User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher

Previous discussions archived:

• User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher/Archive1
• User talk:Eirik Ratcatcher/Archive2

Reply to "Quest:The Ring of Judgment"

There is no need to verify that via screen shot. I already know that's how WoW spells it, and that is why I changed the redirect to go to the correct page, as it was broken. Bobalobabingbong (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Did they change the quest name? It's been broken all this time and the three database sites are still spelling it with an 'e'. --k_d³ 21:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing beats first-hand research. I'll see if I can wrangle this quest sometime soon on one of my alts. But meanwhile, I do want to see the source of Bob's information. Screenshots can become obsolete, but they are seldom outright wrong. :) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it correct?? All I did, was make the redirect, that was broken, go to the correct page... Which is Quest:The Ring of Judgement Mispelled... The redirect I changed is the correct spelling, and I pointed it to the page I just linked. Bobalobabingbong (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yah, you're fine. Part of this is my fault because I botched the rename to 'juedgment' on the page move. No worries. --k_d³ 22:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought so, I wasn't sure what Eirik Ratcatcher was getting at on my talk page. Bobalobabingbong (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, apologies, Bob. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

All is well, and good. Bobalobabingbong (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Talk first, edit after.

I use {{Itembox}} because it looks more clean. Or would you rather have quest rewards listed like the reagents, or boss loot? --g0urra[T҂C] 19:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be acceptable if you used {{Itembox}}. Take it or leave it - I was even specifically asked to modify Itembox to make it look like the quest reward dialog in-game. --g0urra[T҂C] 19:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but it better be good, and esthetically pleasing. Your "Javascript rollover tooltips" is the same thing whether using {{Item}} or {{Itembox}} - the generated name, quality and icon are one and the same. --g0urra[T҂C] 19:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your point being...? You're trying to say that the icons are too big for you to read the text? --g0urra[T҂C]

You must be having some very small monitor if you think that the template leaves "vast amounts of space empty", because it looks perfectly fine here. --g0urra[T҂C] 19:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the itembox link because of the background helps distinguish the list - I prefer the list in multi rows ( because I hate scrolling and wasting the space to the right ) but I can see Erik Ratcatcher's point on the Icon being bigger compared to the {{item|icon=|Item}} -- my suggestion as a mid-point is to add the |16px to the icon section in {{Itembox/Row}} so that it is the same size as {{item|icon=|Item}}. -- (<span="help title=Morph>M o r p h | <span="help title=Morph_Contribution(s)_to_this_Wiki>^C | <span="help title=Morph_Discussion_Page>_T) <imagelink>IconSmall_Gnome_Male.gif|Gnome|Morphgnome</imagelink><imagelink>IconSmall_Draenei_Male.gif|Draenei|Morphdraenei</imagelink> 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion still stands. I'd much prefer Itembox before your suggestion, because it's more flexible. --g0urra[T҂C] 18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Flexible in that you can add quantity, item and any cost you want to add. --g0urra[T҂C] 19:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection in that regard. The prototype I created does all that. In what way is it unsatisfactory? (Note that I recently added code to add another column for the cost. The cost was not balanced well, when placed on a second line. In a two-column table, this would only be a satisfactory solution if the entire table has costs per item. But, my prototype only asks for one column.)--Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Lootbox on quest pages should be changed to Itembox. It could be done by using a bot, but for now it would be done manually. --g0urra[T҂C] 19:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, so you want to change Lootbox to Itembox on thousands of articles? --Raisky (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

So you want to change the location of the reward section of approximately thousands of articles? That's a no-no. I have the last word here. --g0urra[T҂C] 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

And when were those thousands of articles changed first? As long as I've been editing, I've been putting reward sections after completion. Where they were moved before, they can be moved again where need be. Perhaps you recall the preference at one point for "gains" sections, another innovation. I understand your point of view, it's a lot of work. I note your preference, but deny your "last word"-ness on this. If need be, I will do the work myself. However, your tone of print indicates I really should put it to a formal vote. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Template:Rare et al.

{{Reputation}} is better than n different templates because it's easier to maintain one than several. And it's consistent with other templates, such as {{quality}}. I'm sure there are more using this pattern, but I can't think of anything else of the top of my head. -Howbizr (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sky responded. -Howbizr (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Galen's Corpse

Because the Quest enders category is exclusively for NPCs that only ends quest (that doesn't give any). --g0urra[T҂C] 18:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not stated in the description for the category. Nor is Quest Givers category so restricted. Note also my comment on the quest enders talk page that the description decrees an entirely different incomprehensible limitation (which I thought was your rationale, btw...). Still, why the specific distinction? It isn't like adding categories to a page is a big drain on resources, nor like the category fails to make sense... --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Most quest givers does also end the quest(s) they give, which makes it pointless to add a "Human quest giver" and "Human quest ender" on one article. --g0urra[T҂C] 20:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on that point. Most != all; categories represent sets. Categories do not provide a hint that a page might be in a higher/lower category than the one you are looking at. To extend your logic, there should be a category "human quest givers and enders" as a more specific category that includes most quest givers (in the same way that "WoW rare quest rewards" is included in "WoW rare items"). I would grant you disinclusion in quest enders, given a quest-givers-and-enders category. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing

Are you deliberately trying to do edits that are directly in conflict with mine? If you're going to include reputation and/or experience to a quest, make it under a "Gains" section. It's not under "Rewards". --g0urra[T҂C] 21:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Look again. Don't fault me with every instance you disagree with. Only most of them. :) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently your memory only reaches back only the last hour or so, so perhaps I'll just leave it at there. --g0urra[T҂C] 21:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see one user thinks his edits are supreme over others and uses personal attacks. --Raisky (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Gourra is, in general, not a bad editor. He and simply have quite similar areas of interest, and differing opinions and preferences. And to be honest, you have to have some ego involved, the thought that "I can do better than that", to edit at all. In the same way I defend my opinions, he defends his. I have enough cheek to go around. :) ... on the issue of number of edits: they're not all alike. Some can easily be bot-driven, some are more difficult. And the most terrible thing is to abandon a global change half-completed. Thanks for the thought, nonetheless. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you feel I learn nothing. The links above do represent a change. The first also represents you disrespecting the very 'gains' section you call for. The second, what I feel is an unfair accusation. Should I have left the stub template there until a gains section had been produced? --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What are quest gains? I only get rewards. ;-) --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:00 PM PST 4 Apr 2009

Please use onlyinclude and not noinclude when add tooltips please

Using <onlyinclude>{{tooltip...}}</onlyinclude> both saves time and reduces mistakes when doing future editing. That way you only need 2 <onlyinclude>s over 4 <noinclude>s when putting stuff before and after the tooltip. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:00 PM PST 4 Apr 2009

Nevermind, I'm looking at older stuff you created. Keep up the good work. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:05 PM PST 4 Apr 2009

Eng waist tinkers

According to a comment on wowhead http://www.wowhead.com/?spell=54736#comments, spynoculars and EMP generators do not stack with each other. Either one does stack with the belt buckle. I will still try to confirm when I have a chance, and note it somewhere appropriate. -- Harveydrone 20:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm guessing, then, that the engineering things occupy the 'permanent enchantment' slot, and EBB is a new location sorta thing. I'd guess Socket Gloves also stacks. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct, the engineering "enchants" use the same permanent slot... which is why many engineers got upset that they had to choose between their personal stuff and having enchants that actually benefit them for raids... like all the other profession have. In 3.1 bliz is buffing the engineering enchants with stats for items that can be enchanted, like the cloak... um... I'll have to relook at the list, I know cloak can't be the only one they're buffing... Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 20:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The cloak enchant is the single most valuable enchant I've got with me. It is worth carrying around an extra cloak just for the enchant. Particularly if you go anywhere near Wintergrasp... Stats on it would be nice, though. I guess I'm just too resigned: If it is useful and in engineering, it'll get nerfed. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Confirming the two waist tinkers do not stack. I have a belt with the belt buckle and spynoculars; I tried to "tinker" the EMP generator and got "Do you want to replace spynoculars?" (I said no.) By the way, what I read was the cloak overlay will in 3.1 also have an agility buff, which my hunter likes. PS Eirik, you owe me like 8g for training a recipe I will probably never use. -- Harveydrone 16:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Look me up on Chromaggus any time! Handing you the 8g would be worth it. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Where did this image come from?

Well, you asked. It is this thing from  [52] Signal for Pickup.--SWM2448 21:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I did indeed. Thanks. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: The Book of Runes

I haven't commented or corrected it yet because I'm busy wiping in Ulduar. I'll correct it when I'm done here. --g0urra[T҂C] 21:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You are a being of many talents. I am entirely unable to wiki-edit during even casual play sessions, barring extrordinary circumstances. Please succeed at least once in Ulduar for me... Or if not for me, then for yourself!  :) --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well we wiped horribly due to bugged bosses... Either way, use {{for}} at the top to make it likes "For the Horde quest, see Quest:The Book of Runes (Horde)", by {{for|the Horde quest|Quest:The Book of Runes (Horde)}}. --g0urra[T҂C] 21:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sure, that's fine with me. --g0urra[T҂C] 21:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Quest:Basic Training

You added a note to this quest that the chain continues with the discovery of the crystal, but that's not true. I looted the crystal way back on the start of Coldarra when I got aggro from a random mob that I didnt even had a quest for. So I did the ENTIRE Keristrazsa chain in parallel with the Basic Training one. Qurai (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Northrend Gems

I personally thought the older way of doing it was much better. Northrend gems table just makes me want to puke, but I'm a bit afraid of edit wars if I just trash it (which I think needs to be done). I'm somewhat scared, now that I haven't been to these pages in a while, to see that this aweful table structure has multipled into multiple pages.

If I had a good idea, I would have definitely changed them already. But even if I had a good one, I have a feeling it would be many hours of work to rework, and edit lots of page links. I'm just not sure if I have the will. -Howbizr (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This would be my thought. If you're a hardcore jeweler (like myself), go back to the drawing board and think "What would like I like to know as a newbie, as a powerleveler, or as a completionist (a hardcore"). Write that article in seclusion. Then go back to wowwiki, read all the plethora of articles and see if they offer anything you could include in your precise version. Then purge for the love of god Purge that maddness, and replace with clean, holy article goodness. Or you could use a sandbox and bring it up on the pump. . -Howbizr (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I still think the pages need changed, but I just don't have the will to change them. One more audience - people looking for a gem.

Something to keep in mind by grouping by color. Sometimes people say "I have a yellow gem, I wonder what I could do with this." But much more often the question is "I want a tank gem for a yellow slot." I'm afraid that while grouping by color seems logical, it has limited value. The same thing goes for the jeweler - you get the same number of points for different colored cuts, so you really don't care what all the yellow cuts are. You just care that you have some that a) make money or b) are useful to you and your guild.

Again... a more organized fashion to figure out "Okay I'm at this skill level, and I have these reputations at revered, what else do I need to do to get the rest of the patterns. How many patterns are world drops?" etc... -Howbizr (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply to <stat> gem pages... "holy..." It's worse than I could have imagined, batman! A plague has spread before our eyes! -Howbizr (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A category would be good for advanced users. But I'd rather see article cross linking. Like a table or something that linked to other articles. I don't know... Do what you like. The whole thing frustrates me (no sh*t Sherlock, lol). -Howbizr (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I begrudingly have used gems by color, but I've just gone to wowhead because it takes so long to answer any of these questions on wowwiki. I'm not saying the information isn't there, I'm saying the access to the information is cumbersome at best. And jewelcrafting recipes, template or not, is not a very useful page. Almost no one needs that kind of format. -Howbizr (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Borean Tundra quests

Hi Eirik,

Can you help me with this page? The problem I'm facing is that I want to add the connecting quests from one quest hub to another, so when viewing the page you know what hubs to do in what order.

For Howling Fjord the Quests page is awesome, thanks in part to Blizz's quest design team, since all areas connect to eachother and just following the quests brings you everywhere.

Unfortunately it's not that easy in Borean Tundra; e.g. it took me a while to figure out there's not a single quest sending you to Coldrock Quarry and you really need to stumble there yourself.

Can you help me how to specify the connecting quests from one hub to another in a decent way?

Thanks! -- Qurai (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: Bashal'Aran quest

The first quest with the same name should end with "(1)", and the name of the quest (in this example "Bashal'aran") would be a redirect to the first one, or a disambiguation of the different types. --g0urra[T҂C] 22:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: container objects

If the other similar articles aren't with the category, then remove it. And if you can't see the difference between a container item and a container object, I'm not sure what to tell you. --g0urra[T҂C] 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Point out to me where "the newbs" has been incorrectly adding "container items" instead of "container objects" and vice versa. --g0urra[T҂C] 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Point me to the newbs that have looked up containers on the wiki and encountered the category 'Container objects' instead of 'container items', and been confused thereby. There are a lot more readers than editors to this wiki, remember. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Quest:The Collector

Are you serious? Does that matter to you? --g0urra[T҂C] 19:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)