User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Archive 04

first spam!
hi!--El_Nazgir 15:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * greets! Thanks, that white space was looking anemic.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 18:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Second! Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 09:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The notes section in a mission article
You seem to be shifting a lot of mission advice to the notes section, which isn't really what it's there for. The notes section is basically a collection of things that go just fine on a mission page but don't really belong anywhere else. In particular, it doesn't include useful advice on how to beat a mission, as that goes in the walkthrough.

I've reverted your changes to the Thunderhead Keep page on the basis that you cut out way too much. It's not a hard mission, but it does have a lot of odd quirks to it. It also reputedly gives a lot of people trouble, perhaps because odd details catch them off guard. From personal experience, failing the bonus because you weren't sure what to do with lighting the torches is not fun.

As long as the mission article is, it used to be much, much longer. What's left in the walkthrough is mostly stuff that could be of use to someone who wants to beat the mission. Quizzical 01:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Think of it as "would I find this useful if I have never ever done this mission before?" If you would appreciate the information, leave it be.  This mission has a loooooong boring into before the actual mission starts, so trial and error are just not the best way to learn, and it's always good to get all the info you can before you try it.  Vital information that pertains to the primary/bonus objectives should not go into notes.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 22:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with reverts whenever anyone thinks an edit does a poor job of meeting the article's goals. Especially in this case, since I am sure we have the same objectives (helping noobs, 1st timers, and hey-it's-been-a-while to succeed on 1st attempt). You have been around a lot longer than I, you know, and (without doubt) you play the game better, so I respect that you think my edit failed to do the job.


 * For what it's worth, my inspiration for overhauling was not the length. I found it far, far easier to pass mission/bonus by ignoring the text and using just the in-game cues. Even so, I worked hard to leave everything in the article. It's true I did move details from inline text to notes when they appeared relevant to only some people some of the time.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 17:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The very last sentence I agree with, if it's only relevant in very limited situations, then it qualifies for notes. It was hard to see all the differences in such a massive edit/revert.  This is the reason it's usually wise to edit one thing at a time, so to speak.  If a lot of various editing is needed, reserve one edit to move a few things into notes and describe it as such, another for removing duplicate content, etc.  This way it's much easier to see step by step what you did, and only undo some changes that people may disagree with, and not scrap the whole thing, especially if parts of it were valid changes.  RoseOfKali [[Image:RoseOfKaliSIG.png]] 17:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (indent to comment on my own earlier remark)
 * Quizzical: my apologies; I meant to make clear that the original article was both compelling and very helpful. It was the article's attention-to-detail that threw me; I found it hard to separate always important vs sometimes necessary vs beware, once in a while.... My goal was to rearrange valuable information to present the mission as straightforward with more than its share of oddities. (I believe that compels a rewrite rather than incremental edits). Obviously, I didn't succeed. (Sigh)


 * I also acknowledge we have a difference of opinion about what belongs in walkthrough vs notes; I am confident that we will work that out sooner (rather than later). I hope you'll bear with me until then.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 04:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, for some reason I'm signed up to Watch your talk page. Which I don't remember doing. lol. But anyway, since I'm here: Ten really, don't worry so much. If you make a well-meaning edit and it doesn't work out, ... no one cares. This is a Wiki, it's like a bad painting, it's meant to be abused, experimented on, scratched out and redone over and over again. Don't deprecate yourself for disagreeing on the perspective of an edit; it's unnecessary, but also, you may be folding on an issue that people might compromise on given more discussion. As long as your tone is civil and your arguments are cogent, it's OK to have even raging disagreements. That's what makes collaborative stuff great. :D -- AudreyChandler 08:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)