User talk:Margotbean

From Stardew Valley Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This is Margotbean's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Margotbean.
  • Sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
  • Put new text below old text.
  • Be polite.
  • Assume good faith.
  • Don't delete discussions.

Change to Console Version History

Hi! I changed Console Version History to break out of the table. The previous format was confusing; versions often didn't align, PS Vita was off on its own, releases were listed in conflicting orders (major releases were listed latest -> oldest, but minor releases were oldest -> latest), etc. It was also hard to link to a release, and didn't have much benefit since each console often has different versions & release notes anyway. If the new format looks fine, I'll make the change to the other wikis too. —Pathoschild (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm personally not really a fan of this formatting. It's harder to read changes and splitting it this way means a bunch of information is going to be repeated at least three times on the same page. What do you think Margot? Katzeus (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Well... Pathos actually promised to make the formatting changes to the Console Version History page way back when he changed the Version History page, so I've been expecting this. I've been staring at both pages side-by-side for about 20 minutes now, and I honestly like and dislike aspects of both.
Bottom line, I think we should keep the new format. We can transclude within the page, if v1.3 is going to be the exact same text for all 3 consoles. As it is now, there are only 2 sections duplicated, and it makes more sense to me for each console to have its own section, rather than one table cell with 3 different console changes listed in it. The Switch needed its own section a long time ago, imo.
As for readability, we could put each console into its own table, adding a white background. (Then it wouldn't match the Version History or Mobile Version History pages, but I could live with that.)
A couple of tweaks -- the logos are different sizes, and it looks weird.
My thoughts. --margotbean (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
P.S. No pun intended, we've broken the link to the PS Vita version in Template:MainLinks now. margotbean (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I tweaked the logos so their heights are consistent (though their widths vary); how does that look? MainLinks points to the top of Console Version History for the other consoles, so those could all be updated to link to their section too. —Pathoschild (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I think you may just want to eyeball the logo height to match the line height, they still look a little off. It shouldn't change once set, so it doesn't really need to be consistent imo.
But fair points on the format changes, I'm not going to strongly defend the table. The layout worked much better when it was just two consoles on the same version vs the jumble it'd became now.
I've updated the mainlinks template, that'll help direct better for this new setup.- Katzeus (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree, the logos need to look good to the human eye. Forget about matching sizes in the code.
I think it should say "Nintendo Switch", even if it doesn't say "Microsoft Xbox" or "Sony Playstation". Translators are going to delete that span, and I'll forever be putting it back. Seriously. "Switch" is a more generic term than Xbox or PS4 as well, so to me that justifies it being "not like the others". margotbean (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The span isn't needed in other languages though, since that's only to avoid breaking links from the official announcements. Also, here's an attempt to align the logos visually (the PS4/Vita logos look huge if you align the line heights):
PS4 logo.png PS Vita logo.png Nintendo Switch Logo.png Xbox One Logo.png
Pathoschild (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I made the Switch logo 2px bigger, and now the line-heights are a bit off (the bottom gray border is just about touching the Xbox and Switch images, while the other two have space.) I think I'm about done messing with it now, it's not going to get any better, and it's such nit-picking at this point. Overall, I think it looks good!  :D If you want to tackle the other languages, be my guest. I'm not gonna change template:MainLinks in the other languages until the pages are changed, so whenever/whatever you want to do is fine. margotbean (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll hold off a bit in case Katzeus has other feedback, but I'll update the other languages later today. —Pathoschild (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
No other feedback here - looks good! I'll update the links for the MainLink templates on each site once you've done your work - Katzeus (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Done! All wikis are migrated to the new format. —Pathoschild (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Cool - MainLinks are all updated - Katzeus (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Removing heart event videos?

Hi again! You removed some heart event video links (see example diff), but those can be useful when looking up what happens in an event (e.g. getting the specific dialogue text for modding); why remove them? —Pathoschild (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Because they're going to cause all kinds of trouble for translators, they're all in English only, and anyone doing a google search can find a plethora of videos of all heart events (and more). margotbean (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Character Quotes - Manual of Style?


You seemed like the right person to come to after covering my observation re Pig 5 Heart Sell Price over at animals. I've noticed that there seems to be a lack of consistent styling of character quotes across different characters (take a look at how they're done for Haley's article, then how they're done for Sebastian's article and you should see it). A quick search across the wiki hasn't turned up anything for a 'Manual of Style' document either, so while 'be Bold' is true, there's also 'But not reckless', and approaching stuff without the info behind it, is kinda reckless IMO. Anyway, is there a wiki-wide consensus on how quotes for characters should be handled? Also, if there's a page on SDVWiki detailing Manual of Style or anything like that, I'd appreciate being linked to it.

Best regards! Matticusmadness (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


Doing what again? The change does not introduce any argument about which category a tomato falls in. It simply removes "ambiguity". The *status* is what is highlighted in Demetrius's event. And it's not an ambiguity that they talk about. I think Katzeus recommended that the issue be avoided. The word ambiguity brings the issue up. Leaving it out lets it rest. Reconsider please. Butterbur (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Signatures Edits needed?

Hi Margot. Thought I'd better run this by you before it risks becoming a bigger issue as my edit count increases

I noticed you tweaked my signature in your reply at talk:Marriage to remove the 'color' and 'sup style' modifications to the signature. Is there anything in the SDV Wiki Rules against signatures having different colours in them? I couldn't see anything about it in Help:Editing and it's never done me any trouble on Wikipedia or on Wikias (now 'fandom' s), plus I tweaked the 'color' when I modified the signature in 'preferences' so it could be read on SDVWiki's blue and green 'house style', so it's a little confusing as to why your edit to the signature felt warranted. The markup is, as you might have guessed, in my standard version of my signature (set in 'Preferences') now so if you want the 'color' and 'sup style' wiped out, let me know and I'll figure something else out for it.

After all, if it's breaking a rule, least I can do is fix things so it's not breaking said rule anymore, right? Heh... All the best! MM (Communications) (Crops) 02:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd just like to leave the comment that the color modification makes the signature hard to read against certain standard backgrounds, at least on my machine. Butterbur (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome Template

Hello, I'm Dove, or GamerGirl. I have created a welcome template page for your wiki, seems that it is obvious that every wiki needs a welcome template, as it is easy to use the template to welcome a new user rather than typing it out. Hope it helps! GamerGirl (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

'Journey Of The Prairie King' in JA

Hi! We need to move the page ja:アドベンチャー・オブ・Prairie King to correct translated name ja:アドベンチャー・オブ・プレーリーキング. Could you do it? FlameArche (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi FlameArche! I've responded on your talk page on the Japanese wiki. Cheers! margotbean (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Profile editing

Heyyy do you know how to edit your profiles description or do you have to be a high rank to do that? Ultrabobt (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The Farmer in the Dell

It's ok. It's trivia after all. I thought it was cute and in keeping with the spirit of the game. But it's certainly not necessary. Butterbur (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi Margot.

Do you have WP:REVDEL permissions? I could be wrong, but this edit feels to me like it could do with its edit summary being cut from Public View due to the email address in it.

Hope you're doing well. :) MM (Communications) (Crops) 21:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you contact with me


Keeping version history up to date on the main page

The main page of the wiki hasn't been updated since March 14th and the mobile version numbers are falling behind. I thought you might have permissions for that page and could update it to reflect the current versions. Overlord Odin (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It seems our dear Admin has taken care of this already. My bad, I could have updated it sooner... Thanks for shooting me a message, next time I'll get to it quicker! margotbean (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Xbox transfer files to PC

Is it possible to hook up a pc or laptop to an Xbox and transfer your Stardew Valley save files? Or even without hooking anything up, would it be possible to share it via lan or something? Ultrabobt (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2019 (BST)

Deletion of Modding:Projects

Hi! You deleted 'Modding:Projects/Stardew Valley Expanded' and the related pages without discussion. Stardew Valley Expanded is a large mod which is very popular, and is currently overwhelming both the author's ability to support players and the community support channels. That's why we're working with the mod author to set up a community-maintained page in the new 'Modding:Projects' section. Could you explain why a 'Modding:Projects' section should be disallowed on the wiki? —Pathoschild (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2019 (BST)

The wiki isn't for FAQs about a particular mod. As I said in the comments to the edits, those belong on the forums or on nexus. The wiki isn't the place for forum overflow. margotbean (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2019 (BST)
The modding namespace is for mod guides and documentation, and I think that can include collaborative documentation about popular mods in a self-contained subsection. Collaborative pages require a wiki, they're not suitable for forums/Discord/Nexus. —Pathoschild (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2019 (BST)
Collaboration is entirely possible on the forums. margotbean (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2019 (BST)
Discussion is certainly possible on the forums, but collaborative editing isn't. To clarify: are you firmly opposed as a moderator to allowing a 'Modding:Projects' subsection, or are we just discussing possibilities? —Pathoschild (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2019 (BST)
I believe I've answered your question. FAQs about specific mods belong on nexus or the forums. The onus is on the author to keep the original post(s) updated with feedback from users. margotbean (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2019 (BST)
Alright. We'll look into alternate options to store modding documentation. —Pathoschild (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2019 (BST)

Deletion of search aids

Hi! You deleted the redirect pages I've added regarding the main defining features of a character you might not remember the name of like Gus as Bartender and... the doctor as the doctor. Yet you've kept Fabio as a redirect page just because I asked you to saying "All right, lol, because you actually signed your post, and only as a search aid, it can stay.".

You're right, Fabio is deleted as well. If you can't remember the villagers' names, go to the main page and click "Villagers". margotbean (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2019 (BST)
Whatever, keep being the wiki nazi I guess. --Barlakopofai (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2019 (BST)

Oh yeah also do you know how to make a redirect not appear in the search bar? It's clearly an option since some pages are case sensitive and don't automatically redirect if you type them in lowercase--Barlakopofai (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2019 (BST)

There is no way to make pages not appear in the search bar. All pages are case-sensitive, and the search is not as "smart" as say, a google search. If you type the name of a page using the wrong case, you will be taken to a page of results that contains the page you were looking for, usually as the first result. margotbean (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2019 (BST)

Lost Books

Noticed your recent edit on "Fishing", and its comment.

True, the count kept in the game file indicates 20 Lost Books found when the game finally stops generating any artifact spots for them.

However, after you find the first artifact spot (and count=1), the library has two titles it didn't have before: "Tips on Farming" and "A Book by Marnie". In addition, once the game file count actually reaches 20, the game still generates more Lost Book artifact spots, and until you pick some more up, it will continue to generate them (as far as I can see). Even so, the game file count remains at 20 the whole time, and no more titles appear in the library.

So I guess the text you changed needed something. And I'm not sure what's better than what you said. But what you said still doesn't really reflect the rather bizarre game behavior. Are there known bugs in this area? (And does anyone really care? I've tracked this stuff in my games for as long as I've played, but I only got started because at first it looked like it might be significant.) Butterbur (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2019 (BST)

I don't know what stops lost books from generating in Fishing Treasure Chests, and how exactly the bug behaves. The code says if(lostBooksFound < 21 and random number < .1) then generate lost book. If, as you say, the count in the save file never increases past 20, then lost books ought to generate forever. But, we know from playing the game that they don't. So, I simply don't know what's happening in the game code.
We've established that lost books keep generating in artifact spots, but until when? The end of the day sleep and save? Or finding a 22nd lost book? More testing is needed. If we can figure it out, it definitely belongs on the wiki, in a few places... margotbean (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2019 (BST)
Well, clearly it's not a question of how the program generates a lost book, but of when it tries to, or tries to use one. A generated code could go unused, and it appears that happens sometimes. Exactly what times, I'm unsure. But I know I have collected well beyond 20 lost book spots before they discontinued, perhaps as many as 25 total. I'm afraid I never looked into the save file to tell what kind of count it was storing at that time. I know only that it records 1 at the first time, but that it then displays the extra one in the museum, and adds one to the display with each increments, up to 21 books displayed and a count of 20 stored in the file. After that, I don't know. It makes me wonder if, as more lost book spots are dug up, the count somehow ends up higher than 20 (at least in active program memory). It may then be reduced later, perhaps when a day is saved, so we may never see a difference in the save file. And it appears that the internal program function does not occur in every circumstance that a lost book artifact spot is found. So I'd say there's more code to locate and examine. And I expect there's an independent trigger that turns off attempts to generate more lost book spots. After all, something brings it to a halt, and this code is certainly not it. Butterbur (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2019 (BST)
I was going to comment on here but I see a discussion is already going on :P I was trusting you on the 20 books and figured the game just makes it 21 at some point. I can see in my save file it IS saving 102 (lost book) as 21 found, which is what the game checks for on that fishing chest roll. But you're right, how exactly do you spell that out on the wiki?

-- Geonigma (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2019

We definitely need to test, while keeping the save file open. We need to see at exactly what point it adds 1 to 20 to get 21. My assumption is still after sleeping & saving the night after finding the 20th book... but a test will tell for sure. I can find nothing in the code that triggers "add 1 to lost books found", but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Still on the "to do" list... :) margotbean (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2019 (BST)
Just saw a count of 21 books found in my file also, came to report it, and see that's already been done. As it is, I can provide confirmation of what Geonigma sees. It's new to me, but I went looking this time, so I may just not have noticed earlier. While there may be a bug in the termination of the generation of lost book artifact spots, it is still a fact that the first spot found reveals two books in the library itself, and that the maximum the library can contain is 21. I've never seen a variance in that, whatever the save file contains and whatever spots appear on the map. So I tend to think the proper thing would be to declare (in the article) what a player sees in the library, and let the game code handlers sort out whatever changes are necessary to make the appearance of spots work right. But I've always wondered if that first appearance of a pair of books wasn't the result of an initialization bug, too. And I can't see how there really would be 21 books if Ape didn't intend for there to be that number. Butterbur (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2019 (BST)

My initial comment of this section on 14 May 2019 appears to be in error. I was depending upon info collected in earlier game versions and, announcement or not, intended or not, there appear to have been changes in save file encoding I had not noticed before. This is made apparent to me because my latest game run was created by and entirely played in game version 1.3.36 (latest PC), and I see the save file from this version is different from that of some earlier versions after the first lost book artifact is found. (When the change happened, I can't say.) However, I found that first artifact on 2 Spring. The save file at the start of that day showed no archaeology found, and at the start of 3 Spring, it had recorded a count of 2 books (under key 102), the result of having dug up just one spot. So, the difference is that right from the start, the save file is recording the initial pair as a count of 2 instead of a count of 1, with subsequent counts incrementing (I think) just as one would expect, by one per artifact spot dug, and on up to a count of 21. Presumably, at this point, artifact spots cease to be generated (per code listed here), though this also would not be as before, when the count appeared to stop at 20.

This isn't exactly a "test", but since I keep a copy of each save file, day by day as the game progresses, I am able to determine the recorded results from each game-day's play, right back to the initial file. It seems to answer some of the questions above, if you accept the methodology (not exactly orthodox).

I can testify to my prior new game, begun under version 1.3.32, and continued past the release of 1.3.36, when artifact spots did continue to appear some (vague) time after all books had been found and displayed in the library. No idea if the update in the middle affected that in any way. And sorry for any misstatements due to my lack of awareness off such changes. It seems only practical simply to be sure that version 1.3.36 is the basis for any article changes, as well as testing. And the save file changes would seem to confer an official status to a maximum book count of 21, not 20. Butterbur (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2019 (BST)

Well, let's see if you are able to keep collecting lost books after the library is full. I would guess not, at least with new games started with v1.3.36. If the bug is fixed, that's a good thing! If not... argh! margotbean (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2019 (BST)
I never was able to collect books after the library was full. It only ever held 21. I could only dig up lost book artifacts, which had no effect on the library when it was full. In this newest game run, I don't remember seeing any new artifacts after the library was full, but as I thought I had a couple to go, I could have got that wrong. I just know I didn't dig any.
But I guess one bug is fixed: the count. There's still the matter of the first artifact dig producing two books, but it seems to be a question whether or not that's really a bug. Perhaps the article should state there are 21 books to find (or the library holds that many), but that you need only dig up 20 lost book artifact spots to get them? (Pretty minor detail, yes?) Butterbur (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2019 (BST)
The first day you start a new game, there's a lost book hovering over the bookcase in the library, however, you cannot read it. As soon as you find a legitimate book (in a treasure chest or artifact spot), there are two books in the library to read, but still only one hovering over the bookcase in the library. (This may change after sleeping and saving, I don't know). I definitely do not want to try to explain any of this on the wiki! It's pretty technical, and still seems ... if not buggy, then sloppy. As long as players aren't fishing up 22+ lost books, I think what's written is fine. If we change the Lost Books page to say "There are actually 21 lost books, but one is a freebee" then we have to change all pages that refer to the total # of lost books. And there are only 20 listed on the Lost Books page, I believe. So... yeah... I'm not touching it at this point.  :D margotbean (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2019 (BST)
As you say: technical, and if not buggy, sloppy. Which is exactly why I offered my suggestions as the best possible changes I could think of. But I agree with you that no action is the best solution, and that has been my expectation. Still, we did seem to resolve enough of what is going on to consign all remaining difficulties to an official, well-deserved insignificance. A spring cleaning - dust bunnies swept from the corner. ;) Butterbur (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2019 (BST)

One additional thing occurred to me this morning, re the one initial book in the library that can't be read until another is found by digging an artifact. The initial save file contains a null field for archaeology: <archaeologyFound />. This could hint at the game's internal data, namely that it holds a null pointer or some other indicator of nullity. That could be interpreted by the code quite differently (perhaps) than a pointer to an already-existing memory structure that has zero elements, they key "102" and count of zero or one for example. To all appearances, the structure and key are created by the first lost-book artifact dig, opening up the possibility of reading a book. Thus the initial book (Tips on Farming), which seems to exist beforehand, then becomes accessible to the player. The question that could be asked of Ape (or other maintainers) is if that is an intended "artifact" of the coding, and a desired behavior. An initialization change might just alter game behavior to make the initial book readable on day 1, if that were considered an improvement. Butterbur (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2019 (BST)

Fishing discussion


I did quite a few changes on fishing yesterday. My goal was, over the next few weeks, to add more information about fishing in general on the wiki. Indeed, it is information that I have been looking for a long time, and that I have been feeling was missing from the wiki. I thus took upon myself to perform testing and modify the wiki accordingly. However, I have noticed that you have reverted some of these changes. I hope you don't mind if we talk about them to make sure that the info on the wiki is appropriate!

Farm Maps

  • Removing from the Standard Farm "Players can only catch trash". To the best of my knowledge, no fish can be caught on the Standard Map. If you do have information regarding the spawn list of fishes, would you mind sharing it? If however this information proves to be accurate, I think it would be better to let it on the wiki.
  • The removal of the word "much" for "much higher chances for trash". Indeed, from my personal testing, players get not just a little but a LOT more trash than when fishing normally, and I think that this fact has to be emphasized. Besides, there is a contrast in the trash catching rate between the Riverland Farms and the other maps, the former getting less trash than the later (though it is still more trash than when fishing outside the farm). This contrast should also be emphasized imho.
  • The removal of the pool of bubbles from the Riverland Farms. In my opinion, this information is relevant as it is basically what this map is about. Besides, I do not think that other farm maps spawn pools of bubbles, or at least clearly not with the same spawn rate.
  • Quality of fishes. Though I do agree with you that fish quality is normally decided solely by casting distance, my testing has revealed that it seems to be inaccurate on the farm. Letting aside the Hill-top map (where you won't be able to have a good casting distance anyway), my personal testing has revealed that there is a higher chance for better quality fishes outside the farm, regardless of the casting distance. Though this is of little impact when the player is level 10 fishing, this difference is VERY noticeable at lower fishing levels.

Farm Pond

As discussed above, my current testing has revealed that only trash can be caught on the Standard Farm, and that Riverlands Farm has a lower trash catching rate than the other farm maps, though still higher than when fishing anywhere else. Imho, this is relevant information.

Cindersap Forest

Removing the pond fish table. My goal was, over the next few weeks, to add the fishing tables for each locations' pages. I do not think this would be an inappropriate information, when clicking on the Cindersap Forest page for example, to have a subsection for fishing in the location, including a table displaying all catchable fishes. As a wiki user first and foremost, this is actually one of the information I am looking for when clicking on a location page. Besides, the only other way to have access to the list of fishes is using the Fish page, which is far from being convenient. Indeed, you can only have access to the full list of fishes instead of only the ones you are looking for, polluting the relevant information. Besides, ordering by spawn location doesn't help much as some fishes have several spawn locations, messing up the ordering. I've actually had to create my own Excel file to properly order the fishes so that the tables would be relevant and useful. In this respect, I do think this additional information would be useful and interesting on the wiki.

Please let me know what you think about these comments or if you have additional relevant data, so we can improve the wiki!

Statue of Perfection exploit

Oh, is signing your name to the exploit you find not allowed? This one is a really big one and it’s nice to get credit for finding it. THKlasen (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2019 (BST)

The talk page is a perfectly fine place to make a statement about discovery. Know, however, that your edits are in the page history forever, so your username will show as the one who added the info to the page forever. Congratulations on your find! margotbean (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2019 (BST)

Ah, I figured that out. Thanx for that. It’s a nice achievement to make, especially as it is so big. Thanx for the info

Extra fertilizer calculations

Hi Margotbean,

This is two-part reply for a change of mine that you recently reverted on the Fertilizer page.

1) Can you help me understand what was missing that I should have added (and/or what can be removed to avoid TMI)? I sincerely believe that the information I added is useful and would like to have my edits reinstated (subject to your approval).

Would it be enough to reinstate it with this added explanation of the calculations (in bold)?

The "Average Sell Price" column shows the relative sell price you can expect from your harvest when compared to the crop's base price. Considering that Silver-quality crops are worth 25% more than their base price and Gold-quality crops are worth 50% more than their base price, the Average Sell Price column can be calculated by the following:

 Average Sell Price = % Regular quality   +   % Silver quality × 1.25   +   % Gold quality × 1.5

And then an example can be given ...

For example, if you have level 4 farming and a harvest with basic fertilizer, from the tables below you can expect 50% of your crops to be regular quality, 31% to be silver quality, and 19% to be gold quality. Therefore, the Average sell Price would be 50% + 31% × 1.25 + 19% × 1.5, or 117.25%. This means that a harvest of 500 parsnips (base price 35g) in this scenario would have an average sell price of 20,518.75g (500 × 35g × 117.25%).

2) I mistakenly said "super fertilizer" when I meant to say "deluxe fertilizer".

So, what do you think? The reason why I think this is important is so that people can make their own judgments as to which type of fertilizer they should use (like, is it really worth it to gather 100 sap just to lay down basic fertilizer for cauliflower at level 2 farming? It might be better instead to use your energy elsewhere and to not even consider using fertilizer at this point in the game).

Thank you,

Bennycopter (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2019 (BST)

If I may barge in: I agree considering fertilizer is good to do. But in my experience, the choices have been easy. However, I may do some things differently from others, so you may not want follow my pattern. But you may learn new approaches about how to think about this. For I find that every choice interconnects with every other and it is total influences that end up mattering most.
From my early games, I have always found it beneficial to earn Forage skill level 4 by 15 Spring 1. Sound hard? Not hugely, but it does require consistent prioritization in the first two weeks. How do I do it? Chopping trees, and going for everything else I can find, especially Spring Onion. Why? You get little energy at first, and what you have is used up fast on all activities. You need food desperately. Spring Onions. Until Spring 15. Then you collect Salmonberries. Never sell them. They're great for gifts to certain villagers. But mostly, you eat them. Great for replenishing yourself in the mines. Cooking is not much of an option in year 1. In Fall, you continue the same principle with Blackberries, but should be at Foraging 8 by then. Why push that skill? Because it doubles your take of berries in Spring, triples them in Fall. Food.
Ok, what's that got to do with Fertilizer? You want to fertilize somehow for increased farming profit, and for the Quality Crops bundle, and the gold Cauliflower for putting in the soup at the Luau. Each of those targets has its own benefits. But if you're working at upping Forage skill all the time, you're cutting trees about as fast as you can while balancing your activities. And that gives you hundreds of sap, and hundreds of Basic Fertilizer, even early on. Bingo. It's all a lock.
My strategies mostly depend upon prioritizing the activities that give more than one bang for the energy point, and distributing them across time. For example: you need a Chest on day one, or you'll have to throw away some of the materials gathered by clearing farm land (almost guaranteed). Why? Because you won't be able to carry seed items from the store back to the farm: not enough room in the backpack alone. Needed: 50 wood. Chop trees. Increase forage? You also need the east tidal pools on the beach across the broken bridge. Needed: 300 wood. Chop trees. I usually can get it done on day 3. Mining's not possible at that time, and I wait to fish much until a little later, though I get the pole right away.
See how this works? Run to the forest for Spring Onions. Chop trees etc that are in the way or nearby. Grab all beach forage and sell it to get 2000g for a backpack upgrade, because you can't keep running back to your chest all the time. One thing leads to another.
Now, think about how fertilizer best fits into your overall operations. It isn't about gathering Sap just so you can make Fertilizer and increase your crop profit. Or if it is, you may be able to achieve better financial returns through a variety of activities. Make them all work for you, and Fertilizer will find its natural place among them. Good luck. Butterbur (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2019 (BST)
Hi Butterbur, thank you for your reply! From what you said, I realize that the information I posted was too much for its context. Perhaps my information would be better located on this page (Crops#Gold_per_Day), where harvest sell price is already discussed? Bennycopter (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2019 (BST)
You're welcome. You can try that, I guess. But I think daily crop profits are somewhat of another case of looking too hard at the minutiae instead of getting the bigger picture. Namely, grow crops so you can cover all the crop bundles and get the Greenhouse soonest. Fill the Greenhouse with Starfruit, then Ancient Fruit, and before that Rhubarb, Pumpkin, or Melon. Those are your big profits as crops.
But actually, build an extra Barn for holding Kegs and fill it (eventually) with something close to the max (135 Kegs). The Artisan profession is the big key to farming profits, and growing crops in the Greenhouse is the big key to feeding premium crops to Artisan equipment. It takes tons of wood to build buildings and kegs, and some time to gather money, metal bars, stone, and oak resin also. (Grow a tree farm on the farm and make Tappers.) But a good foundation can be laid before year 2, and by the time you have 50 kegs or so, you'll never care about crop quality again.
Then the crops are all for cooking, gifts, and artisan goods. And you will long ago have reached Farming level 10. Gold quality then counts only for gifts, and you'll get plenty of them without fertilizer, and plenty of profit without crop quality. So crop quality really only has much impact in year 1, and not as much as you'd think. I use (and need) Fishing anyway, and it provides whatever profit boosts are required shorter term. Again, it's the balances and trade-offs. But it takes all your time and energy to pursue all the activities, so there's plenty of low-hanging fruit to grab without sweating maximization of just one element.
All of which adds up to saying that the information, while not useless, is of limited help. Butterbur (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2019 (BST)
It occurs to me that I should say that my comments are optimized for the standard farm map. There are other approaches to the game, and the other maps emphasize other activities and make farming and artisan goods less abundant. So don't discard looking at crop profits. Just keep them in balance for your game. And keep the big picture always in mind. The big picture always has all the elements, no matter the map. It's the balance that shifts. Butterbur (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2019 (BST)
I think the percentages in the tables on the Fertilizer page are enough information to answer the question "should I fertilize or not?" If it makes you feel better, there have been many other players before you who wanted to crunch the numbers in ways too complex for the wiki. Generally, they post spreadsheets on the subreddit, or create the information on their user pages. You're free to do so as well. Kindest regards, margotbean (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2019 (BST)
Thank you both for your replies! I will leave this wiki as-is and keep the complexities in Excel. Bennycopter (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2019 (BST)
Again, you're welcome. And spreadsheets are my tool also. Memory jogs as well as custom info for my favorite plans. Not up everyone's alley. Best of luck. Butterbur (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2019 (BST)

Crop Info Tables - Deleted 'Best Plant by'

Hey Margot, I noticed that you removed the 'Best Plant by' column for Fall crops that I added yesterday. Could you explain your reasoning?

The dates I added represent the latest time by which a crop should be planted that season to achieve multiple harvests, without use of fertilizer or the Agriculturist profession. The last harvest would be the 28th of the season. This information doesn't exist in any of the individual crop pages and I assumed that the best place to add them were the crop tables for each season. I find myself calculating them every time I plan for a new season, and having to re-do them every season has become a bit of a hassle, especially since I don't do calculations in a single place.

If it's because the information seems ambiguous, an explanation can be added on the main Crops article just above it. I think a lot of people can benefit from this added info, at least the ones who plan for huge seed hauls at the beginning of every season. The gap you have gives you time to raise money for the more expensive seeds, especially for players on their first year. Do take a second look and reconsider.

Cheers! (RinnRin (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2019 (BST))

Object ID name glitch for iOS

I can’t say for sure regarding Android, but on iOS, I can use the glitch. It works perfectly well, and we can actually use it to greater effect, because our names can be longer. I just made a new file to test the new update, and it still works in 1.34. Can you explain why you are reverting the change? MutantCarp (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

???? You're going to have to be more specific at this point, I'm afraid. margotbean (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are you reverting my edits?

Hello. I'm currently planning a revamp of the Storm / Lightning Rod page and I noticed that you reverted what I had so far without posting an explanation to either the Lightning Rod discussion page or to my talk page. I currently have some additional info that I want to upload to the wiki (from reverse engineer / modder Moo) that is brand new. --Zamiel (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Simply provide a code reference for all facts presented, and stay away from advice giving or subjective writing, and you'll do ok. margotbean (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Can you refactor all of the references on the Weather page to the bottom in a reference section? I'm trying to edit the page and it is complaining that I am trying to add new links and that I have to be an administrator to do that. (I'm not adding any links, I'm just reorganizing the page.)--Zamiel (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The thing about Bear's Knowledge Icon Conhecimento do Urso.png

Hi Margotbean, i see that you deleted the file because it´s a duplication form Bear's Knowledge icon, i´m okay with that but in the PT page of Produtividade da Jarra de Conserva the icon in english with the original file Bear's Knowledge.png it's not loading the icon in the table, saying it can't find the file Conhecimento do Urso.png for this reason i have uploaded the duplicate file, to fix this, can you look at page to see if there is some way to fix without the duplicate file? I already finished the translation of all the pages there. --MarceloBoZo (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit: The first two pages is working fine the icon now, but in the page Artesão it's not working yet and it's showing that the page don't exist but if you click you go to the page, maybe a server side problem like the fish infograph. --MarceloBoZo (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Pronoun style guide

Hi, I see you've reverted all my pronoun edits. Using "he/she" is generally considered to be awkward and bad style, and particularly when referring to the player is potentially inaccurate and uninclusive. Major style guides have adopted they/them as the neutral singular pronoun of choice to use when one has to be used. Player pronouns are clearly easily avoided most of the time anyway, because there are only a handful of uses across the whole wiki. Can you provide some explicit policy recommendations for neutral pronouns? Thanks. --Porglezomp (talk) 07:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The APA (American Psychological Associaion) standard is to use he/she or rewrite sentences to avoid pronouns altogether. In formal writing, singular they is the awkward pronoun. margotbean (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The APA style guide notes that using constructions like "he/she" or "s/he" are awkward, and does not even mention the singular they. The APA style blog expands on this explicitly recommending against those forms, and recommending longer alternatives. That post also weakly recommends against the singular they, citing the precedent of other style guides. Of note, since that publication, The AP and Chicago style guides have both adopted the singular they as their recommendation. Porglezomp (talk) 07:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Unless you have an advanced copy of the 7th edition of the Publication Manual of the APA, your information is erroneous.
As a side note, there was a post on the Children talk page surveying opinions on the topic, and singular "they" was unanimously rejected. margotbean (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah… wow, that discussion is gross to read and makes it clear that I'm not welcome in this community. :( Porglezomp (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Wow, Margotbean I think you are being really rude here. Why do you have such a strong opinion on pronouns especially when you choose not to be inclusive? Actually, why aren't you letting people crowdsource this wiki and are so incredibly picky about changes? I think the wiki would be better crowdsourced, otherwise it's just your personal wiki. WhiteBear (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Site admin here. Margotbean was the one who started the above mentioned discussion on the children page to come to a community consensus. Crowdsourcing doesn't mean abandoning all standardization, it's an important part of structuring information in a wiki. You're welcome to disagree, but you need to do so civilly, because right now you're the one who is being rude...and harassing behavior toward moderators here won't be tolerated. If you have a complaint about site staff you're free to contact me. -- Katzeus (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Mayor Lewis' schedule for summer is not correct

Hello, this is my first post, so please forgive me if I mess up. I noticed that Mayor Lewis is not following the summer schedule, including deviations. I wasn't sure where to post this information. Also, I have not been tracking him. So, I cannot update this information. Lurkingewd (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove Google+ from Share Bar

In the top right of every page, there are a few social links so you can share that page on specific sites. On of the options is Google+, but that service no longer exists [1], so that link can be removed from the entire wiki. Overlord Odin (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll let the Admin know. margotbean (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Good catch - I'll put it on my list! -- Katzeus (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Tracking bugs?

Pages which mention bugs often become outdated when game updates fix them. For example, I just removed a few bugs mentioned in Stardew Valley Fair#Trivia/Bugs that were apparently fixed in Stardew Valley 1.3 or earlier (over a year ago).

What do you think of adding a template to track bugs? The simplest form would be a hidden template like this:

* {{bug tested in|1.3.36}} Description of the bug here.

That would just add the page to a hidden category like Category:Bugs tested in 1.3.36. When the game updates, we could go through that category to retest all bugs and switch them to Category:Bugs tested in <new version> if they still apply. That would also make it much easier for game developers to find the bugs we document. —Pathoschild (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea, but it's pretty ambitious. I don't think we need it, since all bugs will be removed in v1.4, and I don't see a v1.5 happening. You removed 2 bugs from the SDV Fair page, but are you sure those bugs don't exist in multiplayer? margotbean (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Stardew Valley 1.4 will probably have new bugs, some bugs are due to fundamental design choices so they're unlikely to be fixed, and ConcernedApe has hinted at ongoing updates (e.g. this blog post where he says "I am going to keep making new content for Stardew Valley"). I don't think we'll ever have zero bugs to document, but we can just delete the category if we ever do run out. I'll be retesting all the documented bugs anyway to report to the game devs, so I can add the tracking at the same time.
I'm pretty sure the bugs I removed don't happen in multiplayer either, since they're local issues not affected by the sync logic. I can retest them in multiplayer to make sure though. —Pathoschild (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll weigh in on this one - I commend you for wanting to keep these bugs cleaned up Pathoschild!
I'm not a fan of the template idea for a couple reasons: A) It really formalizes a bug tracking process (since there would be a perm template and version numbers) and I think that'll only encourage bug reporting - we def don't want the wiki to become a channel for that. B) If it's a template it'll be more likely to not be used or misused and require maintaining and cleaning up, the work to keep it properly used will fall mainly on site mods.
Instead, I suggest we simplify it and just make a hidden category like [[Category:Game Bug]]. That'll make it a simple string we can drop into a page (and remove if need be) without any reformatting or restructuring. It'll centralize all articles with bugs in one place (the category), and if we want to drill into the version number we can check the page's edit history for when it was reported. It's a little less functional then a template, but I think that'll be much simpler to maintain all around. Ideally the game will keep moving toward a place where we won't need the category any more haha! -- Katzeus (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Having a global category would be better than nothing, but that wouldn't let us find outdated bugs which is the main goal (since it's hard to keep the info updated otherwise). The template would be invisible to readers, so I don't think it'd encourage using the wiki for bug reporting any more than having bug sections in the first place does. Since the English articles are generally the main source of info that gets translated to other wikis, we could have {{bug tested in}} exist but do nothing on other wikis; that way bug report sections can be copied to another wiki, but the bug categories only need to exist on the English wiki. —Pathoschild (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The template would be invisible to readers, but the bigger issue it also wouldn't be used by editors, it'll be up to a small group (probably the three of us in this discussion) to maintain them and to make sure they're properly used, and if novice editors want to edit the bugs or trivia section they'll have to unpuzzle the template code. I don't think this is going to require much adjustment or be that widely used - and ultimately category text is easier for editors to understand.
I did a search for 'Bugs' and got 51 results (including the number of results for the insect bugs). Hopefully that number is going to go down with the next update (or maybe equalize with new bugs) - but I don't think there's enough of these to justify inserting template code into the text section of these pages. Updates happen months apart, and it's lower effort to patrol these 30ish pages when an update happens then to maintain the template simply in order to break that list of 30 down into a few smaller lists. If you're set on breaking it out by version or platform (PC Bugs, Switch Bugs) I think making subcategories for that Game Bug category would be fine. Then there could be easy review the PS4 bugs when there's a PS4 update etc and it's all still in one place. -- Katzeus (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure, that compromise works for me. If there are no objections I'll create a 'pages which document bugs' category under Category:Site maintenance, with a 'bugs tested in 1.3.36' subcategory? —Pathoschild (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
No objections here! margotbean (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
First pass done! I found 75 pages which document bugs and added them to Category:Bugs tested in an unknown version (based on these keywords in case I missed any: bug/bugs/buggy/bugged, crash/crashed/crashes/crashing, error/errors/errored, exploit/exploits/exploited, freeze/froze, glitch/glitches/glitchy/glitched, lock/softlock, restart/restarts/restarted, and stuck). It'll take a while to go through them, but I'll move them to Category:Bugs tested in 1.3.36 over time. —Pathoschild (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you missed any... none that I know of. Wow.
We talked about making the categories hidden -- I'm going to go ahead and hide the sub-categories again. While the normal case is that no one but mods look at categories, the Japanese editors are very active with keeping the wiki up to date with the English wiki, and I don't want them confused, thinking this is something they should implement at this time. margotbean (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Crops GPD with Seedmaker Estimates

Hi, why did you revert my edits about seed maker estimates on the crops page? My calcuations are assuming an average of 2 seeds yielded from the basic quality crop. I got the "2 average" estimate from the seedmaker wiki. Then, I just used the formula provided under "Gold per day" section of the crops page. These calculations are a lot more useful than the gold per day estimates using the ancient seed artifact, because you only get like one of those per year. WhiteBear (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said in the comment to the edit, the reversion included "Several reasons including TMI, not enough info, and incorrect calculation". As for getting "like only one ancient seed per year", perhaps you could try killing more insects, they drop ancient seeds when slain.
Also please remember to place new text at the bottom of the page, so I can find it and respond. margotbean (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I saw your comment, but since I can't read your highly nit-picky mind, I don't know what you consider TMI and simultaneously not enough info, especially considering I made about 5 lines of edits. Please show me how my calculations are incorrect.
Using seeds from a seedmaker is a vastly more practical approach to creating a large farm of ancient fruits than killing insects, therefore a valuable addition to the wiki page. I'm on Summer 13 Year 2, and I have 72 fully grown and 24 partially grown Ancient Fruit plants in the Greenhouse, and another 48 partially grown Ancient Fruit plants outside. So, can you plant 144 Ancient Fruit from killing insects by mid summer of year 2? You'd have to kill 28,800 insects according to your wiki's drop rate of 0.5%. WhiteBear (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Since you won't explain what's TMI, not enough info, or how my calculations are wrong, I put up my change again with some improvements. WhiteBear (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
You forfeited your explanation when you engaged in insults and general bad behavior. I would be happy to spend the time explaining each thing wrong with your edits after receiving a sincere apology. margotbean (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
What insults? You're the rude one. Let's recap. I made an edit on a crowdsourced cite, you reverted it with a vague explanation. I explained my calculations and asked why you reverted it. You repeated your reason, and criticized a benign part of me explaining my reasoning by putting it in sarcastic quotes ("like one seed per year"), and gave me the suggestion to waste my time slaying insects instead. I explained to you that using a seedmaker is more practical than slaying 30,000 insects, and asked more clarifications (again) on your explanation for reverting. Even though it took you 1 hour to decide that my changes were not up to your standards, you couldn't explain why in 2 days. I put up my change again, with improvements to the best of my abilities based on the very unspecific feedback I had from you. You reverted that again. The way I see it, you are the asshole here.
Instead of reverting people's changes you could update them to be inline with your standards, or at the very least you could actually give them a reason for your revert. Is this how you act at work too? Reverting people's changes? What does your team and manager think about that? I will not be apologizing to you, or apparently making any more contributions to this wiki because it is owned by a tyrant. Congratulations, you successfully own 100% of a crowdsourced wiki and are scaring off people who want to help you improve it. And here I was getting excited about putting profitability on the seed maker page and improving the character schedules to be more readable. Oh well. I hope owning a crappy wiki brings you joy. WhiteBear (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Purple mushroom in trash cans

Hi! You edited Garbage Can#Unlockables to add purple mushrooms when you reach mine level 80, but I can't find the code to support that. Is it possible you'd already reached the bottom of the mine when that happened, or it happened before 1.3.36?

For reference, the code for unlockables is in Utility.getRandomItemFromSeason below. The CurrentMineLevel is the mine level you're currently on for containers in the mine, so you can ignore those checks. So the only case where purple mushrooms (#422) are returned is when Game1.player.timesReachedMineBottom >= 1.

public static int getRandomItemFromSeason(string season, int randomSeedAddition, bool forQuest)
    var random = new Random((int)Game1.uniqueIDForThisGame + (int)Game1.stats.DaysPlayed + randomSeedAddition);
    var items = new List<int>() { 68, 66, 78, 80, 86, 152, 167, 153, 420 };

    if (Game1.CurrentMineLevel > 40 || Game1.player.timesReachedMineBottom >= 1)
        items.AddRange(new int[5] { 62, 70, 72, 84, 422 });
    if (Game1.CurrentMineLevel > 80 || Game1.player.timesReachedMineBottom >= 1)
        items.AddRange(new int[3] { 64, 60, 82 });
    if (Game1.player.eventsSeen.Contains(61))
        items.AddRange(new int[4] { 88, 90, 164, 165 });
    if (Game1.player.craftingRecipes.Keys.Contains("Furnace"))
        items.AddRange(new int[4] { 334, 335, 336, 338 });
    if (Game1.player.craftingRecipes.Keys.Contains("Quartz Globe"))
    if (season.Equals("spring"))
        items.AddRange(new int[16] { 16, 18, 20, 22, 129, 131, 132, 136, 137, 142, 143, 145, 147, 148, 152, 167 });
    else if (season.Equals("summer"))
        items.AddRange(new int[17] { 128, 130, 131, 132, 136, 138, 142, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150, 155, 396, 398, 400, 402 });
    else if (season.Equals("fall"))
        items.AddRange(new int[17] { 404, 406, 408, 410, 129, 131, 132, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 143, 148, 150, 154, 155 });
    else if (season.Equals("winter"))
        items.AddRange(new int[17] { 412, 414, 416, 418, 130, 131, 132, 136, 140, 141, 143, 144, 146, 147, 150, 151, 154 });
    if (forQuest)
        ...; // not applicable

    return items.ElementAt(random.Next(items.Count));

Pathoschild (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure I hadn't reached the bottom of the mines. I've been trying to analyze that code since the 1.3 release notes, I think the info in the release notes was incorrect. In any case, I'm 100% positive that I wasn't using v1.3 or less (*ahem*) and I had not reached the mine bottom. I suspect the other jewels may be obtainable after reaching level 40 or 80, but cannot confirm those. margotbean (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Can you reproduce it again, exit before saving that day, then send me a zip of the save files and mention which trash can had it? I'll look into why that's happening, to make sure the page is accurate. (You can send the zip via Discord or a site like catbox.) —Pathoschild (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I will most certainly zip the save file if it happens again; unfortunately the original save is long gone. As I said, I've been watching for it, because I thought something was amiss with the 1.3 change notes, but it's taken this long for a purple mushroom to pop. That's what, a year? A year of 3+ complete playthroughs (and several incomplete ones) in which I avoided reaching the mine bottom so as to avoid the buffed monsters that happen. No purple mushrooms popped till the last month or so. I can test, but there are no guarantees that they will be successful with RNG. *sad face* margotbean (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I assume you have already slept more than one day on the file, which means that the backup in the save file won't work either... BlaDe (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)