User talk:WardPhoenix

From GodWiki
Revision as of 19:13, 16 February 2019 by FeRDNYC (talk | contribs) (Notes on possible homonyms Artifact/equipment: grammar/phrasing fixes)
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 (section below) and eventually doing 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)
Mmm, sorta. I guess more what I'm saying is, let's document things as we know they are currently, and keep in mind that may even involve changing the past, since the information that was originally compiled may now be inaccurate (or never was accurate). So, for example, Fuzzy dice is written as an artifact. But the only edit ever made to that article was its creation four years ago; it's never been touched since. We know conclusively, thanks to Google, that "Fuzzy dice" in the game is currently a piece of Equipment (a Talisman), so my instinct would be to change the existing Fuzzy dice article to document that piece of equipment, instead.
If someone then comes up with evidence that there is also still a "Fuzzy dice" artifact, separate from the talisman, it's at that point that we'd be forced to disambiguate. But when reality doesn't match our documentation of past reality, in my mind one possibility is, "we were mistaken, or reality has changed." Reconciling both realities together (disambiguation) is certainly the safest approach, but it carries the risk of preserving outdated information (or even past mistakes) with the appearance that it's still valid.
Going back to the Ku Klux Clown example, all available evidence now points to that monster having been deleted from the game itself way back in 2012. But because it already had its own article on the wiki, and it's appeared in List of Monsters, in Boss-monsters, in {{Navbox bosses}}, and possibly other places, we've essentially "kept it alive" for over six years after its deletion — in fact most of our information about it was added after it had already been removed from the game! (It wasn't added to List of Monsters until 2013; {{Navbox bosses}} wasn't created until October 2012.)[A 1] There are probably some who'd even argue that we should still be documenting it for posterity — which is an equally valid position, though I would personally disagree. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


  1. Not that I'm claiming that the people who made those edits knew it had been deleted, or even could have known. Hindsight often makes these things much clearer once the events are a little further in the past. I'm just illustrating the process by which outdated information can appear lifelike, even long after it's joined the legions of the undead. Limiting the spread of bad information is one of the major reasons behind Wikipedia's rule that it can never use itself as a reference, under any circumstances — in other words, "This other Wikipedia article says ____" is never sufficient justification for repeating that claim elsewhere on Wikipedia. An external source is always required.

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)

Thanks for information, I'll try to keep it in mind. WardPhoenix (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)