User talk:WardPhoenix

From GodWiki
Revision as of 17:46, 16 February 2019 by WardPhoenix (talk | contribs) (Notes on possible homonyms Artifact/equipment)
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a talk page. Maybe. Or not. Don't know. Leaving this just in case : GodWardPhoenix (U • C • T) 


This page has an /Archive

Old and/or inactive discussions have been moved to the archive subpage.

Leave a note for me there

Notes on possible homonyms Artifact/equipment

Just a note to my self for possible homonyms artifact/equipment that could either be mistakes or actually both existing, as they are mentionned in both artifact and equipment list at the moment. Feel free to help finding the truth!

Maybe should I create a talk about it on the main page or something? WardPhoenix (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably somewhere, yeah. I find it difficult to believe that there are really this many things that are both artifacts and equipment. My guess (since it' safe to assume they can't all have come from people being confused/mistaken, though one or two may be just that) is that there are items that were originally one type, A, but got converted to the other type, B, when the devs realized they needed additional B's and already had more than enough A's. Or even just that the item seemed "more clever" as a B than an A.
It's purely a theory based on nothing but guesswork and past experience, but I bet if we were to dig around in the history of these items, it would eventually come out (well, might eventually come out, assuming we could find any information at all) that the item(s) showed up as type A only a very loooong time ago, or only very briefly right in the beginning of its existence. And then at some point, it started showing up as type B, and has never been seen as type A since. (They've on at least one occasion swapped out the boss-monster for a mini-quest in similar fashion.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Theories are fine, but i haven't any conclusive evidence for now. In both articles history and forums. After JanuWiki wrapping, and once I have a full list of those posible homonyms (when I'm done with artifact and equipment templating so), I think I'll do a post on forums to ask for community help. That's the best way to gather information i think (maybe by opening a new topic instead of flooding the godwiki one). --WardPhoenix (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
List is now complete, I hope. --WardPhoenix (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)-
No, agreed. It's tricky because a lot of this ultimately will have to come down to best guesses or intuition, given that a lot of it falls under the "can't prove a negative" heading — there's almost no way to concretely say any (type of) any item doesn't exist, only to document the ones that do.
Personally I've always felt that there's room to make judgement calls on the rest, as well. Especially since the contents of the wiki are always subject to revision: Even if we were to document everything with perfect accuracy as it stands right now, the developers are still going to make changes in the future that will render our information inaccurate. But there are those who approach things differently, too. BlueStapler, for one (though by no means exclusively) is a big stickler for technical accuracy over likely intent.

For example, Cobweb gulp and Cobwebs gulp are listed separately, but that's how it is in the game so that's how I think the wiki should be.
— BlueStapler at Talk:List_of_Skills

This comment addresses why I undid the edits by Ultraferret. To summarize, Ultraferret removed two skills from the list; Cash wistle and Chesire smile. While I agree with Ultraferret that these are misspellings, these two skills exist in the game under those spellings. Accordingly they belong on this list. Specifically, RuB1x has the skill Cash wistle and StatikDu51 has Chesire smile.
— BlueStapler at Talk:List_of_Skills

But BlueStapler was also the one who redirected Chesire smile to Cheshire smile,so that we don't have two different articles just based spelling differences, so even the sticklers make some concessions.
And sometimes I side with the sticklers, and feel that separate articles are the right call. For instance, we have both Hellephant and Hellaphant because those are both currently-extant monsters in the game, apparently, and as such they can likely have different stats/properties. I don't know why the devs approved both, but it seems they have.
As far as the items in question go, I posted some evidence over at Talk:Fuzzy dice showing that it is definitely a current piece of equipment, since that's one of the few things that (through Google) can be relatively easy to determine conclusively. But whether it still also exists as an artifact, that's much trickier to determine conclusively since game API access was drastically constrained. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
So if I understand well, what you're saying is basically "Let's write on those we are sure they exist, leave others just in case.", this applying on both possible homonyms Articles/Artifact and on differents spelling articles (eventually dooing redirect)? I can hardly disagree with a "Better safe than sorry." course of action. I guess I'll avoid doing potentialy useless disambuguation page like I made with the Death note and the Snooze button in the future and stick to the "we are sure". Obviously the best case would be that we have a perfect accuracy on the wiki, but considering how unupdated it is/was, it's obviously impossible at the moment (hey, that's why we are working for xD)

In that case, it may not necessary to go with a forum topic inquiry since it won't prove an unexistant item (god damn devil's proof). --WardPhoenix (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Doublons (or worse) on Lists

It seems to have some doublons (or worse) in Omnibus List and categories list for some things (like double eye-patch who had three different spelling)... I don't think there is three diferents headgear with the same name but different spelling so I guess it is another "We need to find the truth" topic.

There is less than I was afraid of but still (search them in their respective list or the omnibus list) :

  • Double eyepatch (Headgear and/or artifact)
  • Godville citizen badge (talisman)
  • Icarus Rocket (Arms)
  • Icarus Wings (Arms)
  • Insani tea / Isani tea (Artifact / does the 2nd one exist or is it a speeling mistake of the 1st?)
  • Chain-letter mail (Artifact)
  • Bad Gatekeeper / 502 Bad Gatekeeper (Monster)
  • Psychophant / Brutal Psychophant (Monster/Separate monster are same one?)

I love how in GodWiki, when you start fixing things on articles you find other things to fix in the process xD

Regarding talkback

Regarding {{talkback}}, personally I always appreciate notifications pointing me to discussions I might be interested in, because even though I'll probably spot them eventually, it might not be right away and if those edits occurred during periods of high activity it's easy to overlook them entirely. Plus, the (old, simple) MediaWiki edit-notification system employed here for talk page edits is nice, because no matter how much activity there's been on your talk page you can only ever receive at most one notification.

So, I wouldn't worry about any kind of "spamming" with talkback, or being reluctant to place one. Doing so requires far more effort on the part of the person leaving the message than the person receiving it, so if you're willing to expend that effort then it would be pretty unappreciative for the recipient to complain about it.

As far as the template itself goes, one handy trick is the |ts= parameter. If you pass that in set to five tildes (as opposed to the standard four used for Talk page signatures), then MediaWiki will replace it with a timestamp, and the talkback box will display that. Which also means that if there's an existing {{talkback}} or {{talkback|ts=<old timestamp>}} on a user's page (either because they haven't seen it or just haven't cleared it out), an edit can be made changing it to {{talkback|ts=~~~~~}}, updating the timestamp and informing them that the message has been refreshed and there's new content at the target page. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)