Surefooted (hunter talent)

Previous discussions archived:

• User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher/Archive1
• User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher/Archive2
• User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher/Archive3
• User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher/Archive4
• User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher/Archive5
• User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher/Archive6

Disambig reverts

Nothing wrong with the existing Disambig page. I'm sure we've been through this before - disambiguation templates on quest articles. It's not a neutral quest and the information is already on the respective quest articles, so what's wrong with a single disambiguation? --g0urra[T҂C] 17:41, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have been through it before. I maintain that it is effectively a neutral quest regardless. The text for the quest is identical, only the particular NPC (bonfire, whatever) giving it changes between factions. The disambigs specifically point to the factionated pages. To turn your question around, what's wrong with a more descriptive disambiguation, esp given they've been there for two years without complaint? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:50, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Just hopping in to say: Are the texts substantially the same (aside from NPCs and locations and such)? I don't see why the couldn't be combined on the quest pages in favor of having two separate 'horde' and 'alliance' pages, such as what I did at A Show of Good Faith and related pages. --Sky (t · c) 17:46, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Both of you know that I am generally in favor of that solution. So... I'm not the one you have to convince. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:50, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Torch Catching

Moved to User talk:A'noob#Torch catching guide

Twink Edits

Thank You for not immediately deleting the twink category and allowing us to discuss it beforehand. Part of the reason that I put Whirlwind in the category in the first place was that even when it was an active BG for the 19s there were a lot of people from Ruin declaiming it and stating that Ruin was the only place for twinks. As you can imagine this created a lot of dismay. However, it seems that even the Whirlwind battlegroup has died off in the twink non-exp community, hence my willingness to delete my (own addmittedly) inaccurate information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fluentinjapanese (talk · contr).

Quest chains and such

Quest chains part 1

What I'm really doing is prepping to move all the quests out of their pseudonamespace (ambitious, I know), and I'd like to do it without leaving links behind, i.e., move with [redirect suppressed]. The problem with {{:Quest:<some name>}} and {{:Quest:<some name>/Chain}} (and variants) is that I'd break the transclusions if I did so with redirect suppressed.

To correct the second type of case, I've been moving those chains with 5+ quests to the new category and naming. To correct the first type of case, you just saw what I did (5+ rule here applies as well). The others I've been substing as appropriate.

As for {{:<quest chain name>}}, I'm just moving the quests/summary part of each to the space. It makes it easier to categorize.

To do so, I'm running my bot account using AWB. --Sky (t · c) 20:31, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

There are occasional chains of fewer than 5 quests that are still noteworthy. Not many, but some. Perhaps more with Cataclysm. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:37, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Name collisions: Almost the entirety are either related to bosses or items or items (I'd estimate the number of possible collisions at a mere 10%), so it seems sensible to append (quest) to those pages. The others will be rare, and are likely already disambiguated because there are other related quest names. This actually removes a good deal of disambiguation, because there are a ton of quests that don't need "Quest:".
As for lines, it's because I was more properly formatting it as a definition list (";" and ":"), without the line breaks between each, otherwise MediaWiki creates a new list for each item (which isn't proper by any means!). There's probably a better way to do it overall.
Some, I'm sure. The few which you've already written quest chain pages for I'll keep together. The others you're going to need to hunt down for yourself. :P --Sky (t · c) 20:40, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

In as much as it was intended as a formatting shortcut rather than a list, I'm not particularly adhering to the ";"/":" list recreation. If you think different markup would achieve an aesthetically pleasing format, please suggest it. TBH, I have done without the one-level indentation on many quest chain pages. Do you have a preference for either style?

... and really, the concept of looking up a quest in the main namespace is something that would take me some getting used to, after all this time. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:46, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

It's the (most) technically correct markup. That said, I'm definitely not wedded to it either. I just don't like all that whitespace, to be honest.
:O :P --Sky (t · c) 20:58, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Whitespace in the markup, or in the page itself? Without at least one (additional) line break, the description turns into the aforementioned "wall of text". But that leaves the "break before the next quest" indistinct IMO. Maybe someone will suggest something, or something will suggest itself. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:01, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Both. Grab me a link so that I can see how you've done it "the other way".
Hmm, that last quest chain move: Should have moved it to template space and recatted it. I have no problem with keeping chains you mark as needing keeping, but the chains themselves should be template spaced. Feel free to move any other quest chains that you feel need keeping with <5 quests, or to simply recat the ones in Category:Quest chains/Category:Transcludable pages, or to make up a list here or elsewhere so I can avoid killing those quest chains off. It would be easier for me if you did the one of the two former. That said, you've got some time to consider which ones, as I'm working through all the quest chains that gourra screwed around with. And that's 1500 quests. D: --Sky (t · c) 21:12, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

<Indent normalization concluded> The Great Masquerade quest chain for an alternate quest chain format that avoided the indent and space issues. Looking at that, I think I prefer it to the indent-and-space method, though paragraph spacing still needs to be retained. Problem with ":" for paragraphing is that **it isn't paragraph indenting**; that is, it isn't "first line indenting". *sigh* From my PoV: moving from Q:name/chain to "name quest chain" is the same as from "Tpt:name" to "name quest chain", no? From yours: duplicates work. Problem: I can only convert so fast, and dangling quest chain pages are an offense against nature. :P

Small chains... I'm not *entirely* convinced I should even bother transcluding in the chain page, if all it contributes is the quest list. Esp with Cataclysm bearing down on us. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:23, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Not duplicates per se, more like separating repeatable content (template) and non-repeatable (rest of quest chain page). Think of the quest chain templates as the equivalent of Navboxes and the quest chain pages as the main topic page (e.g., Template:Stormwind City and Stormwind City).
Lol, offense. You don't need to convert every page. I just need to distinguish 'generic quest chain' from 'ER Approved Quest Chain'. So either recat, move to template space, make me a list, something...
As for ":" not being paragraph indenting: It's not supposed to be. Heh. I've been using it on the quest chain pages because that's what it's used for (or should be used for) on the Internetz. That other format of quest chain pages, for example, would more correctly use ; and :... Hmm... --Sky (t · c) 21:43, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry... "duplicates" as in "I did work I didn't have to". I'll do what I can. Um... "More correctly?" In that both are layout styles, I'm hard pressed to call either "correct". Especially as my standard is solely "does it look good, and link usefully?" Just because most of the internet uses crap for formatting doesn't mean we have to. "Well, you wouldn't jump off a bridge just because someone told you to, would you?" "Not again!" --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:48, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok.
It's not that the Internet uses crap, it's that wiki (in general) doesn't do specific CSS real well (i.e., CSS handing on wiki is the crap :P). For example, on a site like ours (but without being a wiki), where they decided to make quest chain pages, they'd use the correct markup (: and ; using the HTML forms), and then give the list a separate class (e.g. "quest_chain_page"), which they could then style separately. Not so easy nor wanted for a wiki.
Have a think on tweaks to the format. --Sky (t · c) 21:57, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

You dislike the "bullet+bold" quest names, with unindented quest description details beneath? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:01, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

What would you think about switching the bullet with a ":"? --Sky (t · c) 22:03, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not especially pleased with it, I could probably tolerate it. It fails to attach the title (quest) to the position on the page the same way that a bullet point does. Note, though, that it's the bullet character that makes it notable for me, not the associated "element of a list" that comes with a bullet, if that is tickling you wrong. (However, between "forego the bullet point" and "insert a template that puts a bullet character there", I'd have to choose the foregoing. There has to be a balance between effort and style...) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:11, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe with bold, it would look nice. Blgh. I'm kind of miffed any which way about it. Maybe instead of using questlong for each quest, do it my way (;:) but with quest instead? In the end, I think you should probably just do what you do and ignore me. :D --Sky (t · c) 00:51, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

An inconvenience generated by your change is that I cannot simply copy the Summary section into the quest chain description; I have to go to a separate page. (I'll point again to the whole "let's create an entirely new page just for this when it isn't necessary" thing.) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:27, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

But a convenience generated is that we can now see all the templates and see how terribly un-standardized they are. :D. That, and more easily separate out the templates which have an article that stands as the quest chain page and those that don't (Quest chain templates and Quest chain templates with articles).
One more thing: In Category:Quest chains, can you decide on the two remaining /quest chain pages under "B" for me? Leave a note here on whether to keep or delete them. --Sky (t · c) 00:51, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

And "O", if you will. --Sky (t · c) 01:58, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

As well as "D". And that's all for the day! --Sky (t · c) 23:33, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

B, O, and D moved. Stubbed the ones I thought were most interesting, though Decipher the Tome has some lore I did not remember from the alliance side, and so may be worthy. So many quest chains to document. ... does ANYONE else create them? And am I monologging? Sometimes it can be hard to tell if I'm creating something anyone actually finds useful or entertaining. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:15, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yeah. --Sky (t · c) 01:48, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

H needs an opinion. Cheers. And J could probably be added to your projects/could use your cleanup; I recall the subject of  [Morrowgrain] being fairly big. There's 3 or 4 quests other than the two on the solitary J. --Sky (t · c) 17:47, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

You would hand me J and the tangle that is Morrowgrain... *sigh*. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:16, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

I am known to have certain sadistic tendencies. --Sky (t · c) 01:46, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

R has 3 /quest chains needing opinions. --Sky (t · c) 04:20, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Looking at them now. At this point, I'm disinclined to write up old world quest chains unless they are really special in some way, since they're going to be disappearing Very Shortly Now. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:18, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Quest chains, part 2

Haha, Key to Scholomance... I tried to put a chain together at Template:All Along the Watchtowers, which looks a lot like yours. Reading the comments in Wowhead, it didn't seem that it's a straight chain of each. Should I just deleted T:AAtW (it isn't used anywhere)? --Sky (t · c) 21:41, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I would either delete it, or copy it over mine (and complete the style). I experimented with that style a little, along the lines of

• [50] A Call to Arms: The Plaguelands! (Alliance) / (Horde)

... but it didn't seem to add a lot. Truncating only one of the links seemed biased, and using both at full length was entirely too long IMO.

Call To is purely a breadcrumb. And yeah, the first bits in it are required but not strictly part of the chain. I hadn't gotten to the point of putting it to prose, but I would definitely have gotten that. I'll probably punt a bit and put the chain into the two sections: f---ing around and 'making the key'. The first part is posited as "you've now proved your worth to me, so here's what I really want you to do". Much like The Great Masquerade quest chain. It is perhaps an overused device, but there it is. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:52, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Bleah. Okies. I'm going to call it good for the day, just having spruced the infinity of quests involved with that chain. More tomorrow. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:10, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. The style you picked up is the one I've started using for quest chains of equivalent length. Not quite sure yet what to do about quest chains which aren't, or which have neutral quests mixed into the middle, as the numbering isn't proper in those cases. --Sky (t · c) 02:35, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

their former factions

To be right, it has to make sense. Such wording fails to do so.

"The factions, the two factions, their former enemies..." make sense. But how were the factions their factions? Your revert of my edit lowers the quality of the article, I do ask you reconsider your stance on the matter. A F K When Needed 22:46, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Their time amongst the Scourge was relatively short, and limited mostly to the death knight intro chain. Before they died, they were members of the Horde and Alliance, and have rejoined the factions they were once a part of. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:53, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is desired

Hey, you're a prolific editor, and I'm not sure if you've noticed, but we are discussing leaving Wikia. I know you've been down on their additions of JavaScript and other annoying features so I would be keen to hear your opinions here. Let me know if you have any questions - or post them there on the forums. --PcjWowpedia wiki manager (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 21:09, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

We have a host and a new domain (which you could access if you want). Drop me an email or ping me on IRC if you have specific questions of that nature. --22:15, October 13, 2010 (UTC)