I consider it quite unfair that my comment was deleted despite not breaking any established rule. I guess it had something to do with racism? I would like to know how anything of what i wrote could be considered racist when it clearly wasn't so in the slighest, as everyone can agree on. But hey, if you can't discuss how is Fringilla is white in the books (accuracy and objectivity being the only reasons why that would be important BTW) then ok i guess.
Good to know, but i do think the arguments i made were solid enough to be considered. I understand there's some people's emotions at play here with this topic, but objectivity should come first in these type of cases. That is all i have to say.
Why undo the added information to Blue Meteorite? It is really annoying looking up an item when there is no information(link) what it is used for. Unlike the paragraph for Witcher 2 on the same page, where it actually lists things Blue Meteorite is used for. And for some reason it is okay to have that information on Yellow Meteorite ore but not on Blue and Red.
I went and looked at the pages for Earth, Sun and Moon runes, they also have the information, link, to the relevant page Runeswords.
My name's Chris and I'm a Fandom Wiki Manager as part of the Movies/TV vertical.
I am currently redeveloping Netflix Wiki to be the go-to place for all things Netflix. We want to feature all the Netflix Original shows and be the place to go for fans of Netflix to find out about the shows they love.
The best bit? We are actively encouraging these users to visit other wikis about that content, including this one. Our detailed The Witcher article links to this wiki extensively in the infobox and main article body, encouraging users to find out more about the show.
For any third parties, this is about a small edit war I had with Mechemik on the Gwent and Henselt articles.
I'm sorry but your reverts - as a bureaucrat to boot - without giving reasons and marked as "minor" (i.e. nobody reasonable will object) are, I think, exemplary of why Wikis tend to be unwelcoming to newcomers. The biggest irony is that I'm simply editing while logged out. Look in the mirror and imagine if you'd still have objected to my changes if I had done them while logged in.
At this point I'm not going to bother - have it your way, good luck developing the wiki, but I'm out..
See your IP wall but I'll post it here as well for you in case you didn't see it. Also it doesn't matter if you're logged in or not, all edits are checked over, especially from unfamiliar people. I can also tell that you're not one of our regular editors as your style and edits don't match them, though I have a pretty good idea who you are based on your behavior.
Regarding edits 1) gwent decks are subjective thus doesn't help to try and say X is best due to players having differen play styles (it'd be like trying to say which witcher armor is best in the game, it all depends on one's style). The spy cards are also already noted in a tip further up on the page. 2) Henselt is already noted that he dies regardless. However, we don't use speculation from other characters unless it's confirmed by the developers or by more "legit" sources in the game. Where there's nothing but speculation (which is pretty rare) a note is added to mark that the information may by incorrect or character bias or moved to notes instead of the bio.
Hi, Mechemik, sorry to bother, wanted to ask whether you (I mean the whole like English wiki 'you') consider Cave trolls from Gwent and Rock trolls from W3 the same species? I mean in W3 there are Cave troll's liver and Cave troll's trophy got from Rock trolls, but the Cave troll on Gwent art is much bigger than an average Rock troll.
Regarding Armor (statistic). (Why'd FANDOM had to break the talk pages..?)
"04:43, 21 October 2019 Mechemik (wall | contribs) m . . (502 bytes) (-542)"
"04:39, 21 October 2019 Erquint (wall | contribs) . . (1,044 bytes) (+542)"
I added information, you removed it and then gave me a "Counter-productive edit warring". Are you for real now? Want a wiki for your lone self? Judge contributions based exclusively on your own personal opinion? Give snarky remarks instead of reasons?
"page should be more for information that's not quite so obvious xD"
What is that supposed to mean? Nothing can ever be assumed to be objectively obvious. You can't really be operating in subjective terms of what's obvious to you and you only! Oh, wait, having the admin privileges now magically makes you the one to decide what is and isn't obvious to me or anyone else, even if I beg to differ in fact... poof! *magic intensifies*
I tried adding you on Discord to sort this out faster than at a rate of one message per day but instead of accepting you locked the page.
"([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)))"
Yeah, let's even throw the 3-edit-rule out of the window — you're the King-God-Emperror now, you can do whatever you want, Wiki doesn't matter.
It's not a beauty blog, it's a Wiki. It craves information. And it desperately needs more in the malnourished state you're keeping it in. Your apparent lust for power locks community contributions out, taking "community" out of "community wiki".
I'm mostly venting about how I despise your kind but here are some actual points on the topic of the article if you suddenly decide to believe in your own front about trying to be productive:
Out of thousands of games I played (no, I'm not exaggerating), it's quite rare that armor is applied in a flat manner like it does in Witcher 2, because it's usually pretty difficult to balance out a combat system with such approach.
Most often armor acts as a non-linear damage-reduction function argument like in Demon's Souls which the CDPR were actually inspired by when designing the combat system in Witcher 2.
Armor can also additionally act as a threshold above which you take full attack damage, although that being the case is about as rare as flat damage reduction which seems so "obvious" to you.
With the above in mind and as a Wikia user at first, I needed to know what armor actually does in Witcher 2 as I was setting out to play it — is it the "obviously" flat, "obviously" non-linear, "obviously" quirky or "obviously" overcomplicated? Which kind of "obvious" is it this time around? I was met with a page barren of any useful information, bearing so little that the wiki won't even hurt if that page was outright removed. (At that point I thought the reason being low traffic for Witcher 2 pages due to old release date, not a tyrannic admin denying any additions.) So I had to go find forum threads where people were actually wondering and discussing this.
Then after I learned which flavor of armor math did the developers of this yet another game decided to use, this time as a Wikia editor, I decided to take that information found out there on the Internet and add it to a wiki that so desperately lacks it, to make a useless page actually useful.
You reverted the edit with a snarky remark instead of an explanation. I reverted back with another actual explanation. Oh, no no no, a simple peasant shan't dare do what King-God-Emperror does, this mustn't go unpunished! You flipped out, locked the thread against any and all guidelines and "invited me for a nice little chat" on your talk page. I'm gonna go as far as to wager you didn't expect me to show up or berate you even if I did.
Why am I even wasting time on this like you're gonna listen to reason, while clearly being power-drunk enough to lock an article for a single revert..?
This whole post is the product of me being sick and tired of dictators and autocrats like you getting ANYWHERE NEAR A COMMUNITY WIKI and immediately ruining it with your clear cranial incompatibility — the full meaning of "collaborative" can never penetrate your skulls! Ever seen flourishing Wikias? It's the ones where the appointed bureaucrat got lost and the actual community develops and moderates articles collaboratively in a sane manner unlike yours. Look at your contributions page — it's reverts all over the place, dwarfing any of your actual productive contributions to this Wikia!
Your actions reek of power abuse out of personal opinion. You bureaucrat types never cease to disgust me with your disregard for your own "rules" even!
Here's an excerpt from Witcher Wiki:Administrators (emboldening courtesy of yours truly), even though you're clearly going to ignore it:
What can administrators not do?
Administrators should not use their administrator powers to settle editing disputes; for example, to lock a page on a version he or she prefers in an editing dispute that isn't vandalism. (End Quote.)
Long live the King-God-Emperror
"04:39, 21 October 2019 Erquint (wall | contribs) . . (1,044 bytes) (+542)" — no vandalism.
"09:51, 21 October 2019 Mechemik (wall | contribs) m . . (502 bytes) (-546) . . (Reverted edits by Erquint (talk) to last version by Mechemik)" — edit dispute.
"page should be more for information that's not quite so obvious xD" — personal preference.
It was locked for the exact reason of what you meant to go in and do (again) before discussing it: you meant to go and revert it (yet again) which would cause a needless edit warring instead of discussing the page. I'll be here once you're ready to have an actual constructive conversation instead of ranting away. I'm willing to discuss it and format changes but not if you act in this manner.
Also, as you appear to not have checked all the guideline pages, you might want to consider this one from the editing guidelines:
An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is nonconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked.
It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring over it. When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and try to discuss the issue on the talk page, or approach appropriate venues for help.
Never once have I seen bureaucrats consider their opponents' reasoning and end up yielding the absolute establishment-granted superiority of their personal opinion as opposed to such of their opponent.
My on-topic points pertaining to the disputed edit are clearly outlined in bullet points above if you decide to consider and discuss them instead of rule-wanging only when you feel like you can bend them to back your point and abandoning them when they don't suit you.
Keep in mind, I'm fed up with the class you represent, this is hardly personal so far.
"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions,[…]"
"[…]power-drunk enough to lock an article for a single revert"
Looks like it's time to abandon this ship rule, bureaucrat, it's sinking under you.
The guideline you quoted merely suggests a way to resolve disputes (which I wouldn't be against if I didn't know how your cards are stacked in advance) The rule I quoted expressly limits your power, yet after breaking it you decided to not even address it when brought up.
I gotta admit that, while the redirect smells like sidestepping the issue to stay one's ground, I fully welcome this compromise even if you do not publicly acknowledge my reasoning yourself.
I also have to admit that this is probably one of, if not the smoothest an exchange with an administrative representative has gone for me in about a decade. Sincerely, bravo! You must be new in power. I commend your cool nonetheless.
As I've mentioned above, my cynical expression of class antagonism is directed towards a larger collective you represent.
Personally though, I'm impressed. Through benefit of the doubt I can see how your abuse of power was in good conscience even though I still fully condemn it in a formal regard. You did break a rule you were placed to uphold and be subject to.
Still, if I get to encounter enough guys like you in power, I may start inching against the prejudice your class have shown to deserve so far.
And in anticipation of an incoming reproach I'll let you know I did, in fact, start out way back in the day, trying to be civil and unbiased towards admins and moderators in trying to reason with them — that worked right about never and always ended up in the "ruler and their retinue" ganging up on me despite any reasoning, having taken civility as a sign of weakness.
And that's why I have to go all out "guns blazing" every time to get anywhere.
Who knows how'd our exchange go were I not militant...
You can get an insight into my ideological views from this free-form citation:
Any and all of the rights and freedoms that the oppressed class possesses have been secured in its struggle against the oppressive one, and it only retains those among them for which it continues to fight.
So there, I'm not an SJW or Scoia'tael (I actually play the Order path, because CDPR, sadly, made non-humans a complete caricature impossible to sympathize with), I'm in fact a "dirty Commie" and just need equal rights on a platform that lures my class in with the promise of collaborative development. Administrators, being their own privileged class, deny me those equal rights. You own the implements of production — your will is enough to cease development with a lock on a page or worse repressive actions, while I am deprived of the same. The notion of administration goes against the collaborative nature of wiki.
The class struggle is real and it's to be found everywhere in an unevenly-leveled society.
Thanks for resolving the issue and have a nice day.
By the way, the way I formatted the example originally was taken straight out of the ingame battle log (after I made a mod allowing one to actually read it on modern resolutions [still polishing it before publishing though]). My thought was to impart more credence on the example being taken straight from the subject matter.
I'm fine with how you reformatted it, it reads better than ingame that way.
Now as an offtopic, you also reverted my edit of Won't Hurt a Bit.
I guess I'm fine with that one but let me describe my reasoning for that edit:
As a separate issue, there was some kind of bizarre bug with sorting by reward, possibly on my side, but Wikia acts strangely in terms of CDN and caching lately. I added sortkeys, thinking the graphics were messing with sorting order somehow and that fixed it for me. I guess it's not needed if the sorting works without it now, but it wouldn't really hurt if was left in.
The reason to sort by reward value in the first place was that it roughly resembles ingame progression of that quest. I still think it would be ideal to have default sorting in the order of progression and see little point in sorting it by alphabet. But it's not a major issue...
I understand where you're coming from, but to add another perspective, when you're a new face on a particular wiki, it's like you walking into a stranger's house, seeing they could dust the room, maybe re-arrange the furniture, etc. and then start changing it all around without checking with the house owner: even if the intentions were good (afterall it needed cleaning and that chair was blocking a doorway) it can lead to people snapping at each other (which I've done as well by mistake as a newcomer on other wikis and led to some admins getting pretty pissed off at me).
I try to make it a point here and others I admin to try and have an open discussion regarding edits as I understand most edits aren't inherently bad, just need polishing or another way to be written. In this case, I realized my main concern was the armor statistic page itself and even with the math info, it was still rather small and didn't make sense to have as a separate page, thus to utilize all the info and fix the lone page issue, combined it into a page that tends to get more traffic.
As for the table on Won't Hurt a Bit, the majority of our tables follow an alphabetical sorting (exception being main quests). The reason it wasn't sorting properly by the rewards field was because it lacked the data number sorting for that column that has since been added in (I've been trying to fix all the tables regarding that but there's a lot of tables on this wiki). As that table is relatively small, keeping it alphabetical is fine. Also, sometimes to show progression on when one can obtain something, we sometimes also add a column with a chapter's icon to denote when you can get it (like the library guide).
Not a rookie to wiki markup myself, really.
It's become second nature to pop a new game up, open the respective wiki (often Wikia/FANDOM one but with the lockout of Monobook layout — I tend to look for other options) and engage in interaction with both the game and the wiki, learning some information, committing my own if it's missing, cleaning some pages up or reworking tables...
I was gonna try and rework that library guide a bit in the future.
Was gonna ask why in the chapter column it has both the number and a picture in most rows? Would it be fine if I replaced the text numbers with alt-text on the images and sort-keys?
I still don't get the obsession with disabling sorting for certain columns on tables all over this wikia.
The notion feels like "nobody needs the option because I said so", not to get confrontational again.
Just, think about it: if a person doesn't want to sort a column they're just not going to, whether the option is there or not, but if a person wants to sort it — then they need to either edit the page, enable sorting and view the table in a preview if they're familiar with the WikiMarkup or, if not, copy the data elsewhere, like a spreadsheet software and sort it there.
So, the whole point to disabling sorting is to hassle the people who need the ability to sort and not affect the rest in any way?
The Witcher 2 quests is one such example — I want to sort by the last column (can't even copy the header text here...) to group duplicate entries ("Automatically acquired by progressing through the Story.") together and visually skip them. So I'm having to keep my own version of it in a sandbox...
Some of them have information that's too general or has no rhyme or reason to sort by. For example, almost all the ones with item icons (not like chapter ones but say just book icons) are not sortable because there's no reason to do so (game isn't like "purple book icons for chapter 1, blue for chapter 2", but randomized). Same for conditions: sorting wouldn't actually help that column because there's no reason to do so as conditions is based on, well, conditions, and not say "Chapter 1" "Chapter 2", etc. so it'd literally just sort by alphabetatical order which isn't helpful there. For example, say one said "automatically acquired after X" and another "during X". It wouldn't put them together even if sorted because of that. In this case, this is one of those rare tables it appears the list is by approximate order of acquiring a quest rather than alphabetical.
Unrelated, but, oh, goddammit, why would you revert the Mutagens page edit?
"Basic → Greater → Lesser" is not in any way a method to sort clearly progressing values.
This way of sorting is absolutely useless!
The "data-sort-value" tag is intended specifically for the purpose of sorting textual and graphical data that stands for numerical values in a game on a game-dedicated wikia on a games-dedicated wiki-platform. Can't you see how those labels correspond to a numerical progression?
You just want me to keep sane versions of every table in my own sandboxes...
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this kind of resistance to betterment have lead to creation of those Gamepedia forks and such...
Also, why is that page missing a contents summary?
Actually, the Gamepedia split, which happened long before my time, was created due to Wikia making a number of changes like ad space, making content page smaller for the ads, etc. However, now that both are owned under the same company again, they're actually looking to combine communities again (you can read more on that though through community central). Also, their table is the same way here (the admins that left here created that page before they left).
It's reverted because of consistentcy. Sorting by default goes 2 ways for tables: either by alphabetical or by numerical. If a reader clicked on the sorting with those number values, it creates confusion as the words are alphabetical but not sorting as they should alphabetically. Using numbers doesn't help in this case unless you put the physical number in to show why it's sorting that way (but obviously doesn't make sense to do that either as numbers aren't part of the in game information unlike Chapter numbers). In this case, it's better to just leave it alphabetical because 1) it's not that big of table so it can be viewed easily on a screen with scrolling and 2) potency isn't the most important field in the table, but rather equal with the rest (otherwise we'd have sorted by potency instead of... whatever order it is using... actually maybe should just convert that to DPL as well now that I think about it). Also the content summary is there but as we can only type much it's in an abbreviated form.
"not sortable because there's no reason to do so"
Ever heard of Occam's Razor rule? It fits so perfectly here..!
Adding the unsortable tag is a pointless action — one that doesn't even bring any value.
If there's "no reason to" sort that column — nobody will and no "unsortable" tag is needed.
It hurts no one to leave it sortable. And what if I ACTUALLY WANT TO SORT IT? Why do you just disregard it so casually?
The only time it makes sense to disable sorting is for broken tables where some rows lack the last column(s).
"it'd literally just sort by alphabetatical order which isn't helpful there"
It is helpful and I told you how. I don't think you wanna hear me.
I just gave you a reason but here we go again...
Check this out:
Suppose you wanna make sure you didn't miss any quests in chapter 1 before leaving it. Edit that section, enable sorting, sort by conditions, all automatic ones get lumped together, now instead of checking each row, you can easily skip the lump of guaranteed quests, which you can't miss anyway.
Would you fight splitting the tables into Primary/Secondary quests?
"the content summary is there"
By "contents summary" I meant that little box with anchor links present on most pages with headers.
The one that says "contents" at the top and summarizes the headers present in the article.
Not the description.
"potency isn't the most important field in the table"
What is then? What am I missing here?
"it creates confusion"
That's basically a way of saying 'data-sort-value' tag is useless. I strongly disagree.
It's an utter pain in the ass looking up that table every SINGLE TIME.
If you wanted to be objective, grab and ask some random wikia visitors which way to sort makes more sense:
Basic → Greater → Lesser
Lesser → Basic → Greater
Do you really think at least a couple of them would prefer the former?
You seem to have quite singular personal preferences.
Fine. Be it your way. You want a paiful-to-use wikia, you're clearly going to have yourself one at any cost.
Having to fight an uphill battle for every single edit means this wikia isn't being allowed to get developed.
Just wanted to say thanks for the work you put into fleshing out this wiki, My OCD playing this game is over 9000 and the several posts you've made have helped me not save scum as much as i used to, So... Just thought I'd say, Thanks! and that I appreciate the work you've done
If only the divinity original sins 2 wiki's had one or two of you around, maybe That wiki would be less...empty.. Then again, from what I understand, to submit to them you have to relinquish your rights to your post, essentially you can't post your same comment on any other wikis and its copywrited under the wiki. Pretty cruddy policy. Glad I haven't seen anything like that here.
Anyhow, Keep up the great work! Still haven't finished the witcher 3 yet but I know your posts will be a big help! ;)