User talk:Torran

From Custom Mario Kart
(Redirected from User talk:TorranBOT)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

about my ban

you actually wernt allowed to do that and since im back i can tell you why >:) first off your reason was "warring with moderators" well i can call bull#@$% on that cuz you started warring with me i can type how i want to and your not allowed to change that got it Soarin MKWII (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

GCN Mushroom City

I have something for you, please answer at GCN Mushroom City.
LuigiM 11:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


Have you considered fixing any of these pages that you are marking for deletion yourself? I know there are videos out there for a lot of these textures. --Jefe 04:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'm just moving them into categories so that I can go over them in an orderly manner later. Besides the point, marking a page like this is meant to alert the creator of the page that they need to come back and fix it up. It would be irresponsible of them otherwise, though I guess inactive users probably don't even manage their pages anymore. --Torran 04:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

In general redirects should not be deleted unless it's the result of a name change for a new page, even if there aren't existing links to the redirected page. Redirects have several uses including acting as "short hand" for longer page names, common typos, alternative names. Additionally established pages may be linked to from other sites, such as or YouTube videos. It's important to not break these links. It also looks like you inadvertently deleted the Character Hack article. Hopefully Wiimm can restore it. --Jefe 02:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Those deletions are intentional. To avoid further confusion between the terms "Character Hacks", "Custom Characters", and "Custom Vehicles", SuperMario64DS, WorldsBoss, and I have agreed to remove all references to the term "Character Hacks" from the Wiiki and re-categorize said "Character Hacks" into the new categories and their sub-categories as needed. Broken links will be repaired after the reorganization has finalized. --Torran 02:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
While I don't particularly like term "Character Hack" (most MKWii "hacks" are not in fact the result of hacking) it is a popular term and widely understood by the MKWii community to mean any type of character modification. I do agree it is confusing and imprecise term, but this sort of sweeping change should be discussed on the wiki before proceeding. We do need a Character Hack article, if anything, to explain what the term means to people who are new to MKWii and will see the term elsewhere, but presumably not on here. We also need redirects for the old articles. --Jefe 02:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest in the future if someone cancels a retro track, not deleting the entire article. Instead you can remove the info about the cancelled track (maybe put it inside comment brackets) but leave the description and video of the original level. --Jefe 20:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

What? --Torran 21:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you deleted DS Donkey Course. It was Guilmon.--Jefe 17:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

With regards to Nitro Starway - the only reason why I haven't updated it in so long is because a) I've been working hard on Uni work, so I haven't had much time to do any work on it; and b) trying to finish it off by myself is hard - trying to figure out how to do the KMP, KCL and the like is tricky for me. While the plan itself is somewhat dead as of right now, if someone was willing to help me out with it I would be thankful. But, until such time comes to pass, I declare it pseudo-dead. - Ah2190, the Master of Nitrous, (Talk page) posted at 11:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand and I won't delete the page for at least several more months, probably more. But if you are able to post at least 1 image to the page then I cannot delete it, so there's something to consider. --Torran (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Then I'll try to get one sorted out of the design and get it uploaded before the end of this week. - Ah2190, the Master of Nitrous, (Talk page) posted at 15:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


I see that you and Zilla are working hard to standardize pages including their names, but deleting the redirects from the old pages breaks off-site links. It makes it harder to find downloads if the old links no longer work. These redirects need to be restored. --Jefe (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Let them break. If they're smart, they'll fix broken links. If not, well I guess that's too bad, so sad. They shouldn't be linking to specific pages in the first place anyways. In any case, they'll still be brought to the Wiiki itself in some fashion, and that's what the search bar is for; oh the joys of having a search bar. If someone really wants to find something, they'll still find it regardless of any broken redirects. --Torran (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe our responsibility as moderators is to work together to make it function better rather than worse. To increase its usability. Deleting redirects for established pages certainly doesn't make the wiki easier to use or easier to find files.
Let's take a look at the dialog that appears whenever we move a page:
Using the form below will rename a page, moving all of its history to the new name. The old title will become a redirect page to the new title. Be sure to check for double or broken redirects. You are responsible for making sure that links continue to point where they are supposed to go. (My emphasis.) --Jefe (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Note that this message is referring to internal links and not external links. External sites will have to deal with situations when our links change, but we can easily deal with our internal broken links. --Torran (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Jefe on this one. Not only external links are broken, but also internal links. These internal links should have been checked for deletion. Almost every redirect that is removed had pages link to them and fixing those pages will take a while, even for a bot.
kHacker35000vr (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
My first thought was: Delayed deletions (half a year) of the redirects. But this is only a temporary solution for all the old links on other sites.
Then I have tested a direct link to a deleted page:
The page will give enough info to find the new page. So it's important to create a redirect on moving. If the redirect is deleted a week/month later, my first thought is fulfilled.
Wiimm (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Internal links: Before removing a redirect, check the "What links here" and fix the old links. This can be done also, if the redirect is already deleted.
Wiimm (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't address Torran's reasons for deleting the redirects in the first place. Nor did he. He only addressed the effects. He makes the following statements:

"If they're smart, they'll fix broken links. If not, well I guess that's too bad, so sad."

Some people will fix links, sure, when they notice them. Channels with a lot of videos (and generally a lot of subscribers, that generate a fair amount of traffic to the wiki) generally won't. It has nothing to do with being smart, but everything to do with them not knowing the link has been changed, and it being a chore to check links, that frankly, should still work. Youtube channels, blogs, and are as much a service to us as we are to the community. They bring in traffic and new members. They are the reason we exist. I don't think we should presume that they should be expected to adapt to us when we change things on a whim. Our attitude to the community should never be "Tough titty. Deal with it."

"They shouldn't be linking to specific pages in the first place anyways."

There might be some merit to this. I can think of arguments both for and against. In this context, the main reason to avoid linking directly to content pages is so that links still work when pages are moved. (Automatic redirect creation also does this, of course.) But this would be a reversal of long-standing policy and is not the sort of thing that one or two moderators changes unilaterally.

"In any case, they'll still be brought to the Wiiki itself in some fashion, and that's what the search bar is for; oh the joys of having a search bar."

Oh the joys of working links. Tell me, exactly, why they need to do a search? Oh, yes. Because you broke the link that brought them to the wiki in the first place. Wiimm mentioned that after deletion some information is left behind, and that includes a link to the new page. That does help, but as Torran put it elsewhere, there's a lot of "tl;dr nonsense" on the deleted page. It's easy for people like us who regularly use the wiki to parse the deletion messages. People who don't will see a wall of text and some might get the impression that the file has been deleted if they're not patient enough to read the page.

The real question is why delete the redirects in the first place. Redirects are created automatically to so that both external and internal links continue to function. It could be argued that removing the old page names makes things tidier, but redirects do no harm. They don't take up valuable space in any sense. They aid navigation. So why delete them?--Jefe (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

  1. Inconsistency - Why keep redirects for tracks with silly names if those names are even more specific than after the rename? Why keep redirects of silly names when none of the newer pages will ever get the same treatment? Why keep specific namings such as Mario on Pipe Frame if we also don't have Luigi on Pipe Frame, Peach on Pipe Frame, Yoshi on Pipe Frame? Why not just call it Pipe Frame? Sounds silly, doesn't it?
  2. Misinformation - I already don't tolerate the fact that more than half of these so called pages lack any effort or substance from the original writer of the page him/herself. If I wasn't a nice guy, half of them wouldn't exist right now. I don't need the existence of pages with wrong names to confuse any newcomers or new pages. The fact that all of the tutorials are getting scrapped is evident of this. You'd be surprised by the number of people who confuse a redirect for an actual page.
  3. Entry Barrier - I expect the people who visit the Wiiki to possess common knowledge of how the internet works. They shouldn't be on the internet otherwise. Searching is a basic procedure that anyone who's ever used a search engine can do, and that's a lot of people mind you. People shouldn't be bothered by the fact that a link dies; it happens constantly across the internet and it's signs of change. Again, we have a search bar for a reason (and Tock should probably get rid of that Go button because it's absolutely worthless), and I won't accept any sort of reasons involving laziness, stupidity, or convenience. It requires no effort from you. All it requires is persistency, and I would hope that a person has persistency when they're looking for something they want.
  4. Redundancy - Redundancy is great for user convenience but it can be downright ugly for the rest of us to manage. You should notice that I never link to the redirect of my user link when I refer to myself as Torran and the simple reason is because you shouldn't depend on redirects to get you somewhere, it's that simple. The rule of thumb is to link directly to the page you want to link to, and we already went over how external links aren't covered by warranty if they link to a page directly. Heck, all of the external links that went to are now all dead and I don't see you or anyone else complaining about it. I'm sure no one would mind 100 pages of really old stuff that no one cares about anymore if their external links broke. Their silence speaks volumes after all.
--Torran (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Now I see my first thought "delayed deletion of unwanted redirects" as good compromise: It gives the interested author a chance to fix the links on external sites and it keeps our Wiiki clean (but only delayed).
Wiimm (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. Inconsistency. I am in full support of a consistent naming scheme, and consistent names certainly should be applied to all new and existing pages. That goal is not incompatible with the existence of redirects to old page names, however silly or whimsical the old page names might be in your opinion.
  2. Misinformation. Your personal opinion on the contents of "so called pages" or whether you are a "nice guy" should not be factors in your behavior as a moderator, nor are they pertinent to this discussion. I agree many things can be improved on this wiki, including tutorials. I fail to see how people can confuse redirects with actual pages, unless you mean that they might refer to the page by the redirected name. If you delete a redirect, those same users will be looking at a deletion message and reach a dead end. Is that less confusing? I don't think so.
  3. Entry Barrier. "Common knowledge of how the internet works" isn't quite as common as you might think. A large percentage of our users are very young or are not fluent in English. We should take those facts into account for our expectations of the average user. (This is actually a very good argument for rewriting tutorials.) But whether or not a user possesses "common knowledge" really isn't relevant either. You are right that links die, people adapt, and persistence can help overcome many things. But that doesn't mean we should contribute to the problem and break links on purpose. Convenience for users most certainly is relevant, and in fact, I consider it a priority.
  4. Redundancy. I agree that redundancy is great for users, and that it can be more work to manage. That's a good point. But I don't think it's that much of a problem. Redirects are pretty easy to keep in check, the main thing is to watch our for double redirects. Earlier you stated that people "shouldn't be linking to specific pages in the first place anyways," but now you argue that they should? That's interesting. links still work for me, even a year after the nameserver redirect was set up. Now for your last point, are a 100 or so dead links a big deal? No, not really. Do they need to be dead links? No, not really. --Jefe (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll use a recently edited page as an example then. Mario in a Landmaster is now Landmaster since it doesn't matter that character the creator decided to use when they made the file. Inconsistency applies here because then a Peach in a Landmaster or a Luigi in a Landmaster redirect would be imminent. But having a redirect of every type for every single file is simply bizarre. So the compromise was that we either make all of the redirects for all of the files, or we don't keep any of the redirects at all. I believe the obvious one is more efficient and cleaner than the other. You tell me. --Torran (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Ok, I'll bite. Deleting the redirect is more efficient than creating redirects for every possible permutation of "Landmaster." See, you made me agree with you. But not really. Your argument is actually what's called a false dichotomy. You presented two limited alternatives as if they were the only ones.
There is an equally valid and consistent third alternative. That alternative is to simply leave a redirect for the original page. And why should we? That page was called Mario in a Landmaster when it created in June 2012. It has received close to 2000 page visits. Doing a quick Google search shows a couple of youtube videos linking to the "Mario on Landmaster" page. Undoubtedly, at least a few of those page views came from those videos, and there are probably a few links from the forums and other places. That's not a lot of external links, and I'd say pretty typical. Leaving the "Mario on Landmaster" redirect is a consistent policy: Redirects for established pages should be kept. It's not inconsistent at all. --Jefe (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
In the last point I agree Jefe -- Wiimm (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The redirect Mario in a Landmaster shouldn't exist because it is extremely misleading, confusing, and wrong. As I've already said before, just because the creator decided to choose Mario as their character when presenting this custom vehicle, shouldn't imply that 1) The vehicle is only for Mario or can only be used with Mario and 2) Another version of the same file can be found under a different character (thus requiring us to make more redundant redirects for the same file under every character's name as I've already stated before). I realized this serious glaring error while comparing our file naming conventions with that of BrawlVault. And if this page deserves to have a redirect, does every other page now deserve to have at least one redirect pertaining to a certain character riding the presented vehicle? I have to be fair with these pages. I have no interest in creating or asking anyone who makes custom vehicles to choose a preferred character for the said vehicle. I'll accept Wiimm's compromise, because it still allows me to accomplish my goal of trimming out the Wiiki's fat, in a more slower paced manner. --Torran (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
You and Zilla are doing some great work organizing the character and kart pages. I think that's wonderful and long overdue. For some reason you've jumped to the conclusion that keeping redirects for pages you've moved leads to making redirects for every possible variation of every kart and vehicle combination, or you somehow think that is my position. It isn't. To be perfectly clear, I think that is nonsense.
The old names don't fit your system. That's why you renamed them! Unfortunately people don't know about your new system yet and they still link to the old pages. That's the purpose of those redirects, nothing more! --Jefe (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
(Please do not indent infinity. 5 or 6 are max, then go to level 1.)
I tend more and more to Jefes believe. We have for example prompted the users to provide their Youtube videos with links to Wiiki. And for those links the redirects are simply important. However, they gradually lose importance after time, so that they can be deleted in a few months still. I think it's a shame that this compromise is not discussed at all with the delayed deletion, because it is a good mix of both positions.
Once we're in agreement, I'll just restore the old redirects.
Wiimm (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Make sure they're put into a specific category so that the cleaners can find them all easily. We're currently using the Delete category. --Torran (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll accept your compromise, Wiimm. I agree that links do lose importance over time, but I still think they have value. I have a bit more to share on the topic.

I got my start modding Unreal Tournament 2004, and released my first skin (what you'd call a texture hack here) back in September of that year. The modding community was very active at that time, but eventually it dropped off around the time UT3 was released in 2007. There are still dedicated modders releasing for the game, but nothing like it was.

Unfortunately most of the download sites that were around early on are gone, and so are the modders. So it's a bit of a joy to me when a link still works after all these years. Most of the time you can find files with a quick Google search, but some files are harder to find, and unfortunately some files do get lost.

Similarly, I think we should try to preserve as many MKWii mods as we can. While keeping a link isn't quite the same thing as keeping a file, the primary method for finding an old file is looking for it by name. If the name's changed, and there's no redirect, it just makes it more difficult to find. As I've said before, we serve the MKWii community. If we change things, the least we can do is make sure our links still work. And that takes surprisingly little effort. Just don't press 'delete.' --Jefe (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Restoring Redirects

Before I restore redirects, let us talk about the candidates:

  • Candidates are Custom tracks and Custom Characters!?
  • What deletion period?

It's clear: If I restore really unneeded redirects, you can delete them again.

I think, redirects can not have categories (I will try it later). But we have the deletion log and a list of all redirects.

Wiimm (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

We haven't deleted any custom tracks with improper naming yet I think. The list mostly includes custom characters and vehicles. I think the deletion period could be for a month or two, though you can make that longer and shorter as you wish. We'll need to have a notice template appended onto all of these pages warning the user that the redirect will no longer exist in several months and then offers to redirect the viewer to the correct page. I think a bot should be able to do this given a list of all of these pages. --Torran (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Most of the redirects that need to be restored were deleted on April 5. In the interest of compromise, I think a period of six months would be appropriate. The messages on the target pages is a good idea. --Jefe (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Just for clarification, redirects for talk pages do not need to be restored. --Jefe (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Just for clarification, we speak about 150 deletions only for april.
Wiimm (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
A total other Idea: I write a script, that will analyze the logs to see, which non existing pages are visited. Based on this list I can restore the redirects.
The advantage is, that only used redirects will be restored.
Wiimm (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
After reading This I remember the discussion here.
In the last month I started to log and archive all accessed pages from external. And now I have to write a script to compare it with non existent pages to find out, which redirects are really needed.
Wiimm (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Track Edits

I think track edits like Dry Dry Lake can be considered both a texture hack and a custom track. It really comes down to how we define the terms, and really, there are arguments both for and against that position. Normally when we talk about "custom tracks" we mean tracks with new models. But a "custom track" can also mean any modified track. Texture hacks are "customized," and the texture hacked track category is even a subcategory of Custom Track. I think track edits are sort of intermediate between texture hacks and fully custom tracks. Their authors take an existing track and change not only the look like in a texture hack (although that's not necessarily a requirement,) but also modify the gameplay, creating a new, customized, experience, much as Nintendo has done with tournament tracks.

I think it would be useful to define "track edits" and "texture hacks" too. Track edits were listed as "Custom Track Without Model Edits." A somewhat accurate description, but also an awkward one. "Texture hacks" on the other hand, are often much more than just the original model with changed textures. I've seen a few "texture hacks" that are so changed that they barely resemble the original level. These could (probably more accurately) be considered "track edits" too. I think the most useful defining characteristic is whether or not the modified track changes gameplay in any way. A second, and nearly as important, characteristic is whether the modified track is still compatible as a replacement for the original when playing online. A few "texture hacks" require a different slot than the original. So for our purposes, any track that can replace the original without changing gameplay is a "texture hack." If there are any changes to gameplay, then it is considered a "track edit."

I think it's practical to separate these into separate categories, each with their own list. But in terms of category tags, I think all three tags can be added to these "tracks edits," since the terms overlap somewhat. --Jefe (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to make sweeping changes to categories, you should discuss it with the mod team first. For now, I suggest posting your plan, THEN start editing the individual categories and pages. Khacker's bot should be able to do a lot of the tough work. Don't continue deleting pages until the other mods have had a chance to review your plan. --Jefe (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC) --Torran (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
"Import" is kind of ambiguous, it could refer to models imported from other Mario Kart titles or other games. SNES and other Mode 7-style tracks aren't made from "ported" or "imported" models, so that adds to the confusion. Import could even be construed to mean any model, which would make it a synonym of "Custom Track." I think it's best to avoid that term.
Retro should have two sub categories: "Non-Mario Kart" or "Non-MK" along with "Mario Kart." Additionally, subcategories for other games such as DKR, F-Zero, Super Mario 64, etc. should be added as multiple tracks have been made for each. While it can be argued that prefixes are just as good as categories, I think it would be useful to have subcategories for each MK game source (Double Dash, Super Circuit etc.)
I think the rest of the planned layout is good and logical, and would be an improvement over the current system. --Jefe (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The terms themselves aren't supposed to be used with their literal meanings. "Import" means that the track was brought into the Mario Kart series from another series entirely, and it doesn't have to be a racing game either. Although "Retro" is a slang term for old school, even 3DS tracks are included because it's part of the Mario Kart series. The names do not differentiate how the tracks themselves are made more so than where they originate from. --Torran (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The goal of this recategorization in the end is to reduce the number of categories and to force each page to be categorized under 1 category only. 5x5 makes for 25 unique combinations and it should cover just about everything a track can be without looking too simple or messy. --Torran (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
While your proposed use of "import" and "retro" in this scheme add to its simplicity, I think using those terms are confusing and imprecise. I really don't think many people will see "import" and think "Non-Mario Kart" unless it is explained to them. I take "retro" to mean any track based on any other published game, Mario Kart or not. Although, by that token, the MK7 Wuhu Island levels would be retro also, but were considered "new" tracks in that game. Still, Track/Retro/Mario Kart and Track/Retro/Non-Mario Kart subcategories are far more descriptive and meaningful than Track/Import and Track/Retro. The source matters less than the fact that they have the common characteristic of being based on old designs, and I think we should acknowledge that commonality in our categorization scheme. It's not perfect, but I think it's the better of the two alternatives. --Jefe (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Try to use category names using only one word and being descriptive at the same time. You'll find it quite difficult to do so. Import and Retro are easily distinguishable words and their meanings were actually taken from the Brawl Modding Community so it should hold significant meaning for most of the people here. For everyone else, that's what the tutorials are for. I don't feel that we need to sort out every single track into their own game specific categories when the page name itself carries the game name e.g. SNES N64 DKR F-Zero etc. --Torran (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't think of a good one-word term for "Non-Mario Kart," but do we even need one? If the goal is to make it really really simple, then why use "import" at all? Is it really a useful distinction? The main reason we have a "List of Tracks From Non-Mario Kart Games" is because, at the point it was created, we hadn't ported tracks from any particular game in quantities large enough to warrant their own track list pages. It's really just a placeholder for miscellaneous ports. That will change soon, if the trend of DKR ports continues. If we define "Retro" to mean any track ported from another game that additional category is not needed. --Jefe (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Import: bringing in something from a different body (actual definition). Concerning the Mario Kart community, it'd mean Non-Mario Kart. DKR and SM64 tracks would be in the Import category then. Retro: concerning the Mario Kart community again, this would obviously mean older Mario Kart titles. I think remaking the categories is a great idea and the format posted above is great to work with.
ZillaSpaz (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


Maybe you should change your bot in a way that it marks its edits as edits by bots, because this way it totally floods the recent changes and it is hard to find any other changes. -- NiAlBlack (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Only a Bureaucrat (Tock) can do that. --Torran (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Because of spammers: Is it possible to wait with the user-talk-welcome, until the user has written his first article or made his first change?
technical: Wait, until the first entry in the contribution list.
Wiimm (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Currently, TorranBOT checks if the user has made at least 1 patrolled edit before it welcomes a user. Therefore, a moderator should not patrol any spam edits for TorranBOT to work properly. --Torran (talk) 15:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
There must be a bug. While I'm patrolling at 13:xx I found the only edit of AntonioHu and I deleted both, user and user talk, without patrolling at 13:06/07 localtime. Your bot created the welcome page 11 minutes before at 12:55:12. It was a few minutes after AntonioHu created the spam at 12:52:13.
Wiimm (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I've modified the bot. Tell me if it malfunctions again. --Torran (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


What do you think about the last video edits of N64 Toad's Turnpike (title and second video)?
Wiimm (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably unnecessary. I'll revert the edit. --Torran (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

GCN Daisy Cruiser

Hello Torran, how close are you to being finished GCN Daisy Cruiser? I'm wondering because I want to include it in my CT Distribution. -- FunkyDude15 (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's just say that it won't make it into the next CTGP, or I strongly doubt it will make it in time. I'm more than 80% of the way there, but the other 20% will take much longer to finish than I realized. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. --Torran (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


Please follow: Talk:CTGP_Revolution#Version_Column -- Wiimm (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Video Wars

There was nothing wrong with the old video. You have been warned -- User:TheMetaPirate (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

River Bridge issues and such

I know this issue should have been resolved, but can you make sure any edits made by Florian on River Bridge are undone, and can you add protection to it so that no one may edit it except FunkyDude and I? Florian keeps adding false statements to the track we created, and I really don't appreciate it. Thank you. Quajeek99 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I did tell you both to stop editing the Overview did I not? In the event that information can either be true or false, simply do not make a statement about it and leave it vague. I will be reverting the Overview back to my version. Neither of you need to brag about who made what, you both participated in its creation and that's enough. --Torran (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


Dolphin videos are not allowed, please stop it. --TheMygoshi, 09:06, 16 December 2013

Forgotten Temple

Thank you for posting a video of Forgotten Temple. I know it was boring as heck and unplayable, and that's why I'm glad you did it anyway :) Do you think it can be improved or it's just too bad? --User:SlimShady, 14:40, 7 January 2014

The potential of any track is up to its creator. If you believe it can be improved, then it certainly can be improved. --Torran (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok I'll try my best. The problem is that I'm new in this kind of stuff and there are still a lot of things I've got to learn, like KMP modifying. Would you like to tell me the issues\bugs you found during the racing, so that I can try to solve them? --User:SlimShady, 21:47, 7 January 2014
Some of the problems should be obvious enough. Having one respawn, enemy and item route issues, and the general design of the track being square shaped with inconsistent scale... --Torran (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Yea I know, I think I can improve them. Except for the respawns, cause I created the szs by editing the SNES Mario Circuit with Szs Modifier, which has only one respawn. Is it possible to add respawns or to replace the course.kmp with another one? In the last case, I guess I have to place even checkpoints and routes from scratch... --User: SlimShady, 22:24, 7 January 2014

Modern KMP Software can add and remove points from KMP Sections. See Software such as KMP Cloud or KMP Modifier or Wiimms SZS Tools. --Torran (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks, and please tell me the next time whether you make a video of a CT of mine, before putting it in the CT's Media part of the page. I was planning to do a video too. Just let me know.

Anyway I accept your critics, even the one about x-ray vision... ;) --User: SlimShady, 23:08,7 January 2013


What's now about the bots? Does deactivating the extensions help? -- Wiimm (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the bot flag still does not appear in either my or KHacker's bot's histories. I continue to receive notifications from bot edits as well. --Torran (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
And now? -- Wiimm (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Still nothing. --Torran (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
This is very strange behavior. The bot flag only appears on the Special:RecentChanges page, but nowhere else. --Torran (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The wiki is now (since my previous message) the same as before (End 2013). The only exception may be, that one of the extensions has added some more members in the database.
The only other change was a system update, and that is irreversible.
But I don't know, if Tock has something done, because he tried to enable the CTGPR support.
Wiimm (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Info: A few minutes ago, I enabled both extensions again. -- Wiimm (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Torran. I would like your permission to use 2 of your tracks in my distribution. They are N64 Toad's Turnpike & Rainbow Road. MilesProwler5x5 (talk) 8:12, 15 February 2014 (EST)

Redid animation page

Is it better? I think that it should be easier to follow. -- Suigetsu, the transformation (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

User Link

GCN Mushroom Bridge links to wrong page on your user link. Just telling you, because I can't edit it due to protection... --Michael (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. --Torran (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Now you should change it back to GCN Mushroom Bridge.
Also in your user link, you should put <br clear="all" /> as the first line so there's a space between the user link and the CTDs.
--maczkopeti (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I prefer not to have spaces with tables, it looks bloated or unelegant. In any event, I've removed the redirect, although I preferred if every port's primary page was a disambiguation leading to versions of the port, even if only 1 version exists. --Torran (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

BOL (File Format)

Have you yet found out how the rotations are stored in those files? --Gericom (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

SMG Sea Slide Galaxy

Now that we moved the page, can you change it in your user link? --CT creator Emer, (talk here) 10:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Torran (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Track Ratings

Why did you have your bot remove apparently every track rating on the wiki? I don't see any discussion or voting on the wiki about this. Was it by mistake?--Jefe (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see the template itself was deleted. I assume the update broke the ratings. --Jefe (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


I have seen your last edit and already implemented it into wkmpt incl. a cross reference:

Factory example

If you look now to the eline objects you see, that the last 2 of them has no valid ENPH link (-1==65535). Do you know its meaning?

-- Wiimm (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"Enemies can choose to not obey a controller unless the next EHPH Section is set to -1."
In other words, if ENPH = -1, the previous controller's ENPH is used. --Torran (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
That was my guess -- thanx -- Wiimm (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi, "New version by Torran. Download link is private but you should ask Torran for it"... Then, can you give me this link please ? My skype is ninclan -- thanx -- UP!NinYoda1 (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have gmail? If you do, can you please give me a download link? My gmail account is [email protected] Thanks! --Tpointer56 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have never had of skype is "ninclan" my mail is "[email protected]" NinYoda1 (talk) 09:53, 28 october 2015 (UTC)

MK7/3DS Scale

Please see Talk:Scale section "MK7/3DS Scale" -- Wiimm (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

3DS Toad Circuit

Please see Talk:3DS Toad Circuit (Torran)#Scale.
--maczkopeti (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Star Slope

Please add a download for this new version. I cannot fathom why you want this to be exclusive to CTGP Revolution, let alone as a secret track. The community would be better off with a public download. --Cloud Cotni (talk|contribs) 15:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)