible. The nomenclature used for the upper-tier categories can't be very exact or taxonomically valid for various reasons. Invertebrates is not in any way a taxonomic category, for example, but convenient nomenclature like that certainly helps give more order to our taxonomy by keeping it from being one big messy amalgam of all lower-tier categories.

3. The system below is what I've come up with while doing my best to keep all of the above in mind.

3.1 Amphibians: No changes.

3.2 Birds: Not that many birds to speak of in Tibia, but since birds are one of the most salient animal realms in real-life (alongside amphibians, fish, mammals, and reptiles), I thought it best to move this category to the upper tier of our two-tiered system and make some very basic distinctions within (all are between the levels of class and order) to determine the lower-tier categories.

3.3 Elementals: This category would now directly represent only the four basic elements of Tibia as well as the Bio-Elementals. Blobs and Elemental Lords dissolve (as they have nothing to do with race), whereas Cryo-Elementals moves in with Hydro-Elementals and Magma-Elementals with Geo-Elementals.

3.4 Fish: See 3.2. Both categories are classes, so the only distinction I made was made relatively high up in the taxonomy tree.

3.5 Humanoids: Giants doesn't select for race and had to be removed. It fell apart into Cyclopes, Frost Giants, and Ogres. Behemoth moved to Bovids, Thundergiant to Geo-Elementals (that's what Cip called it when it was introduced), and I'm quite convinced Yetis are not so much Apes but rather overgrown Chakoyas (they have a similar 'moustache' and also share their bright blue eyes with the Chakoya Tribewarden). Djinn and Fae are part of Immortals. Corym are part of Rodents. Minotaurs are part of Bovids.

3.6 Immortals: Anything that is completely outside of Tibian nature fits in this category. Animated Objects is exactly what it looks like but also eats up our current Machines category as well as most of the Traps category. Demons used to be an upper-tier category, but its lower-tier categories either resulted from forced distinctions or the setting apart of cabals. Magic Entities is an entirely new category that should include all intangible expressions of magic (see e.g. Lost Time or Wild Fury Magic). The Undead suffered from issues similar to those suffered by Demons.

3.7 Mammals: The reason I've included so many family categories here is because of the notion of perceived diversity I mentioned in 2.2. Mustelids had to be broadened to Musteloids because it didn't actually include skunks. I felt Ungulates made use of too basic a distinction, so I split it up into Bovids, Camelids, Cervids, Elephantids, Equids, Rhinocerotids, and Suids. Mutated Mammals doesn't select for race and was removed. Prehumans was the only label (it's an actual term, although not a taxonomic one) I could think of to replace Apes without continuing to imply humans should be part of it. Since Lycanthropes is racially all over the place and doesn't really work as its own category, I've decided to consider them humans who in their animal form only count as animals.

3.8 Invertebrates: Since Mollusca is quite a diverse phylum, I decided to go one level lower and split it up into the classes of Cephalopods and Gastropods. Annelida is less outwardly diverse but also a phylum, so renaming it after the class of Clitellates seemed appropriate (the other two extant Annelida classes are primarily marine and therefore wouldn't make much sense as far as Tibian worms go). With Crustacea being a subphylum and the only crustaceans in Tibia being crabs and relatives, calling them all Malacostracans is a more specific way of grouping them. The phylum of Cnidaria is very diverse and the only Tibian creature it would include is better off in the subphylum of Medusozoans. Hive Born was removed because it doesn't select for race.

3.9 Reptiles: The lowest taxonomic rank that includes all real-life lizards is the Squamata order, but since that label would also include all of the snakes I decided to go with the family of Lacertids (the prototypical group of lizards also known as the true lizards) to group all of our Lizards together. The Wyverns move here because they are nothing but flying lizards according to Tibia lore. Similarly, Hydras and Wyrms are nothing but Dragons.

4. Final notes:

4.1 Non-racial splits: I would definitely encourage certain non-racial splits within categorical pages. This way, links such as Voodoo Cultists can still point to a neatly organised list of all voodoo cultists without the implication they're somehow of a different race than all other humans. However, I don't think this is something that should be overused. Perpetuating the current distinction between Skeletons and the rest of The Undead, for instance, seems rather pointless to me as far as user-friendliness is concerned.

4.2 Parameter improvements: In order to progress towards a state where taxonomic categories and superstrate categories are two completely distinct elements, it would be best to further improve certain parameters to fulfil the functions our taxonomic parameters still sometimes fulfil. Category Event Creatures, for example, still gets its information from the taxonomic parameters on creature pages; it would be a huge improvement in this case if the 'spawntype'-parameter were to be the parameter that would have the ability to assign this category instead.

4.3 NPC applications: This taxonomy can also be applied to NPCs, which means they can simply be included on the same pages creatures use (but as part of a separate list, of course). Also, since I've come to the conclusion during my work on this new taxonomy that The Undead should certainly be treated as a completely separate race (with creatures 'giving up' their former racial identity once undead, so to speak), it would appear that Bennie's second comment on Talk:Adrenius#Race makes a lot more sense than mine! -- Wouterboy (talk) 18:09, November 29, 2017 (UTC)


Wow, thanks for your extensive research on this Wouter!

I have no fundamental problems with implementing this new classification. Some questions which come to mind are:

  • Is it really necessary to make such extensive use of latin names? Or are these all English names I simply don't know? Anyways, if there are more simple English names (see [wikipedia Ursidae simply redirects to Bear) I would prefer them over latin ones, for several reasons:
    • Then I won't have to look it up;
    • It is very likely the above counts for other people as well, I think a lot of people visiting our wiki are not taxonomy experts;
    • It therefore keeps our wiki more accessible.

However, this is not a deal breaker, I can also see reasons to actually use those latin names, to be more precise and have no ambiguity what the boundaries of the category are.

  • Reading between the lines, it seems you used our current 2-tiered system as a given starting point. In my opinion, this was an arbitrary choice, it is perfectly fine to change this to a 3-tiered system or even more, if that would make more sense. I'm curious what your thoughts are on this.

Regarding "parameter improvement", that is certainly feasible. We have the tooling to change templates and mass-edit pages, so if you have some concrete propositions we can execute them. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 19:01, November 29, 2017 (UTC)


Good job, Wouterboy!

I had the same thoughts as Bennie concerning the nomenclature and the possibility of third tiers when suited (e.g for humans).

I had a feeling that Cip based on our current taxonomy to classify monsters in Cyclopedia's Bestiary. We should create a new parameter for that different classification and create pages for those classes (redirect them to the new taxonomy pages?).

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 19:37, November 29, 2017 (UTC)


  1. I'm very well aware that the nomenclature used can be very alienating to many of our users. However, this is simply the language of taxonomy and taxonomy is an exact matter. In your example, Ursids and Bears can only be used fully interchangeably because both can only refer to the family of bears. If you were to replace e.g. Anurans with Frogs, though, you'll be inviting ambiguity, as Frogs can refer both to the order Anura as well as to any family of frogs. A statement such as “Toads are frogs.” can therefore be both right and wrong depending on what taxon you are referring to exactly. No such ambiguity is possible when using the official scientific terminology, as any term can refer to one taxon only. Moreover, many such taxa don't even have a colloquial English equivalent.
  2. I have indeed considered going from a two-tier system to a three-tier system, but I didn't think that would make any more sense. I feel that doing that would make our taxonomy too cluttered and cumbersome. Finding the right broad–narrow balance for our lower-tier categories and loosely organising them within convenient upper-tier categories is the ideal system for this wiki in my opinion.
  3. My first concrete proposition regarding parameter improvements would be the one I mentioned in 4.2. (By extension, a similar parameter could be used for Quest Items/Quest Objects, since those categories are also superstrate and shouldn't be used to actually classify items and objects. There's no point in implementing something like that without first uniting the two infoboxes, though.)
  4. Hunter, only sometimes making use of a third tier would simply be inconsistent. Moreover, this idea would literally be impossible to apply to your example, since all current humans belong to the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens and there's simply no way of going lower than that. That's the reason I'm a supporter of the non-racial splits I mentioned in 4.1. Anyone looking for the Voodoo Cultists, for example, would still be able to find all of them together under their own heading and in their own list on the Humans page through a Voodoo Cultists redirect that points to Humans#Voodoo Cultists.
  5. We should indeed create a parameter for what bestiary class a creature falls into, but I don't think we should create pages for those classes. That would make it seem as if we're using two competing taxonomies at the same time, which would only confuse users. I think it would be best if we use Bestiary Creature Classes to list all creatures by their bestiary entry in collapsible lists and have the parameter link to and automatically open the right list, e.g. bestiaryclass = aquatic would link to and automatically open the list for Bestiary Creature Classes#Aquatic. -- Wouterboy (talk) 18:00, December 1, 2017 (UTC)

As far as the latter part of point 4 is concerned, I've already thought of a better solution. It would actually make more sense to retain the Voodoo Cultists page (and similar pages) as it is (but outside of our taxonomy), because even though it doesn't have anything to do with race, it's still concerned with a coherent group of creatures that 'belong' together. This way we won't have to break the DPL on taxonomy pages to create separate lists specifically for such groups. We could even create an entirely new parameter that's concerned with non-racial grouping (so it wouldn't function as a third tier of our taxonomy but rather be completely independent of it) that would only be applied where appropriate and which would give the user a bit more creature context beyond race. -- Wouterboy (talk) 12:07, December 2, 2017 (UTC)


Thumbs up for non-racial groups. :)

Should we make those groups for all lower tier classes listed in Template:Creature Types that are not going to be part of the new taxonomy?

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 13:51, December 2, 2017 (UTC)


We should for many of them, yes. Some of them don't fit the bill, though. Take for example Skeletons. It's just a mishmash of undead creatures that happen to have a certain aspect of their appearance in common; they don't actually form a specific 'clan' like the Voodoo Cultists do and are therefore not similar to one another in a way that matters, i.e. the connection this page establishes between the creatures is completely random and not useful to our users. The Voodoo Cultists page, on the other hand, clearly deals with creatures that 'belong' together and can be useful to our users in finding out what other creatures can generally be found in e.g. an Acolyte of the Cult's vicinity. The The Ruthless Seven page can be useful because it deals with a connection that was made for us by Cipsoft themselves (otherwise we wouldn't have had any reason to group them together in the first place), and so on. -- Wouterboy (talk) 14:02, December 3, 2017 (UTC)


I think our system as well as yours both seem to make unnecessary resemblance to some real-world categorization. Taxonomic categorizations rely on evolutionary or genetic characteristics which are obviously out of scope for a fantasy game. CipSoft can invent a new species that clearly overlaps two categories. CipSoft can implement, say, an amphibian/bird hybrid. Hence, your system is not robust; it does not resist the addition of hybrid species. I feel like a hierarchical structure is inappropriate for this reason; it assumes a well-defined structure that does not exist because Tibia does not conform to the laws of nature. How can we infer about creatures in a fantasy setting based on our understanding of a real world? We can't. -- Sixorish (talk) 15:24, December 4, 2017 (UTC)


I see your point, but most of the time we can in fact infer about Tibian creatures based on our understanding of the real world because Tibia's foundation is the real world. Tibia therefore mostly does conform to the laws of nature and a somewhat well-defined structure therefore does exist. Refusing to acknowledge Tibia's real-life foundations would mean to misrepresent the game, something which just seems gratuitously deceitful to me. CipSoft used these foundations as their starting point and simply remoulded them to allow for the inclusion of fantasy creatures, and we can do exactly the same with our taxonomy by using real-life scientific classification as our starting point and then remoulding that.

As far as hybrid species are concerned, they already exist: we have the Rorc, the Forest Fury, Lycanthropes, etc. (and to respond to your amphibian/bird hybrid example: any bird able to breathe through its skin can scientifically speaking never be considered a bird, so it wouldn't cause us any problems exactly because our taxonomy uses real-life scientific classification as its foundation). I've considered such cases and I personally think they should only be classified as the species they are primarily, i.e. as the one species that defines them most: Rorcs and Forest Furies are in essence still Orcs and Elves respectively despite their mutations, whereas the Lycanthropes in their particular state are more beast than man and therefore better classified as animals. Using such self-dictated guidelines to circumvent any overlaps we might encounter in the fantasy department in order to make our taxonomy more robust seems like a rational thing to do, especially since I reckon overlaps are always going to be hard to avoid regardless of whatever taxonomic system we might be using. -- Wouterboy (talk) 23:44, December 4, 2017 (UTC)


You have solid arguments, although it very obviously introduces subjectivity in the decision-making process when overlapping species are added. However, the usefulness of either system is inhibited by the fact that few of our users actually care for taxonomic classification, because it doesn't help them to decide what to hunt or what drops a particular item. Thus, a hierarchical classification is mostly a "nice to have" feature. I would be accepting of your suggestion under the expectation that none of our internal systems rely on such a classification and the taxonomy is not designed around in-game features. For example, The Colours of Magic has "party animals" and "spellcaster" creatures to which a reward applies. Our classification should be totally independent of any such systems (because we cannot regulate the game mechanics). -- Sixorish (talk) 08:16, December 5, 2017 (UTC)


Strictly adhering to a single-entry system indeed adds a bit of subjectivity into the mix regarding hybrids, but most of the time one part of a hybrid creature does clearly tend to manifest itself more prominently and crucially than the other, meaning that the presupposition of some sort of instinctive consensus is not necessarily an absolutely laughable substitute for rationality. For instance, I think most people would agree that the fact that the Rorc was originally a purebred Orc should have more bearing on its classification than the Terror Bird part that's there solely as a result of mutation.

You're also right in saying that a taxonomy is mostly a nice-to-have feature most users won't really care about, but at the same time I do feel a game-based wiki such as ours has the responsibility to create and maintain classification systems encompassing all members of a particular gameplay class (whether it be Creatures, or Items, or what have you) to allow anyone access to all members of any such class at once through the use of just one neatly organised hub.

I strived to make our new creature classification system as taxonomically sound as possible, which is why I purposely avoided incorporating anything into it that has to do with the 'role' a particular creature might have been assigned in-game. All that matters is what the creature itself really is in isolation, i.e. without paying regard to any external gameplay-related noise. -- Wouterboy (talk) 00:32, December 7, 2017 (UTC)

Calculators not loading

Hey guys, I noticed that the page Calculators is not working. It keeps loading indefinitely. I tested it on 5 different browsers (Windows 10) and they all have Javascript enabled. Can anyone take a look at it?

Tyrodus Zeth (talk) 17:17, January 16, 2018 (UTC)


As you can read in its talk page, it works on Firefox when using Monobook skin. I'll ask Wikia / FANDOM to have a look at it and try to fix it.

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 21:19, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Lists filtering out Tibia History

Hey guys,

I've noticed a lot of our DPL lists are excluding Category:Tibia History still after the integration of history information in the main pages. This means that a lot of lists are potentially incomplete. If a DPL list is not showing something, this is most likely the problem. -- Sixorish (talk) 09:40, January 29, 2018 (UTC)


Good point, I will (soon) do a wiki-wide search on usage of this category in dpl lists and remove them if necessary. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 18:48, January 29, 2018 (UTC)


Oh wait, stupid me, I already did this in 2016 as I myself listed here. However, the case on Calculators was "|notcategory=Tibia History" (without a space between the pipe and notcategory). I will look for all variations, with or without spaces. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 20:51, January 31, 2018 (UTC)

There was a space between the pipe and notcategory in Mounts which was fixed two days ago. Perhaps your bot account couldn't fix it because the page is protected.
Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 21:28, January 31, 2018 (UTC)
Probably true, my bot does not have admin rights (I don't want it to accidentally delete stuff). -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 17:04, February 1, 2018 (UTC)

I ran my bot but did not find any more cases which need to be fixed. Case closed. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 14:40, February 3, 2018 (UTC)


Owners of "rare" items in articles

When wiki started many years ago, the idea behind "rare items" was much different then what it is today. There were probably only two dozen rare items, including those from very old times (e.g. Crown) and some like the Pharaoh Rares. These days, with all the new bosses and items that are only dropped by one or two of them, we have dozens of items which are rare, but at the same time are probably unknown by the vast majority of players. To add to that, we have a considerable number of fansite/contest/special items that are only given by CipSoft (or with their permission). While many of these are indeed rare (like some Fansite Items), others have been given out so many times that they are not really rare (for example the Silver Trophy of Excellence, I have one and it's not listed :>).

Keeping track of these has proved to be a challenge, and these days we don't even know in which server many of these rares are or if they still exist at all. It's not hard to click an owner name in an item's article and find out the character doesn't even exist anymore (deleted or name changed). So I propose that we should be more strict and remove many of the player's name references from pages in order to keep them cleaner and remove content that is outdated and hard/impossible to maintain.

1. An item can have its owners* listed only if the item was somewhat publicly given by CipSoft or by Supported/Promoted fansite.

Items (or groups) of items that fall into this category are:

The reason I used somewhat is that I can think of some exceptions to this publicity rule. For example, Gamemaster Dolls were not announced, but were given to a very specific group of players (we don't have that list though). The same thing can be said about Council Certificates. The Laurel Wreaths were not announced on Tibia.com, but they were announced during a meeting with many different tutors that witnessed it.

Some items, despite the fact that they were given by CipSoft or a Fansite, are either relatively common or their receivers were not announced, meaning tracking them is impossible. I think we should remove lists from these items and, when possible, link to the news where the winners were announced (for example CM Tokens). For example:

Note: even though we say owners, it would be preferred if we only mentioned players who received the items, since all of them are passive of being traded. Also, we can never say for sure if other players have received one copy of the item. Thus, it would be more accurate to mention those are known receivers. For example: Players known to have received a Heavily Bound Book are.... The Heavily Bound Book article actually have some good examples of how we can add the information while not being at risk of being outdated due to trades.

2. Items that are just rare loots should not have their owners listed, since they are more likely to be traded, obtained again or even completely lose the rarity status. For example:

3. Important historical information about some items can and should be kept, of course. Most Tibians are interested and like to have a source on the story behind the Magic Longsword, for instance. A drawn must be line, however, in order for us to define what is history and what isn't. The very Magic Longsword page has conflicting information regarding its current owner. I would personally suggest the removal of the Current Location section and the Moises~ paragraph, but that is up for debate of course. Other items in a similar situation:

These changes would require some manual searches, and maybe we could add a short summary of the final rules to TibiaWiki:Policy. Then we would have to keep an eye out for new edits of this kind. Please let me know what you think of these new rules suggestion and of course feel free to suggest some changes as I may have overlooked something important.

Molx (talk) 18:49, February 9, 2018 (UTC)


These seem some well-thought rules Molx, I can only agree with them. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 20:06, February 9, 2018 (UTC)


I agree with you, Molx. What should we do with rare item lists on game world articles?

Hunter of Dragoes (Talk · Contribs · Admins) - 20:36, February 9, 2018 (UTC)


Yea i agree with you as well. this is a good change to be made. some of those pages have lists that are outdated, way too long and irrelevant,it just clutters the information (like Yellow Rose for example).
maybe that information should also be in a separate place, similar to a quest spoiler or a different page altogether like /Transcripts page, what do you think?
as to rares on game world articles, and in general i think we should make the distinction between looted or won in a contest to owns (on a game world, first person who looted is a part of the server's history) and remove owners of items that aren't impossibly rare (like Crown,The Horned Fox etc)
Vapaus (talk) 11:48, February 10, 2018 (UTC)


> maybe that information should also be in a separate place, similar to a quest spoiler or a different page altogether like /Transcripts page, what do you think?

For the items that keep their "lists" it may be a good idea, but I'm not sure to be honest. In many cases the list would be too small and a dedicated page would look odd. If the list is so big that it is cluttering the main page, then perhaps it shouldn't be there at all. One exception is the Heavily Bound Book since its records are detailed for obvious reasons.

I haven't thought about World pages when I first wrote this, but I guess the same problems apply: we can't keep track. If we were only to mention prize items, it wouldn't make any sense, receiving a contest prize is the player's merit, not the game world's (unlike being the first one to defeat a hard boss, for example). And let's be fair: currently, many world pages are very very outdated, which is the result of so many worlds, world changes, character transfers and our own, of course. If we barely manage to update the first characters to reach this or that level, I don't think we would succeed in maintaining rare items, and if we decide to keep the records of any items, it would mean a second page (or group of pages) to update when necessary. The only world with any relevance in terms of rare items is Antica due to the fact that most of them originated from this world when CipSoft wasn't so professional and introduced rare items somewhat often. And even so, despite the concentration of rare items being larger there, the world lost its unique status long ago with character world transfers.

TL;DR: I suggest removing all item owners from game world pages. We keep the relevant information only on item's pages.

Molx (talk) 17:32, February 16, 2018 (UTC)