User talk:ViruzzzDK

It finally happened
I got the same page twice in a row using Special:Random, Revealed Enchantment &mdash; Viruzzz 19:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please
Can you please let your intentions be known on Community Portal or get up an actual project, before flooding the recent changes. Much appreciated. Ariyen 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No &mdash; Viruzzz 19:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And so there's no confusion, I say "No" because the 'project' I'm working on is literally hitting "Random page" and seeing if there's anything wrong with it, Which is not much of a project. And I would be flooding RC whether there was a project or not, so it wouldn't make a difference anyway. &mdash; Viruzzz 19:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Recentchanges exists to report edits, not to govern them. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png|link=User:Felix Omni]] 21:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree with that. I think if someone is to do more than 5 edits or so to different pages, doing the same thing. Should have a consensus or at least of all a small project. Showing that hey, I'm going to make these changes to these pages to have consistency, etc. Right now, we still have the tormented pages that need changing to a better wording style, than the lengthly one that Viruzzz gave of which there was no "consensus" in those changes or suggestion of agreeing on a better wording. So yes, I do have an issue with someone making changes to a lot of pages that could cause other problems or be taken the wrong way. Grant it, some changes have been helpful, but pages like I have mentioned need to be fixed now. Ariyen 22:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * GW:BB 88.108.141.129 22:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's no excuse to the pages that are now messed up and waiting on consensus to fix those changes. The talk is on Tormented Sword of which is fixed, but not consistent with the others. Ariyen 22:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly did he break that is waiting on consensus to fix? BE BOLD! & You are mudafugin valuable say his edits were valuable.  ∵Scythe∵ 23:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ariyen prefers over . (As, obviously, do I; I think the two points are more easily understood as two bullets.)


 * However, to be fair, I think Viruzzz acted in good faith to make the original edits to those weapons; the original phrasing left a lot to be desired (if I had to choose between the original phrasing and V's, I go with V's).


 * Ariyen also has a fair point which is: if someone is going to make changes to a class of pages (e.g. all T-weaps), it can be helpful to let people know ahead of time. In some cases, I think it's overkill to do so. Clarifying a minor bullet point and making it consistent across all T-weaps might be a borderline area: it wouldn't have been crazy to provide some background; it's also reasonable to simply boldly go where some contributor should have gone before.


 * Short story: I hope that Ariyen can respect V as acting in extremely good faith and I hope that Viruzz can respect A for also having the best interests of the community at heart. And: that we can move on to updating T-weapons (and any other weapons) using a mutually agreed-upon phrasing...and moving on to bigger and better things. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 23:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My edits aren't systematical in any way until I see something broken on many similar pages. I fix what I see is wrong or what could be made better, If it's something that I think may be wrong on multiple related pages (e.g. the tormented weapons, the wintergreen weapons or the armor pages)I take a look at them, and depending on the amount of "wrongness" or inconsistency I will change it or put a discussion up on the category page, or the style guide to find out what it should be changed to. I have done this a handful of times already, some when I'm not entirely happy with the quick fix I made, sometimes when there isn't really a defined "right" way to do it and common sense doesn't suffice.

I mean no disrespect with this, but if all you say is "stop editing, you flood RC" I will ignore it, I check RC myself every 5 edits or so that I make, just to make sure some crafty vandal doesn't sneak in some vandalism, which I think is the main complaint about me flooding RC, am I wrong?

I edit whenever I feel like doing it whenever I have time to kill. I'll stop if it's really a problem, but I don't think most people see it as one. &mdash; Viruzzz 04:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits
I appreciate you taking the time to add crafting sections for the various armorsets. Useful stuff. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 20:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's actually missing from a lot more of the pages. I noticed it at first on RC where only a few of the edits had the section "Acquisition" rather than "Crafting", after I edited 20 or so I realized it was actually missing from a majority of them, I had to go eat dinner, and forgot about it until I read this, I don't know if it should or shouldn't be there. (Originally by &mdash; Viruzzz 04:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC); split to separate distinct threads: ty vs style guides)

Inconsistent style guides

 * The style guide differs from the actual pages by quite a lot I think this is the style guide that should be applied I think I remember Ish doing a large scale update on the armor art pages, so the style guide should probably be updated rather than the articles (also there's 1 guide and probably 200 articles >_>) I'm putting a discussion up on said style guide talkpage &mdash; Viruzzz  04:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just start up a project to fix all of that. :-) Get consensus, which would probably go in your favor and ... Wa-La! Problem solved. Ariyen 04:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be great for someone to review the style guides, reconcile them with current practice (obviously getting consensus along the way, which shouldn't be too hard...I hope). And/or modernize them. We have some guidelines that are very 2008. It's a new decade! Anyhow, thanks for whatever you have gotten to so far. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 04:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm the one responsible for that, when I standardized all the armor galleries a few years ago. If an armor was only available by crafting, I didn't see the need to put an additional header under the h2 "Acquisition", since I felt that would just clutter the TOC.  I only used h3 headers for armors that had multiple acquisition methods.  (Likewise, I only used campaign subheaders if an armor was available in multiple campaigns, cf. A vs B.)  But if people now feel that there needs to be an h3 "Crafting" on all armor regardless of whether that is the only acquisition method, that's fine with me.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 05:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it should be there, but really should be discussed on GuildWiki talk:Style_and_formatting/Armor/Art rather than here. &mdash; Viruzzz 05:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with projects and getting consensus for something like that is exactly what you said "You will most likely get consensus" If I think that's the case why not just be bold and do it if I can't imagine a reason why anyone would oppose it? Just seems like useless bureaucracy
 * The reason I stopped doign it was becuase I saw it was missing in way more articles that I first thought, so I looked in the style guide, and it compeltely differs form all our articles of the type, changing that is something I think should be talked about on that style guide's talk page
 * Where I think a project is in order is for something like what TEF suggested, e.i. reviewing all the style guides and making sure they are as they should be.
 * &mdash; Viruzzz 05:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hence, Do a project on the style guides. It'd be better to implement your suggestions to the style guides via a sandbox, than to do them on the guides, cause I don't think you'd want a "revert" unless many understood your "changes" or plans. Once consensus, then implement. Being bold and changing those guides might not go so well over some, even if it's to change them to be consistent with the way the armor pages are done now. Ariyen 05:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason I don't like sandboxes for things like this is because sandboxes usually don't survive, so if someone looks for documentation when consensus is eventually reached they most likely wont be able to find any, if the discussion is on the talk page it's at least somewhat transparent what went on. &mdash; Viruzzz 05:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the example, like you did. Not discussions, etc. Thanks. Ariyen 06:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You can create the sandbox as a subpage to the discussion. There's really no way to have a thorough discussion about how things should/could look without examples. e.g. Style X/Proposal or Style X/Rewrite or Style X/Examples, depending on what makes more sense. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 07:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Another way to do it is to edit the page as proposed, revert yourself, and then link to the historic revision in the discussion. The drawback is that it doesn't work when template changes are proposed; discussing those almost always requires sandbox templates to be made. --◄mendel► 15:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)