User talk:Surafbrov

From Wowpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pictures

I don't think having a new picture of a new ID which is also a different due to opened eyes on a 2005 picture is ok. The old one should be deleted as it is very weird with players and has nothing to do with the new one. --Mordecay (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Then feel free to request to delete the file history on that one. — Surafbrov T / C / P 23:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
And why can't the new one stay?
Regarding the other ones, they should be uploaded anew, under a new name as well, since they are on locked locations, and the current ones may not represent the areas they are now on. --Mordecay (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Ysondre's open eyes is an important enough detail to warrant a separate file. I have no strong feelings regarding the rest. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The images that are currently on the anniversary encounters were removed from the original encounter's article because they already have a pic of them in the infobox. There is no need to have multiple images of the same thing unless it can be visually different in terms of the model. Just upload a new, modern picture, over the old ones and (if needed), ask an admin to delete the previous versions of the file. — Surafbrov T / C / P 23:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of uploading bfa pics over old ones. Take into consideration also graphics. --Mordecay (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
The one that looks bad can be replaced and used for the anniversary one.
There is no need to keep one or the other. And the old pics revisions can be deleted without an issue, they're badly taken anyways. — Surafbrov T / C / P 23:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Casually deleting history is not something I would ever encourage. Old images exist. Let's not send them down the memory hole just because. --k_d3 00:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course don't be casual about it but these just don't have a purpose, especially the Ysondre's "fight" picture. — Surafbrov T / C / P 00:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
To clarify my earlier position, I don't care one way or another about uploading new files for the anniversary versions of the bosses. I really don't see a need to delete or overwrite the old images just because you don't think they're necessary. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not we upload separate images for the anniversary, I would actually like to cleanup these images. Can't really do anything with moving files if they exist. Like for an example, the Emerissportal pic looks better than the Emeriss.jpg file. Okay? Instead of taking Emerissportal and uploading it to Emeriss.jpg just to rename the file, it'd be best to delete the bad file (in this case, Emeriss.jpg) and move the Emerissportal.jpg to Emeriss.jpg. Same thing with Ysondre. If the disambig has to stay, so be it, but the Ysondre "fight" pic (for an example) is not needed while also keeping the file names simple and straight forward. — Surafbrov T / C / P 00:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Links

Okay, I know in an edit war you're going to win, but seriously, with the constant re-linking to the Diablo and StarCraft Gamepedias (the former of which is practically dead, the latter of which is literally dead), you realize that you're linking to pages that don't even exist, right? Not even touching on how that yes, a lot of Starpedia is simply copy-pasted from the StarCraft Wikia (and a no. of articles on the Diablo Gamepedia have similarly been copy-pasted), and as someone who actually put in the legwork in creating the original articles, seeing plagarism isn't the most pleasant feeling in the world.

Maybe this is some overarching loyalty to Gamepedia, maybe you genuinely believe the wikis can be revived, but seriously, if it's a choice between pages that don't exist and pages that do, I think it should be an easy choice.--Hawki (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

In an edit war, no one wins. These wikis exist for a reason, why not use them? (And yes I am aware that the pages linked are not created) Not sure what you're implying but nearly 90% of all articles on Starpedia are stubs and original content (look at the patches for an example), while there are some cases of some articles being copied from the StarCraft wiki on Fandom (look at Terran). If they're copied, then they are forced to have a Wikia credit template in the references section although it is highly advised to avoid this kind of stuff. The Diablo wiki, on the other hand, is a complete mess. Don't assume that I may have loyalty for anything, because I don't. It is just that we have these wikis sitting here, doing nothing. Why not make something of it instead of leaving it in the dust? And yes, I would like to see the Diablo wiki to be revived while the StarCraft wiki was only actually created at the end of 2017 with only a few people actually contributing it; It is a fairly new and an inactive wiki at the moment. — Surafbrov T / C / P 00:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
While those wikis might be sitting here, doing nothing, they have neither relevant content nor an active community to write it, so replacing links to actual content with links to Gamepedia "There is currently no text in this page" 404s is making our articles objectively worse. This is putting the cart before the horse: we should be linking to good content, not places that we one day hope would develop to have good content.
For Matt Burns' bibliography, linking the Wikia pages, or even the Blizzard-published short stories directly would obviously be better for our readers than the "no text" or minimal stubs at Gamepedia. — foxlit (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I hope you know that you have every right to revert my edit anyways and that you could provide these reasons as such to defend your case. But these wikis won't get any contributes unless people, like yourself, do come and actually start helping instead of linking to other sources. Like Hawki did with the Incubation article. I'm already creating these articles on the other wikis as stubs so we, at the very least, have a foundation for them to get them started. — Surafbrov T / C / P 00:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Agreed that we should link to good and complete wikia content rather than empty gamepedia stubs, willingly making user experience worse in the hope of baiting potential contributors for these sites. I understand the need for these wikis to get more people involved, but I think our job at wowpedia is to make sure our site and linkage is good, it's the gamepedia staff that could try helping by doing a bit more of publicity :/ Xporc (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
It is something that I, myself, would love to do and help give life to these other wikis, but this task alone will take a long time. I'm willing to put effort into them. Starting with gameplay first. — Surafbrov T / C / P 15:11, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Half-empty glass

From stylistics PoV: we have situation when half of all were removed, not all except 3. This is enough different situation, when in Cata it was remover all except 1. Dihunter (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Map

The wording of Old Ironforge#Patch changes implies that Aegrim's Study has its own map. Could u check datafiles if it's there and upload it? Lol, nvm, read it wrong :-D --Mordecay (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Something Warcraft 2 seekers would find helpful added to your website

Hi Surafbrov,

I noticed that your website has no information on active Warcraft communities who still play in 2018/2019 that I'm certain people who land on your page would really find helpful.

There are two communities of Warcraft 2 fans, the American (www.war2usa.com) and the Russian (en.war2.ru), made up of fans of this game who still play with and talk to each other online, as well as older strategy guides (that may already be included on your site and I just didn't see it, but perhaps not) by a guy called Axolotl who covered a wide range of Warcraft II related strategy in detail that any person inclined to play Warcraft 2 would find most useful: http://occult.war2.ru/strategy.php.

I would highly recommend these be added to the Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness section since they are some of the links that will be the most useful to people looking for Warcraft 2 to play. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W2BabyShark (talk · contr).

I'm not sure how notable war2usa.com is but I've created Warcraft II: Combat Edition about the War2 "remake" version from war2.ru as that one is pretty notable. — Surafbrov T / C / P 17:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Public Builds

Question for you.. How is a build which is only on PTR, a 'Retail' Phase exactly? Resa1983 (talk)

The patch has been released to retail since March 12, meaning it is no longer in a testing phase. — Surafbrov T / C / P 03:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Its a brand new build for 8.1.5, which isn't on retail. Resa1983 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Except the patch has been released to retail, therefore it isn't in a testing phase. If the patch hasn't been released yet, it'd still be in a testing phase. — Surafbrov T / C / P 03:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
So apparently separate builds don't matter at all? Why bother tracking them then. Resa1983 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The phase column is more about the patch itself, not the build. — Surafbrov T / C / P 03:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Which doesn't really make sense. Phase is describing the major patch but isn't sitting next to the major patch number its supposedly describing. And the individual lines are SUPPOSED to be about the individual builds. Phase should just be removed altogether. All you're doing with the Phase thing is confusing people unnecessarily. Resa1983 (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
How does it not make sense? Look at other patches like 1.13.0 in Classic; those patches are during the phase for the "demo" while they were on the classic server. Look at patch 8.0.1 at the beginning and slowly go up; started from a demo on a BlizzCon server, went up to alpha phase which is located on the Alpha/Beta server. The phase then continued on to beta, which is still the Alpha/Beta server. Eventually, the patch came to the PTR so the testing phase started. They were still pushing these builds to the Alpha/Beta server even though it was finally the testing phase for the patch. Finally, patch 8.0.1 was released and now it retail. They still pushed some of those builds to the Alpha/Beta and/or the Test servers. — Surafbrov T / C / P 03:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
It makes no sense because when you look at "Phase", its beside the build number, and not the major patch number. It makes it look like 'Phase' is describing the build number, and not the major patch number that it really is describing. If you really have to keep it, switch the build number and the Phase, so it actually makes sense and LOOKS like Phase is describing the major patch, and not the build number its directly beside and has NOTHING to do with. Resa1983 (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
It is possible some of the columns could be rearranged, but best not to jump the guns just yet. I have messaged MMWQ to see what opinion he has on this since him and I originally had a conversation about this on Slack when there was an overhaul to that page during the BfA alpha. — Surafbrov T / C / P 03:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The build number is a descriptive of the "patch". You read it from left to right, so no it wouldn't make sense to switch the columns. For example, build 8.0.1.26766 was pushed during the Beta phase on the Alpha/Beta servers on June 4, 2018.
All the 8.1.5 builds that were pushed after 8.1.5 was pushed to the Retail servers are part of the Retail phase, they are no longer in Testing (that was before it was released). Essentially, Phases are periods. -- — MyMindWontQuiet 15:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Texts

Heya what's your source for those lines being Completion texts? What I can see from old databases is that it's a line for tracking. Mordecay (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Are you talking about WoW Freakz? My source: QuestCache.wdb from older builds; two issues 1) that is part of the cache which is obtained as you play the game; retail wow is far beyond that. 2) the quests and items were removed entirely with 5.2.0 (as players reported that the quest was no longer in their quest log) so the quests are impossible to obtain or to view in the current game. — Surafbrov T / C / P 16:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
yep. What they list as the 'completion quest log' header is very short tracking info and different from just 'completion' which is actual completion text. quests there have both of these at the same time so it can't be both all completion text.
plus if you think about it, the quest ender Suraf in desolace wouldn't tell you to go to Suraf in desolate when you are already ending the quest with suraf in desolace. Those short one liners are tracking lines, and they have been OK at showing this kind of data.
How does the build thing work tho? Does it directly tell you it's the completion text or is it just a line without any indication of what type of text it is? Mordecay (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Yea that would make sense for that info to appear in the tracking info. I guess it is safe to say that it is "tracking info". The cache is structured to have the information such as the quest ID, the recommended level to complete the quest, the description, etc. The structure for these changed over the years, it is completely different when comparing BfA to Wotlk. Also, pretty sure this is what the Wowhead client looks for to upload to their servers to keep their database updated. — Surafbrov T / C / P 16:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)