User talk:BuffsEverywhere

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Updating armour pages[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for the incredible work you've done so far on all of those armour pages. That's a lot of information you've had to sort through and clean up! G R E E N E R 00:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate the feedback! BuffsEverywhere (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

About NPC images[edit]

There's a Shared Model Project, which could save you time when adding character model images to new or existing articles. Or You can help improve it ^^ - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.png 15:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! However, I think having the right background is important - it makes finding some NPCs easier, which in my opinion is more helpful than just documenting the model. BuffsEverywhere (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing spam on my user page[edit]

saw your revert, thank you :) -- KillerRabbit 👯💬 13:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Glad to help! --BuffsEverywhere (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Kinda tempted to revert that[edit]

with regards to this edit, NPC's are not really supposed to be set as located inside POI locations. This may be a reminder for me to go through and replace the location=poi with location=area-name. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 07:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yup, that's true but even if the NPC was set incorrectly, it's better that the template shows a POI than a dash... --BuffsEverywhere (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"There is no minimum number of contributions required to voice an opinion on the state of the wiki or community."[edit]

This isn't necessarily always the case. On GWW, users had to have an account and had a certain number of qualifying edits to participate in bureaucrat elections. horrible | contribs 11:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

That is a massive stretch and was only there to prevent mass creation of new accounts for potentially stacking votes. Neither wiki however has ever had a metric for minimum contribuitions, for someone to have an oppinion. Thats a strong misread of that rule, Horrible. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 11:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but i think it's applicable here. Otherwise a flood of IPs/New users could come in and determine what the wiki says regarding this topic. horrible | contribs 12:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Nope. It doesnt apply. The wiki rules through consensus, not voting. The only reason their was a limit on BC elections is because voting was an integral element of the process itself. If ip's and new users have an oppinion, they are more than welcome to engage with the discussion being had. It will go into the pot of discourse and debate that the wiki community is engaging in and will be afforeded the weight due to the merits of the oppinion itself. You can not be arguing in favour of a more inclusive wiki environment, while simulataneously arguing that some shouldn't be afforded a voice.
Anyway sorry for having this debate on your page Buffs. -- Salome User salome sig2.png 12:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
“On GWW, users had to have an account and had a certain number of qualifying edits to participate in bureaucrat elections”
There is a very simple reason for that though which does not apply anywhere else: Bureaucrat elections were solely decided by the vote tally, i.e. the number of votes. During the voting stage, there was no more discussion and only the actual vote itself counted. So to prevent abuse, we required every voter to be an actual member of the community.
This does not apply to anything else though: Discussions are not decided by vote counts or by who is the loudest. People are encouraged to form consensus, and for that every voice is welcome, regardless of whether that user is a long-term contributor, a new contributor or an anonymous user just there to voice their opinion. poke | talk 12:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, I see that I misunderstood the reasoning behind it and shouldn't have confused strict voting with a community-driven consensus. horrible | contribs 12:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Image check[edit]

I disagree with this edit, because this way we are checking for something that in general is not missing. The related skills/traits have already lots of cascading templates, in rare cases they are already at the limit, so adding a redundant template call that can be avoided matters in my opinion. Sure, I kinda see why you added it, but overall your edit was relevant for 4 days (last Friday skill preview until this Tuesday to the beta release), now all traits have an existing icon set again. In my opinion we should endure the redlink icon replacements or set "icon = Skill.png" in the infoboxes if one can't bear it anymore. --Tolkyria (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I added it for related traits because the template weirdly displayed the missing icon as text, so it was really ugly. You can revert it if you want, but I think the next 2 previews/betas will have the same issue. I don't like setting the icon in the infoboxes like that because they'll all have to be unset again. --BuffsEverywhere (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Not sure why we already need this before the traits have been available, in my opinion it's not justified at all, endure it, hide it or set the icons (honestly the skills/traits pretty much need an edit anyways on release, there the set icon parameter can be removed easily). I reverted it. --Tolkyria (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Trait infobox edit[edit]

Your trait infobox edit which changed from "Is historical::N" to "Has availability::Current||Future" caused "The following query condition could not be considered due to this wiki's restrictions on query size or depth: [[:Current]] OR [[:Future]]." in the improved skills/traits queries, resulting in 182 (!) Special:ProcessingErrorList complains on 69 pages in total, removing several improved skills/traits from the result format templates related skills/traits. Each of the OR part counts as individual query term, with the game mode and the specialization restrictions four are already taken, then one for the context, one for the profession, one for the status leaves one for extra categorization (e.g. type, weapon, etc...). The additional future query search is too much an exceeds the query limit. Please be more careful and try to test it in your sandbox. --Tolkyria (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

So I guess you went for the probably most elegant solution, I don't know if it will work out 100% but at least in a natural language context marking the future not as historical make sense. Then we could probably reconsider also the "Current||Future" band-aid fixes in the templates Recharge table, Related skills, Skill list, Skill list by property, Trait list, Trait list by property depending on how much we actually want to show. At least the first two listed templates, where Recharge table previously also exceeded the query depth, could use "Is historical::N".
Please keep in mind that the templates Skill infobox/subobject and Trait infobox/subobject set the property Is historical directly for the subobject, this property should definitely match the main skill/trait page. --Tolkyria (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the errors in my edits. SMW is so complex and yet so limited in what it can do, it's infuriating. I thought it would be a simple change to add an OR operator but apparently not!
I've edited Recharge table to use "Is historical" and also corrected the property for the subobject templates. I previously had a request to limit showing related future skills and traits to only future pages so I've left the rest as they are for now. --BuffsEverywhere (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Probably we are pushing the limits of SMW a little bit to far, farer than the SMW devs imagined. But considering the improves skill queries, every query search term is relevant, none can't be really omitted. Well, another idea to reduce the query depth by one would be to create a property that allows to select the main skill/trait page only and ignore the split subobjects. This would replace "Is for game mode::Default||PvE" with a query of one depth less giving us a little bit more space. I haven't thought it through completely but it should be straight forward... something for the future.
Yes, it might be wierd to already list the EoD elite specializations in offical lists, e.g. boon/condition lists, see Might; so your status page check equals future is okay. --Tolkyria (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Maintenance[edit]

Please do not edit templates until the maintenance is complete tomorrow. —Kvothe (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)